It is a common place of modern English that a single human being is referred to as an “individual” (rather than an “individual man/woman/child”), whereas animals, from pets to wild lions, are not so named.

While “individuality” and “individualism” may be traced back a long way in western history, the use of the adjective, “individual,” acting as a noun for a human being, has only been common in recent centuries. It is, for example, the way used in the Federal Law of the U.S.A. but not so obviously of all USA State Law, and not the way of, say, the law of the German Federal Republic.

The unchallenged use of this word “individual” today for a human being tells us a lot, but not everything, about how human beings (particularly in the West) both see themselves and are seen by others. In the fullest form in 2008 this may be explained as a form of “exclusive humanism” that accepts “no final goals beyond human flourishing, not any allegiance to anything else beyond this flourishing” (Charles Taylor).

There is general agreement amongst scholars, it seems, that the type of individualism that is dominant today and assumed by the educational system, the media, the fashion industry, Hollywood and so on is “expressive individualism.” Here an individual person is seen as being true to self by expressing and doing what he or she feels is good for him or her, and does not directly harm another.

The old rules about morality, manners, deportment and the like are set aside for the “nobler” purpose of full self-expression and self-realization in the name of dignity and self-worth. While the older form of moral discourse would judge such an attitude to be wholly self-centred, the new discourse of “expressive individualism” does not count the old discourse as valid, because it is seen as not true to the “real” feelings of human beings in their varied and individual forms of living in a complex society.
With this as background, let us think about the Bible and see where individualism is apparent.

1. We can begin by stating that there is no description or commendation of expressive individualism in either the English Bible (KJV, RSV etc) or the English Prayer Book (The BCP 1549-1962 editions). There is selfish pride and misery but no expressive individualism.

2. However, we need to add that there is what may be called a form of individualism in the sense that – always within the powerful reality of kith and kin, family relations and the like – there is the definite call to each and every person to repent, and as a person in his/her own right to believe, to trust and to obey the Lord Jesus. “Take up thy cross and follow me…”

But the person in decision is not seen as an individual in the modern sense: rather he is seen as a person in relation, a person who by the grace of God in free choice changes his relation to membership of the kingdom of God and ekklesia of God, without ceasing to have real human connections and relations around him. He is always a person in relation even as he acts individually in moral decision in the U-turn to the living God.

It is probably impossible for any person living in the West today to use the Bible in the way that it was used by the devout Christian in the seventeenth century. Though the Reformation had given a moral and spiritual impetus to individualism before God in terms of personal, moral decision, the strength of belonging to others in hierarchical and horizontal relations of order was strong and part of the received Christian reality of living. All this is assumed by the Book of Common Prayer, for instance, in the prayers for Monarch and Country, for the good of the Commonwealth and all ranks of persons.

To be continued …

For other similar meditations go to www.anglicansatprayer.org 
See also www.churchofenglandcayman.com for local commentary and information.