Lecture Six by Rudolf Steiner given in Berlin, 10 March 1922
“Anthroposophy and Theology.”
My
dear venerated guests! As an introduction I have been obliged
to refer to a notice in the newspaper which has just been
handed to me; a notice in “Christian World,” a
publication I don't know and obviously have not thought about.
In this notice it says: “From 5 to 12 March an
Anthroposophic University Course will take place in Berlin. The
day for theologians is Friday the 10th. This event
on Friday is now an unequivocal challenge of Steiner and his
followers to the theologians ...” and so on.
Now, my dear friends, this event may be anything; what it
certainly isn't, even if it was believed to be, it would be
misunderstood in the most profound sense, if it is regarded as
a challenge to the theologians. I myself would not be involved
in any other way than having been asked to cooperate through
lectures and introductory observations in this university
course which didn't come out of my initiative. I'm least
involved in today's event (which is an insertion into this
program item of the course) by thinking that what we were
dealing with today could be understood as an “unequivocal
challenge of today's theologians.”
Thus, you will also allow, my dear friends, that not all sorts
of misunderstandings will again be linked to what I have to say
in a few introductory words today. I want to limit myself to a
theme: The relationship of Anthroposophy to Theology. I want no
new misunderstandings to arise; I will renounce some of them in
my presentation because otherwise I would have to once again
find my intention misjudged.
Dear friends, it has never been my purpose — forgive me
if I'm forced by this challenge given to me by shortly
mentioning some personal details — it has never actually
been my intention to challenge theology and from their starting
point Anthroposophy had, insofar as it presents a work sphere
in which I participate as well, never attempted to set them
apart within the work, with today's theology. This has happened
so far, and really from me it has happened as little as
possible, but unfortunately it has resulted that many attacks
against anthroposophy from the side of theology have taken
place, and sometimes people — not me particularly but
others — defends themselves. Anthroposophy wants to
remain thoroughly neutral in its working sphere, I'd like to
say, it wants to work out of present day spiritual science.
Towards the end of the previous century one had a certain
scientific direction, certain scientific methods, an attitude
and method, out of the foundation of which we have already
spoken and which can't be spoken about more extensively,
established a method and attitude which people apply to the
entire development of recent times and particularly apply to
scientific research. Through this natural scientific research
the greatest possible triumphs — I don't mean in a
trivial but in a deeper sense — have come to human
progress and human well-being. During this time natural
scientific research stands in a somewhat puzzled manner towards
philosophy. Philosophy had to separate itself from those
methods which are applied to natural science; the difference of
a factual sphere made scientific methods inapplicable in
philosophy.
People were not always, one could call it, theoretically and
epistemologically clear in what sense the scientific methods or
philosophic methods had to apply. Practice lapsed into
experimental philosophy in certain areas where it was more or
less apparent or more or less really worked, but the
uncertainty is basically there as well. By contrast
Anthroposophy worked out of the most varied foundations towards
its own working methods. On the one hand it wants to take into
account what can be achieved in modern thinking and research
methods of science, and on the other hand the human needs for
the spiritual world and its knowledge. The human being is
confronted on the one hand with the fact of fully recognising
scientific methods, and in relation to the treatment of the
scientific field — I have already mentioned this —
I am today as much a student of Haeckel as I was in the 1890's;
not in the sense of scientific methodology not to be developed
further and not as if, from the side of science Heackel's
writings should not be applied, but it comes down to quite a
different area being discussed. In the treatment of the purely
natural world I'm as much in agreement with Haeckel as at that
time. It deals more with the experience of natural scientific
observations through which one is educated in scientific
precision, in a natural scientific sense which can result in
the creation of ideas and concepts, which are needed for
working scientifically. This then holds true for all
observations in the world — due to our limited time now,
I can't give you proof of this. This remains a truth: for all
outer sensory observations this sentence is valid: “there
is nothing in the mind which wasn't previously in the
senses” — certainly on the other hand, Leibniz's
statement applies: “Except in the mind itself.”
