« 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 brethren to dwell together in unity!” (Psalm 131: 1)
“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)
“[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.” (Arcana Coelestia 5732)
Jesus made no attempt to start a church organization at either His First nor, via Swedenborg, at His Second Coming. Indeed, on both occasions Jesus was critical of existing church organizations. The wisdom of His teaching can be seen in the fact that much of the history of organized religion, including that of organizations nominally based on Swedenborg’s theological works,[1] has been a tale of one group trying to gain dominion over another. This domination has been particularly evident in organizations based on a military-like top-down hierarchical model of church government. However, it is also present in such forms as congregationalism, which uses a vote-based process. This process has the same end in view, of one group, in this case a majority, dominating another, in this case a minority.
All such church government models are disorderly. God Himself does not compel conscience (Arcana Coelestia 2881, 6472), and such compulsion is contrary to: (a) the law of Providence that man should act in freedom according to reason (Divine Providence 97); (b) the general prohibitions against compulsion in spiritual matters (e.g. Divine Providence 129); and (c) the specific teaching that priests are not to so compel (Arcana Coelestia 10794). How can a priest follow his doctrinal mandate to teach and lead the way to heaven (Arcana Coelestia 10794) if he is participating in a governmental structure that violates the basic law of heaven against spiritual compulsion? Such compulsion doesn’t even have “dignity” (Arcana Coelestia 10796). More to the point, it doesn’t work. “It is according to order that faith and charity be implanted in freedom and not under compulsion, and that the faith and charity which have been implanted in freedom, endure; but not if they have been implanted under compulsion.” (Arcana Coelestia 8700:3, True Christian Religion 485).
More subtly, the top-down command-type model is based on one form of negative principle (Arcana Coelestia 2568, 2588) thinking. In the church government setting, this means that those further up a hierarchy justify their position by an inherent skepticism about the actions and motives of those below them on the hierarchy. In other words, there is an assumption by those further up the hierarchy that there has to be a hierarchy since those lower down it will deviate from policy or otherwise dissent and have to be forcibly corrected. By contrast, the affirmative principle (ibid.) type of approach trusts that Jesus will guide people by conscience. Both approaches typically end up becoming self-fulfilling prophecies. The negative principal approach attracts the sphere of the hells and stimulates either (a) what those further up the hierarchy view as the “disturbances” (New Jerusalem and its Heavenly Doctrine 318) they have been expecting, or (b) a tip-toeing fear by those further down the hierarchy of being seen as creating such a disturbance. Either response kills open communication and hence organizational motivation and effectiveness. Dictators through history have fallen because they surround themselves with yes-men and so lose touch with reality. The affirmative principle approach, on the other hand, has no need or place for such hierarchy. It expects the best in people, their cooperation, their trust in Jesus’ guiding, and it empowers and inspires all involved.
Is there a better form of religious association? Several basic teachings suggest there is:
The most fundamental component of religion is each individual’s personal relationship with God (i.e. the Lord God Jesus Christ) for “all constituents of religion and all constituents of worship relate to God” (Divine Love and Wisdom 13).
A “church is most fundamentally within the individual, so that he or she becomes a church in least form. The larger church is, in turn, made up of individuals who have the church within them” (Heaven and Hell 57, Arcana Coelestia 4286).
