The Christian Church is not Christian
There, I’ve said it.
And it needs to be said.
Religions and churches are distinguished from each other primarily by their beliefs, and by the way their adherents live as guided by those beliefs. Most religions get their beliefs from their sacred literature, and from their great spiritual leaders and teachers.
Hinduism follows the Vedas, particularly the Upanishads.
Buddhism follows the teachings of Gautama Buddha.
Judaism follows the teachings of the books of Moses and the rest of the Hebrew Bible, as interpreted and expanded by many rabbinic teachers over the centuries.
Islam follows the teachings in the Qur’an, as delivered by its great prophet, Muhammad.
And Christianity follows the teachings of Jesus Christ in the Gospels, and of the Bible as a whole.
Only it doesn’t.
None of the key teachings of the vast bulk of Christian churches are taught anywhere in the Bible. Jesus Christ himself did not teach any of the beliefs that these churches have set up as their primary, distinguishing doctrines.
Are some of their members Christians? Certainly, if they live according to the teachings of Jesus Christ.
But the churches themselves are not Christian. They have long since abandoned the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Bible in favor of doctrines that human theologians and councils have invented over the centuries.
Let’s look at some of the major non-Christian teachings that are at the center of these “Christian” churches.
The Trinity of Persons is Not a Christian Teaching
The Trinity of Persons is not a Christian teaching.
The Trinity of Persons is taught by the vast bulk of churches that call themselves Christian, including the Orthodox churches in the Eastern tradition, and the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant churches in the Western tradition. In that loose sense, it could be called a “Christian” doctrine. But the Trinity of Persons is not taught by Jesus Christ in the Gospels, and it is not taught anywhere else in the Bible.
The Trinity of Persons did not come from the Bible. It came from various human theologians and councils, probably starting in the late second or early third century. It became official church doctrine at the First Council of Nicaea in the year 325 AD. This council was called by the Roman emperor Constantine, who personally presided over it.
Historians commonly say that Constantine, who was born and raised as a pagan polytheist, was the first Christian emperor, and converted the Roman Empire to Christianity. It would be more accurate to say that under Constantine, Christianity converted to pagan polytheism. Ever since, Christianity has worshiped three gods, called God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, while giving lip service to the idea that there is one God.
That’s why the Christian Church is not Christian. All of its other non-Christian beliefs are based on this fundamental belief in three gods.
For more on this please see:
- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
- Is the Doctrine of the Trinity Polytheistic?
- What is the Biblical basis for disbelief in the doctrine of the Trinity?
The Idea that Jesus’ Death Satisfied God the Father is Not Christian
Not long after the Great Schism that divorced Eastern and Western Christianity from each other in the year 1054, a new idea originated within the Western branch of Christianity. It was first presented in a book called Cur Deus Homo (“Why God was a Man”), whose author was a Catholic monk named Anselm. At the time he wrote the book, Anselm was serving as the archbishop of Canterbury in England.
Anselm was not happy with the theory of atonement that had reigned in Christianity for the first thousand years of its existence. That theory, sometimes called Christus Victor (“Christ the Victor”), held that Jesus saved us by defeating the Devil and thereby freeing us from slavery to the power of evil and sin.
In Cur Deus Homo, Anselm makes an elaborate rational argument in support of an entirely new theory, which became known as the satisfaction theory of atonement. God, Anselm argued, was offended by human sin, and required restitution for it. But fallen and sinful humans, he said, are not capable of providing that restitution. Therefore God’s Son, Jesus Christ, made the required restitution through his death on the cross. This death satisfied God’s need for restitution, thus redeeming sinful humans.
In Western Christianity, this new theory of atonement replaced the original Christian belief based on the Bible’s portrayal of Christ’s victory over the Devil. After Anselm originated satisfaction theory, it was further developed by theologians such as Peter Abelard and Thomas Aquinas into the present-day Catholic doctrine of atonement.
After the second great schism in Christianity, in which Protestantism divorced itself from the Roman Catholic Church, theologians such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Charles Hodge developed a distinctly Protestant form of satisfaction theory known as penal substitution. This is the idea that by his death on the cross Jesus Christ paid the penalty for human sins, thus satisfying God’s wrath at human beings for their sinfulness, and redeeming people who accept this “vicarious atonement” by having faith in Jesus.
There’s only one problem with satisfaction theory and its penal substitution variant: Jesus Christ does not teach it in the Gospels, nor does the Bible teach it anywhere else. That’s why Anselm used rational, not biblical, arguments to propose it in the first place.
The Bible never says that Christ’s death on the cross satisfied God’s justice, nor does it ever say that Christ paid the penalty for our sins. In fact, the Bible flatly rejects the whole idea that the suffering or punishment of an innocent person (in this case, Jesus Christ) could make up for the sins of a guilty person.
For more on this, please see:
- Did Jesus Really Die to Pay the Penalty for our Sins?
- The Faulty Foundations of Faith Alone – Part 5: Jesus Paid the Penalty For Our Sins?
- What about 2 Corinthians 5:21? Didn’t God make Christ to be sin for us?
In short, the Catholic and Protestant teaching that by his death on the cross God the Son satisfied the justice, or the wrath, of God the Father is not a Christian teaching.
That’s another reason why the Catholic and Protestant churches are not Christian, even if some of their members are.
The Belief that Only Christians are Saved is Not Christian
What could be more Christian than believing that you have to be a Christian and believe in Jesus Christ in order to be saved? Almost all of the “Christian” churches have taught this for hundreds or even thousands of years.
But this belief is not Christian
It is not Christian because it is not taught by Jesus Christ in the Gospels, nor is it taught anywhere else in the Bible. In fact, the two most prominent teachers in the New Testament, the Apostle Paul and Jesus Christ himself, both give very clear teachings about how non-Christians are saved.
Traditional Christians point to a number of verses in the Bible to support their idea that only Christians are saved. But even though some of these verses sort of sound like they say that, if you read them carefully and in context, you will find that they don’t actually say that only Christians are saved.
