The Impulse for Renewal in Culture and Science
GA 81
10 March 1922, Berlin
6. 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!
Anthroposophie und Theologie
Meine sehr verehrten Anwesenden! Ich bin genötigt, auszugehen von einer Zeitschriftennotiz, die mir eben überreicht worden ist, einer Notiz in der «Christlichen Welt», von der ich — weil ich sie vorher nicht kannte — selbstverständlich nicht dachte, bei meinen heutigen einleitenden Worten auszugehen. In dieser Zeitungsnotiz steht: «Vom 5. bis 12. März findet in Berlin ein anthroposophischer Hochschulkurs statt. ... Der Tag der Theologen ist Freitag, der 10. — Diese Veranstaltung am Freitag ist nun eine unzweideutige Herausforderung Steiners und seiner Anhänger an die Theologen» und so weiter.
Nun, meine sehr verehrten Anwesenden, diese heutige Veranstaltung mag alles andere sein; das, was sie jedenfalls nicht ist und wodurch sie, wenn es der Glaube wäre, im allertiefsten Sinne mißverstanden würde, das ist eine Herausforderung an die Theologen. Ich selber bin an dieser Veranstaltung niemals in irgendeiner anderen Weise beteiligt gewesen, als daß ich gefragt worden bin, ob ich durch Vorträge und einleitende Betrachtungen mitwirken wolle an diesem Hochschulkurse, dessen Initiative nicht von mir ausgegangen ist. Ich bin am wenigsten beteiligt an der heutigen Veranstaltung, das heißt, an der Einfügung dieses Programmpunktes in den Hochschulkurs, und ich würde niemals daran gedacht haben, daß dasjenige, was heute hier verhandelt werden soll, aufgefaßt werden könnte als eine «unzweideutige Herausforderung an die heutigen Theologen».
Daher gestatten Sie auch, meine sehr verehrten Anwesenden, damit nicht wieder oder neuerdings alle möglichen Mißverständnisse sich an das knüpfen, was ich hier als ganz wenige einleitende Worte zu sagen haben werde, daß ich mich heute wirklich beschränke auf das Thema: Das Verhältnis der Anthroposophie zur Theologie, und daß ich mit Rücksicht darauf, daß nicht neue Mißverständnisse entstehen, auf einiges verzichte von dem, was von mir hier vorgebracht würde, weil ich sonst neuerdings sehen müßte, wie das verkannt wird, was von mir gewollt wird.
Sehr verehrte Anwesende, es war niemals mein Bestreben — verzeihen Sie, wenn ich durch diese an mich ergangene Herausforderung gezwungen bin, heute ganz kurz in der Einleitung einzelne persönliche Bemerkungen zu machen —, es war eigentlich niemals meine Absicht, irgendwie die Theologie herauszufordern, und von ihrem Ausgangspunkt an hat Anthroposophie, insofern sie ein Arbeitsgebiet darstellt, an dem ich selbst beteiligt bin, niemals irgendwie gesucht, sich innerhalb ihrer Arbeit mit der heutigen Theologie als solcher auseinanderzusetzen. Das ist, insofern es geschehen ist, und es ist ja wirklich von mir so wenig wie möglich geschehen, lediglich dadurch geschehen, daß Angriffe gegen die Anthroposophie von theologischer Seite her allerdings sehr viele erfolgt sind, und daß man sich — nicht so sehr ich als andere — manchmal zur Wehr setzt. Denn Anthroposophie wollte als Arbeitsgebiet durchaus, ich möchte sagen, der Theologie gegenüber neutral bleiben, sie will arbeiten aus dem gegenwärtigen Wissenschaftsgeist heraus.
