Because Two of You *Did* Ask. . . .
Nov. 5th, 2003 08:53 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
qosThanks to ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
queenofhalves and cookingwithgas for asking about the struggles I was having with Swedenborg’s visions.
Those of you who have an interest in Swedenborg’s writings, problematic aspects of mystical visions, or my thoughts on these subjects can click below. The rest of you probably will want to skip on to something else.
Quick history note: Emanuel Swedenborg lived from 1688 to 1772. He started university at age 14 (not so unusual in those days) and quickly distinguished himself as a scientist. He wrote widely about virtually every scientific discipline of his age. At age 54 he started having visions, and experienced a Calling to be a prophet of a new message from God. He recorded these visions with all the precision of a lifelong scientist, in painstaking detail. There are two primary conventions within the Swedenborgian denomination. The General Church believes that Swedenborg’s writings constitute a Third Testament of the Bible. The General Convention, to which I belong, believes Swedenborg is one of many people blessed with experiences and insight that reveal new truths about the Divine, but we do not believe that he is infallible or that he has the last word about God.
As I’ve already indicated, there is a great deal that I find attractive in Swedenborg’s theology. Indeed, I would not be pursuing a vocation as a minister in the Swedenborgian church if that were not the case. But Swedenborg can be problematic. However inspired he might have been, he was still a human being, subject to the limitations of the human mind and the scope of his own frames of reference and biases. For example, he (a lifelong bachelor) writes that men embody Divine Wisdom and women Divine Love. Women love the wisdom of their husbands, gain wisdom from their husbands, and are not naturally inclined to intellectual pursuits. (That’s an oversimplification of the doctrine of Conjugial (sic) Love, but not much of a distortion.) As a divorced woman who has been drawn to, and excelled at, intellectual pursuits since early childhood, this makes me want to spit nails and throw books across the room.
I can deal with Conjugial Love on a symbolic and/or “inner marriage” level – as most feminists in the General Church (male and female) do – but what pushed me over the edge last week was Swedenborg’s description of meeting people from other planets in heaven. In general terms, I like this fact. Imagine, a Christian mystic testifying that there are sentient beings on other planets and that they too go to heaven! The problem is that last week I actually read some of those passages and found out that Swedenborg writes about meeting the inhabitants of Mercury, Venus, Mars, and Jupiter – and his descriptions of these beings include how their spiritual natures and closeness to God mirror their physical proximity to the sun. (The sun correlates with God in Swedenborg’s writings, as all life depends on the sun, just as human spiritual life depends on God, and the warmth and light of the sun correspond to the love and wisdom of God. Swedenborg is almost Pagan in his doctrines of correlation, but that’s another topic.)
Anyway. We have excellent reason to believe that beings such as Swedenborg describe do not live on these planets. I suppose it should have occurred to me then that Swedenborg, knowing only the planets of our solar system, would immediately conclude that any extraterrestrial beings he met came from these planets. Or the whole exchange could be even more symbolic. But it is fairly clear from the writings that he was convinced of the literal truth of what he wrote. In this case, it was enough to throw the whole of his writings into doubt where I was concerned.
Since then, I’ve had a long talk with an ordained friend on the staff at my school, another intellectual woman of my own age, who can relate to my frustrations with certain aspects of Swedenborg. She gave me some good insights. I’ve also had to remember that there are rather large passages of the Bible which I find problematic as well, particularly the prophetic/visionary works. I certainly don’t take them literally – no matter how much I believe in the sincerity of the authors.
I suppose it’s a natural part of the path for any thinking religious person. No religious tradition makes complete sense. Sometimes we have to have faith, or acknowledge paradox, or even say “No, I can’t accept that.” The issue is how we decide what to have faith in, and where we trust our own intellect and experience and intuition more than the authority of someone else. Being conscious of where and why we draw that line, and doing so with rigorous integrity and the guidance of Spirit rather than self-indulgence, is a significant task. And it’s one I’m going to be working on for a while.