In
the experience of the mind, that means in the weaving of the
soul through the mind's categories where ideas are experienced
in objects of nature, the examination of facts of nature which
need a formulation of natural laws, in which experience of the
world of ideas live, there is something which goes beyond the
mere sensory experiences, so that when a natural scientific
researcher confronts natural science, he must say to himself,
if he is sufficiently unprejudiced: everything in the mind must
be created out of the senses, only the mind itself can't be
created out of the senses.
Once you have understood this in a lively manner then there is
no obstacle to now observe what inwardly to some extent can be
looked at in the pursuit of the expansion of the mind's
categories through an inner soul-spiritual process, through
such a process which is inwardly quite similar to the outer
growth processes seen in the plant and animal. One remains
always true to one's conviction of natural development when one
admits that out of the seedling, if you have an inner image of
it, you gain a truth which is that the mind itself can't be
created out of the sense world. One remains true to that which
is learnt from natural existence when you make an attempt to
observe the human mind as a seedling which can grow within.
When you make this attempt in earnest then the rest is a direct
result of what I've suggested here and in other places, of the
growth of human intellect in Imagination, Inspiration and
Intuition. This is simply a fact for further progress in inner
human development. Through this the result is a true
observation of the spiritual world. This observation of the
spiritual world Anthroposophy tries to clothe, as well as
possible, in words of today's language use. Naturally one is
often forced that what one is observing — I admit this
without further ado — is clothed inadequately in words
from the simple basis that speech, as in all modern languages,
in the course of the last centuries adapted to the outer
material world outlook and today we have the experience, which
we have with words, of already being more or less orientated to
this world outlook.
As
a result, we always struggle with words if we need to dress in
words what we have observed through Imagination, Inspiration
and Intuition in such a way that it can really be proven again
through the ordinary, healthy human mind, because this must
also be a goal for Anthroposophical research.
So
Anthroposophy was simply a field of work and as such a field of
work it has become, in the strictest sense of the word,
conceived by me. Those individuals — and they make a very
small circle — who have the need to hear about such
research methods in the supersensible world, will be told and
shown what can be discovered in this way. Nobody in this
Movement will be forced in any way to participate in something
other than through their own free will. What is said about
this, that some or other suggestive means is applied, with one
person it is a conscious and with another it is an unconscious
defamation of what is really striven for in the Anthroposophic
Movement. It is true that whoever thinks it over with a healthy
mind, what is researched in Imagination, Inspiration and
Intuition, in his higher senses becomes a more free person than
any other people living in the present. His contemporaries for
instance follow currents in parties and are influenced by all
kinds of suggestions. From this inner soul dependency
Anthroposophy must free people, because it claims that
everyone, who wants to live into it, will not merely become
immobilised in simple passive thinking, but that this thinking
will make them inwardly mobile and powerful, and this empowered
thinking makes a person more free.
For
reasons, into which I don't want to enter today, it happened
that from the scientifically orientated people on which
Anthroposophy actually depend, in the beginning only very few
drew closer to Anthroposophy. Today we have really made a
start. Those people who first entered into the Anthroposophical
Movement — with more or less naive minds with strong soul
needs — they were never told anything other than what
could be found in a conscientious way within anthroposophic
research. I'm always delighted when things are said to me, for
example by one of those present here today, a very honourable
personality: ‘It is actually remarkable that you even get a
large audience, because you avoid actually talking in the way
which is considered popular, which we call understandable. You
speak in such a way that people actually always have to do work
to listen and this people don't want these days, so one must
actually wonder how you still manage to find such a large
audience.’ — These are what the words sound like, which
I've heard for years and now a seated person here has also said
them, after they had heard a course of my lectures at that
time. For popularity I have never striven because I have the
validity of Anthroposophy which I want to bring to the
world.
Now
it is extraordinary that people from all kinds of circles of
life and circles of commitment have come. Because Anthroposophy
came their way simply through their work in a certain
relationship to religious streams of the present, it actually
never came into conflict with religious needs of people who
came to it: to people, like I said, from all walks of life. For
instance, I have often been asked by Catholics who find
themselves in our midst whether in connection with religious
practice it would be possible to remain Catholics when they
also take part in the Anthroposophical Movement.
