Talk:The New Church (Swedenborgian)

• Archive talk from old article here

Churches remaining in England?

From the article:

"There are 25 churches left in England and a handful of ministers. The denomination in the 19th century had over a hundred churches in the UK, often very grand churches very Anglican in style with large chancels, side pulpits and altars. Nearly all of these churches have closed or rebuilt in the late 20th century. Some remain in London."

This needs clarification and citation, as the 25 churches left in England are not active churches - they have either been redenominated or repurposed, even though the structures remain. I can find no church in London where the New Church doctrine is preached with any regularity. Or am I mistaken, and just not looking hard enough? 82.148.46.46 (talk) 09:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

POV?

This article needs to be glossed over for POV statements. I caught atleast one.

THE new Church?

Is the article "The" part of the proper name? If not, the article needs to be moved to "New Church." --ElKevbo 15:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "The" is an essential part of this name. Just as there is a Christian Church and various organizations, each being a part of the movement, there is also The New Church and various organizations, each being a part of the movement. Christianity is based on the message of the Gospel, The New Church is based on the understanding of Scripture as revealed in the works published by Emanuel Swedenborg. The concept of "The New Church" is held by all Swedenborgian organizations. If you want I can explain in the article that "The New Church" is both a group of organizations and a foundational concept for all organizations which believe in "The New Church". I can't put this article under the General Church of the New Jerusalem, which is sometimes confused with being "The New Church" itself. I can't do this because the New Church is seen by every New Church organization as something above each organization. Do you suggest that we get rid of the article on Christianity and replace it with the article for the Catholic Church? Yes, this church, The New Church, is known by this very name by many people. The phrase was coined by Emanuel Swedenborg, and has been in continual use every since New Church organizations have been around.

As for references of sources. See the works published by Emanuel Swedenborg including, True Christian Religion, Heaven and Hell, Divine Providence, Divine Love and Wisdom, Married Love, and the New Jerusalem and its Heavenly doctrine. In these works you will find the beliefs that are listed to be representative of those listed in this article. You will also find the development of the concept of "The New Church" which is said to be a religious movement that will be established by the Lord, Jesus Christ. Jasonschnarr 17:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Can't there be two pages? One for the wrestling thing and one for the religious movement? Jasonschnarr 02:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about "the wrestling thing," but what's the difference between this article and Swedenborgianism? Arch O. La ^{Grigrory Deepdelver} 21:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that "The New Church" is a movement which the works published by Swedenborg speak of. The term "Swedenborgian" implies that a person follows teachings of Swedenborg, but members of "The New Church" do not believe that Swedenborg was responsible for the doctrines of the New Church they believe that The Lord, God, Jesus Christ authored them, through the pen of Swedenborg. Also, the page on Swedenborgianism is biased toward the organization of the Swedenborgian Church of North America, seeing that it is primarily their point of view which is represented and their symbol on the page. I attempted to change this bias but to no avail. This page represents those in the movement who do not see themselves as "Swedenborgians", but rather members of "The New Church". Most people in "Swedenborgian" organizations know about "The New Church" and see it as a movement above any of the organizations based on New Church teachings. That's why it requires an article for itself. Just read what I wrote above. Like "Christianity" it is something above any organization, it is a whole religious movement with more to it than just the ideas you would get in an article on Swedenborgianism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.134.222 (talk • contribs)

It sounds to me like the difference between branches of the same sect. Your explanation does not quite illuminate. Try again? KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"The New Church" is both a Swedenborgian concept, as well as a religious movement which various organizations have claimed to support. You could try to lump Swedenborgianism and The New Church together, but the concept of The New Church which is found in the books published by Swedenoborg, upon which the movement is founded, does not work in harmony with what "Swedenborgianism" has become. They are not the same thing. The New Church could be called a Swedenborgian movement, but members of the New Church would rather be referred to as being a part of The New Church movement seeing that there are differences between the two. When one first encounters Swedenborgianism they first think of Swedenborg and perhaps the Swedenborgian Church of North America. When one encounters a member of an organization which sees themselves as part of "The New Church" movement you find that the set of beliefs held and emphasized are distincly different. Members of the General Church of the New Jerusalem are in the largest "Swedenborgian" organization. Members of the General Church have been the strongest supporters of "The New Church" movement, but this movement is not limited to the boundaries of this organization. For example, there are orphanages which are based on the concepts of "The New Church". There are charity groups. There are many groups which would consider themselves part of "The New Church" movement, who would not necessarily be a member of any "Swedenborgian" organization. The concept itself, along with the doctrines it ascribes to have become a movement which cannot be defined by one organization, nor can it be defined by one view of the teachings. The New Church is simply all those who ascribe to certain belief set and live accoring to it. This idea came from those works published by Swedenborg, but the actual movement is different, and often unconnected to the idea that it is from Swedenborg, since it is not seen as being from Swedenborg, but is seen as being from the Lord Himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonschnarr (talk • contribs)

Merge with Swedenborgianism?

