http://inewchurch.org/archieves-of-sermons/special-collection/

http://www.secondadventchristian.com/

Click here to access the complete online version of the book, available  in several formats. (Googlebooks has an online copy but classifies it as “Limited Preview,” meaning some pages were deleted,)

“Our Only Incorporation is the Body of Christ. Free Christians and Churches…. 

“As mainstream Christianity breaks free of the institutions that established it, and evolves into the living, breathing, and active body of Christ, the Freedom Church Network seeks to provide resources and networking opportunities for all those who walk with Christ in faith and life.”

Check it out at  http://www.FreedomChurchNetwork.com/

* * * * *

“We desire especially that the attitude of the organized New Church may no longer continue to be one of seeming antagonism or conscious superiority to other religious bodies, but rather one of modest self-appreciation, and kindly fraternal recognition of other Christians….  There is little danger, we think, of becoming too broad in our sympathies, too catholic in our feelings, or too conciliatory in our disposition and attitude toward others.  The danger, we submit, lies wholly in the opposite direction.  We believe there never has been and never can be more than one Church, in the large and comprehensive sense of the term, at any given time, –though this, like the human body, may consist of a great variety of parts.  We believe that since the time of the Last Judgment (1757), the New Church, signified by the New Jerusalem, has been and continues to be the only Church on earth.  We believe that this Church is much larger and more inclusive than any sect;  that it is distinguished less by its beliefs or doctrines than by righteousness of life, –love to the Lord and the neighbor being its great fundamental…. We believe, therefore, that members of the New Church are to be found in all existing religious bodies, –and some, doubtless, outside of all; for we cannot doubt that there are, both within and without such bodies, some who truly love the Lord and the neighbor; while some who accept the doctrines of this Church, and join the organization bearing its name, may be quite destitute of its heavenly spirit and in reality constitute no part of it….

“We believe that, since the time, and in consequence of the Last Judgment, there has been and continues to be a freer, more interior and more universal influx of spiritual good and truth into all humble, earnest and truth-seek ing minds, – giving them more enlightenment on subjects of transcendental interest…. Believing this, and finding for our belief the amplest justification in the teachings here referred to, as well as in reason …, we are anxious that the body which assumes the name and stands as the most conspicuous representative of the New Church at this time, should by its declared policy  and its attitude towards Christians, exemplify the grand catholicity of this Church.  We do not deprecate a separate organization based upon the New Doctrines; this perhaps, was unavoidable, and has doubtless been useful.  We would not lessen but gladly increase its efficiency and usefulness…. We desire especially that the Convention cease to claim for itself any special prerogatives, any special right to the Christian name or ordinances or any special efficacy in the latter when administered by its own officials; that it frankly admit…  that these ordinances are equally valid, efficacious and significant, when reverently administered by Christians of whatever name or creed….. [By this action] you will remove all just grounds for the charge or even suspicion of narrowness and illiberality.  You will regain the affection and confidence of brethren who have been alienated by what (to them) has seemed like a sectarian exclusiveness.  You will, – we doubt not, open new channels of usefulness and new avenues for the descent of the Divine Spirit, and many souls will thereby be blessed.”

- From M. Block The New Church in the New World  (New York: Henry Holt 1932, p. 306)

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.) 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?

“I expect to pass through life but once. If, therefore, there be any kindness I can show, or any good thing I can do for any fellow being, let me do it now… as I shall not pass this way again.”

But as each of us contemplates that long step out of the cramped vista of natural life and onto the great stage of eternity, the larger question seems to me to be – will we have regrets for what we didn’t try, for what might have been?  Most particularly, will we regret never having tried to achieve some really great and good thing?   If we did try, it doesn’t matter if it was the longest of shots and never worked out. It doesn’t matter if we began it but it crashed and burned.  And it doesn’t matter if we were so oppressed by the burdens in our life’s journey that we had only a widow’s mite to offer.  The point is, we did give it a shot.  We did offer ourselves as tools on Jesus’ workbench, reaching to serve the highest and widest use we could imagine.  If, again, we did. 

