Past and Present Methodologies of
New Church History

A key tenet of the original vision for the Academy of the New Church was the need to develop an integrated relationship between academic pursuits and New Church doctrinal principles. Since the founding of the Academy in 1876, there have been numerous explorations and proposals of how this might be accomplished in various academic disciplines. This paper examines the work undertaken in one area of study, that of history. We can divide New Church approaches to history into four categories: discussions of the goals of historical study, the illustration of doctrinal points in the study of history, the focus on moments in history that are of particular importance from a New Church perspective, and overt discussions of historical methodology. Most studies employ a combination of these different categories or methodologies and are not limited to just one. Even though these approaches rarely exist in isolation from each other, this paper will consider each approach separately in order to gain a better understanding of each approach and thus an overview of New Church historical philosophy as a whole. It is not my goal to argue for or against a particular approach. Rather, I believe that each approach has validity and, moreover, that the use of multiple approaches strengthens the field of New Church history. Instead, the aim of this paper is to understand the nature of the work that has been done in the area of New Church history, to call attention to the strengths and pitfalls of each approach, and to encourage New Church historians to be cognizant of and to articulate the methodological approach or approaches they are employing.

The first methodological category of New Church philosophies of history grounds the purpose of historical study in New Church principles. One fundamental goal in a New Church approach to history is that of understanding the relationship between the Lord and the human race.1 Brian Henderson has proposed a definition of history that specifies this goal further. He defines history as follows: "History is in its essence the story of the Lord's continual love for the human race and how human beings have received and reacted to this influx."2 Based on this definition, the study of history provides one avenue to better understand other people and their relationships with the Lord. For Henderson, this means that through historical study "we gain not only a deeper understanding of the neighbor, but a deeper understanding of ourselves, which is crucial for spiritual development."3 These goals for the study of history tie in to two doctrines that should be added to discussions of New Church goals for historical study, namely the doctrines of charity and use. As Henderson explains, "By studying history we gain an understanding of how individuals and societies receive the Lord's love. The more we can understand the neighbor, the more charitable we can be. An examination of the effects of these states not only allows us to better understand others, but to apply that to states in our own life."4

Cynthia Walker has argued for another reason to study history—to develop a true love of one's country.5 Based on New Church concepts of use, she argues that the study of history can overcome a blind love of one's country and replace it with a love that is based on a knowledge of and appreciation for the ways in which one's country is useful.6 For Walker, the concepts of the divine purpose of creation and divine providence are closely tied to understanding how one's country is useful. Walker has articulated another, related goal in an article written this year. She states: "Our role as New Church historians is to lend support in the task of preparing astute, knowledgeable students who, looking from the spiritual, can detect the illusory, can see that 'truth is true and falsity false and confirm that' (Conjugial Love 233–237)."7

The different examples of goals discussed here share a common objective; namely that history will illuminate or reinforce New Church theologicalprinciples in the people who study it. How this might be accomplished will vary from historian to historian. Walker explains:

Teaching is an art. And as we begin to look at curricula, I am hopeful that we are beyond a "paint by number" process. We need to get at the heart of New Church topics. Correspondences should not be followed mechanically. Neither should the application of Divine Providence become mechanical. But we need to read often and deeply within the Word and speculate on its meaning for our teaching. We need to grapple with the basic terms of the Word related to history, terms such as providence, order, freedom, permissions, discrete degrees, moral and spiritual truth, creation, revelation.8

Walker argues that there isn't one right way to connect doctrine with history, but that it is imperative that each New Church historian make the connection in his or her own way.