Man hatte am Ende des vorigen Jahrhunderts eine gewisse wissenschaftliche Richtung, gewisse wissenschaftliche Methoden, eine gewisse wissenschaftliche Gesinnung vor sich, eine Gesinnung und Methode, welche aus Gründen, über die ich schon gesprochen habe, und über die wegen der Kürze der Zeit nicht ausführlich gesprochen werden kann, eine Methode und Gesinnung, die man aus der ganzen geschichtlichen Entwicklung der neueren Zeit insbesondere anwendete auf die naturwissenschaftliche Forschung, und durch die man innerhalb der naturwissenschaftlichen Forschung die größtmöglichsten Triumphe — ich meine das nicht in einem trivialen, sondern in einem tieferen Sinne - für Menschenfortschritt und Menschenwohl errungen hat. Der naturwissenschaftlichen Forschung stand in dieser Zeit die Philosophie, ich möchte sagen etwas ratlos gegenüber. Die Philosophie mußte sich auseinandersetzen mit denjenigen Methoden, welche vor allen Dingen auf die Naturwissenschaft angewendet worden sind, und welche in der Philosophie, in der man es doch mit einem ganz anderen Tatsachengebiet zu tun hat, nicht anwendbar waren.
Man war sich, ich möchte sagen theoretisch und erkenntnistheoretisch nicht immer darüber klar, in welchem Sinne man mit den naturwissenschaftlichen Methoden in der Philosophie arbeiten sollte. Man ist dann in der experimentellen Psychologie auf ein gewisses Gebiet verfallen, wo es mehr oder weniger scheinbar oder auch mehr oder weniger richtig geht, aber die Unsicherheit ist im Grunde genommen doch auch da vorhanden. Demgegenüber erarbeitete sich Anthroposophie aus den verschiedensten Untergründen heraus ihre eigene Arbeitsmethode. Sie will auf der einen Seite demjenigen Rechnung tragen, was gerade mit der besonderen Ausbildung der neueren Denk- und Forschungsmethoden in der Naturwissenschaft zu erreichen ist, auf der anderen Seite den menschlichen Bedürfnissen nach einer geistigen Welt und ihrer Erkenntnis. Man stand auf der einen Seite vor der Tatsache, die naturwissenschaftlichen Methoden voll anzuerkennen, und in bezug auf die Behandlung des naturwissenschaftlichen Gebietes — ich habe das schon ausgesprochen — bin ich heute selbst noch so Haeckelianer, wie ich es in den 90er Jahren des vorigen Jahrhunderts gewesen bin; nicht in dem Sinne, als ob die naturwissenschaftlichen Methoden nicht weitergebildet werden müßten und als ob nicht gerade von Seiten der Naturwissenschaft manches gegen das, was Haeckel geschrieben hat, eingewendet werden müßte, aber da kommt man auf ein ganz anderes Diskussionsgebiet, ich meine in der Behandlung der rein natürlichen Welt bin ich heute genauso Haeckelianer wie damals. Es handelt sich mehr darum, was man an der naturwissenschaftlichen Betrachtungsart erlebt, namentlich dadurch, daß man sich erzieht in naturwissenschaftlicher Exaktheit, in naturwissenschaftlicher Gesinnung, also um das, was man dadurch ausbilden kann an Ideen und Begriffen, die man einfach braucht, wenn man naturwissenschaftlich arbeiten will. Denn eines bleibt für alle Weltbetrachtung — ich kann wegen der Kürze der Zeit jetzt den Beweis dafür nicht erbringen — eine Wahrheit: Wenn für die äußere Sinnesbeobachtung der Satz gilt: Es ist nichts im Verstande, was nicht vorher in den Sinnen ist —, so gilt ganz gewiß auf der anderen Seite der Leibnizsche Satz: «außer der Verstand selber».
Im Erleben des Verstandes, das heißt in dem SichBewegen der Seele in den Verstandes-Kategorien, in dem Erleben der Ideen, mit denen man die Naturobjekte, die Naturtatsachen untersucht und die man zuletzt zur Formulierung der Naturgesetze braucht, in dem Erleben dieser Ideenwelt liegt etwas, was durchaus über das Erleben von bloß Sinnlichem hinausgeht, so daß man, wenn man als naturwissenschaftlicher Forscher der Naturwissenschaft gegenübersteht, sich sagen muß, wenn man unbefangen genug dazu ist: Alles das, was im Verstande ist, muß aus den Sinnen heraus geschöpft werden, nur der Verstand selbst kann nicht aus den Sinnen heraus geschöpft werden.