We now return you to the more mundane passages of my LiveJournal.
queenofhalves and cookingwithgas for asking about the struggles I was having with Swedenborg’s visions. Those of you who have an interest in Swedenborg’s writings, problematic aspects of mystical visions, or my thoughts on these subjects can click below. The rest of you probably will want to skip on to something else.
Quick history note: Emanuel Swedenborg lived from 1688 to 1772. He started university at age 14 (not so unusual in those days) and quickly distinguished himself as a scientist. He wrote widely about virtually every scientific discipline of his age. At age 54 he started having visions, and experienced a Calling to be a prophet of a new message from God. He recorded these visions with all the precision of a lifelong scientist, in painstaking detail. There are two primary conventions within the Swedenborgian denomination. The General Church believes that Swedenborg’s writings constitute a Third Testament of the Bible. The General Convention, to which I belong, believes Swedenborg is one of many people blessed with experiences and insight that reveal new truths about the Divine, but we do not believe that he is infallible or that he has the last word about God.
As I’ve already indicated, there is a great deal that I find attractive in Swedenborg’s theology. Indeed, I would not be pursuing a vocation as a minister in the Swedenborgian church if that were not the case. But Swedenborg can be problematic. However inspired he might have been, he was still a human being, subject to the limitations of the human mind and the scope of his own frames of reference and biases. For example, he (a lifelong bachelor) writes that men embody Divine Wisdom and women Divine Love. Women love the wisdom of their husbands, gain wisdom from their husbands, and are not naturally inclined to intellectual pursuits. (That’s an oversimplification of the doctrine of Conjugial (sic) Love, but not much of a distortion.) As a divorced woman who has been drawn to, and excelled at, intellectual pursuits since early childhood, this makes me want to spit nails and throw books across the room.
I can deal with Conjugial Love on a symbolic and/or “inner marriage” level – as most feminists in the General Church (male and female) do – but what pushed me over the edge last week was Swedenborg’s description of meeting people from other planets in heaven. In general terms, I like this fact. Imagine, a Christian mystic testifying that there are sentient beings on other planets and that they too go to heaven! The problem is that last week I actually read some of those passages and found out that Swedenborg writes about meeting the inhabitants of Mercury, Venus, Mars, and Jupiter – and his descriptions of these beings include how their spiritual natures and closeness to God mirror their physical proximity to the sun. (The sun correlates with God in Swedenborg’s writings, as all life depends on the sun, just as human spiritual life depends on God, and the warmth and light of the sun correspond to the love and wisdom of God. Swedenborg is almost Pagan in his doctrines of correlation, but that’s another topic.)
Anyway. We have excellent reason to believe that beings such as Swedenborg describe do not live on these planets. I suppose it should have occurred to me then that Swedenborg, knowing only the planets of our solar system, would immediately conclude that any extraterrestrial beings he met came from these planets. Or the whole exchange could be even more symbolic. But it is fairly clear from the writings that he was convinced of the literal truth of what he wrote. In this case, it was enough to throw the whole of his writings into doubt where I was concerned.
Since then, I’ve had a long talk with an ordained friend on the staff at my school, another intellectual woman of my own age, who can relate to my frustrations with certain aspects of Swedenborg. She gave me some good insights. I’ve also had to remember that there are rather large passages of the Bible which I find problematic as well, particularly the prophetic/visionary works. I certainly don’t take them literally – no matter how much I believe in the sincerity of the authors.
I suppose it’s a natural part of the path for any thinking religious person. No religious tradition makes complete sense. Sometimes we have to have faith, or acknowledge paradox, or even say “No, I can’t accept that.” The issue is how we decide what to have faith in, and where we trust our own intellect and experience and intuition more than the authority of someone else. Being conscious of where and why we draw that line, and doing so with rigorous integrity and the guidance of Spirit rather than self-indulgence, is a significant task. And it’s one I’m going to be working on for a while.
