New Church Perspective

Fran examines the use of the phrase 'the church specific' in New Church publications and weighs whether this concept is represented in Swedenborg's writings. In brief, it's not. What brought people to bolster this concept, given that a broader vision of the one Lord and his one universal church pervades Swedenborg's theological works? Fran's clear treatment of this issue imparts a loving clarity that may put this notion to rest for good. -Editor

For many years an idea or a doctrine concerning 'the church specific' has been in common thought among General Church members and leaders. Indeed, much has been written on the topic and published in many articles in New Church Life. Using the search feature at HeavenlyDoctrines.org and inputting the words “church specific” returns 256 results from the New Church Life archives. A cursory scanning (speed-reading) of the articles reveals that although most acknowledge the universality of the Lord’s church, one also finds many statements about a ‘church specific’ defined in terms which indicate a distinction from the Lord’s universal church. Below are some samples extracted from various articles.

The Divine Truth revealed in the Heavenly Doctrine is new. It is utterly distinct from the religious theories and beliefs of the Christian world. In the measure that this truth is recognized as the Word of the Lord in His Second Coming, given for the instruction and guidance of the Church; in the measure that it is regarded as the actual source of authority; it cannot but create and establish with us a distinct kind and quality of religious life. The depth of our faith in the Writings is reliably reflected in the strength of our determination to mould our own life, and the life of the Church as an organization, into a form receptive of, and responsive to, the Divine Law revealed;¹
We must be profoundly convinced of the need for [the establishment and preservation of that which is called in the Writings] the "Church Specific," and must clearly understand the relation which exists between this and the "Church Universal;”²
The way to heaven is kept open by the Lord to everyone, whether he belongs to the Church specific or not;³
The church which has the Word is called the church specific; those who are in good, but lack truth, make up the church universal;⁴
In this lies the difference between “the universal church” (Apocalypse Explained 331) and “the specific church” (Apocalypse Explained 252);⁵
The Lord is equally present with both of these churches;⁶
It is imperative that we preserve clearly in our minds the nature of the church specific and of the church universal—recognizing the distinction between the two;⁷
While it is essential that we recognize the existence of the church universal, it is necessary that we should not confuse it with the church specific;⁸
And if we ignore the distinctions which the Writings so clearly make, ignore the distinctive uses which they imply;⁹
Faithfulness to the Heavenly Doctrine demands the building of a distinct and separate Church.¹⁰

One would get the impression from the above quotes that there are two churches—a universal church and a specific church. What is noteworthy, and which forms the basis of this article, is that notwithstanding the fact that much has been published in New Church Life and elsewhere on the topic of the 'church specific,' a search in the theological writings of Emanuel Swedenborg of those very same words returns zero results. Nil.

In this article I will explore this incongruity and pose questions that may hopefully lead to some insights as to the consequences resulting from a conception of a ‘church specific’ when there is no reference to any such ‘church specific’ in Swedenborg's writings.

Initially, one might suppose that an anomaly in translation is the reason why a search for ‘church specific’ returns no results in Swedenborg's writings. That being the possibility, the only way to be sure is to search Swedenborg's writings in the original Latin, the Latin phrase under consideration being ecclesia in specie, as found in the well-known phrase, Quod ecclesia in specie sit ubi Verbum, et per id Dominus notus. A search for ecclesia in specie returns fifteen results in the original (Arcana Coelestia 4520, Arcana Coelestia 1238, Arcana Coelestia 4, Arcana Coelestia 10248, True Christian Religion 115, Heaven and Hell 216, True Christian Religion 108, Arcana Coelestia 10570, Arcana Coelestia 6297; New Jerusalem and Its Heavenly Doctrine 246, New Jerusalem and Its Heavenly Doctrine 255, Heaven and Hell 318, Heaven and Hell 308, Apocalypse Explained 252, White Horse 6). Of these fifteen the last six only are found in the sentence under discussion in this article and translates into English as, "The Church, specifically exists where the Word is found, and where through it the Lord is known" (Heaven and Hell 308, trans. Tafel); or this alternate rendering: "The Church specifically is where the Word is and where the Lord is known by means of it" (Heaven and Hell 308, trans. Ager).

The point under discussion in this article is the distinct jump from the word “specifically” found in all English translations of Swedenborg's writings to the word “specific” in writings by New Church members. This change, though seemingly trivial and inconsequential, is in point of fact significant precisely for the reason that the function of a word changes with the alteration of its form—in this instance, from an adverb to an adjective. The question to be asked is, "How have we come to make this change in form/function?" And more importantly, "How does this change alter our consequent understanding of the whole sentence?"

An adverb modifies a verb—in this case “exists” or “is;” an adjective modifies a noun, in this instance “church.” So, comparing the sentences first with “specifically” as an adverb ("The Church, specifically exists where the Word is found, and where through it the Lord is known"), we are given to understand that it is the LORD’s church which exists—specifically. Conversely, reading the sentence with “specific” as an adjective, we conclude that our own society or organization is its own “specific" in the sense of distinct, separate and apart from the Lord’s universal church. In other words, we have separated ourselves. This is contrary to the law of the Lord’s divine love. Since Divine Providence 14 teaches that, "The Lord does not suffer anything to be divided,” it follows from this divine law that,

The universal church on the earth in the sight of the Lord resembles a single man, just as heaven does; but the church where the Word is and where the Lord is known by means of it is like the heart and lungs in that man. Heaven and Hell 308 [emphasis added]

And further we read,

As it is with the man of the church in particular, so also it is with the church in general, that is, with all who constitute the Lord's church. The reason of this is that before the Lord the church universal is like a man, for before the Lord, His heaven, with which the church acts as a one, is as one man, as can be seen from what has been shown about heaven as a Grand Man at the end of many chapters of Genesis. Arcana Coelestia 9276 [emphasis added]

The Lord’s universal church is found all over the world and it is THIS CHURCH which has a special existence where the Word is found and where THE LORD is known by means of this Word. Simply stated: One God, One Lord, One Church. Not two churches with any distinction drawn between them.