The second category of New Church historical methodology involves just this, the connection of specific doctrinal points to the study of history. The chapter in The Academy: A Portrait about the field of history provides a good overview of a number of doctrinal points that can be illustrated by historical subject matter. The following doctrinal concepts are outlined: purpose in creation, the five dispensations of the church, the grand man, the foundations of truth, providence, freedom, order, permissions, and moral and civil values.9 William R. Kintner adds the doctrine of correspondence to this list.10

The question of the relationship of the doctrine of providence to the field of history is an area that has received considerable emphasis in New Church scholarship, though it has been approached differently by different historians. On the one hand, for Cynthia Walker the importance of seeing divine providence in the study of history lies in alleviating distress about current affairs and creating a sense of trust.11 On the other hand, Daniel Goodenough addresses this issue in Providence and Free Will in Human Actions, where he takes as his central question ". . . whether the free choice, which exists in spiritual things, exists also in natural actions."12 Goodenough warns against what he sees as oversimplified views of the relationship that have been argued in the past, primarily that all events must ultimately be good because providence is working behind them.13 He believes that this is overly simplistic because such a view only acknowledges the role of providence in a human event and does not allow for the consequences of human choice or free will.14 The methodology that Goodenough has employed here is an exploration of the complexity of the doctrine about divine providence and its relationship to human freedom. The message implicit in his methodology is that it is imperative to understand the details and the nuances of this doctrine in order to apply it properly to the field of history.

Although the points of connection between New Church doctrine and the field of history that have been studied to date are productive, these are certainly not the only areas in which New Church theology and historical study interact. To the well-worked areas of interaction, such as divine providence, I would suggest several more that are ripe for study, or further study, namely the nature of influx, the universal church, charity, and the doctrine of use.15 Consideration of the nature of influx, to take one example, gives an important perspective in historical study. For example, the concept of the nature of influx illuminates one common paradox in the study of history (and in the study of different cultures in general)—that at times the people studied seem remarkably like ourselves while at other time they seem almost disturbingly foreign and different. Divine Love and Wisdom 77ff. makes the point that the divine that flows into every person is the same. It does not vary. This is one (among many) points of commonality shared by all people. Although it is the same flowing in, the divine appears to be different because each person that received it is different. Thus the difference lies with us, not with the divine that flows in to us. Because of this variety among human beings, a divinely-created variety, human beings respond in numerous ways to that common experience of the divine flowing in. I suggest that various cultural expressions are manifestations of different collective responses to divine influx and so when we study other cultures we can see examples of the doctrine of influx. This example shows, then, how the doctrine of influx provides us with a concept that we can use to analyze different cultures.

Further areas of connection between doctrine and historical study should continue to be added to those mentioned above. The areas in which history and New Church doctrine connect should not be understood as a closed list, but as an open one. It is important that current and future New Church historians will continue to pursue new areas of connection as well as develop currently recognized areas of connection.

The exploration of the connection between history and a rich variety of doctrinal concepts adds depth and texture to the field of history because it continually prompts New Church historians to consider the specific events they are studying in a broader context of how spiritual life works, or how God operates. Indeed, a fundamental concept that underlies many discussions of the relationship between New Church doctrine and the field of history is that New Church historians are ultimately interested in seeing the relationship between God and humankind in the workings of history, as noted above. For each historian, abstract doctrinal concepts might take concrete shape in particular examples in history. Therefore, this approach is one way that we can see the Lord's relationship with human beings not only theoretically but also tangibly, in real events.

The potential pitfall of this approach, one that is repeatedly warned against in various discussions of New Church philosophies of history, is to neglect sound historical methodology in the eagerness to see these doctrinal principles. For example, the use of divine providence as a means of explaining why history takes a particular course could tempt us to neglect analysis of natural, historical causation. The authors of the chapter on history in The Academy: A Portrait articulate the need to be alert to this hazard in what follows:

Although he is first concerned with universals, the New Church historian is not any less interested in accurate, meticulous and painstaking scholarship; he does not believe that the study of revelation will increase his fund of historical facts, although he interprets historical facts according to the teaching of revelation.16

First of all, the authors rightly argue that New Church historians must adhere to the same standards of scholarship as their colleagues in the field. In other words, New Church historians use exactly the same evidence as others. For these authors the distinction between New Church historians and non-New Church historians lies in the interpretation of this evidence "according to the teaching of revelation." Although this phrase is not overtly explained, the authors proceed to consider four areas of history "with which we believe the New Church philosophy of history is properly concerned: (1) the religion of man; (2) the history of man; (3) the society of man; and (4) the government of man."17 In this way the authors seem to imply that one characteristic of a New Church approach to history is the selection of topics that relate to doctrinal teachings.