Hat man aber einmal lebensvoll dies begriffen, dann gibt es auch kein Hindernis dafür, nun zu betrachten, was innerlich gewissermaßen angeschaut wird in der Verfolgung, die Verstandes-Kategorien weiterzubilden durch einen innerlichen seelisch-geistigen Prozeß, durch einen solchen Prozeß, der innerlich etwas ganz ähnliches ist wie äußere Wachstumsprozesse bei der Pflanze und beim Tier. Man bleibt durchaus mit seiner Gesinnung gerade dem natürlichen Werden treu, wenn man zugibt, daß aus dem Keim, den man in innerlicher Anschauung vor sich hat, man die Wahrheit gewinnt, daß der Verstand selbst nicht aus der Sinneswelt geschöpft werden kann. Man bleibt dem treu, was man erlernt hat an dem natürlichen Dasein, wenn man den Versuch macht, den menschlichen Verstand selbst als einen Keim zu betrachten, der innerlich wachsen kann; und wenn man diesen Versuch wirklich unternimmt, dann ist das übrige eine unmittelbare Folge dessen, was ich in diesen Tagen hier und an anderen Orten geschildert habe von dem Wachsen des menschlichen Intellekts in Imagination, Inspiration und Intuition. Das ist lediglich eine Sache des weiteren Fortschrittes der inneren menschlichen Entwicklung. Dadurch ergibt sich aber eine wirkliche Anschauung der geistigen Welt. Diese Anschauung der geistigen Welt versucht man in der Anthroposophie, so gut es geht, nach dem heutigen Sprachgebrauch in Worte zu kleiden. Man ist natürlich oftmals genötigt, das, was man schaut — ich gebe es ohne weiteres zu —, in ungenügender Weise in Worte zu kleiden, aus dem einfachen Grunde, weil unsere Sprache, wie alle modernen Sprachen, im Laufe der letzten Jahrhunderte angepaßt wurde dem äußeren materiellen Weltanschauen und wir heute einfach die Empfindungen, die wir bei den Worten haben, schon mehr oder weniger an dieser Weltanschauung orientiert haben.
Daher ringt man immer mit den Worten, wenn man in die Notwendigkeit versetzt ist, dasjenige, was durch Imagination, Inspiration, Intuition angeschaut wurde, in Worte einzukleiden, es namentlich so in Worte einzukleiden, daß es nun wirklich nachgeprüft werden kann durch den gewöhnlichen gesunden Menschenverstand, denn dies muß wiederum ein Ziel anthroposophischer Forschung sein.
So war Anthroposophie einfach ein Arbeitsgebiet, und als solches Arbeitsgebiet wird sie im strengsten Sinne des Wortes von mir aufgefaßt. Diejenigen Menschen, die — es war zunächst ein sehr kleiner Kreis — ein Bedürfnis hatten, etwas zu hören über das, was durch eine solche Forschungsmethode aus der übersinnlichen Welt erkundet werden kann, denen wurde das gesagt und gezeigt, was auf diese Weise gefunden werden kann. Niemand wurde irgendwie herangezwungen an diese Bewegung durch etwas anderes als durch seinen eigenen freien Willen, daran teilzunehmen. Was darüber gesagt wird, daß irgendwie suggestive Mittel oder dergleichen angewendet werden, das ist bei den einen eine bewußte, bei den andern eine unbewußte Verleumdung dessen, was in der anthroposophischen Bewegung eigentlich gewollt wird. Und es gilt, daß der, welcher mit seinem gesunden Menschenverstand dasjenige nachdenkt, was durch Imagination, Inspiration und Intuition erforscht wird, im höheren Sinne gerade ein freierer Mensch wird, als es die Menschen in der Gegenwart sind. Diese Menschen der Gegenwart laufen zum Beispiel ihren Parteiströmungen nach, lassen sich alles Mögliche suggerieren. Von diesen inneren seelischen Abhängigkeiten gerade muß Anthroposophie die Menschen befreien, weil sie darauf Anspruch macht, daß jeder, der sich in sie einleben will, nicht bloß in dem gewöhnlichen, mehr passiven Denken verharrt, sondern das Denken innerlich beweglich macht, es erkraftet, und durch dieses innerlich erkraftete Denken wird man gerade ein freier Mensch.