With Catholics I must say: Obviously it is possible for a good
Catholic to take part in what Anthroposophy has to offer
because Anthroposophy is there, not to limit the knowledge
which speaks about the supersensible world, but it forms a
foundation on which supersensible research can be done. This is
my preference, that what comes out of the supersensible world
is spoken about without entering into any kind of polemic.
Someone who honestly says what he sees, knows how polemic comes
about and how unfruitful that really is. My original striving
was simply to honestly say what is found through Anthroposophy
and to exclude any polemic considerations. Things don't always
happen this way in life. Still, within the Anthroposophical
Movement people of all faiths are found together, and so I
would like to say that Catholics may obviously take part in the
Anthroposophic Movement, but it will only come into one single
point of conflict in the practical religious exercises and that
is the audible confession. Not on the basis of it being an
audible confession because that could be considered as a matter
of conscience. I have found enough protestant clergymen who
have gloated over a kind of confession in order to develop an
intimate relationship with the congregation. One can have
various opinions regarding this. However, here the point is
that the Catholic Church denies the altar sacrament to anyone
who has not made an audible confession before it. Due to this
impediment, taking part practically in the most important
Catholic church sacrament is difficult because those beliefs
which are gained from the supersensible world need to be
combined with this behaviour which is not freely done but which
have nevertheless to be adhered to in the Roman Catholic Church
constitution. The audible confession, as it is handled, tears
the Catholic away from freely following the supersensible
world, not because of Anthroposophy but because of the Roman
Catholic Church constitution.
This could be avoided if confession could be avoided. One can't
avoid it because otherwise one can't participate in the
communion service. Still you can find many Catholics who search
within the Anthroposophical Movement to satisfy their soul
needs.
My
dear friends, it is of course natural that people of all
beliefs come to Anthroposophy, it is natural that simply in our
time a strong need has developed to express what Christianity
is about within the Anthroposophical Society. Now I would like
to say the following. Just as with all other phenomena of
research, in as far as the phenomena of the supersensible and
sensible world flow together, just so Anthroposophy regards the
content of Christology; it likewise tries to help with research
into the supersensible regarding the content of Christology,
help which can be acquired through anthroposophical methods.
Now it is difficult to say in only a few words what
characterises the position of Anthroposophy regarding
Christology, but I would like to say the following.
We
observe people in earthly life between birth and death where
they have their soul and spirit life in their physical being,
that they are bound to their physical body in relation to what
they observe and process whatever is presented to them in their
environment, also in relation to work itself, in relation to
their life of will and finally in the way in which they place
themselves in the sensory physical world. When a person looks
back at when he wakes up, naturally in his surroundings, he
firstly finds perceptions possible through the senses of his
body, through his mind, and all of these experiences and
observations of his environment he experiences as combined.
However, because his mind, intellect and ancient spirituality
are carried within his own spirit, so he can — if he only
thinks enough about himself, if he only looks away from the
environment and looks at himself — not deny that through
his own activity he comes to the conclusion culminating in a
concept which only has spiritual content and that this
spiritual content — if I may express it this way —
is the Father-godly imagination. Here anthroposophical research
must be of help with its methods. I can only briefly
characterise this. It makes the entire human cognitive work
process clear — this will also emerge out of the lectures
in this course. It also wants to point to what happens through
people when they try to turn their gaze away from the outer
world, in order to gradually observe their own past actions and
ask themselves: What have you actually done? What justifies you
at all to make an imagination of the outer world? — By
researching this experience far enough a person — when I
may use this expression again — comes to a Father-godly
experience. Whoever examines this divine godly-Father
experience through Anthroposophy, arrives at quite a definite
judgement. I ask that this judgement, which is a fact, which I
speak about radically, should not be misunderstood.