The majority of the points of doctrine discussed above can be considered in relation to almost any time period or geographical region. Others, however, are best seen in particular moments in history. The focus on specific moments in history that are of special interest to the New Church historian is the second methodological approach, one that is closely connected with that discussed above.

In a speech in 1915, William Whitehead challenged New Church historians to consider and develop their methodology.18 Here Whitehead not only succinctly encapsulated his view of the goal of the New Church historian as seeing "the interior dealings of God with man in history,"19 but he also suggested that New Church historians ought to focus, at least at first, on particular moments in history that are most appropriate for this. He suggests critical junctures in the history of the Christian church as an example.

The historical moments that have received the greatest attention by New Church historians are those that have a relation to the special churches in the New Church view of church history. Indeed, it is this concept that receives the lengthiest comment in the chapter on history in The Academy: A Portrait. This chapter asserts that this series of churches offers a framework for understanding the development of humankind through the course of history, and that this development follows the stages of individual human growth.20 However, our authors add a caution against, as they put it, being "too dogmatic or specific" in the application of the stages of development. They go on to discuss ways in which the doctrine of the five churches is applicable to the study of history. For example, this doctrine sheds light on the study of past religions. It also points out the value of the past, since genuine truth existed throughout history, localized particularly in these churches. They note that the concepts of the Most Ancient and Ancient Churches can provide a needed antidote to the typical view of early human beings as primitive and unsophisticated.21

A number of New Church historical studies have focused on aspects of one or more specific churches. For example, Carl Th. Odhner has focused on the mythology of the Greek and Romans (among others) as a means of connecting the Ancient Church with historical evidence.22 In drawing this connection he employs the concept of the ancient Word and teachings about correspondences in particular. He states that mythology "is that part of the history of mankind which treats of the various concepts of the Divine held by the Human Race in ancient times. It is, therefore, the study of ancient Theology. . ."23 In other words, Odhner analyzed Classical mythology in order to get a better understanding of ancient religion, "all of which are so many different paths in which we may wander from the East or the West, the North or the South, to the wonderful, beauteous temple of the Ancient Church."24 A critical issue for the historical study of the Ancient Churches in particular is determining time period or periods in which they are located. Swedenborg's Writings make specific statements about geography, but do not provide such specific information about chronology.25 In fact, Greece is specifically said to have been outside the Ancient Church but was influenced by it.26 Thus the exact relationship between Classical mythology and the Ancient Church is an area of speculation and interpretation. Nevertheless, although some the conclusions that he draws are open to debate, Odhner's express purpose in this study is an important one—the study of ancient religion in order to understand the pre-Christian churches.

Another approach has been taken by Prescott A. Rogers in "Observations of Early Western Thought," where he contrasts the nature of the Ancient and Israelitish Churches (pre-Advent) with that of the Christian and New Church (post-Advent).27 Further, he argues "that certain necessary developments in culture, especially in human thought, took place in the Ancient Near East and in Greece which prepared for the expression and spread of the Christian Church."28 Thus Rogers' approach here is to compare the different churches not only in order to see distinguishing characteristics between them but also to see the development from one to another.

In a document titled "The Philosophy of New Church Education as it relates to the Teaching of Medieval and Modern European History," Sigfried Synnestvedt takes a similar approach with a later period. He focuses on Medieval and Modern Europe because he believes that the many changes that took place there over the centuries offers ample material to study the role of providence and that the time period involved is that of the transition from the Christian Church to the New Church. Synnestvedt analyzes the medieval period in terms of the fall of the Christian church and the reformation as a means of preparing the ground for the growth of the next church, the New Church.

