Lots of Theological Conversations

[qos]

As my entry “Contrasts” indicated, I’ve spent considerable time and energy recently struggling with Swedenborg’s doctrine of the redemption – and more than that, with the implications it has for my vocation if what I consider to be a central doctrine is something I might not able to accept.

Swedenborg teaches that the material and spiritual worlds are not separate, but interpenetrating, and that they influence each other. Each of us is motivated not only by our own thoughts, but by spiritual influences coming from heaven and hell. In order for free choice to be a reality – and freedom of choice is an essential part of Swedenborg’s anthropology – the influences of the spiritual world must remain in balance. He writes that Jesus’s act of “redemption” was not dying on the cross as a substitute sacrifice for the sin of humanity, or as a ransom. It was entering the spirit world after his death and re-ordering the heavens and hells so that they were once again in balance. He continues this work for each person, preserving our freedom whether we ask his help or not, but then helping us choose the Good and the True if we ask for help.

I had a good talk with my dad (a former minister and double Ph.D.) on Saturday night, and he agreed with me that having trouble with a central doctrine like this one is a major problem. We discussed the various implications and choices I had before me. (Then we went in to see “The Last Samurai,” which I enjoyed very much.)

Then, on Sunday, I chatted with Doug, a visiting Swedenborgian seminarian, and with my pastor. Both of them were surprised that this doctrine was causing problems for me, and – to my great surprise – neither of them thought this was a particularly central belief. Certainly it wasn’t something worth getting worked up about.

Okay. . . .

Last night, I spoke for an hour with Jim, the dean of the Swedenborgian House of Studies. He was very helpful, giving me some additional perspectives on the doctrine that I hadn’t thought about (there is so darn much of Swedenborg to absorb), and he also affirmed the denomination’s respect for free thought and pluralism.

The sense I’m left with now is that I am within a community of kindred spirits. And the issues I have with some of the theology is not going to be a deal breaker where my vocation is concerned. At least, not from the official perspective. I still need to wrestle with this for a while, but I no longer feel the sense of fear and urgency I did last week, when I was afraid that my vocation was in jeopardy.

Comments

[gothic-coop.livejournal.com]

The Last Samurai was a very good movie, not a great movie, but very good.

[qos.livejournal.com]

Warrior culture fascinates me -- in part because I am conscious of witnessing something that embraces virtues that I find deeply admirable (courage, loyalty, discipline, honor, courtesy) but applies them in a way that I could never fully embrace.

I find a huge paradox in the virtues of the Warrior as ideal/archetype that are applied to produce the horrors of war. It is as if the warrior code wrests goodness from a persistent evil, or war itself perverts the good embodied in the warrior code.

The final battle in "The Last Samurai" was tragic and unnecessary. Hundreds died for a lost cause: most of them conscripts who were dying because they were ordered to be there, not because they willingly engaged in combat because of their beliefs. Katsumoto and his followers had the right to die for their beliefs, but to kill at that time and place. . . . ? ? ? I have a hard time condoning it, even though I believe I understand why they did.

[gothic-coop.livejournal.com]

To the samurai it is better to die in battle for you leader than to have kill your self. Honor is mor important than right or wrong. You have to understand that is not just a mind set, but a "Way" of life for the Samurai. It is sad to to see the loss of life.

[qos.livejournal.com]

Honor is more important than right or wrong.

This is where I always boggle and pull back from this kind of culture/code. I think honor is a good thing -- until it becomes an excuse for not acknowledging a moral decision that has more than personal implications. "Honor" should not be used as a white-wash for selfishness, stubborness, or hatred. Nor an excuse to do harm to others.

There is a huge difference in being willing to die for something and being willing to kill for it.

[toesontheground.livejournal.com]

I'm glad you're feeling able to proceed, and that the people you talked to were helpful and sympathetic.

[qos.livejournal.com]

Nice to "see" you again, Barry!