A
person arrives at this verdict, a person who is totally healthy
— totally in full health in his physical body —
comes to this godly Father experience, this means that whoever
doesn't arrive at this godly-Father experience carries some or
another degenerative symptom, even if hidden. In other words,
through Anthroposophical research you can say: To not come to a
Father-godly experience indicates some human illness. That is
of course radical to say because illness is ordinarily seen
through physical means because — if I might say so
— it dwells in the subtleties of the human organisation.
In fact, it is clear to those who research through
Anthroposophy: Atheism is illness.
What I've said yesterday about the development of opinions,
right or wrong, this is particularly important here. If a
person follows only this route then he will come to a
Father-godly experience. When he then goes further in this way,
if he becomes aware what shortcomings live in his soul, if he
only comes to this Father-god experience, he becomes aware that
basically in the limitation of modern humanity leaning towards
intellectualism there also lies a kind of limitation of this
godly-Father experience, then he will realise he must go
further with this godly-Father experience. Here outer
observations can support this easily.
It
is an extraordinary fact that in western countries where
natural science has grown to its maximum intensity and where
this scientific attitude doesn't want to enter into discussing
the supersensible but that religion must remain preserved, that
just in these religious movements of western countries the
spirit of the Old Testament has particularly and successfully
intervened even in our modern time. We see how in the west,
when Christianity is outwardly accepted and preached that it is
done totally in the spirit of the Old Testament; in a certain
sense Christianity reshapes the Father-god and doesn't discern
a difference between the Father-god and Christ.
In
the (European) east by contrast, where people's minds don't see
the division between religion and science as sharply as in the
west; in the east where this bridge for the human soul more or
less exists as an elementary inner soul experience — we
find that for example in the presentations of the great
philosopher Vladimir Soloviev — how the Christ
experience, as an independent experience, exists beside the
Father experience.
In
this way one can say to oneself: indeed, a completely healthy
person can't be an atheist if he combines everything around him
in the outer world into the culmination of a God-imagination,
which he must give a spiritual content; yet he remains with
only a Father-imagination. With this Father-imagination one
doesn't arrive at a summary of outer natural phenomena, it
fails immediately when applied to one's own human development;
one is then, as it were, abandoned. By deepening this inner
development from this point at which one has arrived, having
taken up the outer world into one's soul — then by
following this inner development one will, if by open-mindedly
pursuing it, come to a Christ experience, which is initially
present as an indefinite inner experience. This experience
continues to be recognised by Anthroposophy. A person, simply
through honest observation of the human evolution on earth,
comes to seeing before his own eyes, the Mystery of Golgotha,
the historic Mystery of Golgotha. He arrives here through the
inner development of spiritual organs which direct him to
Imagination, Inspiration and Intuition. If one with the help of
these research means pursues the way human development went
from antiquity to the Mystery of Golgotha, then one finds that
everywhere in religious imagination — not only in the Old
Testament religious imagination — lived a gravitation to
the coming of the Christ-Spirit.
Then one can simply through observation, learn to recognise how
the Christ-Spirit was not united with the earth in the time
before the Mystery of Golgotha. By pursuing all of this which
was sought for in the mysteries, was popular in pre-Christian
religions, then we see how the images they made of their gods,
finally all melt together into what the Christ-Imagination is.
We see how the minds of people all over the world are lifted to
the supernatural when they turn to their gods in their souls.
We see how the point of origin for earthly mankind's
development was simply more given through the human
organisation than what was perceived through the senses or the
mind in what could be observed in his surroundings. It entered
into the human soul — most strongly in ancient times, and
then less and less — what I would call instinctive
perception — not earthly — of the world, to which
the human being felt he belonged. In the moment when a person,
through the mysteries or through popular religion, is brought
to where he can lift his soul into seeing extra-terrestrially,
and with which he knows he is united in his deepest being, at
this moment a person experiences a rebirth within himself.
Now
my dear friends, when we follow human evolution from an
Anthroposophic point of view up to the Mystery of Golgotha, it
shows that these abilities, which dwelt within human beings,
actually diminished gradually and were no longer there the
moment the Mystery of Golgotha took place on the earth.