How could they, when in Matthew 25:31–46 Jesus teaches very clearly that people of all nations (not just the Christian nations) will go to eternal life if they do deeds of kindness for their fellow human beings in need? How could they, when in Romans 2:1–16 Paul teaches very clearly how Jews, “Greeks” (pagan polytheists) and Gentiles—none of whom are Christians—are saved through Jesus Christ if they do good deeds according to their own conscience?
As strange as it may sound, the fact that many churches teach that only Christians are saved is yet another reason why those churches are not Christian. They have rejected the teachings of Jesus and his Apostles about who is saved, and have substituted their own human ideas.
For more on this, please see:
- Is Jesus Christ the Only Way to Heaven?
- Did Jesus ever actually say, “If you don’t believe in me you will go to hell”?
- Does John 3:18 Mean that All Non-Christians Go to Hell?
Faith Alone is Not Christian
Four or five centuries after Anselm originated the non-Christian satisfaction theory of atonement, another Catholic monk, Martin Luther, originated his own non-Christian theory: justification by faith alone. Ever since then, Protestants of every denomination have viewed salvation by faith alone as the most important teaching of the Bible.
Except the Bible doesn’t teach it.
In fact, the term “faith alone” appears only once in the Bible, and in that one place it is specifically rejected:
You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. (James 2:24)
That’s why Martin Luther made an effort to remove the book of James from the Bible, along with three other New Testament books. Fortunately, he didn’t succeed. However, his Protestant followers have written thousands of sermons and articles crammed full of ingenious arguments as to why James didn’t really mean what he said.
If somewhere else the Bible did say that we are justified by faith alone, there might be some basis for their arguments. But it doesn’t. Neither Jesus nor Paul nor any other teacher in the New Testament says that we are saved by faith alone. Paul could have said it. He had the vocabulary and the writing skill to say it. But he never did say it. That’s because Paul believed no such thing.
And that’s why no Christian for the first 1,500 years of Christian history believed that we are saved by faith alone. It wasn’t until Luther invented this idea as the doctrinal cornerstone of his break from the Roman Catholic Church that an entire branch of Christianity came to believe this unbiblical and non-Christian doctrine.
The simple fact of the matter is that not only do Jesus and the Bible as a whole not teach this doctrine, but the Bible specifically rejects it. That’s why churches that teach this doctrine are not Christian.
For more on this, please see:
- Faith Alone Does Not Save . . . No Matter How Many Times Protestants Say It Does
- Faith Alone Is Not Faith
- Doesn’t Ephesians 2:8–9 Teach Faith Alone?
Christians Follow the Teachings of Jesus Christ
There are many more doctrines taught by traditional Christian churches that Jesus never taught, and that are not taught anywhere else in the Bible. But this should be enough to establish that the churches that claim to be Christian are Christian in name only. The reality is that these churches are not Christian at all. Over the centuries they have abandoned the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Bible, and have replaced them with human ideas and traditions
Many Protestants even have the audacity to argue that there is no need to listen to the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels because, they claim, they are part of the Old Covenant, and do not apply to people living under the New Covenant. By openly rejecting Jesus’ teachings, they are passing judgment upon themselves that they are not Christians. Christians follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.
The Christian Church is not Christian. It has stepped right into the shoes of the religious leaders of Jesus’ day, of whom Christ himself said in Matthew 15:6–9:
So, for the sake of your tradition, you make void the word of God. You hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied rightly about you when he said:
This people honors me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me;
in vain do they worship me,
teaching human precepts as doctrines.
For the sequel to this article, please see:
The Christian Church is Coming to an End
For further reading:
- Christianity is Dead. Long Live Christianity!
- Today’s Christianity: Vastly Void of Truth
- “Christian Beliefs” that the Bible Doesn’t Teach
- Christian Beliefs that the Bible Does Teach
- Who is God? Who is Jesus Christ? What about that Holy Spirit?
- Is Jesus Christ the Only Way to Heaven?
- The Logic of Love: Why God became Jesus
Share this:
Lee Woofenden is an ordained minister, writer, editor, translator, and teacher. He enjoys taking spiritual insights from the Bible and the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg and putting them into plain English as guides for everyday life.
Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life 
Agreed
Excellent for provoking thought and stirring the status quo. Never mind the overt narcissistic, worldly, health and wealth, entertainment oriented who are like 90% of churches today if they are honest.
Anyway, any thoughts on the Orthodox/Oriental and Eastern Church?
Hi Peter,
Thanks for stopping by, and for your comment. What you say is especially true of the so-called Prosperity Gospel churches. How materialistic and wealth-oriented can you get?
I don’t know a lot about the Orthodox/Oriental and Eastern Church. I’d like to know more. Doctrinally, I think they are less far from my own faith than Catholicism and Protestantism, though they do still believe in the Trinity of Persons, which we reject. But I also know that at least some of their branches are quite corrupt, such as the Russian Orthodox Church, which has become little more than an arm of the Russian government.
Lee while some things mentioned here are correct. Some aren’t. 1st Christ became the sacrifice for ignorant sins. So he replaced the replaced the sacrifice for ignorant sins but go back and read numbers 15:27-30. There was never an offering for willful sins. As stated in Hebrews 10 there remains no more sacrifice for sins if we sin willfully. The law that Christ fulfilled was a school master to bring us into Christ which was the law of animal sacrifice. So now people don’t have to sacrifice animals for their ignorant sins. As Paul wrote it was added because of transgressions but if they willfully sin there was never a sacrifice for that in the first place so they’re going to die for their sins anyway. Also I read somewhere else that you believe in going to heaven. Only person that desires to go to heaven in the Bible is Satan. In psalm 132 God says he desires to live in Zion and he shall dwell there forever. Mt Zion is in Jerusalem. In revelation John saw the new Jerusalem coming down from God out of heaven and Jesus is supposed to sit on David’s throne which is in Jerusalem. Why are you desiring to go to heaven when God’s desire is to live on earth? Are you unknowingly following an angel who was kicked out of heaven and desires to return because he’s the one that desires to return there.