I'm very fortunate to be surrounded by great people who support and encourage me -- even when they can't entirely understand what my problem is.

Apparently even other theological types don't necessarily think doctrines of redemption are an issue to lose sleep over.

[queenofhalves]

wow. what a strange notion of the redemption. of course, the atonement theology that everyone else seems to be so comfortable with totally bugs me too. :>

what aspect of that doctine are you having trouble with? what's your view of the redemption?

[qos.livejournal.com]

[LJ ate my first response. Must remember to always copy entries before hitting "Preview" button. . . ]

What bugs me most about this doctrine is that it has so little connection to the message of Jesus in the NT. And for me, that's what it ultimately comes down to when I measure Christian theology. (My personal spiritual beliefs aren't totally bound by Christianity, but this doesn't even have the spiritual resonance of those aspects of Paganism which appeal to me.)

Swedenborg was a rationalist and an intellectual, and he placed a high value on freedom, order, and equilibrium. This doctrine neatly supports those concepts while explicitly rejecting atonement theologies of penal substitution and ransom. Swedenborg believed that such theologies were not consistent with a loving, merciful God.

I too have rejected those theologies. If I'm going to be a Christian (and I do seem to be, but only because I've found a form that is non-exclusive), I have to believe in a God who upholds the standards of love and mercy taught by Christ. I also agree with Rita Nakashima Brock that traditional atonement theology presents an abusive patriarchal father-god, and promotes the submission of oppressed peoples instead of their liberation. (See Journeys By Heart: A Christology of Erotic Power.)

My personal christology is still under construction, but my current view of the redemption has two primary aspects:

1. The proclamation of the Kingdom of God, found in the teaching and life of Jesus of Nazareth, as a radical call to spiritual regeneration and the transformation of the world according to principles of love, dignity and justice -- along with the promise that God will meet and support a person's efforts to undergo that transformation.

2. Jesus the Christ, whose existence is the perfect union of the human with the divine, is the means by which each person is brought into ever-more-intimate communion with the godhead, to the degree that they desire that communion. When Jesus said, "No one comes to the Father but by me," he was expressing an esoteric truth, not laying down a demand for membership in a specific cultic movement.

Look for my name on future releases of the Heretics List.

[queenofhalves]

and I do seem to be, but only because I've found a form that is non-exclusive

i hear you there. right now, actually, i'm afraid that my also being a (non-exclusive) christian is going to ultimately prevent me from getting the pagan/occult training that i feel called to get, because christianity is understood in the pagan community as being exclusive by definition. then again, i think if i explained what i believe to most pagans, they probably wouldn't consider me a christian. i do think there's a lot of overlap between the two, or at least compatibility... but christianity has a powerful ethical imperative that most paganism outside starhawk et al seems to lack.

i'm totally with you on the atonement theology, and on #1. as for #2, are you speaking of the christ principle -- the idea that the union of the human with the divine is something possible for all of us?

my primary notion of the redemption is revelatory. after proclaiming the kingdom of god, jesus suffered one of the most brutal deaths imaginable, and as he suffered it he forgave those who inflicted it on him. this forgiveness demonstrates that no matter what crimes we're guilty of, we are still the beloved children of god/dess, because jesus represented the godhead incarnate. i think the emotional impact of this realization has the force of conversion -- people who come to accept god/dess's love through the story of jesus have the opportunity to break the cycle of self-loathing and harm to others and self, which is as good a definition of "breaking the bonds of sin" as i've ever heard. also, because i understand jesus primarily as a human being, his example of love is one that can be emulated by the rest of us. we too come to know that we can be the incarnate face of a loving god/dess.

heretics in good company! ;>

[qos.livejournal.com]

because christianity is understood in the pagan community as being exclusive by definition. then again, i think if i explained what i believe to most pagans, they probably wouldn't consider me a christian.