Certainly there can be remnants, for evolution doesn't take
place in leaps. Individuals preserved, though perhaps
inaccurately but still instinctively, an awareness of what had
once been seen; this can be pursued in art. Then the Mystery of
Golgotha took place on earth. In the Mystery of Golgotha
Anthroposophy sees the streaming in of that spirit which
previously could only be searched for in the extra-terrestrial:
the in streaming of the Christ into the human body of Jesus.
How this can individually be imagined, can only be discussed
with those who have engaged positively in these fields of
research. Here Anthroposophy shows how from that time onwards,
from the time of the Mystery of Golgotha, another time has
begun on earth, a time about which all the old religious
knowledge confessed about. The Christ who went through the
Mystery of Golgotha, the Christ who Paul saw on the way to
Damascus, the Christ then remained within in the earth with
humanity. This is what these words want to say: “I am
with you every day until the end of the world.” He lives
among us, He can be found again. The Paul experience can, with
certain preparation, be renewed time and time again. Then, if
Christ is searched for in this way, a person — by looking
at his own inner development — just as since the Mystery of
Golgotha happened on earth — can see Christ walking; he
discovers Christ in his inner life in the same way as when in
the outer world — if he is not ill with atheism — he found the
Father-god.
Thus, I can only fleetingly, in a sketch, indicate how
Anthroposophy through real research of the Christ event, can
arrive at an inner objective fact. With all possible detail
Anthroposophy tries to present the Christ event as the most
important fact of the earthly life of humanity, as something
which happened objectively. For this reason, the entire spirit
through which the Christ event is presented in Anthroposophy is
done in such a way that this event can be absorbed simply as
fact. We have within the anthroposophic movement experienced
that for example Jewish confessors found themselves in the most
genuine, truest and honest sense in recognising the Mystery of
Golgotha. With this, my dear friends, the Anthroposophical
Movement has already anticipated what after all must enter into
human evolution: through directly pointing to what can be seen
in the Mystery of Golgotha, how the way to Christianity can be
found again.
There is always a question whether there isn't yet a deep
meaning in the book by Overbeck, a friend of Friedrich
Nietzsche, that modern theology is no longer Christian. If this
is legitimate then one could even, perhaps with a certain
right, say: Anthroposophy is suitable for directing people in a
lively way to the Christ experience. It states that during the
time in which the Christ event took place there still existed
an instinctive insight among some individuals, so that the
spiritual foundation, or I might call it, the spiritual
substantiality of the Mystery of Golgotha could be seen and
acknowledged in the first Christian centuries. We then see how
this diminished gradually; we see it completely fade in the
figure of Scotus Erigena, we see medieval theology spreading
where the attempt was being made to separate itself from what
modern humanity had to develop in the intellect, that which,
when it is left to the person who no longer develops inwardly,
he becomes incapable of accessing the supersensible worlds. It
split what wanted to enter into the human soul into what was
recognisable by the intellect, and what people could not attain
themselves, except through a revelation.
On
this basis one can understand the entire medieval theology,
especially Thomistic theology which was considered by
Catholicism as the only authority. Today something can be said
about this. What Anthroposophy was and is, is nothing other
than simply to express what exists and is available through
spiritual observation.
As
Anthroposophy comes to the proposition that atheism is actually
a hidden illness, it arrives at a second proposition: Not
finding the Christ, not finding a relationship with the Christ
is destiny for humanity, is the fate of misfortune. Atheism is
an illness, not finding the Christ is the fate of misfortune
because one can find Him in an inward experience. Then He
positions Himself there as that Being who has gone through the
Mystery of Golgotha. One can only discover Christ through one's
inner life; one doesn't need anthroposophical research to be a
religious person in the Christian sense. Then again, when one
has come to Christ, one becomes a member of the spiritual world
and one can really speak about a resurrection of the human
being in the spiritual world, because the person who fails to
find Christ in regard to his world view, is restricted. Atheism
is an illness! Not coming to Christ is a destiny, not reaching
the spirit is soul obtuseness!