Aus Gründen, auf die ich heute nicht eingehen will, kam es, daß von den wissenschaftlich orientierten Menschen, auf die eigentlich bei der Anthroposophie gerade gerechnet war, anfangs nur sehr wenige an die Anthroposophie herankamen. Heute haben wir damit einen gewissen Anfang gemacht. Denjenigen Menschen, welche zuerst in die anthroposophische Bewegung hineinkamen — es waren mehr oder weniger naive Gemüter mit starken seelischen Bedürfnissen -, denen wurde niemals etwas anderes gesagt als das, was in gewissenhafter Weise innerhalb der anthroposophischen Forschung gefunden werden konnte. Und ich freute mich immer, wenn mir Dinge gesagt wurden, wie zum Beispiel von einer heute auch hier anwesenden, sehr verehrten Persönlichkeit: Es ist eigentlich merkwürdig, daß Sie überhaupt einen größeren Zuhörerkreis bekommen, denn Sie vermeiden es eigentlich in der Art zu sprechen, was man sonst populär, allgemein verständlich nennt. Sie sprechen so, daß die Menschen eigentlich immer eine innere Arbeit verrichten müssen beim Zuhören, und das wollen doch heute die Leute nicht, so daß man sich eigentlich wundern muß, daß Sie einen größeren Zuhörerkreis finden. — So ähnlich klangen die Worte, die mir eine heute auch hier sitzende Persönlichkeit vor Jahren sagte, nachdem sie damals eine Reihe von Vorträgen angehört hatte. Nach Popularität bin ich wahrlich niemals gegangen, indem ich Anthroposophie habe vor der Welt zur Geltung bringen wollen.
Nun war es das Eigentümliche, daß zu uns Menschen aus allen Lebenskreisen und auch aus allen Bekenntniskreisen gekommen sind. Und insofern Anthroposophie auf diese Weise einfach durch ihre Arbeit in ein gewisses Verhältnis kam zur religiösen Strömung der Gegenwart, kam sie eigentlich zunächst niemals in irgendeinen Konflikt mit den religiösen Bedürfnissen derjenigen Menschen, die zu ihr kamen: Leute — wie gesagt — aller Lebenskreise. Ich bin zum Beispiel von Katholiken, die sich in unserer Mitte befinden, oftmals gefragt worden, ob es in bezug auf praktische religiöse Übung möglich sei, Katholik zu bleiben, wenn man an der anthroposophischen Bewegung teilnimmt.
Gerade bei Katholiken mußte ich sagen: Selbstverständlich ist es auch möglich, daß man als ganz guter Katholik teilnimmt an dem, was Anthroposophie bietet, denn Anthroposophie ist dazu da, nicht in der Beschränkung auf ein bestimmtes Bekenntnis über die übersinnliche Welt zu reden, sondern einfach auf Grundlage dessen, was in der übersinnlichen Welt erforscht werden kann. So würde es mir am meisten entsprechen, dasjenige, was da aus der übersinnlichen Welt herauskommt, einfach zu den Menschen zu sagen und gar nicht teilzunehmen an irgendeiner Polemik. Denn der, der ehrlich dasjenige sagt, was er erschaut, weiß ja, wodurch Polemiken entstehen und wie unfruchtbar sie eigentlich sind. Mein ursprüngliches Bestreben war einfach, schlicht und ehrlich dasjenige zu sagen, was durch Anthroposophie gefunden werden kann, und keine Rücksicht zu nehmen auf die Polemiken. Solche Dinge gehen ja aber im Leben nicht immer so ab. Doch innerhalb der anthroposophischen Bewegung fanden sich eben die Menschen aller Glaubenskreise zusammen, auch Katholiken, und so mußte ich sagen: Auch der Katholik kann selbstverständlich an der anthroposophischen Bewegung teilnehmen, er wird nur in einem einzigen Punkte in Konflikt kommen mit der praktischen Ausübung der Religion, und das ist die Ohrenbeichte. Nicht aus dem Grunde, weil sie Ohrenbeichte ist, denn das könnte als eine bloße Gewissenssache betrachtet werden. Ich habe genug protestantische Geistliche gefunden, die geradezu gelechzt haben nach einer Art von Ohrenbeichte, um in eine Art intimeres Verhältnis zur Gemeinde zu kommen. Darüber kann man verschiedene Ansichten haben. Aber hier handelt es sich darum, daß die katholische Kirche demjenigen das Altarsakrament verweigert, der nicht vorher die Ohrenbeichte abgelegt hat. Und wegen dieser Verhinderung, praktisch teilzunehmen an dem wichtigsten Sakrament der katholischen Kirche, ist es für den Katholiken außerordentlich schwierig, dann diejenigen Überzeugungen, die er aus der übersinnlichen Welt bekommt, zu vereinigen mit diesem Verhalten, das ein unfreies ist, und das er durch die römisch-katholische Kirchenverfassung dennoch befolgen muß. Die Ohrenbeichte, so wie sie gehandhabt wird, reißt — nicht wegen der Anthroposophie, sondern wegen der römisch-katholischen Kirchenverfassung — den Katholiken heraus aus dem freien Verfolgen der übersinnlichen Welt.
