![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Lots of Theological Conversations
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.
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.
no subject
what aspect of that doctine are you having trouble with? what's your view of the redemption?
no subject
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.
no subject
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! ;>
no subject
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
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.
no subject
no subject