« On a Classmate’s Passing | Main | Mr. Clapp’s Dream »
So Who Should Run the Church?
By Kurt Simons | June 20, 2009
Mac Frazier’s most interesting posts on General Church history and evangelization, “My life’s purpose” and “Why do you want to start a church planting movement?,” stimulated some related thoughts:
An old question in church history, which could be dated back to the father-priest model of the Most Ancient Church, is the proper form of church government. In the organized New Church this discussion dates back to its first inception. For instance, “At the Fourth General Conference, in 1792, there was a sharp reaction against the democratic spirit of the year before which had given the laity equal power with the clergy, and a minority group, led by Hindmarsh, brought in a proposal for an episcopal form of government. This was forcibly voted down.” (M. Block, The New Church in the New World, p. 69) This centralized vs. decentralized discussion continued, sometimes hotly, in the development of the church in England and the US through the whole of the nineteenth century and beyond (ibid., p. 189ff.).
The General Church took its top-down structure from the Anglicans (ibid., p. 216), who in turn had copied the Roman Catholic model. (For details on just how wide the power of the General Church’s executive bishop is, see P.M. Buss “A Statement of the Order and Organization of the General Church of the New Jerusalem” Bryn Athyn, PA 2000, available online by clicking here and then clicking in the page that comes up on “A Statement of the Order and Organization of the General Church of the New Jerusalem.” NOTE: Sometimes this may take a while to load. If it does, hitting the reload button may speed it up.)
So the end result was that the General Church adopted the papal model. However, there is something of a mystery about that adoption. The General Church’s founders, notably W.F. Pendleton, were certainly familiar with the teachings of the Second Coming about how corrupt the papal model was (e.g., Pendleton wrote eloquently in Topics from the Writings (p. 75) on the theme of God and truth leading, not ruling or commanding). Then, driving those teachings home, those under Benade’s leadership had experienced his papal-type autocracy, particularly in the more extreme forms following his stroke (Block, op. cit., pp, 231, 240). They also were familiar from their own experience with the long battle over centralized “popery” in Convention (Block op. cit., pp. 188ff.). And, finally, the “fear of episcopal autocracy was strong in the breasts of many” (ibid., p. 242) members of what would become the post-Benade General Church. But Pendleton after the separation from Benade nonetheless continued in Benade’s episcopal/papal model (which Benade had first adopted 20 years earlier, (ibid., pp. 211, 216)). The mystery is how completely Pendleton believed in his decision. For, in seeking to allay the concern over autocracy, he “laid down the principle of ‘freedom according to reason’” (ibid.). Since such freedom is the logical opposite of the episcopal/papal model, it raises question of whether Pendleton was in fact conflicted about his decision to continue with that model. It is interesting to speculate where the General Church might be today if he had gone the other way and made freedom of conscience the top governing principle. An editorial in Convention’s Messenger at the time of the Academy/General Church split from Convention suggests some of the consequences of taking the course he and the General Church did follow:
“In an editorial on the causes of the split [with Convention]…all the blame was laid on the General Church’s ‘assumption of infallibility.’ Instead of admitting that there should be varieties of usages and beliefs in the New Church, and being contented with a Convention broad enough to hold them all, [the General Church] had attempted to make their uses and beliefs a standard for all, and continually referred to Convention’s ‘denial of the Writings as the Divine Human.’ The General Church had assumed in the New Church the position of the Catholic Church in the Christian world. ‘This resemblance is shown in a literalism of interpreting doctrine, in an assumption of the supremacy of the Church as the authorized interpreter of doctrine, in the conception of the nature and order of the priesthood and its function in the church, and also in its declarations against the ecclesiastical legitimacy of those who do not agree with it….” (Block, op. cit., p. 230ff.)