Jane K. Williams-Hogan has also argued that it is important for the New Church historian to focus on particular moments in history.29 She emphasizes moments of revelation, that is, when the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Writings were written.30 The 18th century, the period in which Swedenborg wrote the Writings, is of particular interest to her, and she analyzes this period in order to better understand the intellectual context in which the Writings were written and to highlight what is new and different in the Writings.

Williams-Hogan presents her methodology as follows:

From the New Church perspective there is a constant on-going relationship between the spiritual and the natural worlds. The natural world is sustained by a continual inflowing of life from the spiritual world. While this inflowing certainly shapes human history…it is imperceptible within the natural human framework and therefore cannot be interpreted by the historian. In presenting any story, the historian is limited to the use of humanly constructed data - that is, to the data that is the result of actions taken in the world of time and space. . . . However, the New Church historian may begin her inquiry by exploring events surrounding the open penetration or intersection of the spiritual into the world of human events such as the birth of the Lord or the Last Judgment and the Second Coming.31

It is very important to note here that for Williams-Hogan the reasons for focusing on moments of revelation are not only because such moments are of particular interest, but also because natural historical evidence exists for these moments.

Although no world history has yet been written from a New Church perspective, William R. Kintner, among others, has proposed that one be written,32 and he has even offered an outline of such a book.33 For Kintner, such a work ought to focus on the concept of the five churches. As he explains, "A main task of a New Church history will be to find evidence that the dynamic center of human life has been associated with the peoples who have been entrusted with the successive spoken and written Words." In other words, Kintner believes that the main locus of historical change and development lies with the people of the five churches.

One major strength of this third approach to New Church history lies in its specificity. By placing the focus on particular historical moments, New Church historians will explore certain aspects of history in depth. One primary pitfall in this approach, on the other hand, is allowing the pre-conceived scheme of the rise and fall of churches to force the interpretation of particular events to fit the broad scheme. It is important to recognize that even if the broad scheme of rise and fall is accepted, there can be many specific or sub trends in a variety of directions at any point within that overall scheme. New Church historians, like all historians, must be wary of knowing what they want to see in the evidence before they consider it. Williams-Hogan has expressed this concern well. She states that the Writings "document the spiritual story of humanity not our history. The spiritual story of humanity is the story of the decline or rise of human internal states. While these internal states are played out in the lives of real people, specific nations and eras, these historicals merely clothe, contain or mask actual spiritual states. They take place on the external plain, and the Writings make it clear that it is not possible to read internals from externals."34

Finally, the concept of the universal church has been somewhat neglected in New Church philosophies of history, surprisingly so in light of the interest that exists in the five churches. But while it has not received the attention that the five churches have, some New Church historians have addressed this issue.

Kintner raised the question of the universal church in his discussion of a New Church history. He argues that the focus on the five churches, which for Kintner is essentially a focus on the history of western civilization, is primary because this history has more of an impact on the modern world than does non-western history, or the history of the universal church.35 Nevertheless, Kintner goes on to assert that "there is a need for evaluating the role played by peoples who were not in the mainstream of Divine revelations, if for no other reason than to demonstrate the universal scope of the Lord's providence."36 Prescott Rogers treats the concept of the universal church much more extensively in his article "Philosophical and Ethical Movements Before the Lord's First Advent."37 Here he considers the universal church specifically in the context of the religious movements that took place around the work in about the 6th century B.C.

The inclusion of the concept of the universal church widens considerably the geographical regions and periods of interest to the New Church historian. To some extent, a New Church historian interested in a church history that includes the universal church as well as the five churches is ultimately interested in all places and time periods, but will focus on particular aspects of culture in all places and periods, namely those to do with religion.