Das würde der Katholik vermeiden können, wenn er die Ohrenbeichte vermeiden könnte. Er kann sie nicht vermeiden, weil er sonst des Abendmahles nicht teilhaftig werden könnte. Hier liegt die Schwierigkeit, in die der Katholik kommt. Aber dennoch haben sich viele Katholiken gefunden, die innerhalb der anthroposophischen Bewegung die Bedürfnisse ihrer Seele zu befriedigen versuchen.
Sehr verehrte Anwesende, es war natürlich, daß Menschen aller Bekenntnisse an die Anthroposophie herankamen, es war natürlich, daß einfach aus unserer Zeit heraus ein starkes Bedürfnis danach entstand, innerhalb der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft über das zu reden, was das Christentum betrifft. Nun möchte ich darüber das Folgende sagen: Gerade so wie alle anderen Objekte der Forschung, insofern in diesen Objekten zusammenfließen Übersinnliches und Sinnliches in dieser Welt, gerade so betrachtet Anthroposophie zunächst den Inhalt der Christologie; und ebenso versucht sie mit Hilfe ihrer übersinnlichen Forschung über den Inhalt der Christologie dasjenige zu erforschen und zu geben, was eben mit ihren Methoden erlangt werden kann. Nun ist es schwer, in ein paar Worten etwas zu sagen, was die Stellung der Anthroposophie zur Christologie charakterisieren kann, aber ich möchte das Folgende bemerken.
Wir sehen den Menschen zunächst hier im Erdenleben zwischen Geburt und Tod so, daß er mit seinem seelischen und geistigen Leben in dem physischen Leibe sein Dasein hat, daß er an seinen physischen Leib gebunden ist in bezug auf das Anschauen und auf die Verarbeitung dessen, was in seiner Umgebung ist, auch in bezug auf seine Arbeit selbst, in bezug auf sein Willensleben und überhaupt in bezug auf die Art, wie er sich in diese sinnlich-physische Welt hineinstellt. Wenn nun der Mensch den Blick zurücklenkt, den er, aufwachend, selbstverständlich in seine Umgebung wendet, so bekommt er zunächst Anschauungen einfach durch die Sinne seines Leibes, durch den Verstand, der die Erfahrungen dieser Sinne und die Anschauungen über das, was in seiner physischen Umgebung ist, kombiniert.
Da aber der Verstand, der Intellekt sein Urgeistiges, sein selbsteigenes Geistiges in sich trägt, so kann der Mensch - wenn er nur genügend sich auf sich selbst besinnt, wenn er nur ein wenig wegblickt von der Umgebung und in sich selbst blickt —, nicht ableugnen, daß er durch seine eigene Tätigkeit zu einer Zusammenfassung kommt, die zuletzt in einer Vorstellung gipfelt, die nur einen geistigen Inhalt hat, und dieser geistige Inhalt ist — wenn ich mich so ausdrücken darf — die göttliche VaterVorstellung. Hier muß anthroposophische Forschung mit ihren Mitteln eingreifen. Ich kann das nur kurz charakterisieren; sie macht ja den ganzen Erkenntnisarbeitsprozeß des Menschen allmählich durchsichtig — das wird ja auch aus den Vorträgen dieses Kurses hervorgehen. Sie will ja auch auf dasjenige hinweisen, was durch den Menschen geschieht, wenn er den Blick zurückzuwenden versucht von der äußeren Welt, um gewissermaßen das anzuschauen, was er selbst getan hat und sich zu fragen: Was hast du da eigentlich getan? Was berechtigt dich denn überhaupt, die äußere Welt [zu einer Vorstellung] zusammenzufassen? Und indem er dieses Erlebnis genügend weit verfolgt, kommt der Mensch — wenn ich wieder das Wort gebrauchen darf - zum göttlichen Vater-Erlebnis. Und wer dieses Kommen zum göttlichen Vater-Erlebnis anthroposophisch durchschaut, der kommt zu einem ganz bestimmten Urteil. Ich bitte, dieses Urteil, das eine Tatsache ist, die ich radikal aussprechen muß, nicht mißzuverstehen.
