 |
| photo by Alice Lum |
In 1853 the Murray Hill area was still mostly
undeveloped. The Bond Street and St.
John’s Park neighborhoods were still the exclusive enclaves of Manhattan’s
wealthiest citizens. Nevertheless, the
winds of change were beginning to affect Murray Hill and wide speculative brownstone
rowhouses had begun lining the side streets one or two years earlier.
The fabulously wealthy Phelps and Dodge families had
purchased the block of land on Madison Road (later to become Madison Avenue)
between 36th and 37th Streets in 1852 in preparation for
the construction of three massive brownstone mansions. Yet when James Chesterman offered the
cumbersomely-named Association of the City of New York for the Dissemination of
the Doctrines of the New Jerusalem Church three building lots on East 35th
Street in 1853, the congregation balked at the donation.
The Society, known as the New Jerusalem Church, or simply
the New Church, traced its beliefs to 18th Century Sweden. There Emanuel Swedenborg, around 1743, began
having visions and revelations.
Swedenborg, a nobleman, was among the leading scientists of Europe. Born in 1688, his visions of
heaven, hell and Jesus Christ later in his life would prompt him to abandon his
scientific work to focus on theological writings—the nature of God, the
afterlife and the meaning of Biblical text.
He wrote “I have conversed with apostles, departed popes, emperors,
kings and with Luther, Melancthon, Calvin and many others.”
Swedenborg’s writings would become the doctrine of the New
Church, also known as the Swedenborgian Church.
Only half a century after his first visions, the first New Churchman
arrived in New York City in 1792. By the
time that Chesterman offered the building lots The New York New Church had
grown, survived a schism, and boasted a substantial congregation.
Although the church never accepted the land from
Chesterfield, it was deeded the property following his death. The location was unusual in Chesterfield’s
vast holdings of property, almost all of which was in the Harlem area. As more and more handsome residences rose in
the neighborhood, the church deliberated for four years over the advisability
of construction here. Finally in 1858 a
decision was reached and congregant James Hoe, principal of the James C. Hoe
& Co. building concern, was given the task of erecting a new church
building. Hoe not only offered to build
the structure at no profit; he donated $500 to the building fund—around $10,000
today.
The New York Times reported on the laying of the cornerstone
on July 2 that year. Saying that it was
laid with “appropriate ceremonies,” the newspaper described the stone as “a
granite block about three feet square,--beneath which a leaden box was placed,
containing a parchment record of this event, with the names of the architect,
builder, and mason, the four leading doctrines of Emanuel Swedenborg, and his
exposition of the ten commandments, a book of worship, used by the first Society
of the New Church, and several periodicals of New York, the newspapers of
this morning, and a number of coins.”
An anointing ritual was conducted before the ceremonies were
concluded. “Corn, wine and oil were
poured upon the stone, a psalm was sung, a benediction pronounced, and the
audience—about 100 persons—separated,” reported The Times. The New York Herald gave a much higher count
of the crowd, estimating it at 200.
The Times, saying that the architecture would be “gothic
style,” predicted that the building would be completed within the year and
estimated its cost at about $15,000. In
fact the completed church, including furnishings, came in a little over budget
at $18,150.
While the newspaper got the cost just a little wrong, it was
wildly off base with the architectural style.
Instead the completed 1859 structure was neo-Renaissance. The handsome building sat far back from the
property line, allowing for an ample, grassy lawn. A brownstone base supported upper walls of
brick, possibly stuccoed. Classic
Renaissance pediments and other architectural elements created a dignified
presence on a block quickly filling with high-end residences.
 |
| The later addition would bring this section to the property line. photo http://newyorknewchurch.vzwebsites.com/aboutus.html |
The Times deemed the completed structure a “small but
elegant church edifice in Thirty-fifty-street, belonging to this still
comparatively unknown body of Christians.”
On May 12, 1860 the newspaper wrote about the tenth anniversary of the
American Swedenborg Printing and Publishing Society held in the church
building. The Reverend Mr. Barrett spoke
about the purpose of the association.
 |
| The neo-Renaissance details of the original structure beautifully survive -- photo by Alice Lum |
“Its object was to publish treatises and tracts explanatory
of the writings of the great Seer,” said The Times, “and the speaker asked for
it sympathy and support. A monthly
periodical, called the Swedenborgian, is published by the Society, and at
present it has 600 subscribers.”
In May 1865 the 35th Street church was given the
honor of hosting the first annual meeting of the New-York Association of the
New Church. The New York Times noted that “This
association comprises societies, ministers, and isolated members of the Church
in New-York, New-Jersey and Connecticut, uniting for the purpose of promoting
the spiritual and social unity of the Church; providing for the education of
suitable persons for the ministry, and their authentication; for disseminating
the doctrines by means of missionaries, and the publication and distribution of
books and tracts; providing for the religious education of children; and
performing such other services as may be desirable.”
That long laundry list, perhaps, proved too much for the “small
but elegant church edifice” and the following year it was enlarged. The short wing at the western end
of the property was enlarged, stretching out to the sidewalk, which deftly blended with the
original architecture.