Also if you go to church on Sunday that didn’t come from God. March 7th 321 AD Constantine who was a sun worshiper made Sunday a day of rest. If you’re Christian you should’ve been having holy convocation on the same day Christ did. Which as it’s written as his custom was he went into the synagogue on the sabbath and stood up to read. Christmas isn’t from God either. That is saturnalia and tree worship with Christ name on it. Most of the modern day Christian traditions are Godly or were commanded from God. If you are already aware of these things that is good. But I’m not sure how you can read the Bible and believe you’re going to heaven when it never said that. Or even suggested it.
Hi Daniel,
Thanks for stopping by, and for your comment.
My general reaction is that all of your opinions are earthly and materialistic in nature. They are based on paying attention to the letter that kills rather than to the spirit that gives life. The flesh counts for nothing; the words that the Lord speaks—which are all the words of the Word of God—are spirit and life.
It is true that willful sin cannot be atoned for through sacrifice, whether it is an animal sacrifice or Christ’s sacrifice. The only way willful sin can be atoned for is through repentance, as Jesus taught. If we sin willfully, and do not repent of it, then we have chosen evil, which is choosing eternal death, meaning hell. In that case, no sacrifice will save us.
Reading Psalm 132 literally is also focusing on the letter that kills and the flesh that counts for nothing. Here is the verse starting with the statement you mention:
If we take this literally, it means that God has been resting at the Muslim Dome of the Rock ever since it was built in the late 7th century. That is the building that now occupies Zion, which in its most specific sense is the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. If we take Zion in its broadest sense, as representing the entire Holy Land, then God has dwelt for 2,000 years in a land where were very few Jews or Christians lived until the mid-20th century, but mostly pagans for six or seven centuries, and after that mostly Muslims.
Christians have long taken Zion not literally, but figuratively, as representing the spiritual kingdom of God, and Jesus himself as the living embodiment of the Temple of God. This is the Zion in which God will rest forever, not the physical Zion on which a Muslim shrine now stands.
Only a literal, fleshly reading of the Bible results in a belief that we will live eternally on the physical earth, not in heaven.
Which day of the week we celebrate the Sabbath on is also a matter for literalists to argue, not for people who have the spirit and life of Christ in them. The Sabbath was made for humans, not humans for the Sabbath.
However, if you wish to remain in a physical-minded understanding of the Scriptures, you are free to do so. If that is how you choose to read the Bible, no amount of argument and debate will convince you otherwise. In that case, I wish you the blessings of God on your way, and have no desire to debate these things with you.
Hi Lee, I agree with how you have detailed several ways in which Christian Churches are not Christian. One thing that I recently discovered is that Justification by Faith alone, although it was a touchstone of Luther’s Reformation was something that was being discussed in the literature of the Holy Catholic Church prior to the Reformation. In The Mirror of Simple Souls, by Marguerite Porete first published @1300 AD Marguerite writes this about Faith Alone:
“That they save themselves by faith without works,” and “that they can no more work,” it is not meant they they cease from all good works for evermore, and never do any work, but sit in sloth and idleness of soul and body; for those who take it so, they misunderstood it; but it is thus. God is enhabited in them and worketh in them, and these souls suffer him to work his divine works in them. What this work is, and how it is, love showeth it in this book; and whatever the bodies of these souls do of outward deed, the souls that be thus high set, take not so great regard to these works that they save themselves thereby, but only trust to the goodness of God, and so they save them by faith, and believe not nor trust not in their own works, but in all, in God’ goodness.” pg. 30 and 31.
By which I believe the author speaks of such a total and complete trust in God that any good works done must be ascribed to God at work within the individual. So that the individual would take no credit for the work that God does through them.
Thank you, again for above blog entry. I have already shared it with a friend!
Hi Chris,
Good to hear from you again, old friend. Glad you enjoyed the article.
After Martin Luther invented the doctrine of justification by faith alone, an army of Protestants went through centuries of Christian literature with a fine-toothed comb looking for it there. Of course, they found it—even though it wasn’t there. Just as they found it in the Bible even though it isn’t there.
When Paul spoke of being justified by faith without “works,” he meant “the works of the Law,” as he made clear elsewhere, and is clear from the context every time he says it. In other words, he meant that it was not necessary to be an observant Jew. He also meant that we are now saved by an inner dedication to the Lord and to doing the Lord’s will, rather than by mere external observances that may or may not have an inner attitude of faith in the Lord behind them.
The quote from Marguerite Porete is saying the same thing. It doesn’t say that we are saved by faith alone, or even that we are saved by faith without good works (something Paul never says). It says that the good works we do come from the Lord working in us, and not from our own selves. If we think the good works come from ourselves, then we are taking credit for them—credit that belongs to the Lord, who gives us both the ability and the power to do those good works. He is the vine, we are the branches. Without him we can do nothing.
Exactly. What Marguerite is saying struck me as both true and beautiful.
Some would say that the church made Paul into an enigma by including books in the Canon of the New Testament that were not penned by Paul but ascribed to him non-the-less. We have the Paul of Galatians who makes a strong statement of equality, “There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3:28.
Yet in the book,1st Corinthians, Just one chapter apart we get Paul’s famous “Love” Quote: 1 Corinthians 13:4-8
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Followed In the very next chapter by:
1 Corinthians 14:34 “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.” And again in 1 Timothy 2:12-13 “And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.”
Though I digress, and am off topic, for which I apologize, might I ask; what is up with Paul?
Hi Chris,
Paul was a complicated character.
Also, as you say, scholars think that only about half of the letters attributed to Paul in the New Testament were actually written by him. This makes things even more complicated. However, even if they weren’t written by Paul, it’s fairly likely they were written under his influence, and some of them might have even been written under his direction.
For the big picture on Paul, please see:
Jesus Changed Paul’s World
It is a mistake to read Paul—as many Christians do—with the idea that Paul was intending to write scriptures to be read thousands of years into the future. No. He was writing letters to various churches and individuals. Those letters dealt largely with specific issues, disturbances, questions, and debates that were going on in the individual churches and in the general body of the early Christian church. If he (or his followers) write different things to different churches, that probably reflects the issues and cultures in the particular churches. Reading these bits of advice given in specific situations at a specific time and place in history as if they are grand pronouncements intended to stand for all times in all cultures is a serious mistake.
