![[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.
Re:
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!