« Swedenborg Project Website Launched | Main | Subversive Virginity »
Do We Need Church Organizations?
By Kurt Simons | November 19, 2006
“Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
for people to dwell together in unity!” (Psalm 131: 1)
So what’s the deal with church organizations? They’re meant to help people work together to accomplish more than they could on their own. However, much of the history of organized religion has been just the opposite – a tale of individuals and groups trying to gain dominion over others, either within or between organizations (see, for instance, The Kingdom of God is at Hand and Block’s book, The New Church in the New World.) The hot-button issue typically involved is status in the church hierarchy and the control of doctrinal interpretation, personnel and finances that goes with it. And this despite Jesus making it clear that He does not compel conscience (Arcana Coelestia 2881, 6472) and we shouldn’t either (Matthew 20: 25, 26; Divine Providence 71ff., 97, 129, The Last Judgment and Babylon Destroyed 54).
There is a better way:
“Jesus summoned them, and said, ‘You know that the rulers of the nations lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them? It shall not be so among you, but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant.’” (Matthew 20: 25, 26; 23:11, Mark 10:43)
“[N]o one in heaven is given commands or orders. On the contrary, one shares his thoughts and the other freely acts in accordance with them…. [I]n [the angels'] conversation there is nothing of command from one to another, for no one desires to be master and thereby to look upon another as a servant; but everyone desires to minister to and serve the others.” (Arcana Coelestia 5732)
“[T]he way in which one person is subordinated to another in heaven is completely different from the way it happens in hell. In heaven all people are as equals, since one person loves another as one sibling loves another; yet one exalts another above him or her self as that other excels him or her in intelligence and wisdom. A genuine love of what is good and true causes each one, spontaneously so to speak, to make themselves subordinate to those who have a wiser discernment of good than they have and a more intelligent understanding of truth.” (Arcana Coelestia 7773)
And on the importance of reading the Word for yourself: “…[M]y friend, do not place your trust in any Council, but in the Word of the Lord, which is superior to Councils.” (True Christian Religion 489, 634, 176)
Some thought-provoking reflections on the consequences of these Second Coming teachings on organization are found in the comments of groups following those teachings a century and a half ago:
“[Boston] called loudly for church government and regulations. On this subject we differed from them and left every society to govern and regulate themselves. ‘The Lord has made you free, why will you have bonds?’”[1]
“[I]t is thought here that no Convention ought to have or exercise ex cathedra authority in the Church. We believe that forms of faith and rules of practice are to be derived solely from the Lord in His Word, and each individual receiver of the New Jerusalem verities is accountable directly to the Lord, and to [H]im solely for his belief and conduct, except so far as he, acting in freedom according to reason, intentionally binds himself by the decisions of any collective body which he helps to constitute, and even these decisions he is not bound to abide by, if in his conscience he solemnly believes they are contrary to the Lord’s will, for the Lord flows into him immediately, as well as mediately through heaven and from the church as a collective body.”[2]
“Under the leadership of men like Barrett greater freedom was accorded to all, and an important change was made in the Rules of Order. Rules which concern societies and associations are hereafter to be printed merely as recommendations. This change originated in the deep and universal conviction of our body that we cannot too scrupulously respect or too religiously guard the freedom of societies and individuals.”[3]
In more recent times, Brian Kingslake has noted that “There has been a healthy movement in recent years to get back to true Christianity stripped of all accessories, away from what is called “ecclesiasticism,” away from professionalism in the ministry and all the paraphernalia of organized religion. Christianity is essentially a layman’s movement, a people’s movement. Jesus himself was a layman, in contrast to the professional Scribes and Pharisees; so were the early disciples and apostles [and so was Swedenborg - ed.]. The present drift away from the churches – loss of members, empty theological colleges – is largely a reaction against a religion tied to an Establishment, with elaborate church buildings, an ordained clergy, a choir, and so on – all utterly irrelevant, it would seem, to everyday twentieth century life.
“How did our Establishment come into being? I think it originally grew up in imitation of the secular state, the Imperial Civil Service by which the Roman Empire was administered when Christianity was first adopted as the official religion. And there it has stuck, despite the fact that the Roman Empire has long since disappeared from the pageant of history.” (from B. Kingslake, Out of This World, Great Britain: Arthur James, 1978, pp. 160ff.)
George Barna and Frank Viola, in their heavily documented book, Pagan Christianity? Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices, identify an extensive list of traditional Christian practices that in fact have little to do with scriptural mandate or apostolic application. See reviews at Amazon.com for more specifics. Rev. Frank Rose has compiled a list of Swedenborgian practices similarly open to discussion, “Can we go to the Writings to get answers about these topics? ” (Listen to the accompanying talk, “The Future of the General Church,” for explanation).