A key component of association in heaven is the choir, with that form extending well beyond the musical aspects typically associated with that term. The significance of the choir form is that, under it, “many think, speak, and act all together as a one in an uninterrupted series” (Arcana Coelestia 8115). “[A]lthough there were many choirs, and many in each choir, still they acted as a one; for from the form of various things there resulted a one. Thus the universal heaven, which consists of myriads of myriads, can act as a one by being in mutual love; for thereby they suffer themselves to be led by the Lord.” (Arcana Coelestia 3350) Note that the choir form is a grass-roots, bottom-up free cooperation of the individuals involved, not an imposed top-down form. The choir form found some echoes in the Ancient Church:
“Among [the] peoples [of the Ancient Church] doctrinal teachings and religious practices differed from one to the next, but there was nevertheless one Church because with them charity was the essential thing. At that time the Lord’s kingdom existed on earth as it is in heaven, for such is the character of heaven… If the same situation existed now, all would be governed by the Lord as though they were one person; for they would be like the members and organs of one body which, though dissimilar in form and function, still related to one heart on which every single thing, everywhere varied in form, depended. Everyone would then say of another, no matter what form his doctrine and his external worship take, this is my brother; I observe that he worships the Lord and is a good man.”(Arcana Coelestia 2385: 5)
It should be noted that there is some hierarchy in heaven. However,
“the 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 brother loves brother; yet one exalts another above himself as that other excels him in intelligence and wisdom. A genuine love of what is good and true causes each one, spontaneously so to speak, to make himself subordinate to those who have a wiser discernment of good than he has and a more intelligent understanding of truth.” (Arcana Coelestia 7773)
A beginning reflection on the consequences of these Second Coming teachings is found in the comments of groups following them 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?’”[2]
“[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.”[3]
“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.”[4]
More fundamentally, a New Church scholar of that time, Professor George Bush (a distant relative of the current president), proposed that
“…[T]he prerogatives of the priesthood are common to all Christians, and that all believers are ordained by the Holy Spirit. He quotes Martin Luther’s letter to the Bohemian brethren: ‘I should like to know whether Christ, the first priest of the New Testament, stood in need of all the mummeries of Episcopal ordination? Or whether his apostles and disciples thought these things requisite? All Christians are priests; all may teach the Word of God, administer baptism, consecrate bread and wine, for Christ has said, ‘Do ye this in memory of me.’” [5]
In more recent times, Rev. 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. Incidentally, the architectural style of our conventional church buildings has no particular religious connotation; it was merely an imitation of the gothic manor houses of the Middle Ages.”
(from B. Kingslake, Out of This World, Great Britain: Arthur James, 1978, pp. 160ff.)
George Barna, in his book Pagan Christianity? Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices, identifies an extensive list of other traditional Christian practices that in fact have “little to do with scriptural mandate or apostolic application (See summary at Barna Update.) and Rev. Frank Rose a list of Swedenborgian practices of questionable appropriateness, “Can we go to the Writings to get answers about these topics? ” (See accompanying talk 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.”)
All these variants on traditional churches can collaborate as needed and, also as needed, obtain logistic support for services such as doctrinal training, publishing of print or electronic materials, and so on, from “outside” sources. Under the free-will association approach, however, every group is left in freedom to focus on its own vision and mission.
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….”
It might be noted that “essential Divine worship in the heavens does not consist in going to church and hearing preaching, but in a life of love, charity, and faith, in accordance with doctrine; preachings in churches serve solely as means of instruction in matters of life.” (Heaven and Hell 222) Those preachers are “appointed by the Lord” (Heaven and Hell 226), however,“ a process not available on this earth! Furthermore, “They are not called priests, but preachers. They are not called priests because the celestial kingdom is the priesthood of heaven (ibid.). In other words, there appears to be in effect a priesthood of all believers in the highest heavens.
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 group claiming special spiritual status, let alone hierarchy, that separated people. Instead there would be a shared experience, a choir-like assembly (ecclesia) to which all would be invited, to bring, not someday, but right here, right now, all our lives to be “on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6: 10).
For further reading
A. Odom “Church Politics.” Relevant Magazine
Footnotes
1. M. Block The New Church in the New World. ( New York: Henry Holt 1932; reprint New York, Octagon 1968), passim
2. ibid., p. 190
3. ibid., p. 194
4. ibid., p. 202
5. ibid. pp. 297-8
Note: Some pages of Block’sbook are available online. Click here, then click on “Full screen” (right hand end of blue banner) and then scroll down or click on the arrowheads at top right.
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.