to authors, but many are.)
A few examples of this use are “in Matthew” (Arcana Coelestia 9818), “in
David” (True Christian Religion 852), and “in Moses” (Arcana Coelestia 5764).
I think we often forget that many of the names of the books of the Bible are
titled and called by the human author of the work.
The examples in True Christian Religion 852 and Arcana Coelestia 5764
are particularly interesting to me in that they are not references to a book
called by the author’s name. They are referencing Psalms and Deuteronomy
respectively. I find this interesting because there was another way of referring
to these works, but instead of calling them by the commonly accepted title
(which Swedenborg also references) he specifically calls to mind the human
author.
Not only does Swedenborg do this, but the Lord Jesus Christ does this. Just
to cite two examples: “For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’;
and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’” (Mark 7:10)
and “For David himself said by the Holy Spirit: ‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”’” So by the
example of Scripture and the Heavenly Doctrines, we are given permission
to call the works by the name of the human author without diminishing the
Divine authorship of the works.
The second major reason I call myself a Swedenborgian is that Christians
have an established practice of calling their doctrines by the name of some
human author, for example Lutherans, Calvinists and Franciscans. Now in this
case, there is some Divine-to-human slippage.
These three examples are all human authors of a particular doctrine and
life to which a person may ascribe. However, see the above argument. We may
refer to the human author of the work without actually diminishing the Divine
authorship. In some ways I think this is a great accommodation to a person’s
own state. Their state gets to dictate how they understand the term rather than
me trying to force an understanding on them. But it also communicates in a
relevant way while pointing them to the specific author. And most importantly,
it is not a human derived accommodation, but an accommodation that the
Lord uses to communicate.
The third major reason I call myself a Swedenborgian is that it meaningfully
communicates an idea while giving a person his or her own freedom to follow
up. And I say follow up because I most often use this term with people who are
not of my church. If a person to whom I am talking is familiar with the New
Church, I would rather reference a particular work or a particular passage
than the author of the works as a whole.
Where I find it most useful to call myself Swedenborgian is with non-
Swedenborgians. And this is when the issue most often comes up. By using the
33