new church life: march/april 2015
consequences. But as they grow up, more and more they need the reasons for
things, so that they can come to see the good and the truth of what they have
been taught, as of themselves, and internalize it. So the Lord, our heavenly
Father, teaches us in these different ways.
To me this explains why there is no direct command in the Doctrine that
women should not be ordained. Instead, I find lots of teachings that illustrate
the different gifts that the Lord gives to and through men and women. To me,
the implications are very clear, and border on a command.
It seems as though I may have a very different view of the Heavenly
Doctrine than some in this debate. I believe that the Doctrine is the Lord in
His Second Coming in every respect. I do not see statements that need to be
set aside as merely Swedenborg speaking, or representing an undue influence
of Swedenborg’s day. The Lord Himself wrote the Heavenly Doctrine via
Swedenborg. He could easily have made sure that Swedenborg omitted any
erroneous ideas, and directed the influx of such thoughts away from him as
he was writing.
While some seem to find error in Conjugial Love 125, I would be pleased
to put it on our website as an example of a wonderful New Church teaching.
After all, it clarifies a confusion common in the Christian world, showing
that the man is not head of his wife as Christ is head of the Church, but both
together are the Church. The man’s contribution to their church may come first
in time, but the wife’s reception of it in conjugial love – the precious jewel of
human life and the repository of the Christian religion – is no less important.
I can imagine that the Lord may have permitted a few apparent fallacies
here and there, as cherubim, to protect people who are not ready to fully receive
the Heavenly Doctrine from being convinced of their truth. But I would not
want to be the one to say which things in the Heavenly Doctrine are “not true.”
Even if something appeared not true to me, where would the problem be more
likely to lie: in the Doctrine, or in me? If the Doctrine itself provides clarifying
statements elsewhere, we should by all means take the teachings together in
their fullness, as well as seeing how each statement serves in its own context.
I certainly acknowledge that I am biased. No matter how I strive to read
just what the Lord says, no more and no less, I realize that my understanding
is crammed with fallacies. Yet what am I to do? If it seems clear to me that the
Lord in His Word is pointing strongly in one direction, am I to ignore this,
because the culture around me does not see it this way?
What if the common cultural view is myopic, and the Doctrine is pointing
out something that would be very helpful and protective to us if we could
grasp it and apply it? I would actually be hurting the Church and its people
if I do not stand by what the Lord seems to be saying. If I am wrong, then no
doubt the Lord will gradually lead the Church (and me with it) into fuller light
172