Man kommt zu dem Urteil, daß einfach der vollgesunde Mensch — derjenige Mensch, der in seinem physischen Leibe voll gesund ist — zu diesem göttlichen Vater-Erlebnis kommt —, das heißt, daß derjenige, der zu diesem göttlichen Vater-Erlebnis nicht kommt, irgendwo etwas von Degenerationserscheinungen, wenn auch noch so verborgener Art, in sich trägt. Mit anderen Worten, man kommt durch anthroposophische Forschung darauf, zu sagen: Nicht zum göttlichen VaterErlebnis zu kommen, bedeutet beim Menschen eine Krankheit. Das ist natürlich radikal gesprochen, weil die Krankheit eben durchaus nicht mit den gewöhnlichen physischen Mitteln gesehen werden kann, weil sie — wenn ich so sagen darf —, in den Feinheiten der menschlichen Organisation liegt. Aber tatsächlich ergibt sich für den, der anthroposophisch forschen kann: Atheismus ist Krankheit.
Was ich gestern gesagt habe über das Ausbilden des Urteils, das richtig oder falsch, gesund oder krank sein kann, das setzt hier ganz besonders ein. Wenn der Mensch diesen Weg allein verfolgt, kommt er zunächst nur zu dem göttlichen Vater-Erlebnis. Wenn er aber dann den Weg weiter verfolgt, wenn er gewahr wird, welcher Mangel in seiner Seele lebt, wenn er nur zu diesem Vater-Erlebnis kommt, wenn er gewahr wird, daß im Grunde genommen einfach in der Beschränkung der modernen Menschheit auf den Intellektualismus auch eine Art Beschränkung auf dieses göttliche Vater-Erlebnis liegt, dann muß der Mensch darauf kommen, weiterzudringen von diesem göttlichen Vater-Erlebnis aus. Hier können uns äußere Beobachtungen sehr gut unterstützen.
Es ist eine merkwürdige Tatsache, daß gerade in westlichen Ländern, wo die naturwissenschaftliche Gesinnung gewissermaßen bis zum Maximum ihrer Intensität gekommen ist, und wo man diese naturwissenschaftliche Gesinnung nicht hineinreden lassen will in das Gebiet des Übersinnlichen, das der Religion bewahrt bleiben soll, daß gerade in diesen religiösen Bewegungen der westlichen Länder dasjenige, was der Geist des Alten Testamentes ist, besonders erfolgreich auch in unserer neueren Zeit wiederum eingegriffen hat. Und wir sehen den Westen, wenn er auch äußerlich das Christentum annimmt und predigt, dieses durchaus im Geiste des Alten Testamentes tun; wir sehen ihn in einem gewissen Sinne den Christus umprägen in den Vatergott und nicht wahrnehmen die Differenz zwischen dem Vatergott und dem Christus.
Im Osten dagegen, wo für das Menschengemüt die Trennung zwischen der Religion und der Wissenschaft nicht so vorhanden ist wie im Westen, im Osten, wo diese Brücke für die Menschenseele mehr oder weniger als elementares inneres Seelenerlebnis vorhanden ist — wir finden es zum Beispiel noch in den Ausführungen des großen Philosophen Wladimir Solowjew —, dort sehen wir, wie das Christus-Erlebnis als ein selbständiges Erlebnis unmittelbar vorhanden ist neben dem VaterErlebnis.