At this very moment my classmate is talking to the ever-curious angels. So “what news from earth” (Marriage Love 182: 3, 207:2, 532, True Christian Religion 692-4) are they learning from her, about us, and others?  Are they hearing of the building of the kingdom of Jesus Christ, bringing the comfort and joy of an authentic and beautiful relationship with Him? Or is something still lacking?  Is there some great and good, and unique, contribution of ours to this work that is needed, perhaps even the main reason we’re still here?  I like to think so, for what a magnificent thing it would be to be, at last, a part of the great awakening to the full power of the two Comings.  In fact, I have this image in mind of waking in the spiritual world, when it’s my time.  In the image I am walking across the rim of a hill overlooking a beautiful valley with the angel assigned to help me through my post-death transition. “What news from earth?” he asks politely, and I turn to him and say, “After two centuries, it’s happening; it’s really, finally happening.  The good news of the Gospel of both Advents is being preached to, and welcomed by, the spiritually poor (Luke 7:22) on the great scale for which they have waited so long and that this troubled world has needed so deeply.”  My guide is surprised, but turns and gives me a big hug and shakes my hand. “I’ve prayed for this,” he says. “But come, let’s share these tidings,” and we turn our footsteps towards the city in the valley, on the banks of the river of the water of life (Revelation 22:1).

1. The teachings about the determinants of the time of death in Spiritual Diary/Spiritual Experiences 5002, 5003.

2.  The recounting of  how children are raised in heaven, perhaps most notably the story about spots appearing on their clothes, flowers and rooms when they misbehave, in Spiritual Diary/Spiritual Experiences 5601.

3. The characterization of the Biblical epistles as “useful books for the church” Apocalypse Explained 815 (and Letter to Beyer, April 15, 1766).

4.  The teachings on the “pre-Adamites” (Spiritual Diary/Spiritual Experiences 3390ff.).

5. The teaching that “The universities of Christendom are now being instructed, whence will come new ministers” (Posthumous Theological Works, I: 570) (See also Letter to Beyer, February 1767).

6. In the spiritual sense of the Good Samaritan story (Luke 10), the teaching that “’he brought him to an inn and told them to care for him’ signifies to bring to those that are well instructed in the doctrine of the church from the Word, and who are better able to heal him than one who is still in ignorance.”  (Apocalypse Explained 375: 42)

7.  The teachings on “Charity in the case of the priest; Charity in the case of Governors,…Officials under them,…Judges,…the Commander of the Army, …the Common Soldier,…the Business Man,…the Workman,…the Farmers,..Ships’ Captains,…Sailors,…Servants.”  (Doctrine of Charity 160ff.)

8. The teaching that “There are two foundations of truth; one from the Word, and the other from nature.” (Spiritual Diary/Spiritual Experiences 5709)

9. The teaching that “Unless the present little work is added to the preceding work, the church cannot be healed.” (Invitation to the New Church 25)

10. The teaching that Swedenborg’s revelation “surpasses all miracles.” (Invitation to the New Church 39, 43, 44, 55, Coronis, heading “L”)

11. The term “New Christian Church” appears only in the Coronis, heading “L.” 

12. The Canons of the New Church  aren’t, and the Invitation to the New Church isn’t.

13. The teaching that “The Holy Spirit…passes through men to men, and in the church chiefly through the clergy to the laity.” (Canons of the New Church, Holy Spirit IV). 

The main result I’ve had since discovering these legends is that I have stopped taking any teachings I thought I knew for granted.  I check back with the published work when there’s any doubt! 

I would be interested to know of any other “legend” passages.

“Consider that in the New Testament of Jesus’ 132 public appearances, 122 were in the marketplace. Of 52 parables Jesus told, 45 had a workplace context. Of 40 miracles in the book of Acts, 39 were in the marketplace. Jesus spent his adult life as a carpenter until age 30 before he went into a preaching ministry in the workplace. And, 54% of Jesus’ reported teaching ministry arose out of issues posed by others in the scope of daily life experience….”

See full article

So Christmas is a gift, a reminder to us in the midst of the hurly-burly immediacies of our distracted lives to stop and reflect, like the shepherds and Wise Men before us, on the Infinite and the Eternal.  We are, after all, in eternity right now.  And what we are and do from this beginning will define who we will be down the river of spiritual time beyond our imagination.