About his views on women and marriage, this, too, is in the context of a particular culture. In that culture, it was simply assumed that women were of lower status than men, and subject to men’s will. That’s just how the culture worked. It never entered people’s minds to question it. So when Paul talks about women being submissive to men, not teaching men, and so on, the subtext is that he is telling his followers to behave properly, according to the idea of proper behavior that existed in that culture. Once again, reading these statements as if they are grand, over-arching pronouncements meant to stand for all times, in all cultures, is a serious mistake. For more on this, please see:
“Wives, submit to your husbands.”
There is plenty more that could be said about Paul, but this is enough for now. I hope you find the linked articles helpful.
The problem with this Protestant explanation of works (apart from the fact they did not know Paul for the most part was speaking of the works of the Mosaic rituals) is that Protestants still have a tendency now to make the will of the person PASSIVE. And they wait for some external force to move their hands. The explanation is, the Holy Spirit does the work through us, and emphasis is still placed on trust, belief, that is mere thinking that something is true.
What is missed, and Swedenborg emphasized, is that we must do AS IF from ourselves, but recognize that it is God who works through us as He is the sole source of good, not our egos. The point is, we are not just a brain, but God gave us a body for a reason – to act upon the truth. Then the door is opened.
Trusting that factual knowledge is true does not save. When you act upon it in what you do in life, by being useful and of service to others, then that saves.
Hi Doug,
Thanks for your good thoughts. It’s good to hear from you again.
since the gospel of the death of the Christ is revealed in the very first Hebrew word of the Bible I cannot agree with that aspect a[though I agree with your statement regarding the churches. Similarly, the Trinity appears in the first chapter of the book of Leviticus so that is why I a, a Trinitarian.
Hi Dennis,
Thanks for stopping by, and for your comment. Certainly Christ’s death was a part of his saving work. But pinning all of redemption and salvation on the crucifixion is not biblical. Especially when it leads to ignoring everything he taught during his life, as many Protestants do.
The first word of the Hebrew bible is breshith, “In the beginning.” Leviticus 1 provides the first round of instructions on offering sacrifices to the Lord. I do not see how these have anything to do with the Trinity. The Christian Trinity does not appear in the Old Testament.
“Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures…” 1 Cor.15:1-4]
Hi Lee, Great article! I’m in total agreement with it. Many are now using the above text as a cornerstone of salvation without fully understanding what it means. The death, burial and resurrection of Jesus is proof to all Mankind that He is indeed the Lord and God of all heaven and earth. This is what we must believe in order to receive eternal life. Eternal life IS the love of God, in our souls, that enables us to obey the Lord’s commandments. Obeying the Lord’s commandments is how the love of God manifests itself is us. We cannot love the Lord Jesus Christ, by keeping His commandments unless we have His life flowing continuously into our souls from His very Person.
Believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, is how we’re born of the Spirit of God. This is how we receive the love of God we need to keep God’s commandments. This is why John said: “Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God…For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome.” [1 John 5:1,3]
The Lord’s commandments are not burdensome, which means they’re not difficult to keep. Why? Because the love of God that we need to keep them is being given to us by the Lord Himself. We must BELIEVE in order to OBEY. Christians who don’t obey are NOT believing in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ at all.
For when we truly believe, we receive the gift of eternal life, which is the love of God, to obey God’s commandments! “…this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments.” [1John 5:3]
The Lord said: He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me…If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word…” [John 14:21,23]
We can only love the Lord with the very love that He Himself gives us AFTER believing that He IS the Christ, Son of God, the One Who died, was buried and rose again the third day to breath the breathe of eternal life into our very souls, just like He did to the disciples. “So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” [John 20:21,22]
Those who think that believing has replaced obeying are very much mistaken. Paul did not teach this. The law that has been abolish, which Paul often wrote about, are the rituals of the law. These are the Laws to do animal sacrifices and circumcisions. In Christ, we’re not under these laws. We are, however, expected to keep the ten commandments. In Christ these commandments have been summarised into two! We’re to love our Lord and God, Jesus Christ and we’re to love our neighbour as ourselves. The keeping of God’s commandments is the evidence that we have eternal life now. It’s the proof that the love of God is flowing into our hearts through the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit.”…the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us.” [Rom.5:5]
Hi Ola Ilori,
Thanks for stopping by, and for your good thoughts. I’m glad you found the article congenial and enlightening. Godspeed on your spiritual journey!
Hi Lee,
Swedenborg in “Arcana Caelestia” mentioned different churches that existed during human history: Spiritual Church, Ancient Church, Jewish Church and so on. As far as I understand, a need for a new church appeared because a man during his history more and more distanced himself from God. A man couldn’t understand the teaching of a previous Church, and he needed to get simplified and rude teaching, i.e. new church. Is that so? If so, then current people need more simplified teaching than e.g. Apostolic Church. So, we should not be very happy due to the fact that New church appeared, because it means that a man degraded and a church appeared appropriate to his degraded feelings and understanding. What do you think?
P.S. What are terms of use for the blog? Is it allowed to republish or translate your posts? Who are the authors? – a person who posted?
Hi Vitaly,
In response to your questions about the blog:
All of the articles here are original pieces written mostly by me. I say “mostly” because my wife Annette has written a few sections of a few articles, although she will not allow me to credit her. She also reads and edits most, but not all, of the articles before they go live.
General copyright law does cover the material here. However, we do not mind if material here is occasionally republished for special purposes as long it is not for sale or profit. We ask that the author be listed as Lee Woofenden, and that a prominent link be provided back to the original article. However, we much prefer that other websites publish only excerpts, and refer the reader to the original article for the full version.
An exception is translating the articles into another language for non-English-speaking audiences. However, even in this case we ask that the translation include a prominent link back to the original article here on Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life. And of course, it should still not be for commercial, for-profit use, such as publishing it in a book and selling it.
Our main goal is that this material reach a wide audience. But it is best, I believe, to send people to the original source rather than shunting them off to secondary sources. For example, the articles here are heavily cross-linked to related articles so that readers who are interested in the subject can continue to learn more if they wish.