The New-York Tribune reported on the opening of the new Sunday School in the new section on Christmas Day 1868. "The room has been tastefully decorated with mottoes and evergreens for the occasion."
The New Church was often misunderstood by mainstream
Christians who often viewed it as a cult or oddball sect. Therefore, when a Boston minister of the New
Jerusalem Church preached a sermon explaining “What It Is Not, What It Is—Its Place
in The Spiritual Progress of Humanity,” the New York church’s Rev. Chauncey
Giles repeated it on March 1, 1874. The
long-winded oratory, which was reprinted in the morning papers on Monday, may
have confused most readers rather than elucidated the subject.
In part Giles said of the church “It throws new light on his
early condition; solves his doubts, dispels his fears, lifts his burdens,
increases his strength; gives him patience to wait, and zeal to work; shows him
the true relations between himself and nature and man, and the common Father of
all; enlarges his freedom, draws aside the veil which hides the endless future,
reveals to him a new world more real, more substantial, more glorious than
this, and sets him on his endless way to the attainment of endless and ever-increasing
blessedness.”
 |
| The newer portion architecturally melded with the original church -- photo by Alice Lum |
The Genesis account of God’s creation of man and woman would
affect Christian attitudes towards the feminine sex for centuries. The title of Rev. Gile’s sermon on February
13, 1876, was somewhat reflective of this—“The Beginning of Man’s Fall, and
what is Meant by Building a Woman from his Rib.”
But male-female ascendancy would rear its head in a more
fundamental way in 1893 when the issue of hiring women as missionaries and
teachers was raised on February 22. The
Times reported that “The special meeting was held yesterday afternoon, and in
the four hours that it lasted there was some rather highly-spiced discussion,
which was punctuated with applause, and in one instance with cries of
disapproval and hisses.”
When C. C. Parsons moved for the adoption of a resolution
for the employment, “the battle began,” said the newspaper. L. S. Burnham, a congregant from Brooklyn,
tried to dismiss the matter, saying that the association out not to “go fast.” Instead, he suggested “We have nothing to do
with this woman question. I move that we
table the matter and go up to Central Park to spend the afternoon.”
Burnham even offered to pay for the carriages to transport
the members to the park. “I think our
duty is to read and disseminate doctrines and let these matters settle
themselves.”
One forward-thinking member, John R. Waters, lashed out at
the more conservative associates. “The
ridiculous thing is that male human beings assume to say what shall be done
with the women. Let the women do as they
see fit. The way to find out woman’s
sphere is to let her gravitate to her place.”
Reverend H. W. Schliffer countered with scripture. He said that it was explicitly stated “in the
heavenly doctrine of Swedenborg that what belonged to the priesthood belong to
man. In all the writings of the great
teacher the masculine pronoun alone referred to one holding priestly office;
the priesthood belongs to man.
“Women are not qualified for the ministry,” he
asserted. “Shall we put away all the
doctrines and yield to the popular idea that women can do all things as well as
men? Do we wish to put aside this plain
statement of doctrine?”
The Times reported on the reaction within the room. “This was a bombshell and a number of women
rose at once and tried to catch the Chairman’s eye.” A feisty Mrs. J. B. Dearborn took the
floor. “We all understand that women
cannot do men’s work. The question
is: Shall Mr. Schliffer understand the
Scriptures for us or shall we understand them for ourselves?”
Reverend A. J. Auchterlonie of Newark pointed out that women
were making great strides in the workplace.
“Woman is being forced to go into all sorts of work, and I think this is
to teach her to take the position she should.
The presence of a woman in an office raises it. Instead of throwing extracts from Swedenborg
at their heads, I want them to go ahead.
The Church and women alike have been held in a sort of slavery.”
A Mr. Ager, in trying to sound modern, instead exhibited his
own Victorian sexism. He “said the
Church would never be harmoniously built until men and women worked
together. Man, he said, was the
intellectual part and woman the voluntary, and both must be united in the
Church for its good,” reported The New York Times.
In the end it was decided that that several societies of the
church should study “this subject carefully and persistently, and that the societies
of the Church report from time to time the result of their study and
experiences.” It was what, a century
later, would be called a “cop out.”
When the 98th General Convention of the New Church in America, Swedenborgian, was held here on June 5, 1920, the focus was on religious issues rather than financial. The Rev. Julian K. Smyth expressed his thinly veiled disapproval of other churches who overly-concerned themselves with money. "It is sometimes said that while other religious bodies are appointing their committees and raising their millions by sensational drives, the New Church has not so much as set herself to draw up a program of social reconstruction," he said. But he added that a greater authority cared less for financial gains than spiritual. "But long before the churches so much as thought of making drives there was drawn up by a Master Hand a program which challenges comparison with anything of a similar nature ever set before man."
The Swedenborgians remained in their handsome, arcane church
throughout the 20th century.
But dwindling membership and subsequent dwindling finances resulted in the
building suffering structural neglect.
By the 1980's water was seeping into the main sanctuary. It was closed off and services were held in a
meeting room.
 |
| photo by Alice Lum |
 |
| photo by Alice Lum |
No comments:
Post a Comment