Conformity as Anathema

Ruminations while journeying:
Thinking people must decide when and why they will conform in their own thinking and behavior to someone else’s thinking and behavior. In secular life, such decisions are often dictated by survival needs, but in the spiritual plane they can easily trade something basic to human nature – individuality – for a false sense of security. We are taught during our formative years, “Choose you this day whom you will follow,” an admonition to conform, to fall in line, as a virtuous characteristic of the godly, though in the context of a choice between good and evil.
In spiritual life, conformity in thinking is the antithesis of spiritual existence – an oxymoron. This does not mean that one must exist in spiritual or physical isolation, outside of community. It simply means that one exists in mutual relationship with those who, like them, are unique in their physical and psychological dimensions, and who hold differing views and observe differing behaviors. Just as community is an essential characterization of creation, so is individuality. All elements of creation, despite their differences, derive their being in relation to other elements.
When we choose to conform in thought and action, we are delegating to others a power to define our identity, although our perceived motivation may be the very worthy objective of the “common good.” God does not require this of us, nor should we require it of each other. Government exists as embodiment of community, but its existence necessitates some degree of sacrifice of individuality. The church, above all, exists as embodiment of community, but not at the sacrifice of individuality of thought and belief. Jesus did not command his followers to adhere to certain beliefs. He invited followership. He spoke of reward indefinable in secular terms.
When church leaders insist on conformity in thought and belief, they eventually become reliant on it for their own personal identity and survival, and can easily be seduced by the power of their influence. Jesus did not organize or direct a religious movement. Nor did any other person we might identify as a “faith founder.” As spiritual leaders they could not have done so without betraying the authenticity of their purpose. Rather, they shared a wisdom about what it means to be in relation to creator and creation. Some chose to be their followers, and for differing reasons, including both humanitarian and political. Thus the church was institutionalized. Over time, its human institutional identity requires increasing emphasis on its own survival at the sacrifice of original spiritual purpose.
Your thoughts?

Peace on Earth

The Christian faith, my faith by both tradition and choice, celebrates the advent (coming) of the Messiah during the four weeks preceding Christmas. During this season, we sing songs, share stories, and observe rituals that foretell the establishment of a Kingdom of God characterized by true peace, justice, mercy, and equity within the human family. Yet, our corporate energies and resources seem to be largely directed toward military endeavors with an ultimate aim of an enforced peace, at best. It would seem that our prayers for peace are not reflective of our intentions.
It seems that what Jesus had in mind was bringing in the Kingdom of God as a here and now reality. This theme is also reflected in the writings of other great faith leaders throughout human history. What are the obstacles to achievement of this vision? Is it possible for these obstacles to be removed? If so, by what method? Your thoughts are invited.