If these are merged, I'd like the name of the page to be something like The New Church (Swedenborgianism), putting the members' name for it first and the common name second. Is this standard for Wikipedia? Is there a standard? Any other ideas? See also my comments on the Talk:Swedenborgianism page. Coleman Glenn 03:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I totally disagree with you, and I erased the merge suggestion so people don't get any ideas. Have you read my comments in the discussion above? I don't want to be called a Swedenborgian. I find it offensive, that's why I made this page. Also, the idea and content are very different. Jasonschnarr 20:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Umm okay. Could the influence section be a bit more differentiated in least? Likely non-religious people influenced by reading Swedenborg, and not so much influenced by the "New Church, would think of themselves more as "Swedenborgians." Just like there are Thomists or Randians not necessarily connected to the religions known for them.--T. Anthony 06:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope you are able to maintain the page, The New Church as distinct from the page, Swedenborgianism. I was very pleased to find this introduction to The New Church because I find it sympathetic to a conception of The New Church as being commissioned by the Divine. In the study and practice of The New Church and the New Dispensation, the terminology, "The New Church" and "The Lord's New Church" are held proper to Doctrine leading to Eternal Life, and are applied in life, rather than to the world. Best wishes.

I sympathize with those who want to draw a hard line between "Swedenborgianism" and, um..."New Churchism"? But I worry that sectarianism will make the whole subject more confusing and make it less likely that people who want or need this information will actually find it. I suggest looking at what is being done with the whole Mormonism vs. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints mess under the umbrella subject of Latter Day Saint movement. The New Church still has some identity issues to work out as a new church/religion/dispensation/movement with multiple denominations and with multiple names, including "The New Church", "Second Advent Christianity", "New Christianity", "The True Christian Religion", "The New Jerusalem", "Swedenborgianism", etc. As a member, I have opinions on how we should properly "style" ourselves, but as a wikipedia contributor, I am concerned that we not be too dogmatic about something that is really so up in the air. --Mac 14:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying. I wrote this article and maintain it primarily from a desire to let people know about "The New Church" as it is explained in the Heavenly Doctrines, and how these doctrines interact with other theology. How this concept of the New Church and it's doctrines have played out in the world is not as much my concern. Maybe in this article it should not be called a movement? and instead be called "a concept and formulation of doctrine found in the works of Emanuel Swedenborg which has influenced many "New Church" organizations" maybe? The phrase "The New Church" may not be entirely solidified as the proper name for the movement, but it is the name that the Heavenly Doctrine uses to describe the movement. However it works out in the end, I believe the way I have layed out the doctrine here is an accurate representation of what the Heavenly Doctrines say, containing useful comparisons and understandable explanations of the teachings. Jasonschnarr 05:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I favor a merge with Swedenborgianism. There is no reason to keep these two separate. Perhaps have Swedenborgianism redirect here? Doug Webber (talk) 03:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

POV?

This article needs to be glossed over for POV statements. I caught atleast one. 208.248.33.30

The article reads like an infomercial. Even the "criticism" section is an apologetic. And yet there is no notice to the reader. Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

a dragon speaks

New Church .vs. The New Church. "New Church" can be anyone's newly built church. "The New Church" is our specific one, incorporating not so much the materialistic aspect of a new building but the spiritual aspect of a new religion. Inclusion of "The" seems essential to me.

Swedenborgianism .vs. The New Church To use the definitions already on the Wikipedia, and to expand slightly: Swedenborgianism is about beliefs developed from the writings, and a personal relationship with God. The New Church is about teachings found in the writings, and our collective relationship with God.

As a dragon, the intellectual study of Swedenborgianism brings me to a spiritual understanding of The New Church. They cannot be merged into one, they are two distinctly separate things, but depend on each other. 67.62.28.197 02:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)-m

You the same dragon responsible for that '1688-1772' nonsense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.184.101.210 (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Tone

Could the tone of this be deflated somewhat, to read like a neutral report rather than a tract?--Wetman (talk) 01:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you suggest any specifics? Jasonschnarr (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to fix this article for references, I think once references are added to each statement the tone of this article will be fixed. Doug Webber (talk) 03:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The tone of this article is not neutral at all. The section that sticks out the most, to me, is the "Criticisms" section, and it has nothing to do with the references. At the end of each statement, there is at least one sentence, if not more, discrediting any opposition. This makes the criticism invalid and takes a definite "side" as to which opinion is superior. This causes the tone of the article to seem like an advertisement. There should be a revision of this article, not only because the tone is not neutral, but because it is also off-putting. Perhaps placing the statements which discredit any and all opposition in a different sections would help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slambones (talk • contribs) 10:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Subdividing the Doctrine Section