“…[T]here should be varieties of usages and beliefs in the New Church, and being contented with a Convention broad enough to hold them all” (ibid.). What a thought. Again, what if Pendleton had made freedom of conscience the General Church’s priority and taken up Convention’s offer of reconciliation, made several times by the Rev. Frank Sewall? (There was a brief period of friendly relations with Convention following the General Church’s separation from Benade, during which Sewall made the last of his appeals, but that friendliness did not last (ibid., p. 231, 243).) If that freedom and reconciliation had been made the policy of the two bodies, where might the overall New Church have been today? Would it have saved both bodies from going down some of the roads they subsequently did, with unfortunate results? It is certainly interesting to note that the Academy split came at the end of the nineteenth century, during which church membership had been approximately doubling every decade, ending in the highest membership the US organized New Church ever saw (7,095 in 1890) (ibid., p. 173). However, after the split that growth not only stopped, but decline set in (e.g., ibid., p. 356), to the smaller numbers that still apply to both bodies today, a century later.
For further reading
1. Do we Need Church Organizations?
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.
3. See posts at Second Advent Christian™ .
4. Followers of Christ – Disciples or Subordinates?
Topics: Issues, News, Theology | 7 Comments »
June 20th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
[...] Simons made an interesting assertion in “A Note on New Church Government”: the Academy split came at the end of the nineteenth century, during which church membership had [...]
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:33 pm
I find it interesting that the word “reverend” is only found once in the word – ps 111:9 “holy and reverend is HIS name”.
Clergy vs laity. I think a real priest is a layman.
July 23rd, 2009 at 11:38 am
Hi Max,
The logic behind the term “reverend” has always seemed to me a little curious since the word means “1: worthy of reverence : REVERED” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reverend). The problem is that there are good, bad and indifferent priests. So should they all get labeled “reverend?” Or do you make a spiritual judgment about a given priest’s spiritual state before addressing him or her with that term? A spiritually hazardous undertaking! Wouldn’t it make more sense to simply drop use of the term and avoid the whole labeling issue?
In any case, I certainly agree with your comment “Clergy vs. laity. I think a real priest is a layman.” For more on that, you might want to take a look at the posts on “You are a Priest” and “A Few Little Keys to the Kingdom” at the Second Advent Christian site (http://secondadventchristian.org/)
July 23rd, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Kurt,
Hello and will be visiting site more often.
Since the WORD states all who believe are priests then separating the body into two “kinds” of believers is error. Error will then produce its’ fruit. In this case division and not unity.
This follows right along with buildings being termed “sanctuary” when in reality our body is the “temple”.
I love and embrace what you stated in “You are a Priest”.
August 29th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Max,
True Christianity seems to me like socks – One size fits all!
And I am flattered by your thinking I put together “You are a Priest,” but in fact that piece came from
http://www.SecondAdventChristian.org
October 25th, 2009 at 11:26 am
Swedenborg did not want a church to be formed around his writings, yet that is exactly what people went and did.
We are all priests. We are all healers and we are all preachers if we want to be. The ego normally drives people with some knowledge to believe that they should be a teacher to the many. Remove the ego and you have someone with some knowledge teaching those with no knowledge.
In other words, know your place. In time we all grow and learn more and therefore we are qualified to teach more people.
I am a life long Swedenborgian but have little time for the so called Swedenborgian churches.
I have no ill feelings toward them, only a sense of sadness that they seem to have missed the point.
Swedenborg writes about the fate of the so called intellectuals in the Hells. A true intellectual is someone who can explain a very difficult subject in a very simple way. Our Lord set the example.
A false intellectual is someone who takes a simple subject and clouds it with big words that no-one can understand. Thus making himself appear wise and superior to the rest.
It is my opinion that the Swedenborgian churches should drop the word, ” Church “, and use the word, ” Society “. They would reach and help millions more people this way. I believe that it is Our Lords wish that the many and not just the few are aware of the writings of Swedenborg.
I was once asked which Church I worshipped in. I replied by pointing at the sky. Then I said, ” That is the roof of my Church, we are always in Church and this is where I worship”. I hope that anyone reading this understands exactly what I mean.
October 25th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Amen Jason. Every believer is a priest because they can have a direct and unmediated relationship with Jesus Christ, the one and only God.
Christianity is not about intellectual theories, theological dogmas, or doctrinal knowledge. God’s answers are always simple and God’s answers always work. So, far from being complicated, Christianity is about every person’s opportunity for a personal connection with Jesus and the blessings that brings.
Swedenborg was a Christian and the books that resulted from his years of conversations with Jesus were written to empower change and reformation in the Christian world and beyond.