We now return you to the more mundane passages of my LiveJournal.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Literal versus Metaphorical Truth
Date: 2003-11-06 05:08 am (UTC)The Zen school of Buddhism uses a wide array of tools to attempt to overcome the difficultly of explaining internal states in its teaching. There is a heavy use of metaphor, much that is physical, and, of course, the koans. Not to propigate a stereotype, but I think that the eastern tradition of holistic thinking versus the western tradition of reductionism perhaps better supports dealing with and expressing internal states, particularly those that are religious/mystical in nature.
Re: Literal versus Metaphorical Truth
Date: 2003-11-06 04:24 pm (UTC)Interestingly enough, D.T. Suzuki wrote a book called "Emanuel Swedenborg: Buddha of the North." I haven't read it yet, but it's definitely on the "highly recommended" list for those in my field.
Re: Literal versus Metaphorical Truth
Date: 2003-11-06 06:18 pm (UTC)I absolutely must order the book you reference, I read a lot of D.T. Suzuki's work when I was deep in my eastern reading period. In my opinion he is one of the foremost popularizer of Eastern thought. Amazon has it. As a companion, what work of Swedenborg would you recommend for a reader new to his thought?
Re: Literal versus Metaphorical Truth
Date: 2003-11-06 06:33 pm (UTC)As for the Suzuki book, I can't make a recommendation one way or the other, but the reviews on Amazon are generally positive. One of them gives a great overview of Swedenborg as well. But if you're coming at his work from an appreciation of Eastern spirituality, this is probably a good introduction. If you do read it, please let me know what you think!
Re: Literal versus Metaphorical Truth
Date: 2003-11-06 06:37 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-06 07:05 am (UTC)I will reserve to make further comments until I read Swedenborg's writings.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-06 09:22 am (UTC)i think saying swedenborg was almost pagan is getting it a little backwards. the different correspondences of the planets and their different natures and correspondences is all part of the western judeo-christian mystery tradition, out of which modern neopaganism arose (it also draws on ancient agricultural myths, but in terms of practice it's deeply indebted to ceremonial magick). swedenborg and modern pagans are simply drawing on the same western occult sources.
my apologies if you already knew all that. :>
yeah, the fixed gender roles thing is annoying. that's something you find all over the place, even in the thought of extremely enlightened thinkers (but not in jesus' teachings, interestingly!). i think it's okay to just ditch aspects of theology that are clearly the cultural products of their time, or (in the case of the planets) very personal to the writer.
of course, the question is then, how do you draw the line between divine revelation and cultural product? i believe god/dess is revealed in everything that is, but some philosophies that may have been appropriate in other times and places cause suffering and oppression now. i'd say i probably take liberation as the measure by which i judge both biblical passages and the writings of mystics.
what do you think?
(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-06 04:52 pm (UTC)Good point about Jesus not advocating fixed gender roles. I don't think I'd ever heard anyone point that out before. Certainly there is an awareness that he treated women with dignity and respect, but not what you had mentioned.
When Rev. Kim Hinrichs presented her feminist evaluation of Swedenborg's "Conjugial Love" she too advanced the measure of "human dignity and liberation" as a yardstick for evaluating its more restrictive aspects. As our ability to appreciate the "other" (in terms of gender, race, physical condition, or etc.) improves, it becomes painfully clear how even some of our most honored texts have been victim of the limited perceptions of their writers. I'd like to think that overall our ability be wise and just and compassionate is improving, despite the horrifying exceptions. Hopefully our ability to discriminate between the eternal and the 'accidental' will continue to improve as well.
It's been a while since I've been in grad school, and studying Swedenborg is new to me, so I'm feeling a bit slow and awkward right now. I'm looking forward to enhancing my expertise and the depth of my understanding. Your insights will be appreciated!
Cynic?
Date: 2003-11-06 06:22 pm (UTC)Re: Cynic?
Date: 2003-11-06 06:40 pm (UTC)Things are not perfect. All too many people are still irrationally afraid of those who are different, and encourage fear in others by playing up the differences between "us" and "them". But there *is* progress. And I pray the trend will continue.
Re: Cynic?
Date: 2003-11-06 07:18 pm (UTC)