Oh, this resonates with me! It was a source of pain to me for years. I finally found the Ordo Arcanorum Gradalis, a Grail fellowship that finds harmony between Christianity and Paganism in the Grail lore. It has a strong ethical base, and honors both Christ and Goddess in way I've never seen elsewhere. The rituals are intricate (the founder is a former Catholic), but lovely. I'm actually ordained within this tradition -- although there are so few of us and we're so widely scattered there's very little community. But until I found the Swedenborgian church, this was the only place I felt like both sides of my spirituality could be expressed.
The OAG theology and rituals are found in The Crafted Cup, by Shadwynn. It's out of print, but can be found online or in used bookstores sometimes. Or look for the Grail Fellowship on Yahoo Groups. We don't have a very active list, but that's where we hang out online.

. as for #2, are you speaking of the christ principle -- the idea that the union of the human with the divine is something possible for all of us?

I was thinking more in terms of what I wrote in my comment to toesontheground this morning, about Christ as Emanuel: "God with Us."
But I do believe that union with God is the goal of spiritual life. Not dissolution into the godhead, but becoming more part of God/more like God. Swedenborg's christology includes his doctrine of the Glorification: in which Christ starts as primarily human, and through the course of his life slowly becomes more and more divine through greater and greater intimacy with and becoming part of divine Love and Wisdom. The rest of us don't start out being divine in the same way that he did, but we all are spiritual beings, and the path that he followed is one which we all can --and (if I dare presume to use this word) should.
Andrew Harvey in Son of Man writes beautifully about the "christing process" which presents a similar idea about humans undergoing the glorification process, becoming in nature more and more like Christ/the Divine.

we too come to know that we can be the incarnate face of a loving god/dess.

What you said!

heretics in good company! ;>
Indeed! I actually have that t-shirt! It's especially dear to me because I bought it at the bookstore of the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley.

[qos.livejournal.com]

Are you feeling better than you were yesterday? Your posts seem to indicate better health and spirits than yesterday.

[queenofhalves]

yes, much better, thanks! this virus or whatever is passing fast... though i am still not in top form. i ran a discussion today and realized i was fading in and out as students talked, and i couldn't remember what was said two minutes ago! i mostly just shut up and tried to look wise when that happened. :>

[danielletx.livejournal.com]

christianity only bends so far before it isn't christianity any more. those doctrines are fun to reshape and fit into modern ideals, especially when the dysphoria of their existence becomes overbearing... sometimes, however, things can be modified until they are not really themselves any more--which is not a bad thing, necessarily...but at other times, things can be modified and rearranged until they lose their content and meaning.

good luck!

[qos.livejournal.com]

You make an excellent point, Danielle, and one which I do wrestle with: at what point do I stop being a "Christian"?

And my answer fluctuates from day to day, depending on whether or not I'm thinking more in terms of the organized institution of the church, or as a follower of the Christ. My own denomination, Swedenborgianism, affirms pluralism while cherishing the Bible as our own primary source for the Word of God. But we don't deny that God has spoken at other times, in other places. Swedenborg wrote about the central importance of our "ruling love" rather than doctrine as the basis for salvation. (Of course, this in itself is a doctrine -- but the doctrine does not make professions of specific beliefs or performance of certain rituals necessary for salvation.)

Love transcends doctrine. And I believe Jesus would agree with that.

[danielletx.livejournal.com]

the most painful thing that i ever did was lay my christianity to rest. and goddamn it if it doesn't keep coming back from the dead! :) i guess that's its primary "property."

from the sound of it, you're wrestling. as the immortal prophet bono put it, "jacob wrestled with the angel, and the angel was overcome."

[qos.livejournal.com]

I don't know the song you're referencing, Danielle, but I've been thinking in terms of Jacob and "wrestling with the angel" for a couple of weeks now.

And I know what you mean about Christianity coming back from the dead. That's what happened to me. But it's a richer and more mature (at least I hope it is!) form than what I believed as a child. I've found beauty and wisdom in many spiritual paths, but only Christianity (or post-Christianity, as our friend queenofhalves likes to put it) truly satisfies my soul.