In a thought-provoking set of unpublished notes,38 Daniel. Goodenough urges New Church historians to develop about an "analytic philosophy of history," as he terms it. For Goodenough, this term means a study of historical methodology, which he contrasts with a "speculative philosophy of history," that is, "patterns in world history, interpretation of events, movements, civilization, epochs,"39 in other words, categories two and three in this paper. He believes that much of the work on a New Church approach to history has gone into "speculative philosophy" and that work is also needed in the area of "analytic philosophy." The exact date when Goodenough gave the talk from these notes is unknown, but it was likely in the 1960s. The need for development that Goodenough saw in the area of "analytic philosophy" or in methodological analysis among New Church historians still remains today.40

Overt methodological analysis among New Church historians first appears in the 1960s.41 We can see the rise in methodological self-awareness among New Church historians as part of an increased reflection on methodology by historians within the field at large. Since the 1960s, historians have been calling for increased articulation of one's approach in any given study and increased examination of the assumptions that are employed by historians, often unconsciously. While historians emphasize the need for as much objectivity as possible in method, we simultaneously recognize that it is impossible to fully attain. When we study history, we walk a tightrope of striving for an understanding of people within the context of their culture and era rather than in the context of our own, on the one hand, while acknowledging, on the other hand, that the approach we take is driven and shaped by our own perspective. This is the plight of the historian: to aim for objectivity while knowing that subjectivity is inescapable. Faced with this inherent tension and contradiction, inevitably historians will talk about methodology because in examining methodology, we can understand both the obstacles and the opportunities that this situation offers. In striving for objectivity and in aiming for as honest and lucid an interpretation of the evidence as possible, we seek to provide the best answer and explanation of any given historical question as possible. However, acknowledging our subjectivity is not simply admitting a weakness. Individual subjectivity also provides opportunities to historians, if used properly. This is because when we use our subjectivity and the influence of our individual perspectives properly, we allow ourselves to pose new questions, to ask about a different who, where, what, and why than had been asked before. In this way our subjectivity contributes to the study of history, rather than diminishes it. It is the concerns of our individual perspectives that allow us to highlight and interpret new and different aspects of the past.

Therefore, the current bottom line reached by the present methodological discussions in the field of history is that everyone has their own slant, no historical study tells the whole story, and that it is far better to be aware of one's own agenda than to be unaware (given that one cannot escape that agenda).

Understanding the changes that have taken place in historiography since the 1960s is very important for the New Church history of today. First of all, the movements that started in the 1960s and later have made aspects of the current methodology of history significantly different than the methods that dominated the field before this time, and it is important for New Church historians to understand the current state of the field if they are to produce work that meets the standards of the field. Secondly, and more importantly, I believe that the changes of recent decades have created a new professional terrain in the field of history that is more receptive to a New Church perspective of history (provided, of course, that this history upholds professional standards of evidence analysis).

The historian Peter Novick characterizes the major change that started in the 1960s as a shift in one of the foundation blocks of historic methodology from universalism to particularism.42 Novick argues convincingly that the concept of universalism played a central role in the belief in the possibility of attaining historical objectivity, a belief that had previously dominated the field of history. However, in the 1960s the faith in historical objectivity began to be shaken and the idea that one account, one perspective, could convey the true experience for all people was seriously questioned. In conjunction with this, this decade saw the rise of "particularist" historians, that is, historians that study a particular constituency and are a member of the constituency that they study. Novick discusses two prominent examples: African-American historians of African-American history and female historians of feminist history.43 To this he adds a third example, treated more briefly, that of the public historian, that is, the historian working outside of academia for a public organization of some kind. The alternate perspectives offered by historians like these undermined the position that supported a universal, or monolithic approach to history. This older position, in which "[p]articularist commitment—national, regional, ethic, religious, ideological—were seen as enemies of the objective truth,"44 was now open to serious debate. The debate ultimately ended with an endorsement of the validity of particularist history. However, to reach this position it was extremely important to answer the question of what was appropriate methodology for the particularist historian, and the answer took quite a while to come, and to some extent is still evolving.