In reviewing this article, the doctrine section covers a lot of ground and needs to be subdivided. I was going to initially just add references, but when I reread this I realized this section needs to be restructured and made more formalized. It will make it more readable. Different doctrines of the New Church - which are extensive - can then be fleshed out separately. Its an excellent article, but the original list of bullet points was too long. Ive added headings according to the bullet points, but I am not dead set on these. This is much more work than I thought - my apologies, I did not mean to start making drastic changes but I think its necessary to fix this. Doug Webber (talk) 03:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the Doctrine section should have its own article according to the pattern of all other faith description articles, this article retaining a general definition, history, spread and other mundane matters, while a New Church theology gets the doctrinal and theological content. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

"Criticism" section

I've tagged this section (previously named "Suppression and Censorship") for NPOV issues because it's written in a manner sympathetic to the New Church's position. Examples include "the pure monotheistic nature" of the New Church, the idea that the Trinity was only believed because of the Nicæne Creed, and the idea that opposition to New Church positions by others is censorship. I would rewrite this if the entire section weren't tainted by this POV; therefore, I'd like to remove it, but some of the section has what appear to be reliable sources that I don't want to delete. Nyttend (talk) 12:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Right. However, the article in its entirety is written from an uninformed New Church position from say 40 years ago. F.ex. the section Pre-Biblical texts makes unwarranted and non-encyclopedic assumptions on what caused the lost books referred to in the bible became lost such as:

These were Divinely Inspired, but they were falsified by many,...

I think me the text is just an immature essayish article sketch that needs proper integration into Wikipedia and a check-up to other articles. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed the objectionable content in the Criticism section, except for the reference to Sundar Singh which is referenced in another article.

The "Influence" Section

Your Biblical references attributed to Paul, Joe Smith, and Swedenborg are incorrect, at least in the "Influence" section. My first suggestion is to state which version of the Bible you are using. Second, 1 Corinthians 15:40-42 does not mention any "third heaven," as you stated. Third, the only mention of a "third heaven" from Paul (and anywhere else in the Bible) is in 2 Corinthians 12:2, but that is not supportive of your claims that "Both Swedenborg and Joseph Smith refer to the highest heaven as 'celestial,' in concert with the usage of the apostle Paul when he described a visit to the 'third heaven.'" The only three-level reference to be gleened from 1 Corinthians 15:40-42 might be "The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another, and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor." But this is wholly inconsistent with your claims relating to Paul, Joe Smith, and Swedenborg relating to any "third heaven." I would request that you correct this section, as I am not sure what message you are purporting that I might be able to edit myself. Thank you. Snootcher (talk) 09:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Propose moving page to Swedenborgian

Secondary sources don't call it The New Church, and although "New Church" was what followers and founders called it back in the day, nowadays you can find them @ www.swedenborg.org , and sfswedenborgian.org. The present title is unhelpful and confusing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Although some of the churches use "New Church" there is also Swedenborgian Church of North America, a theology faculty called Swedenborgian House of Studies, some of the branches do use "New" Lord's New Church Which Is Nova Hierosolyma, une uses a different name altogether General Church of the New Jerusalem But they pray according to the Swedenborg Rite and our template and our category are both called called Swedenborgianism. For good reason. That's what everyone called it (COI disclosure: I regularly walk past a small Swedenborgian church at the edge of campus. I don't know anyone who belongs to it. I rarely see anyone going in. But it is a very pretty gothic building and I enjoy walking past, particularly when snow is falling on the lawn.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Possible new source for this subject.

Just saw this brand new article this morning and wanted to share in case it might be of any use.

• https://www.curbed.com/2022/08/nyc-new-church-new-jerusalem-35th-street-swedenborgian-records-trash.html

47.176.71.114 (talk) 10:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Early December 2023 Edits

As of December 5th, I have made some significant edits to this page to make it more comprehensible to the average reader. These are;

A. Adjusting the order of sections and consolidating a couple (including "influence' and 'Notable individuals influenced by Swedenborg' (paraphrased))

B. Creating a single paragraph introduction presenting the core narrative of Swedenborg's work

C. Adding an introduction to the section on Free Will and Salvation, and sub-headings to separate ideas within the section

D. Summarizing the Cycle of Churches narrative before discussing the Coming of Christ in the above section, without making the 'Eschatology' section at all redundant.

D. Overall, maintaining the core points and paragraphs of the article before these edits were made, while simultaneously simplifying the language and maintaining sectarian terminology and rhetoric when adequately defined.

Less significant edits include adding Transcendentalism to the 'Influences' page.

Smoothing out the improved article and completing citation of additional information will take place over the following days. TheLibertyBoi (talk) 09:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)