Thank you Lee,
Maybe I will publish Russian translation of this article or other your post, I don’t know for now, because my website is not about religion or philosophy and only a few people would read it. Anyway I will let you know if I publish.
Hi Vitaly,
Yes, that would be fine. Just let me know, and do please link back to the original article.
Speaking of Russian, in case you aren’t already aware of it, a number of Swedenborg’s works have been translated into Russian, and are available online here:
https://newchristianbiblestudy.org/swedenborg/?l=363
Hi Lee,
I know about newchristianbiblestudy.org and looked into Russian, English and Latin texts there. Unfortunately some Russian translations of Swedenborg use strange Russian language: with archaisms, polonisms, one original Latin term (e.g. usus, affectio, influxus) can be translated with different Russian words in one text, etc.
Hi Vitaly,
This is a common problem in translations of Swedenborg’s works into various languages. Even many of the old English translations are hard to read for ordinary English speakers.
Hi Vitaly,
Now to answer your main question.
Yes, Swedenborg spoke of a series of spiritual ages of humanity, though the idea is not original to him. In Swedenborg’s schema, there have been four previous ages, and we are now at the beginning of the fifth and final age. You can read more about them in these two articles:
Why did God Wait So Long to Come Down as Christ?
“The World is Going to Hell in a Handbasket!”
It’s a little more complicated—and hopeful—than each age being worse than the last. That was true for the first three, up to the time of the Incarnation. But since then, humanity has been going up rather than down.
However, Swedenborg does say that each individual age goes through a series represented by the seasons or the time of day, starting with dawn, moving to midday, then declining to evening and finally ending in a spiritual night time before the dawn of the next age. This was so, he said, for the earliest (traditionally “most ancient”) age or “church,” the ancient, the Israelitish/Jewish, and the (first) Christian age.
Apparently the new church that is now beginning, represented by the New Jerusalem in the book of Revelation, will not have that kind of decline. However, there’s still an awful lot of human history in front of us. Our great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren might have a word or two to say about this!
When I talk to “Christians”, I typically ask what it takes to be a “Christian”. Of course, there’s a lot of different answers, but the general gist is:
Jesus Christ died for our sins, resurrected, and was the son of God, and God.
So many questions to ask, so little answers. No need to answer these, I’m just giving out examples.
“So, if he resurrected, where is he now?”
“Did Jesus become anointed after his resurrection, or before? If he was anointed before, how did people know he was God before his resurrection? If he was anointed after, and was the son of God, and himself God, then why would he need to be anointed? Who anointed Jesus, anyway?”
“What did Jesus teach? Is Jesus’s death and resurrection more important than his teachings? Why isn’t ‘Christianity’ about Jesus’s teachings, instead of his death and resurrection?”
“Why does no one in the Bible have last names? Seems like it would be important information to have.”
“Why is there no Gospel of Jesus? Why is it always secondhand accounts?”
“If Jesus died for our sins, wouldn’t being resurrected negate that entire premise? Since Jesus didn’t really die (if you can resurrect yourself, then you can’t really die), he didn’t really die for our sins, anyway”
“Jesus died for our sins, but he never mentioned that the only way to atone for our sins was to believe in him. He gave no ultimatum. He didn’t say, ‘I died for your sins, but only if you believe in me’, and if he did, Jesus himself didn’t give an account of himself saying it.”
“What’s more important, Jesus’s teachings, or Jesus’s death and resurrection?”
“What happened to the Old Testament God during the New Testament? He sure was quiet.”
“Why isn’t the Biblical God doing what he did back then, now? Is he on vacation? Is he just tired of meddling?”
“Who edited and published the Bible(s)? Why would God need editors and publishers, anyway?”
I will have to disagree with your title. The Christian church is Christian… it just has nothing to do with Jesus. Something for you to figure out. Why didn’t Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, (including Plato, and Pythagoras – Pythagoras as having started secret societies and mystery schools – and being the Prince of Lies and The Man Behind the Curtain as stated by Heraclitus) ever write anything?
Hi Ebon,
Thanks for stopping by, and for your long and question-filled comment. There are good answers to all of these, but for now I’ll focus on what it takes to be a Christian. There are many opinions about this, most of which have to do with believing the right thing. But Jesus himself answered your question quite differently:
Unfortunately for the institutional Christian Church, Christ’s own criteria for “membership” doesn’t lend itself to neat categorization of who’s in and who’s out. Therefore within a few centuries of Christ’s life on earth, the so-called Christian Church adopted various doctrinal formulas, such as the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed, to use as litmus tests. But that has nothing to do with what Jesus Christ taught.
Yes, to be Christian we must follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. That is why the Christian Church has not been Christian for many centuries, as covered in the above article. And the cornerstone of Jesus’ teachings is love for God and for our fellow human beings. He stated this clearly and explicitly. Here is how it is recorded in the Gospel of Matthew:
Living by these commandments is what makes a person a follower of Christ, and a Christian.
Feel free to continue the conversation if you would like to discuss this, or any of your other questions, further.
Seems like a nugget of Truth in a sea of lies, the Bible, if that’s all that’s really needed. I will agree, though. Not in any particular order, as the first is useless if the second does not occur, and the second cannot occur if the first does not exist. Although, the Lord your God in scripture is referenced to Sabaoth, the God of the Jews, the father of the Devil – according to the Archontics/Gnostics. The easiest concept the Lord your God is Freedom, and the opposite of that would be Control. Love cannot exist without Freedom. Alan Watts, when discussing Eastern Philosophy, provides a good example.
Hi Ebon,
About the Old Testament God vs. the New Testament God, please see:
What is the Wrath of God? Why was the Old Testament God so Angry, yet Jesus was so Peaceful?