In the 1960s, the methodology of particularist history was still very young. Particularist historians at this time often functioned as advocates for a group that had been neglected in the study of history and this caused methodological tensions. Today, however, the methodology used by particularist historians has changed. For example, the most recent expression of women's history focuses on identifying the role of women in a given time period, rather than on proving the value of women, as it had in its early days. Ultimately, what the particularists assert is that they are considering aspects of history that have not received focus before because they are asking questions that had not been asked before. The particularists believe that the use of an alternate framework to approach a historical period or topic will produce a different result because it will bring to light aspects of the evidence that is often overlooked.

The change from a universalist approach to history to particularist approaches is an extremely significant change for the New Church historian because this change allows for a place for a New Church perspective on the professional historical stage. After all, New Church historians essentially practice particularist history. Not only are New Church historians interested in a particular perspective, a New Church approach to history, but their adherence to the faith of the New Church makes them members of the constituency associated with that perspective. Further, we believe that a New Church perspective will illuminate aspects of history that are not seen by people coming from a different perspective.

The acceptance of particularist perspectives means that there is a place in the historical field as a whole for a New Church perspective of history, provided it does not take the position of advocacy (as early particularists did) but seeks to offer a new framework for exploration (as contemporary particularists do). Taking a position of advocacy opens the door to the potential pitfall of particularist history because it can lead to the methodological flaw of determining the answer before examining the evidence. New Church historian, like all historians, must be careful to avoid this. Instead, the New Church historian needs to use New Church doctrines as a framework to examine aspects of history that we are blind to without that perspective.

I believe that one key contribution of the Writings to the study of history lies not in the how-to of history, that is, in how to assess; rather, the Writings have the most to offer in the types of questions one becomes interested in asking of history, in other words, in constructing a New Church framework for historical inquiry. Brian Henderson argues similarly that the methodology of New Church historians will not differ from that of other historians, but that the types of questions that New Church historians ask will be grounded in New Church doctrine.45

Let's consider some examples of how the doctrines of the New Church might prompt historical questions. Goodenough has discussed the issue of historical causation in this light.46 He notes that while historians focus on understanding causes, they usually avoid defining what causes are. He then notes two different doctrinal points that bear on the issue of causation—divine providence and human free will. How a New Church historian views the inter-relationship between these two effects how that historian views the nature of causation, which in turn effects how that historian analyzes historical causation. Goodenough argues that the role of human free will in historical causation needs greater recognition. He states: "This is why a good case can be made for the purpose of historical study being not an understanding of Providence, but of man, human nature."47 Because of the way he understands this doctrinal point, Goodenough rejects the historical methodologies that emphasize broad social forces or trends in favor of a methodology that emphasizes that human action is not entirely dictated by social and cultural conditions (nor entirely mandated by divine providence).48

To take another example, the doctrine that all of religion relates to life might raise questions of how all the aspects of cultural expression of a given era connect to the religion of a person or a people of that era. Rather than defining study of religion narrowly as having to do only with theology and church organizations, a New Church perspective might lead the historian to define religion much more broadly, that is, incorporating how people lived their life and why. To take another example, the teaching that all people see truth according to their own good also might lead to new questions about the relationship between how a given religion is understood and the historical and cultural context of the people participating in that religion.

In 1964, Kenneth. Holmes proposed an interesting set of questions of interest to New Church historians. He states in the notes for an address to the Education Council:

We should start the study of any people by asking:
1. What is their idea of God? (This is asked by all historians). (R.S. Junge's article on Mohammedanism in NCL)
2. What is their concept of marriage? What is the role of male and female? Lead students to the discovery of the concepts of marriage in Athens and Sparta.
3. What is their concept of the individual? (Students will come to a healthy self-realization through studying others).
4. What is their concept of charity, the neighbor, and use-relations within the society?
5. What is their concept of government, of moral and civil values?
6. What is their concept of culture assimilation and diffusion[?]49

He does not develop his reasoning behind his proposal of this intriguing set of questions further. Nevertheless, it is possible to reconstruct the New Church concepts that support the posing of each question. For example, the importance placed on marriage in New Church doctrine is most likely the reason for asking question two. Kintner, too, offered set of questions a New Church historian might use to analyze different historical cultures.50 He describes this as an "alternative approach," as indeed it is to the traditional conception of New Church history prior to the 1960s.

