6 July 1924
TO ALL MEMBERS • XVI
Something more about the Results of the Christmas Meeting
As one of the results of
the Christmas Foundation Meeting, those who take upon themselves to
work actively in the Society should make increasingly plain in the
eyes of the world the real nature of Anthroposophy, what it is and
what it is not. The following is frequently heard: Ought not this or
that anthroposophical truth to be introduced here or there without
frightening people by saying it is Anthroposophy? So long as such a
question is still a matter for discussion, much in the Society will
fail to have the effect it should.
Now
it is most important to strive for clarity in this matter. There is a
difference between advancing, in a sectarian spirit, something which
one has laid down for oneself as dogmatic Anthroposophy, and the
straightforward, open, unconcealed and unembellished standing for the
knowledge of the spiritual world which has been brought to light
through Anthroposophy in order that men may be able to reach a
relation to the spiritual world, worthy of humanity.
It
is the task of the Executive at the Goetheanum, unceasingly to carry
on the work of Anthroposophy with this understanding. Moreover this
task in its peculiar nature must be fully understood by those members
who undertake to work actively in the Society. As a result of the
Christmas Foundation Meeting, Anthroposophy and the Anthroposophical
Society should become ever more and more united. This can never be
the case as long as the seed continues to flourish which has been
disseminated through continual distinction being made in
anthroposophical circles between what is ‘orthodox’ and
what is ‘heretical’.
Above
all one must know what the true standard and content of Anthroposophy
should be. It does not consist of a sum of opinions which must be
entertained by ‘anthroposophists’. It ought never to be
said amongst anthroposophists, ‘We believe this’, ‘We
reject that’. Such agreement may arise naturally as the result
of our anthroposophical study, but it can never be put forward as an
anthroposophical ‘programme’. The right attitude can only
be: ‘Anthroposophy is there. It has been acquired by persistent
effort. I am here to represent it, so that what has thus been
acquired may be made known in the world.’ It is still much too
little felt in anthroposophical circles what a difference ―
indeed as between day and night ― exists between these two
standards. Otherwise the grotesque remark would not be heard
continually: ‘The Anthroposophical Society holds this or that
belief.’ A remark of this sort is absolutely meaningless, and
it is most important that this should be realised.
Were
a person to ask ― with the intention of obtaining a clear idea
of Anthroposophy ― let us say, the following question: ‘What
is the opinion or standard of life of some particular member of the
Anthroposophical Society?’ he would be taking quite a wrong
direction to arrive at the nature of Anthroposophy. Yet many would-be
active members act in such a manner that this question is bound to
arise. Rather should the thought arise: ‘Anthroposophy really
exists in the world, and the Anthroposophical Society provides
opportunity to become acquainted with it.’
Each
one entering this Society should have the feeling: I enter simply in
order to learn about Anthroposophy. The normal development of this
feeling can be effected by the attitude of the would-be active
members. But as things are, something quite different is often
produced. People are afraid of joining the Society because, from the
attitude of the would-be active members, they receive the impression
that they must subscribe with the inmost core of their soul to
certain dogmas. And naturally they shrink from this.
The
good-will must be developed to efface this impression. Many would-be
active members think that if people are received into the Society
merely in order that they may become acquainted with Anthroposophy,
they will leave again when they have learned what they desired, and
we shall never have a compact Society.
But
this will never happen if the Anthroposophical Society is rightly
comprehended by its would-be active members. It will however come
about if we try to make membership of the Society depend upon the
acknowledgment of even the smallest dogma ― and in this
connection every point in a ‘programme’ is a dogma. If
the members of the Anthroposophical Society are simply directed to
become acquainted with Anthroposophy by virtue of their membership,
then, whether they remain in the Society or not will depend upon
something entirely different, namely on whether they feel they can
hope to continue learning more and more in the Society.
That
again will depend upon whether the kernel of the Society is really
alive or dead, and whether in the circles of the Society the
conditions exist for the living kernel not to die away when it tries
to expand into the Society. It is the concern of the Executive at the
Goetheanum that the kernel should be alive. The Executive does not
administer dogmas; it feels itself solely as the vehicle of a
spiritual possession, of the value of which it is fully aware, and it
works for the spreading of this spiritual possession. It is happy if
anyone comes and says, ‘I wish to share in what you are doing’.
As a result of this, the Anthroposophical Society will have a living
form. And this will be kept alive if the general attitude and way of
working of all the would-be active members is in unison with the
Executive of the Goetheanum.
All
that one is justified in calling ‘confidence’ in the
Society can only flourish on such a foundation as this. If this
foundation exists it will not happen again and again that the
Anthroposophical Society appears to the world as something quite
different from what it really is.
I
know quite well the judgment that will be passed by many would-be
active members when they read the above. They will say: ‘This
we cannot understand; now we really do not know what is wanted.’
But to say this is the worst prejudice of all. The above words only
require to be read exactly, and it will then be found that
they are neither indefinite nor ambiguous. To catch their spirit does
indeed require a certain sensitiveness of feeling; but this ought
surely not to be absent in those who wish to be active in the
Anthroposophical Society.
|