Kingslake continues, “What are we to do, then? Scrap all our churches, abolish the ministry, and go back to the Book of Acts, concentrating on lay-led meetings in one another’s homes? This could be good, and we may well come to this when the world is more spiritually advanced than it is today. I can foresee that this will be what Christianity will look like in, say, a hundred years time. Every vital spiritual movement in the world today seems to be working in that direction, towards a New Jerusalem with no temple therein, but with the Lord’s Divine Humanity as the tabernacle of God with man.” (from B. Kingslake, op. cit. pp. 160ff.)
Confirmation of Kingslake’s predictions are found in a variety of contemporary Christian church practices. (e.g. See Barna’s Americans Embrace Various Alternatives to a Conventional Church Experience as Being Fully Biblical and House Churches Are More Satisfying to Attenders Than Are Conventional Churches.) But do even less-structured forms provide the ideal? What about Kingslake’s comments about getting”…back to true Christianity stripped of all accessories, away from what is called ‘ecclesiasticism,’ away from professionalism in the ministry and all the paraphernalia of organized religion. Christianity is essentially a layman’s movement, a people’s movement. Jesus himself was a layman….”
What about, then, ending the formalism of having any ecclesiastical organizations and instead having “Every believer is a priest” so that “You are a priest” and “Everyone has a few little keys to the Kingdom“? All relationships would then be personal, and a meeting of equals, as we are all equally loved by Jesus. There would be leading, as in heaven (Arcana Coelestia 7773), arising from one person learning from the insights of another who is better informed on a given subject. But there would be no constraining structure, no priesthood claiming special spiritual status, let alone hierarchy, that separated people. Instead there would be a shared experience, an assembly (ecclesia) so that all our lives can be organized “on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6: 10).
For further reading
1. A. Odom “Church Politics.” Relevant Magazine (If that link doesn’t work, see reprint here.)
2. A dialogue between Mac Frazier and Steve Simons on the evangelization implications of this issue: See opening post at “My Life’s Purpose, and following Comments #9-13 (particularly #13) and “Church Planting Seminar: Day Two” #5 and 6.
Footnotes
1. M. Block The New Church in the New World. ( New York: Henry Holt 1932; reprint New York, Octagon 1968), p. 190
2. ibid., p. 194
3. ibid., p. 202
4. ibid. pp. 297-8
Topics: Issues, Theology | 8 Comments »
April 9th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
I like the idea of churches not being authoritative monuments to multilayered organizations. Dogmatism in the New Church is not to be countenanced either, since Swedenborg championed insight-based religion as opposed to the very old tendency in churches to be faith-based. We still, in the Swedenborgian movement, have a noticeable number of old faith-based mindsets, all attributing everything to “Revelation”, when Swedenborg championed judgment by a higher light that would result from regeneration, not church tradition alone. Church tradition is always to be re-examined so that the higher light can remain the source of spiritual intelligence.
February 14th, 2008 at 4:31 am
I’m glad I came across this article. I was not aware of something called “Swedenborgian†churches.
Very interesting stuff.
June 17th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
I haven’t read the entire article yet. It seems to be against church organisations, which I am by no means necessarily in favour of. However, I do think that an organisation based around Swedenborg will protect the publishing and deliverance of his books, whereas no organisation/church might not. So wether the church physical is useful or not, it does the service of protecting, I hope, swedenborg’s books, and makes them available.
March 13th, 2009 at 2:41 am
I believe that every man has their own doctrine to live by and the creation of limits through religious dominion is the best way to destroy a person’s connection to the Holy Spirit. If I am going to accept the “holy ghost” by way of another man, I might as well be pentecostal. Any church organization should hold onto a foundation of charity – not doctrine (doctrine should be inherit in the demonstration of charity – ask John Chapman about that). I already have a father and a teacher, what I need now are neighbors and friends. I’m tired of getting the Fraternity or Secret Society vibe from religious organizations – The General Church is no exception.
“I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.”
– Robert McCloskey
March 15th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Well said! Especially “I already have a father and a teacher, what I need now are neighbors and friends.” Building your life on a “doctrine” of in-group membership superiority certainly seems a poor substitute. But how do you change the pattern after two centuries of entrenched dominion (lay as much as clerical)? As far as I can see, starting over with a new Christian ecclesia, that has Jesus – and His charity – as its axiom, is the only realistic solution. That is certainly what the Project is working toward.