One of the challenges facing New Church historians today is the articulation and pursuit of new questions that are drawn from the doctrines of the New Church. This is one way that the New Church historian can make groundbreaking work in the field of history. Some of these questions may have particular interest "in-house," but I believe that others can have a much wider appeal. If we take seriously the idea that "thought from the understanding opens the eye" then we can work with the conviction that the framework provided by New Church concepts in formulating new questions and avenues for investigation will bring to light things that we overlook or don't notice without that question or focus. This is not easy work nor work that will have instant results. Instead it involves formulating penetrating historical questions on the basis of the perspective offered by New Church concepts and exploring those questions through rigorous historical analysis

This paper has identified four threads that weave through New Church approaches to history: a consideration of New Church goals in studying history, the study of history as illustration of doctrinal points, the focus on particular moments of special interest to the New Church historians, and studies of New Church methodology.

This study itself falls into the fourth category. The study of New Church methodology is an area that is still in its infancy within New Church history. Nevertheless, I believe that it is a very important area to develop for two reasons. First of all, methodological self-awareness plays a very important role in the identification of assumptions and in attempts to avoid methodological flaws. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, the assessment of methodology provides one avenue for disciplines to continue to develop and to stay vibrant. It is my hope that this paper will serve as a preliminary effort that prompts continued and more detailed work in this area.

Goodenough, Daniel W. 1986. Providence and Free Will in Human Actions. Bryn Athyn, PA

Goodenough, Daniel. W. Date unknown. "A Philosophy of the Social Studies." Unpublished notes for a presentation. [Collected in A Resource Binder of Working Documents for the Social Studies Curriculum. Oct 2001. Located in the General Church Office of Education]

Henderson, Brian D. 2002. "Brief Reflections on Studying History from a New Church Perspective" Talk at Bryn Athyn College of the New Church Alumni Weekend.

Holmes, Kenneth. 1964. "Notes on Address to Education Council" [Collected in A Resource Binder of Working Documents for the Social Studies Curriculum. Oct 2001. Located in the General Church Office of Education]

Kintner, William R. 1960. "A New Church History of Man." Unpublished outline. [Collected in A Resource Binder of Working Documents for the Social Studies Curriculum. Oct 2001. Located in the General Church Office of Education]

Kintner, William R. 1967. "An Appeal for a New Church History" Education Council Journal, 1–12.

Novick, Peter. 1988. That Noble Dream. The "Objectivity Question" and the American Historical Profession. Cambridge.

Odhner, Carl Th. 1927. The Mythology of the Greeks and Romans. Bryn Athyn, PA.

Raymond, John and Robert. Scott, eds. 1967. The Academy: A Portrait. Studies toward a Philosophy of the Curriculum. Bryn Athyn, PA.

Rogers, Prescott A. 1977. "Observations of Early Western Thought" New Philosophy, pp. 39–51.

Rogers, Prescott A. 1984. "Philosophical and Ethical Movements before the Lord's First Advent" New Philosophy, pp. 325–365.

Synnestvedt, Sigfried T. 1953. "The Philosophy of New Church Education as it relates to the Teaching of Medieval and Modern European History," Unpublished. [Collected in A Resource Binder of Working Documents for the Social Studies Curriculum. Oct 2001. Located in the General Church Office of Education]

Walker, Cynthia H. 1967. "The Visible God in New Church Education II: A Few Thoughts Concerning History" Education Council Journal, pp. 107–111.

Walker, Cynthia H. 2002. "Teaching History in the New Church" New Church Teacher 18.1, 1, 8–10.

Whitehead, William. 1915–16. "The Development of History" Journal of Education, 170–172.

Williams-Hogan, Jane. 2004. "History: Developing a New Church Perspective" in Faith and Learning at Bryn Athyn College. Ed. D.A. Synnestvedt.