I was raised a Catholic and, like George Carlin, abandoned ship as soon as I reached the age of reason (in my cas around age seven in 1954). It was the lack of Christ and God in the teachings and conduct that drove me away from the fold. I found the Sermon on the Mount quite inspiring, even if the nuns, brothers and priests seemed to have no knowledge of its import. Canadian ex-priesr the late Tom Harpur’s book “The Pagan Christ” had a big impact on me by convincing me that the story of the incarnation of Christ the person is an invention for the purpose of crowd control. The whole thing, he maintains, was purl;oined from earlier Egyptian scriptures. Harpur explains that the Christos (the Christ within) was around long before the year Christ the Man-God is alleged to have appeared and that the concept is far more plausible than the story Freud called infantile. I warmed to Jung’s idea of the subconscious mind as our God connection. Mine tells me that Harpur was right on the money as far as truths go. The Christus or Divine Self is in each of us, and the more we subject suborfinate it to the literal account of the incarnated Christ the Savior the less spiritual it becomes. To me, the idea of Christianity as a religion run by a bureaucracy becomes just one more farcical fake we moderns have to cope with in a collapsing “civilization”. The book that drew me to read Harpure was one penned during WW2 by J. Middleton Murry called ‘The Betrayal Of Christ By The Churches’. Written just before I was born and read by me in my early forties, no book had so vindicated what my higher mind knew as truth. I can understand why the oxymoron called Christian Right is just a recent extension of the Betrayal Murry wrote about. If Christ was an Essene, he was of the Christian Left, not a neo-Fascist. Today, the word “Christian” makes me cringe whenever I hear or read it. Do you think I need to see a good shrink? Or should he come and see me? Regards, Laurie.
Hi Laurie,
Thanks for stopping by, and for telling your story.
One of the biggest tragedies of the fact that the churches that call themselves “Christian” are not actually Christian is that they have driven millions of thoughtful, good-hearted people away from Jesus Christ. This seems to be the fate that befell you because you were brought up Catholic.
The whole “crowd control” thing and religion as the opiate of the masses (Marx) is also based on the fact that the churches that call themselves Christian are not actually Christian. These so-called Christian churches use the Bible to impose control over people. But they can do this only because, as you noticed with the Catholic nuns, brothers, and priests, they do not pay any attention to what the Bible itself says. They impose meanings on it that are entirely foreign to the Bible’s own meaning and message.
Nothing about Jesus’ original message helps at all with “crowd control.” In fact, one of the reasons he was executed, from the Roman point of view, is that he was stirring up the crowds and creating instability for the Roman rulers. So much for Jesus as “crowd control.”
And yes, there were foreshadowings of Christ, including stories of virgin births, in various prior religions and mythologies. The Old Testament itself contains prophecies and foreshadowings of Christ’s birth. This doesn’t invalidate the Virgin Birth any more than the opener for a famous comedian invalidates the comedian. One is a lesser version of the other.
And in my view, Jesus’ sayings, if you read them without ideological lenses, do not provide much support either for the Right or for the Left. That’s because they are really about spiritual life, not about political clashes. Neither the present-day Christian Right or Christian Left are really Christian because instead of loving one another, as Christ said his disciples would do (John 13:34–35), they hate one another and fight with one another.
I do agree with you about the deeper spiritual and divine meanings of the Christ story. But I also don’t think this invalidates Christ as a historical person—which most scholars, including secular scholars, agree that he was, even if they don’t believe in the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection. If two people who love each other make love, their physical lovemaking expresses their inner love for one another. Just so, Jesus Christ’s literal life as a human being on earth expresses God’s love for us. This is the basis for my own belief in Jesus Christ, which I invite you to read about in this article:
The Logic of Love: Why God became Jesus
These are my thoughts. You, of course, are entirely free to believe what makes the most sense to you, and what helps you to live a good life. No shrink required! 😛
If you read the writings of Swedenborg, it will be shown that both the Catholic and Protestant churches became corrupt to the core – the Catholics using religion for power (they still do, as the priesthood is considered higher authority than the Word), and Protestants falsely making faith one of belief alone without regard to how one lives. Which is why a new revelation had to be given, and what makes the New Church different is that it is a rational spirituality – you do not need to reject or ignore reason, but in fact true spirituality is one which is in complete agreement with reason. If a teaching is irrational or does not make sense, it is probably a false one. I was always careful to reject the modern churches, but never Jesus Christ, and finding the writings of Swedenborg was a literal Godsend for me as it answered all my questions.
As for books such as “The Pagan Christ” – what Swedenborg was shown is that long before Moses or the foundation of Judaism there was an Ancient Church spread out through the Middle East, and the revelation was kept in the form of the writings and rituals of ancient Egypt. That is why researchers keep finding parallels between ancient myths and modern Christianity – its because these myths contain ancient truths that were corrupted by idolatry. Its not that Christ was a myth (which no historian would accept), rather they got their research completely backwards. I have similar books in my library.
As for Carl Jung, and modern psychology – Jung borrowed many of his ideas from the writings of Swedenborg himself.
We are all the product of somebody’s making. Somebody shaped your mind to think the way you are set to think. Why can we just live and teach what WE think to be true and love one another. And stop trashing each other and let God take care of the whole thing. Do you not think God can speak to someone that is truly sincere about Him and turn them around? If your words speak love, people will receive it
Hi Mona,
Thanks for stopping by, and for your comment.
Yes, that’s what it’s all about. Loving God and loving one another is the essence of Christianity, and of every religion.
Unfortunately, over the centuries religions get corrupted so that instead of lifting people up, they are trampling people down. That is what happened to Christianity. And its beliefs got corrupted along with the church itself.
It would be nice if it were true that “All there is is love.” But there’s a lot of other stuff, too, including falsity, evil, and hate. We can’t just stand by and let those things take over the world.
Hi Lee,
I was wondering why do Catholics have a Pope? I seen a day after Easter, Pope Francis died and people were talking about him as if he was the “chosen one” by God. Granted he seemed a lot better than past Popes and lived modestly, advocated for those less fortunate and being more inclusive. But why is there even a Pope in the first place? It seems whoever that is gets a lot of say of what’s right and what’s wrong but the Bible doesn’t change it’s only those who interpret it wrongly are the ones who change it. And besides we are all children of God, it’s not like God has favorites and dislikes others? But I’ve seen even in smaller church groups to even southern mega churches the leaders always being revered as the “chosen one” as well.