March 31st, 2009 at 9:43 am
Experiencing what the Spirit can do within the “house” church is very important to me as a teacher of the Spiritual Word. Encouraging the participation of individuals within this framework is helpful towards the growth of “all”. I have dedicated my life to promoting His Church within individuals and first, within myself, Christ, the hope of Glory. “A great teacher takes a hand, opens a mind and touches a heart”. Swedenborg has done that through his writings by the Spirit. The Spirit does that through the Scriptures and most importantly in and through our reciprocal relationship to His.
May 29th, 2009 at 12:34 am
A great old yard sale book called ” christians without christ and non-christians with christ ” says it all.
What is missing in most is Love, geniune love for each other, to listen , to care, to understand.
All that god created gives, the sun, the moon, trees etc… look at all the oil in the ground just for us humans, look at what the trees do for us, suck in carbon-monoxide and give us oxygen in return, look at a fruit tree with more fruit than we can eat, only us humans live for ourselfs and that must change.
When we start to live for others and give from the giving source from within us then we will have found the purpose for living as a human.
Thanks for listening–rich
October 16th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
I believe you probably need an umbrella church organization with lots of autonomy given to each individual church. And all individual church members should have a voice periodically selecting those leaders. Sort of like a Republic government, which Swedenborg concluded the Lord favored – but I may add term limits for those in leadership at the top.
But I see a more pressing problem at the local church level at various levels. They do not seem to emphasize a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, which Swedenborg had in spades (a childlike faith)– too much like a psychology class. For starters I suggest when the speakers use the word Lord they, say Lord Jesus and for Divine Influx, say Holy Spirit and so on. But real change needs to happen at the grass-roots level and be led by the Holy Spirit.
PRAYER AND WORSHIP VISION TO RENEW THE NEW CHURCH:
I suggest a grass-roots prayer and worship session in the evening at Bryn Athens be formed. All you need is about six or more core leaders who love the Lord Jesus (with term limits for them too). The format of this is important. It needs a flexible format, yet orderly, so the Holy Spirit can flow through the meeting.
Many years ago this started in a charismatic renewal of the Catholic Church, which was then ritualistic, formal, stiff, and clergy led. The prayer and worship format was that the core leaders would hold hands and pray alone for about 5 minutes before each worship session. Then there was the whole group praise session which consisted of everyone singing — musicians would help but not absolutely necessary. All the songs were Jesus-focused and this is extremely important. The worship singing is critical since it humbles the people and thus allows the Holy Spirit to move in power and touch hearts.
After this I believe there was short spontaneous individual praising by people and in this movement there were also (Pentecostal) gifts of the Spirit – (but this is not critical and the Lord may or may not want them – since they may not fit with a Swedenborgian movement).
One of the core leaders would then give a scripture reading and a 10 or 15 minute talk on it. Many of the teachings were how the Spirit works in our lives in a practical way — it was simple but profound (and really reflected Swedenborg’s religion and life principle). Then there was a general sharing at the end where people would volunteer how the Lord worked in their life that week or prayers that they needed. The meeting ended with a song. No money was directly involved.
Once the meeting became larger small groups used to meet at someone’s house for a mini-worship session and fellowship. The larger Spirit-led worship sessions multiplied and eventually spread over the entire country and the charismatic worship-type spirit would filter through to the Sunday services and at that time renewed the church – in this case it would be the Swedenborg churches which would in effect would become the Born-Again New Church. New house and local churches could also be a result of this.
Now with the knowledge of Swedenborg I would suggest that his teaching could or could not (depending how the service goes) be part of the talk about the scripture. My own vision on what would work is that it be limited to Swedenborg’s basic salvation doctrine of shunning sins (sanctification), fruit of sanctification (love of use or service, especially in our vocation and family), along at times with his basic afterlife theology since this beautifully completes the salvation picture. This would be enough to gently introduce new members or other Christians to Swedenborg and word would get out and they will come – for the Spirit would be very powerful because of the (Swedenborg’s) true salvation focus (regeneration).
Those interested could learn more about his more deeper teachings by reading his other books, which could be at a book table at the meeting or given at special seminars. We used to give life-in-the-spirit seminars to groups of new people — I could envision a similar seminar maybe on Swedenborg’s religion and life book. The point is though to keep it simple. More advanced seminars could be given for those interested but the prayers and worship session and initial seminar should remain simple.
Note:
The reason this movement was so powerful was because Catholics were taught as children the concept of sin and examination of conscience, although they wrongly went to a religious ritual (confession box and absolution) instead of going to the Lord. But charismatic Catholics went directly to the Lord for forgiveness and power to change as Swedenborg teaches – this allowed the Spirit to move powerfully among the Body of Christ.
One other thing is that there was much inner healing of people’s lives (hurts, depression, childhood wounds, past relationships) when they were prayed over or at a service itself. This was a prayer gift from the Lord that certain leaders were given.