The Dragon and the Woman of Babylon

Swedenborgians have their own, somewhat unique spin on the book of Revelation.

Swedenborg, a man of 1700's Europe, wrote his explanation of the Apocalypse using somewhat divisive language, identifying "The Reformed" Christians as "the dragon" and The "Roman Catholic" Church as the "Whore of Babylon."

Maybe it's just me, but that strikes me as a bit off-putting if you belong to either (any?) of the above-mentioned organizations. And, uh, doesn't that pretty much cover the whole of Christianity? (Except for a few splitters, like, say, Swedenborgians which, of course, didn't exist at the time of Swedenborg's writing....)

The thing is, Swedenborg's style of writing makes it oh-so-easy for Swedenborgians (or anyone who self-identifies as not Reformed and not RC) to point fingers and say, "Thank God we are not like they are."

"The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men. . . ." Luke 18:11

Whoops. My experience is that the Word is never about somebody else being wrong.

If a weakness or tendency is highlighted in the Biblical narrative, it is in all of us, no matter what our flavour, colour, gender, or planetary origin. Nobody gets to say, "Thank God I'm not like them...."

The more dramatic an image in the Bible, perhaps the more God is asking us to pay attention to the attitudes and qualities embodied in that image.

The dragon and the woman of Babylon are fairly dramatic images. Yet nobody wants to point at either and say, "Yes! That's me!"

These images are not in the Bible to shame us---they are there to remind us to pay attention. All of us tend toward both the intellectual arrogance of the "right club" mind-set (dragon); and the "my choices and actions are saving me, so I need to help control and educate everyone else (who are not as lucky as me) so they can be saved too" (whore of Babylon) mind-set.

The dragon and whore basically boil down to Arrogance and Control, two qualities which may appear to oppose each other, but actually mirror and complement each other. Whenever you find the one, you won't have to look far to find the other. They are like partners in an unhealthy marriage, appearing to oppose and fight, while depending on each other for their very survival.

Arrogance (dragon) includes certainty of one's rightness, an attitude of entitlement, a "chosen people" mind-set, and can be clothed in a buzzing energy of fear for "loved ones," praying for them to join the same "right club." It can manifest as all sorts of social and emotional manipulation of others "for their own good,"---a decidedly unattractive and divisive quality in a family member. It can also manifest as intellectual arrogance, unnatural emotional attachments or lack of attachment (all religiously explained and justified), and behaviours that illustrate an attitude of special status---like breaking copyright laws and tax evasion, and justification of the oppression of the poor. (Did you know that some of the worst tax evaders are Christians? According to them, they are justified because they are "saving money for God." What, exactly, is their definition of God?)

Control (whore) goes hand-in hand with arrogance. It has a different spin, but is just as dysfunctional. The thing about control is that it can't stand to lose power and influence. By necessity, it needs its adherents to stay dependent on it. It requires a hierarchy in which an upper echelon dictates to the lesser ranks The Rules. Members are rewarded for proper adherence to The Rules, and there are definite consequences for non-adherence, from simple social coldness, to gossip, to demotion or job-loss if one happens to be employed by the Powers that Be, to shunning or out-right excommunication. The Roman Catholic Church by no means holds a corner on this dynamic. The Mormons, the Amish, and the GCNJ all practice variations on the same theme. I'm sure lots of religious bodies wrestle with this dynamic from time to time.
But any religious order that requires dependents is like a parent that needs to keep her children under her thumb, even though they've reached maturity. A church's job is to raise spiritual adults, not perpetual spiritual children.

The dragon is in all of us. We steer clear when we develop humility, and when we refuse to fall for the attractive illusion that our one denomination is the one true-est, rightest faith system. Each faith is one among many in God's created universe. Each is from God. Each has gifts and weaknesses. Each serves a purpose. There is no chosen people. We are all chosen people.