Thank you Lee
Hi Sam,
Our churches here on earth are human institutions, not divine ones. God didn’t found the Catholic Church; people did. And the people that formed the Catholic Church organized it according to their own beliefs about what a church institution should be like.
The Catholic Church in particular is very hierarchical, having various tiers of rank from the Pope to cardinals to priests to deacons and so on, not to mention monks and nuns, head monks and head nuns, and so on. We humans commonly arrange our organizations in hierarchical fashion, putting leaders at the top and followers at the bottom, and a whole bunch of middle management in between. It’s just how we do things to keep things running smoothly. The Catholic Church is no exception.
The Catholic Church is an example of a church institution that has an episcopal form of government, meaning a centralized, hierarchical, clergy-run structure. The other common form of church government is the congregational form of government, which is more decentralized, locally run, and usually has a mixed clergy and lay governing structure. Even within the organized New Church, some branches use an episcopal form of government and others use a congregational form of government. These are just different ways that groups of people who have different cultures and mindsets organize their church institutions.
Personally, I grew up in a congregationally organized church, and I prefer that form of church government. Others grew up in episcopally organized churches, and prefer that form of church government. The Catholic Church is nothing special in the grand scheme of things. It’s just the largest episcopally-run Christian body in the world. The Pope has influence because he’s the head of that body. But it’s still a human institution, not a divine one.
Having said that, it’s important for people who belong to the various churches to have respect for and even deference to the people who run their church. If they lose respect for their leaders, they can no longer worship in that church in peace and confidence. So it’s best for people who choose to be part of a particular church organization to give their leaders respect, unless the leaders blatantly violate the moral and ethical principles of the church and of the wider society—in which case those leaders must be removed from their positions, or it will lead to the destruction of the church.
Hi Lee,
Thank you for the clarification, it’s very interesting and of course as always, I learned something new! I never realize how Catholicism is just a way things are run and how there are different variations of that like congregationally organized. So different sects are just different forms of government. And that also make sense as well reading the leaders of that church if there is no respect or trust than you really can’t worship in peace or have any confidence in what is being said. Swedenborg’s hierarchy of loves would be a great way to tell if a church organization is for love of God and service to people than the opposite of it flipped on its head.
Also, just out of curiosity I’ve always wondered this as well, why is the country of Israel and Jewish people as well are always regarded as special or again “chosen ones”? Like I always see a ton of commercials on TV with US politicians saying the need to help Jewish people (even though it’s good that it’s helping those in need) or how Israel must come first and I even saw people here fly Israel flags despite them having no connection to the country? I understand that was the location of Jesus but it’s still only a physical location that God chose at the time to have the greatest impact? All people regardless of their background Muslims or others religions are all ways of God’s Divine Providence at work in different ways (of course not all are good but God allows it to bring good out of it) so why the huge emphasis on Israel and Jewish people? Like I saw in NYC and even in Israel how Jewish people were harassing the Palestinians and throwing disgusting things on them but if it’s the reverse people around here would be up and arms. No violence or hate from any group should be tolerated, that’s the exact opposite of what God commands. But we should be helping all those who are in need not just the emphasis on certain groups? I was always curious by this.
Thank you again Lee
Hi Sam,
About the Jews and Israel, of course Jews themselves think of themselves as God’s chosen people because that is a strong theme in the Hebrew Bible. The narrative parts of the Old Testament are all about how God chose Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and their descendants as God’s special people, brought them into the Holy Land, established the Temple there, and so on. Since most Jews do not believe in any spiritual meaning in the Scriptures (though the small line of Jewish Kabbalists do), they interpret everything in their Scriptures (our Old Testament) literally, and believe that God will literally restore Israel and make Israel the ruler not just of the Holy Land, but of the entire world. This is the source of much of the fanaticism of Jewish Zionists.
Most Christians, meanwhile, also do not believe in any spiritual meaning in the Bible, and also interpret it mostly in a literal fashion. They therefore commonly believe that Israel must literally be restored before the Last Judgment and Second Coming of Christ, based on certain rather obscure statements and prophecies in the Bible taken literally rather than spiritually. This is why so many Christians, especially fundamentalist and evangelical ones, support Israel so strongly. Ironically, though they reject Judaism and believe that the Jews will all be damned to hell if they don’t accept Christ and become Christian, they still support Israel because they believe it is part of God’s plan in bringing about the end times.
From a Swedenborgian point of view, all of this is completely materialistic and mistaken. In our view, of course, the Last Judgment and Second Coming have already happened, but they happened spiritually, not literally. We read all of the prophecies of the restoration of Israel as prophecies of the restoration of God’s church, not as prophecies of the restoration of an earthly kingdom of Israel in Palestine. So we have no particular warrant or need to think that there is anything special or spiritual about the reconstituting of Israel as a nation in 1948, and the subsequent events in and around it.
In reality, the Kingdom of Israel can never be restored literally in the way it is prophesied in the Bible, for many reasons, such as:
Many more problems and issues could be listed, but these are enough to give you the idea.
Zionist Jews of various sects and perspectives have dealt with these problems in various ways in their minds, but the reality is that it is just not possible for Israel to be literally restored in the way that is prophesied in the Bible. These prophecies are meant to be read spiritually, as being about spiritual things, not literally, as being about literal kings and nations and peoples.
However, since much of the world, including many of the current churches and religions, are still very materialistic and literalistic in their mindset and thinking, many Jews and Christians alike continue to believe that there is a special significance to Israel, and that the current restored nation of Israel is a special part of God’s plan for the end times, which they believe could come “any day now.”
For more than you ever wanted to know about the Jews and the Holy Land from a Swedenborgian perspective, see the references to Secrets of Heaven in The New Jerusalem #248. On this subject specifically, see especially the references on this point: “Because of the stubborn insistence of their ancestors and Moses, the Israelite and Jewish people were accepted as a church, not because they actually were a chosen people but rather so that they would symbolize a church.”
