A Church Divided
What happens when liberal and conservative members decide to forge their own paths? 

by Karen Hyatt

My church has split into two groups: the “Touchy Feelies’ and the “Pillar Huggers.” Well, those names might not be officially sanctioned, but the crisis of polarization is definitely real. Like the split between Republicans and Democrats, the divide between conservative and liberal members of the congregation is widening.

Our faith, while sharing many traditional Christian elements, has some novel twists. The doctrines of the General Church of the New Jerusalem are based upon the theological writings of an 18th century philosopher, Emanuel Swedenborg,  which we believe are divinely inspired. Even though our church - a sect of the Swedenborgian faith - is a little more than 200 years old, there are only about 4,500 members worldwide. The vast majority of New Church members live in North America, though congregations exist on all the continents.

Similar to many other churches, we are debating some divisive issues: Should women be allowed in the priesthood? Can church services be conducted in a casual manner, or must all services follow the same formalities? Which translation of the Bible should we adhere to? Recently, the issue of casual vs. formal services has caused a lot of stress. 

At the church headquarters in Bryn Athyn, Penn. there is a huge neo-Gothic cathedral that was built in the early 1900s (click here to explore the church) . On an average Sunday, around 300 people attend the traditional service, which is far below the church’s capacity. The contemporary services however, which are held down the street in the elementary school gym, regularly cater to about 500 people each week. The congregation dresses in blue jeans and t-shirts. There is lots of singing and guitar playing, and some members act out Biblical stories. They also engage in what has come to be known as ’spontaneous sharing." At the cathedral, in contrast, there is little spontaneity. Men wear ties and the women wear dresses and the hymns are traditional; there is a quiet sphere of reverence and the minister speaks out against sin. We have parted into two camps: the contemporary ‘touchy-feelies’ on one side and the traditionalist “pillar-huggers’ on the other.

Forty years ago, all the different congregations worshipped in the same, traditional way - attendees wore formal "church clothes," sat in pews arranged in straight rows, and sang songs culled from identical hymn books. During the 1960s, as many religions underwent changes, we experienced our own shift. A church camp was established in rural Pennsylvania to bring church members together for a week or two of informal worship and fun. Before long, daily sharing sessions became one of the primary elements of the camp. Campers revealed their innermost feelings regarding childhood experiences, wounds they suffered throughout life, and mistakes they had made. They left feeling warm and loved, and closer to God. Upon returning to the ‘real world,” they tried to figure out how to incorporate this sense of emotional closeness into their daily lives.

Soon after, contemporary worship services were born. In a site removed from the traditional church space, participants began to worship in a more relaxed manner, using many of the songs that they had brought with them from camp. For these members, the traditional church services were too stifling in their format and too judgmental in content.

The split has intensified in recent years, and goes a lot deeper than just organs vs. guitars, or blue jeans vs. ties. While both sides follow basically the same doctrines, there are some intense ideological differences. The traditional services tend to be a more right-brained experience. The minister reads from the Bible and Swedenborg’s writings, and explains them to the children before delivering a sermon to the adults. The emphasis is on a better understanding of the Lord’s truth so that it may be applied to life. Bottom line: Evils are to be shunned as sins against God and if you want to go to heaven, you’ve got to be good. Echoing the lines of a Gothic structure, these people look up to God with reverence and holy fear.

The contemporary services, however, place far more emphasis on emotions than rules. Bible story performances and other activities are used to sense the Lord in a tangible way, and to prevent worship from merely becoming an intellectual exercise. The idea is that if loving God and your neighbors is the essence of a Christian life, then coming to church should help you feel uplifted by the joy of God’s love and connected with the Lord and your fellow man. The followers tend to view God as Jesus - a man not unlike themselves - who walked among people even while performing miracles. He is highly approachable - a truly personal God.

Over the past 10 to 15 years, each church congregation has had to deal with the growing chasm and the friction it creates. With some exceptions, the split is along age lines: The younger members (Baby Boomers on down) want a casual service and the older members are appalled by what they perceive as a disgraceful lack of reverence towards God. For all the congregations, except the one in Pennsylvania, there are not enough people - or money - to sustain two separate services each Sunday.

The efforts toward compromise have been, for the most part, unsuccessful. Some congregations alternate between contemporary and traditional services, which leaves half of the congregation unhappy on any given Sunday. The church organization issued a new edition of the hymnal hoping to appeal to everyone, but it has been a resounding failure. The two most conservative congregations rejected it, while the contemporary services have opted to continue using the camp songbook. These efforts at compromise have pleased almost no one, and frustrated quite a few others.

While rarely fought out in public, the issues and the friction are certainly discussed among friends. One man I know loves the fact that he is moved to tears at almost every contemporary service. Another friend who is more conservative attended a modern service during which several adults and children acted out the evils of anger. The service concluded with the entire congregation holding hands in a gesture of healing, an act that she found both forced and trite. In private, the conservatives complain that the liberals expect the worship experience to be “entertaining” and just want to feel good, at the expense of obeying what God actually teaches. The liberals argue that the conservatives’ religion is solely intellectual, with far too much emphasis placed on the external ritual.

Of course, rash generalizations frequently miss the mark. There are liberals who are serious students of doctrine, and base their desire for change on their new understanding of it. Similarly, there are many conservatives who are genuinely moved emotionally and spiritually at traditional services. Rancor is rising, though, and some feel that an official split cannot be too far off. Which side gets the cathedral and which side gets the gym should be fairly obvious, but who will get the college and secondary school that we operate? Who will get the large financial endowment? There are no easy answers.

On a more personal level, it seems clear to me that each individual must worship in the way that helps him or her to best approach God, however He may be perceived. The holy city of New Jerusalem does have twelve different gates, after all. We are not all expected to follow the same path to eternal happiness, as much as we may think that ours is the best and only way. Swedenborg says this about heaven: “Variety in worship of the Lord from the variety of good in different societies is not harmful, but beneficial, for the perfection of heaven is therefrom.” Mere mortals seem to have a much harder time with the concept.

Karen Hyatt lives in Maryland and teaches literature and kindergarten at her church school, where she feels very much at home.

Enter the Culture Clash