Und auf diese Art kommt man dazu, sich zu sagen: Zwar kann der vollständig gesunde Mensch nicht Atheist sein, wenn er das, was ihm die äußere Welt gibt, zusammenfaßt in der Spitze der Gottes-Vorstellung, der er einen geistigen Inhalt geben muß; er bleibt aber zunächst bei der Vater-Vorstellung. Man kommt mit dieser VaterVorstellung aber nicht hinaus über die Zusammenfassung der äußeren Naturereignisse, sie versagt sofort, wenn man damit nun die eigene menschliche Entwicklung verfolgen will; man steht dann gewissermaßen verlassen da. Vertieft man sich in diese menschliche innere Entwicklung von diesem Punkt aus, an dem man angekommen ist, wenn man die äußere Welt in seine Seele aufgenommen hat - verfolgt man die innere Entwicklung, dann wird man, wenn man sie nur unbefangen verfolgt, zu dem Christus-Erlebnis kommen, das zunächst als ein unbestimmtes inneres Erlebnis da ist. Dieses Erlebnis aber verfolgt wieder erkennend Anthroposophie. Der Mensch kommt, einfach durch ehrliches Anschauen der Menschheitsentwicklung auf der Erde dazu, das Mysterium von Golgatha, das historische Mysterium von Golgatha, nun selber ins Auge zu fassen. Er kommt dazu durch das innerliche Ausbilden geistiger Organe, [sie führen ihn zu] Imagination, Inspiration und Intuition. Wenn man mit Hilfe dieser Forschungsmittel den Weg verfolgt, den die Menschheitsentwicklung vom Altertum bis zum Mysterium von Golgatha genommen hat, so findet man, daß gerade in den Religionsvorstellungen überall — und nicht nur in der alttestamentlichen Religionsvorstellung, sondern in allen Religionsvorstellungen — lebte eine Hinneigung zu dem kommenden Christus-Geist.
Dann kann man einfach durch Anschauung erkennen lernen, wie dieser Christus-Geist in der Zeit vor dem Mysterium von Golgatha nicht mit der Erde vereinigt war. Verfolgen wir alles, was in den Mysterien gesucht worden ist, was in den populären [vorchristlichen] Religionen war, so sehen wir, wie die Vorstellungen, die sie sich von den Göttern machten, überall zuletzt doch zusammenschmolzen zu dem, was die Christus-Vorstellung ist. Wir sehen, wie sich die Gemüter der Menschen über die Erde hinaus zu dem Überirdischen erhoben, wenn sie zu ihren Göttern ihre Seelen wandten. Und wir sehen, wie im Ausgangspunkte der irdischen Menschheitsentwicklung einfach durch die menschliche Organisation dem Menschen mehr gegeben war als das, was er durch seine Sinne und durch seinen Verstand in der Umgebung seines Erdendaseins wahrnehmen konnte. Es kam in die menschliche Seele das hinein — am stärksten in uralten Zeiten, dann immer weniger und weniger —, was ich instinktives Schauen nennen möchte, traumartiges Schauen, Anschauen einer geistigen — nichtirdischen — Welt, der der Mensch sich angehörig fühlte. In dem Augenblicke, wo der Mensch durch die Mysterien oder durch die populären Religionen dazu gebracht worden ist, hinauf gehoben zu werden mit seiner Seele zu dem, was er als Außerirdisches schauen konnte und mit dem er sich selbst einig wußte in seinem tiefstinneren Wesen, in diesem Augenblicke hatte der Mensch erlebt im Innern seine Wiedergeburt.