[danielletx.livejournal.com]

well, ultimately, it's what satisfies your soul that is, i believe, "true" religion (if such a thing exists). there are just too dern many spiritualities/religions out there that flat out don't work. not that the religions themselves don't work, but many religions have lost significance/meaning for individuals within the community. sometimes, the community is enough to fill the spiritual/theological void, and sometimes the community isn't (especially for those of us inclined toward the incisive art of theological-philosophical deconstruction).

it's not an easy road you're trodding. i wish you didn't have to take that platitudinous road-less-traveled. but some of us don't have a choice.

(the song reference above is U2. "bullet the blue sky.")

[queenofhalves]

i have two questions for you when you get a chance:

1. i'm really curious about what the swedenborgian denomination is like in terms of its members. are the congregations young? old? are there mostly families, single people, both? what's their orientation politically? how many of them are there? where are they concentrated? are they GLBT-friendly?

2. you asked me a while back if i'd written about my spiritual journey anyway. have you written about yours, and would you be willing to share? :>

oh, and i promised you some book recommendations. the xeroxes of things have not been created yet, but i haven't forgotten.

earth prayers and life prayers ed. by roberts and amidon are absolute must-haves. they're full of poetry that can double as liturgy and liturgy that doubles as poetry.

shaping sanctuary edited by kelly turner is a really good resource for churches with large gay populations. unfortunately it looks like it's out of print. boo.

books by ted loder, especially guerillas of grace, are good liberal christian liturgy-poetry. most of the pieces are pretty long, but i've abriged them to good effect.

books by ruth duck, who also writes hymns. her stuff was among the more traditional in form that my church used, but she's a big feminist, and creative too. i think we used touch holiness the most often.

also, there's prayers to she who is, adapted by william cleary et al. i don't actually remember us using it, but i really liked the elizabeth johnson book. it may or may not be good, i don't know.

there are three hymnals that we drew from over and over. the chalice hymnal, which is a UCC hymnal, is absolutely fantastic. especially worth looking for are the inclusive, earth-centered hymns of catholic hymn writer marty haugen. "wind upon the waters" is my favorite hymn ever! secondly, there's the supplement to the united methodist hymnal, the faith we sing. i think this has several of the short taize chants which make really good transitional songs. finally, there's the UU hymnal, singing the living tradition. my church had some sort of license that allowed us to copy hymns from the hymnals for congregational use -- supposedly it covered all these, though i was a little skeptical. but who's going to sue some little church, anyway? :>

and i think i already mentioned the marcia mcfee book. say, do you read music? should i send you a few hymns?

Re:

[qos.livejournal.com]

1. Demographics: These are excellent questions, and I'm making inquiries right now to get the answers.

My own congregation is very small: only 20-30 core members, mostly adults 40+, a few single parents with children. My congregation is GLBT-friendly, with several openly gay or lesbian members, and we're about to do a press release announcing that we will perform same-sex union ceremonies. My congregation is definitely liberal -- but since we're not particularly representative in a lot of ways, I'm not sure how much we are in this area.

The GLBT issue is an interesting one, because Swedenborg was very big on a concept he called Conjugial (sic) Love. He believes in soulmates, and that after death male-female couples are eternally bound in love, eventually coming to appear as one being.

Personally, as a happily divorced woman, this makes me break out in hives.

He believed that males correspond to God's Divine Wisdom and women to God's Divine Love, and that the divine plan was for the two to unite to perfect each other and become an image of God in microcosm. There is no room in his model for single people, or homosexuality. Or women who are more oriented to intellectualism than nurturing. These days, there is a strong movement in the General Convention (as opposed to the more conservative, fundamentalist General Church) to interpret the Conjugial Love doctrine in symbolic terms, as an inner marriage.

2. I'll work on this. (Not much else to do at work these days. . . .)

Thanks for the book recommendations. I'll start looking for them!