What’s In A Name?

First of all, welcome to my blog, and welcome to the new site for those who’ve already been following me!  I’m excited to work with Patheos – they host several of my favourite blogs (e.g. Jesus Creed, The Deacon’s BenchThe Bible and Culture), and I look forward to getting involved in the conversations that happen at this site.

In getting this blog set up, I’ve run into a conundrum that I’ve faced several times before – how do I refer to myself in terms of my religion?  The tagline of this blog is “Reflections of a New Church (Swedenborgian) Minister.”  Why not just say a New Church minister?  Because people could easily read that as the blog of a church minister who is newly ordained – i.e. a new church-minister (which, incidentally, I am).  Why not just “Swedenborgian”?  Ah – there’s where it gets a little interesting.

Swedenborg was adamant that the revelation he wrote down did not come from himself.  He himself didn’t like the term Swedenborgianism – but his solution provides a few problems of its own.  In a letter to his friend Dr. Beyer, he wrote, “This doctrine they there call ‘Swedenborgianism’; but for my part I call it Genuine Christianity.”  Problem solved!  I’ll call myself a Genuine Christian!  That should clear up any confusion…

I don’t think I even have to go into the problems that would cause.  And using New Church as an adjective actually works fine most of the time where the capitalization is noticeable (e.g. New Church doctrine, New Church cathedral, New Church minister).  The problem is when we go to refer to ourselves – the noun form.  In the old days, New Church adherents used to call themselves “New Churchmen” and, less frequently, “New Churchwomen.”  But in the old days you could also refer to Chinese as “Chinamen” without being offensive.  These ain’t the old days.  Calling ourselves Swedenborgians works better, but I’d rather not, for the reasons I mentioned above.  New Christians isn’t bad, but our religion is called the New Church, and rarely The New Christian Church (although it is called that occasionally).  So, until we come up with something better, I’ll unhappily vacillate between the clunky “New Church people” and the less-than-ideal “Swedenborgians.”

Incidentally, this may be only a problem for those of us in the more conservative branch of the New Church, the General Church of the New Jerusalem.  The other major North American branch, which used to be known as the General Convention of the New Jerusalem, changed its name years ago to the Swedenborgian Church of North America.

Rev. Jonathan Rose in “Heaven”

In Monday’s New York Times, Mark Oppenheimer reviews a new book by Lisa Miller entitled Heaven: Our Enduring Fascination with the Afterlife. The review mentions a few specific views of heaven that Miller explores, including the Swedenborgian view of heaven:

Over time, she explains, visions of heaven became more specific. The Book of Revelation is especially vivid. In the Middle Ages, Christians gave heaven strata, where the righteous were sorted into levels. Dante and Milton embroidered the Christian imagination of the afterlife even further. The 18th-century mystic Emanuel Swedenborg believed that marriages on earth continued in heaven, a view later held by Mormons.

Miller’s description of Swedenborgianism makes particular good use of her interview subject, a seventh-generation Swedenborgian named Jonathan Rose, who taught for many years at Bryn Athyn College in Pennsylvania.

That (and the allure of instant gratification that comes with having a Kindle) was incentive enough for me to buy the book.

[Read more...]

Swedenborgian Architects

Today as I was adding “Swedenborg” to my Google News page, I stumbled across a Culture24 article from a couple weeks ago about a new exhibition at the Brent Museum in Brent, London (England, not Ontario).  The exhibition focuses on the architecture of Ernest Trobridge, an obscure (i.e., Wikipedia-entryless) Swedenborgian architect who designed several homes in North East London.  Apparently he incorporated a lot from the Writings into his architectural philosophy.  It’s hard to find out much about him on the internet, so I emailed the Brent Museum and asked for more information; I’ll post an update when I hear back from them.

One paragraph from the article that particularly struck me talked about Swedenborg’s theories on architecture:

Swedenborg’s theories of balance between nature and architecture meant Trobridge’s designs boasted a heady union of symbolism and utility with an emphasis on the sheltering roof, the focal hearth and stylised entrances.

[Read more...]