What Do You “Do” with Swedenborg When Talking about the New Church?

I think we've all struggled in one way or another to put the New Church in its proper context when talking to newcomers about this new revelation. Do we lead with the ideas, or do we lead with Swedenborg? If we lead with Swedenborg, we might never get past the credibility factor - why should I listen to him for these are only the ideas of a man, but if we lead with the ideas alone without revealing the source we might have trouble drawing attention to the distinctiveness of this new religious dispensation and movement.

Interestingly, Swedenborg doesn't shy away from identifying himself as the one called to deliver this new revelation: "this Second Coming of the Lord takes place by means of a man, to whom He has manifested Himself in Person, and whom He has filled with His spirit, to teach the doctrines of the New Church through the Word, from Him" (TCR 779). On the title page of many of the books of the Writings he identifies himself as "servant of the Lord Jesus Christ." He had strong opinions about his role as servant of the Lord. In one of his private letters he said, "suppose someone should consider me a saint, and on that account think highly of me? Indeed, suppose that person should not only revere but also adore me as a holy man? I saw that I must entreat the Lord with the most earnest prayers, not to have any share in so damnable a sin" (Tafel's Documents, Vol. II, p. 164).

Historically, there have been many approaches to this question. For example, Rev. John Clowes, an Anglican clergyman, covertly taught New Church doctrine (never revealed his source) for over 60 years in and around his parish at St. Johns, Manchester, England but this approach started by Clowes came to an end at his death. On the other hand, Rev. Robert Hindmarsh, an early parishioner of John Clowes, took a very different approach, overtly teaching New Church doctrine (revealing his source) and established the first church in the world (Birmingham, England) that publicly worshipped the Lord in His Second Coming.

The term "Swedenborgian" may have first been coined by several adversaries of Swedenborg during the Gothenberg Trial (1769-1771), of which Swedenborg was a part. Swedenborg evidently disliked the term they used saying in a letter to a friend: "this doctrine they call Swedenborgianism, but for my part I call it genuine Christianity" (Tafel's Documents, Vol. II, p. 354). We can't avoid talking about Swedenborg because without him there was no Second Coming (see TCR 779).

 Swedenborg gives context to why and how the Second Coming was made possible.