Now, my dear friends, Anthroposophy relates from such
foundations basically only to religion (and not theology) and
to religion only in as far as people who have religious needs
and who are unable to fulfil them through current declarations,
approach Anthroposophy. Anthroposophy will only do what is
necessary within the needs of today, and that which others fail
to do. What ethos is at this basis — I have to always
characterise this again — you can find from the
following.
Some years ago, I once held a lecture in a southern German town
— at that time it was a German town but it no longer is
— a lecture entitled “Bible and Wisdom”. Two
Catholic priests were present at the lecture. After the lecture
they both approached me and said: “We actually haven't
found anything in your lecture which could be challenged from a
Catholic point of view.”
I
answered: “If only I could always be so lucky!”
To
this they both replied: “Yes, but we noticed something,
it is not what you say but it is the manner and way
how you present it. We must add that you speak to people
who are prepared in a certain way. You lecture to a kind of
congregation who have a certain education; we, however, speak
to all people.”
I
said: “Reverend, it doesn't come down to how our
subjective experiences decide, but it comes down to us living
into our work in evolution, that we don't imagine we speak for
all people but that we answer such a question according to what
objectively lives in the evolution of humanity. So, I can
imagine I speak for all people — and could be very
mistaken — you can imagine that. It is very good for
enthusiasm to have such an imagination. Still, ask yourselves
for once: do all people who have the need to hear something
about Christ all come to church?”
Both of them couldn't say yes because naturally they knew that
a lot of people who search for a way to Christ, do not come to
the church.
So
I said: “You see, for those who don't come to you and
still search for a way to Christ, it is for those I
speak.”
This means finding your task in the evolution of time, and not
to imagine you speak for everyone, but to ask: are there minds
out there who want to accept this or that in a special way?
Anthroposophy never turns to any other mindset, like to some or
other religious confession.
When we, in the Waldorf School, manage to apply teaching in a
practical way out of Anthroposophy we still completely avoid
making the Waldorf School a school which will splice
Anthroposophy into the heads of the children. With regards to
religious instruction, we leave the Catholic children to be
instructed by a catholic priest and the evangelists by an
evangelist priest. Only for the dissident children there is a
freer kind of religious instruction, but in the thorough
Christian sense. We don't introduce abstract Anthroposophy
— also no concrete anthroposophy which is presented to
grown-ups — but we try with all our good intensions to
bring to the children what is suitable to the stage of their
development; all of that must first be searched for and
determined according to the content and method. Through those
of us who have given free religious instruction, we have
managed to bring those children who have no religious
instruction as such, towards Christianity and they come in
droves to take part in this kind of religious instruction.
Never have we preached some or other kind of religious
propaganda within the Anthroposophical Movement and even less
would Anthroposophy embark on something against single
theological systems. With this in mind, anthroposophy can only
apply itself to finding differences in separate theological
systems in order to understand them and not to oppose them.
Thus, I've always regarded it to be my task when I speak to
people who have come to Anthroposophy: to make it
understandable why Catholicism has become Catholic, Protestants
Protestant, Judaism Jewish and Buddhism Buddhistic and how all
of them — I believe that is a Christian concept —
have within them a Being who through their destiny will let
them experience the true Christ.
So
it is not possible, if attacks have not originated from the
other side, to start a struggle between Anthroposophy and
theology, and also today I want to utter these words, while it
has been asked for from those who organised today's
theologian's day. The only task of Anthroposophy is the
pronouncement of anthroposophic research results about the
supersensible worlds. This is why I have always been reticent
in particular regarding attacks originating from the
theological side.
Anthroposophy doesn't want to act as a fighter on the scene but
to satisfy the legitimate demands of human soul needs of the
time. Everyone who in this sense wants to work together with
Anthroposophy and wants to bring to the surface the fulfilment
of legitimate, soul foundations of human soul needs, everyone
who wants to work with her in this sense, is welcome!
|