Unfortunately, due I think to the very negative view of Jews that was common in Swedenborg’s day, and that is still common among many people today, Swedenborg was, I think, overly harsh in his condemnation of the Jews. He wasn’t wrong about the Jews being a largely external and materialistic religion. But I don’t think this makes them any worse than most of the people on this earth, who are also largely external and materialistic. So it’s best, I think, not to put too much weight on Swedenborg’s harsh words about Jews and the Jewish nation.
The balancing teaching is that in contrast to nearly all Christians in times past, and even most Christians today, according to Swedenborg’s teachings Jews who live a good life of love and kindness to their neighbor according to their own religion will go to heaven, not to hell, after they die. It’s just that the very antisemitic atmosphere of Swedenborg’s day did affect and tinge his attitude toward Jews. So this is something to be aware of in reading the passages linked from New Jerusalem #248.
My own view is that both the Jews and the Muslims in the Middle East are acting very badly. They hate each other and attack each other, which is contrary to the better version of their own religions. Islam is supposed to be a religion of peace, but fundamentalist Muslims have made it into a religion of war. Israel, according to the prophecies in the Hebrew Bible itself, was supposed to be a blessing to all the nations, but instead the modern state of Israel has been fighting with all its neighboring countries right from the beginning, and has required the intervention of the U.S. and other outside nations to make peace with any of them at all. I believe that both Judaism and Islam have lost their way because they are focusing on the letter that kills rather than on the spirit that gives life (2 Corinthians 3:6).
Hi Lee,
Thank you kindly again for all the information and clarification, very interesting and helpful to finally understand why! I remember asking this question before to family members a long time ago but could never get an actual answer, it was either straight atheist materialism or an answer that skirts around the question and totally missed the mark. But it’s horrible how astray and far religious teachings of almost all kinds are taken over by materialism. If only spiritual text were actually used and interpret correctly how the whole world would be in a much better place, how God intended it to be. To focus on our eternal spiritual lives we are cultivating here on earth (either choosing Heaven or Hell) rather than worrying about earthly things that will have no bearing when we cross over, since we can only take with us what’s spiritual and nothing physical/earthly.
And I will definitely keep that in mind when reading those passages in The New Jerusalem with reference to Secrets of Heaven as well. It’s always super helpful to have that knowledge prior before diving deep into the passages!
Thank you kindly again Lee
Hi Sam,
Yes, it is very unfortunate how materialistic our world has become. Its religions have simply adapted themselves to the materialism of the human mind and heart.
According to Swedenborg, other inhabited planets in the universe are nowhere near as materialistic as ours is. Yes, they live in the natural environment of their planets, eating, drinking, working, sleeping, reproducing, and so on. But to them, these things are simply expressions of and foundation for developing their spiritual life. And as you say, that is something we take with us when we die, unlike all the material possessions we have amassed, which stay right here on earth.
The other day my article “Swedenborg’s Solution to the Fermi Paradox” came to mind in this connection. People on this planet just assume that any intelligent civilization would of course follow the same technological track that we have followed, developing science, industry, rockets, and eventually Von Neumann probes that would replicate themselves throughout the galaxy. Since we don’t see any evidence of technology anywhere we look with our telescopes and spacecraft, and the whole universe around us looks like an untouched “wilderness,” many people think this means we must be the only intelligent species in the galaxy, if not in the universe. Otherwise, they reason, by now some intelligent species that appeared millions of years before ours should have spread its technology throughout the galaxy in ways that would be very obvious to us.
However, what if the people of most planets consider this physical universe to be distinctly secondary and unimportant compared to God and the spiritual world? What if they just haven’t bothered to develop science and technology because their minds are focused on far greater things?
Don’t get me wrong. I happen to like my technology. But then, I’m a product of this planet. My mind was formed in a technological society, and I use technology to (drum roll please . . .) spread spiritual knowledge and awareness! 😀
But if Swedenborg is right, and the people of other planets have direct communication with the spiritual world as our species once did in its early times, why would they bother with all these computers and machines? They would already have access to something far greater. Much of what we do with our computers and technology is built right into the “operating system” of the spiritual world.
Meanwhile even if we do like technology, we could (and many of us do) use it for more spiritual purposes. For one thing, technology allows us to pack a lot more people onto this planet than we otherwise could. That means our planet can produce more angels than it ever could during our long hunter-gatherer phase, and even than our earlier pre-tech agrarian phase. So technology is not all bad. But compared to spiritual life and awareness, it’s all a bit . . . mechanical.
Hi Lee,
So well said and exactly how I feel as well! This actually reminds me of a conversation I very recently had with another Swedenborgian that I definitely want to ask you about but I’ll post it on your other article that is more related. (I have two post regarding it but I’ll post on the related articles lol)
It’s ironic how our societies materialism focuses on creating technologies when all the ideas and thoughts they get to make such things are directly from the spiritual world and ultimately from God and then gets contorted into falsity by people. But things that are made here are much dumbed down versions. I can see why our collective spiritual sphere is so repulsive to other spirits from other planets because why focus on something so physical and last in the order of things (physical universe – spiritual world – God) when you can focus on God and Heaven and creating a direct relationship that will last and impact everyone’s lives for eternity. Just like how the earliest inhabitants was able to continue a direct relationship with their loved ones that crossed over because the communication to God was open. While some people think “imagine what things will look like in the year 3000” I think and other true spiritual people think “imagine what things would of looked like if we continued our relationship with God and never became materialistic.” Of course we can use technology and physicality to learn correspondences and spread true spiritual knowledge which is wonderful and I think that is truly far more “advanced” than what other people may think or deem what is considered “advanced”. Sending people to the moon, cool! But how is that helping us spirituality? It’s materalism at the end of the day. But using technology as a platform to learn true spiritual knowledge that will last and help us grow as a person for eternity, that’s way more important! We are all heading to the spiritual world and ultimately choosing Heaven or Hell so why not learn and put into practice what truly matters!
Thank you again Lee
What do you think of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFK5C-AcFyU (5 religions that seem Christian, but are not!) by LWN YouTube?
It doesn’t even mention Swedenborgianism.
Hi World Questioner,
Those are fairly easy religions for a thinking person to knock down. What the YouTuber doesn’t realize is that his own religion also follows the teachings of “men” and not the teachings of Christ.