One wonders how the mind of man can construe two when Swedenborg's writings so clearly proclaim one. Of note in this regard is the teaching in True Christian Religion 15 concerning the doctrine of the Trinity of Gods produced from the Nicene Creed where it says that, "With men who acknowledge several Gods instead of one, there is no coherence in the things relating to the church," and further in True Christian Religion 172 we read, "In the ideas of thought a Trinity of Divine persons from eternity....is a Trinity of Gods; and these ideas cannot be effaced by a lip-confession of one God." Equally so can there be no coherence with men who acknowledge two churches instead of one; neither can the idea of two churches be effaced by a lip-confession of one church.

But how is one to guard against doctrines that diverge from the oneness of the Lord’s church? The answer is given in Arcana Coelestia 6047 as follows:

First there must be learned the doctrinal things of the church and then the Word must be examined to see whether these are true.

And also here in Sacred Scripture 54:

But doctrine is not only to be drawn from the sense of the letter of the Word, but must also be confirmed thereby; for if not so confirmed the truth of doctrine appears as if only man's intelligence were in it, and not the Lord's Divine wisdom. [emphasis added]

A doctrine of a 'church specific' has been drawn from the sense of the letter of the Word however it is not confirmed. Nowhere do the Writings speak of two churches and when the mind of man divides the church into two, more falsities follow. Consider the exclusiveness in the following extracts:

But what of those who, in the mercy of the Lord, have been led even here on earth to see in the Heavenly Doctrine the second coming of the Lord? Theirs is a rare privilege that cannot be granted to others;¹¹ [emphasis added]
But let us make it clear that this, our duty toward all who belong to the church universal, is only part of what the Lord requires of us. Important as it is, it is not the most essential part....It is to cooperate with the Lord in promoting the supreme end.....to labor for the establishment and growth of a specific New Church. This is the special use to which we have been Divinely called, a use that no others can possibly perform.¹² [emphasis added]

And furthermore, consider the introduction of the concept of “visible church” in the following:

The LORD'S visible Church is alone where the Word is, and the LORD'S true visible Church is alone where the Word is rightly understood;¹³
But the true reason for a local and visible Church as to truth is found in the doctrine of a twofold influx;¹⁴
Thus, we may call ourselves the visible Church of the LORD, and His only true visible Church;¹⁵
They, therefore, who infer that because all who are in good form the LORD'S universal Church, therefore there is to be no separate, distinct, local, and visible New Jerusalem Church of the LORD, are in error;¹⁶
when we speak of ourselves as the New Jerusalem Church visibly distinct and locally separate from the Old Christian Church, we speak of ourselves as professors merely of true doctrines, thus we speak of the LORD'S visible Church.¹⁷

As with 'church specific,' the term 'visible church' is also nowhere to be found in the Writings. The term 'visible God' however is found frequently.

Throughout this article the intention has not been to ‘see the beam in my brother’s eye.’ If it were possible to publish this article without citing sources then the author would certainly have done so because the greatest use comes from examining our own thinking, both collectively and individually, in order to determine the integrity of our thoughts. Let us each therefore be vigilant and scrupulous to guard against any doctrine that separates us from the Lord. Rather let us humbly acknowledge the tendency of the hells to mislead and infuse false doctrines and suffer ourselves once again to be led by the Lord alone and be conjoined with His one church.

The Church specifically is where the Word exists, and where through it the Lord is known.

Footnotes

¹deCharms, Rev. George. “Church Specific and the Church Universal.” New Church Life, Vol. LIV, February, 1934 No. 2

²Ibid

³Ibid

⁴Childs, Rev. Geoffrey S. “High Use of the Church Specific.” New Church Life, 1958

⁵deCharms, Rev. George. “Divine Providence and Human Prudence in the Establishment of the Church.” New Church Life, 1957

⁶Ibid

⁷Pryke, Rev. Martin. “New Church in Today’s World.” New Church Life, Vol. CX, November, 1990 No. 11

⁸Henderson, Rev. W. Cairns. "Universal Church." New Church Life, 1955

⁹Ibid

¹⁰deCharms, Rev. George. “Church Specific and the Church Universal.” New Church Life, Vol. LIV, February, 1934 No. 2

¹¹deCharms, Rev. George. “Divine Providence and Human Prudence in the Establishment of the Church.” New Church Life, 1957

¹²Ibid

¹³deCharms, Rev. Richard. “New Church and the Old Church.” New Church Life, 1882

¹⁴Ibid

¹⁵Ibid

¹⁶Ibid

¹⁷Ibid

Note: A version of this article also appeared in the Nov/Dec 2012 issue of New Church Life. -Editor

Fran Raymond

Fran Raymond discovered and fell in love with the Writings in 1990. She is a member of the Olivet Church in Toronto and lives with her husband Glenn in Mississauga. Her interests are theology, music, and languages.