The harlot of Babylon is in all of us too. It is far too easy to become drunk with the notion of our own superiority. Sometimes we seem to think we can speak for God---that we have more truth than others and need to control and protect the things of the church for God. The flocks of such churches become spiritually underdeveloped---specifically trained to subjugate their intelligence to the dominating leadership. Thinking for oneself---challenging the status quo---is highly threatening to the church and is discouraged in every possible way, even when the church claims to encourage thinking for one-self (so long as you think the right things).

We need to hang in there, always steering back toward humility, both personal and institutional, and back to minding our own spiritual business. I have enough work keeping my own house clean. It is far from helpful for me to be trying to tell others how to clean theirs.

Instead of supporting the disfunctional alliance of Arrogance and Control, we can support the healthy alliance of humilty and respect.

(We all live in glass houses. Could we please stop throwing stones?)

Religious Boundaries and Fundamentalism

One topic that comes up repeatedly among the seminary students is how to achieve a mutually respectful dialogue with any group of people who are certain of their rightness. Intensely religious people are often of such a type, which tends to make ecumenism a singularly oxymoronic effort.

ec·u·me·nism
A movement promoting unity among Christian churches or denominations.
A movement promoting worldwide unity among religions through greater cooperation and improved understanding.

ox·y·mo·ron
A rhetorical figure in which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined, as in a deafening silence and a mournful optimist.

"Is an oxymoron better or worse than a regular moron?"

How can there be a respectful dialogue, when one member is invested in recruiting the world to its mind set? There is an inequality in the approach.

About six months ago, Larry King had a panel of religious leaders on his show to discuss varying religious teachings about life after death. Apparently it quickly broke down into a squabble over The Rules, and Who Would be Saved and Who Wouldn't, and was far from a mutually curious and celebratory information exchange on our various heritages and their differences and uniqueness.

What is it that makes us do this?

How do I feel mutually respected when there isn't mutual respect? How do I find respect for someone who is so invested in trying to save ME according to THEIR rule book, that I can barely stand to be in the room with them?

Let's say the People of the Superiority of the Supreme Ectoplasm (POSSE) have decided that they have latched on to the One, True Religion. AND, even though the Supreme Ectoplasm has emitted sacred writings about tolerating other religions, there is still a certain tendency among the followers that bar them from appreciating all that is good and precious about, say, the followers of the Great and Loving Glob, or the believers in the All-Encompassing Goo. (Not to mention the Disciples of the Almighty Amoeba! They are the Anti-Ectoplasm itself!)

Now, let's say the greater part of the planetary population has discovered certain patterns of behaviour that are beneficial to all planetary beings, and certain patterns that detract from planetary good will and peace. But POSSE (see above) in its certainty of rightness and superiority, doesn't stick to the beneficial patterns, because it "has a mission from God to educate the world to follow God just like POSSE." This recruiting mindset precludes mutual respect, because there is such a heavy agenda in the way. The non POSSE member is, by definition "wrong," and won't be "right" until they become a member of POSSE too.

"Fundamentalist" is the popular name to call any religious individual or group who is so certain of its rightness that it is above the rules. Though the broader population may be doing its best to establish and live by broadly accepted group rules that promote peaceful co-existence, fundamentalists tend to forget the "Thou shalt not kill" part of these group rules, and the "Trust God to handle the salvation of the other" part as well. Fundamentalists don't see much point in peaceful co-existence with different religions, if their JOB, as they see it, is to obliterate all other faiths, because they are WRONG.

It is a puzzlement. The United Nations, though flawed, has as its goal mutual respect and peaceful co-existence. But many Fundamentalist Christians have decided that the United Nations is the Anti-Christ---I kid you not---which lets them decide they don't have to abide by UN rules. They are "above" them.

Sigh.

Fundamentalists tend to have a certain notion of entitlement. They are entitled to pick and choose which UN rules they'll stick by. And they are entitled, even obligated, to charge across other people's religious boundaries and trash their faith systems "to save them."

I see no way to have an open respectful dialogue with someone who is not open nor respectful.

What are we to do?
http://www.rk-world.org/peace/wcrp.html