6 April 1924
TO ALL MEMBERS • XII
Concerning Group Meetings
For some time there has
been considerable debate among the members of the Anthroposophical
Society over the Group Meetings, as to whether it should be the rule
to promote in these, by reading and discussion, the general knowledge
of the existing anthroposophical literature, or whether preference
should be given to lectures by members, where those who desire to
take active part in the work of the Movement speak freely on whatever
they have to say.
If
we give careful thought to the conditions under which the
anthroposophical work goes on, it will be clear to us at once that
neither in the one nor in the other direction must we be active in a
one-sided way, but that, in so far as opportunity allows, activity in
both directions must find place. We have in the anthroposophical
literature that which shows us the way, introduces us, into the
Society. Its purpose is to form a basis for all that the Society is
and does. And if a knowledge and understanding of the literature is
promoted in the Group Meetings, it will give to the Society that
character of unity which it needs if it is to have true content and
substance.
Let
no one object: Whatever is in print, I can read myself at home; I do
not need to have it given me in the Group Meetings. The error of this
view has already been pointed out in these columns. We should see
significance in the fact that we receive the spiritual treasures of
Anthroposophy together with those who are united with us as members
of the Society. This feeling of being together and of receiving the
Spiritual together, is not to be viewed lightly as having no meaning
or value.
It
is also necessary that the members who want to take an active part
should be interested in making the anthroposophical literature the
spiritual property of all the members. It is not right that many
members who have been for years in the Society hear nothing in the
Group Meetings of matters concerning which definite knowledge has
been given in the literature.
On
the other hand this must be said: The life in the Society would
suffer serious harm, if as many active members as possible were not
to bring forward within the Society what they had to say from out of
their own impulse and thought. This kind of activity can quite well
be brought into harmony with the other. It has to be borne in mind
that Anthroposophy can only become what it should become when more
and more human beings take part in its development and cultivation.
We should not rule it out, we should rather be glad when members who
are taking an active share in the Movement give information in the
Group Meetings on the work they have been doing.
One
often hears it said about what many members thus bring forward, that
‘it is not Anthroposophy’. The verdict may in individual
cases have its justification. But whither should we go, if we sinned
against the truth that in the Anthroposophical Society everything
should live that pertains to the spiritual heritage of mankind? A
certain matter will be brought forward because it may form a basis
for anthroposophical reflections. Another will be imparted for the
purpose of later elucidation by anthroposophical points of view. So
long as the fundamental anthroposophical character is preserved in
the Society's work, a narrow limitation should not be set against
whatever may be brought forward by individual members.
The
object should not be to exclude anything that the group in its
meetings might do, but it should rather lie in harmonising and
tending the literature that is to hand, and in bringing forward
whatever separate members may feel prompted by their own
individuality to say.
It
is not by uniformity but by variety that we shall reach the goal of
the Anthroposophical Society. We should be heartily glad of the fact
that we have in our Society so many members who out of their own
personality have something to give. We should get accustomed to
recognising such members. There can only be a true life in the
Society when the activities within it are properly valued.
Narrow-hearted refusal or ‘turning down’ should be the
rarest of faults in the Anthroposophical Society. Much more should
one develop the enthusiasm to learn as much as possible of what the
one or the other in the Society has to say.
|