Nun, meine sehr verehrten Anwesenden, wenn wir vom anthroposophischen Gesichtspunkt die Menschheitsentwicklung bis zum Mysterium von Golgatha verfolgen, zeigt sich, daß gerade diese Fähigkeiten, die da im Inneren des Menschen saßen, eigentlich immer geringer und geringer wurden und nicht mehr da waren in dem Augenblick, wo das Mysterium von Golgatha auf der Erde eintrat. Gewiß, Reste blieben immer da, weil die Entwicklung nicht so sprunghaft vor sich geht. Einzelne Menschen bewahrten sich, wenn auch vielleicht ein ungenaues Schauen, so aber doch ein instinktives Bewußtsein von dem, was einmal geschaut worden ist; das kann man verfolgen bis in die Kunst hinein. Dann kam auf die Erde das Mysterium von Golgatha. Und in dem Mysterium von Golgatha sieht Anthroposophie eben das Einströmen desjenigen Geistes, der vorher nur im Außerirdischen gesucht werden konnte, in einen Menschenleib: das Einströmen des Christus in den Menschenleib des Jesus. Wie das im einzelnen vorgestellt werden kann, darüber kann man nur mit denjenigen diskutieren, die sich positiv auf die Forschung auf diesem Gebiete einlassen. Da zeigt Anthroposophie, wie von jener Zeit an, von dem Mysterium von Golgatha an, eine andere Zeit auf der Erde eingetreten ist, die Zeit, von der alle alten religiösen Bekenntnisse [gesprochen haben]. Und der Christus, der durch das Mysterium von Golgatha gegangen ist, der Christus, den Paulus geschaut hat auf dem Wege nach Damaskus, der Christus ist dann innerhalb der Erde bei der Menschheit geblieben. Das wollen die Worte sagen: Ich bin bei Euch alle Tage bis an das Ende der Welt. - Er lebt unter uns, er kann wiedergefunden werden. Das Paulus-Ereignis kann mit gewisser Vorbereitung immer wieder und wieder erneuert werden. Dann aber, wenn in dieser Weise der Weg zu dem Christus gesucht wird, erlebt der Mensch, indem er auf seine eigene innere Entwicklung schaut, eben den seit dem Mysterium von Golgatha auf der Erde wandelnden Christus durch Anschauung; dann findet er in innerlichem Erleben den Christus so, wie er durch Erleben der äußeren Welt, wenn er nicht krankhaft atheistisch ist, den Vatergott findet.
So kann ich nur ganz flüchtig, skizzenhaft andeuten, wie Anthroposophie durch wirkliche Forschung zu dem Christus-Ereignis als zu einer objektiven Tatsache kommt. In allen möglichen Einzelheiten versucht Anthroposophie das Christus-Ereignis hinzustellen als die wichtigste Tatsache des Erdenlebens der Menschheit, als dasjenige, was objektiv geschehen ist. Daher ist auch der ganze Geist, in dem das Christus-Ereignis in der Anthroposophie dargestellt wird, so, daß dieses Ereignis einfach als Tatsache hingenommen werden kann. Und wir hatten gerade innerhalb der anthroposophischen Bewegung erlebt, daß zum Beispiel Bekenner des Judentums im echtesten, wahrsten und ehrlichsten Sinne sich fanden zur Anerkennung des Mysteriums von Golgatha. Damit aber, meine sehr verehrten Anwesenden, ist vielleicht gerade durch die anthroposophische Bewegung schon das vorausgenommen, was überhaupt in der zukünftigen Entwicklung der Menschheit eintreten muß: daß, indem man unmittelbar hinweist auf das, was geschaut werden kann im Mysterium von Golgatha, der Weg zum Christentum wiedergefunden werden kann.
Es ist durchaus die Frage, ob es nicht doch eine tiefe Bedeutung hat, was in dem Buche von Friedrich Nietzsches Freund Overbeck enthalten ist, daß ja die moderne Theologie gar nicht mehr christlich sei. Würde darin einige Berechtigung liegen, so dürfte man vielleicht doch mit einem gewissen Recht sagen: Anthroposophie ist geeignet, in lebendiger Weise den Menschen hinzuführen zu dem Christus-Erlebnis. Sie stellt die Zeit, in welcher das Christus-Ereignis stattgefunden hat, so dar, daß von den alten instinktiven Anschauungen bei einzelnen Menschen noch so viel vorhanden war, daß der geistige Untergrund, ich möchte sagen, die geistige Substanzialität des Mysteriums von Golgatha geschaut und in den ersten christlichen Jahrhunderten anerkannt werden konnte. Wir sehen dann, wie das immer weniger und weniger wird, wir sehen es völlig verglimmen bei einer solchen Erscheinung wie Scotus Erigena, wir sehen immer mehr und mehr sich ausbilden die mittelalterliche Theologie, wo man versuchte, sich auseinanderzusetzen mit dem, was die moderne Menschheit ausbilden mußte, mit dem Intellekt, der, wenn er unmittelbar sich selbst überlassen ist und sich innerlich nicht weiter entwickelt, nicht herankommen kann an die übersinnlichen Welten. Sie spaltete dasjenige, was in die Menschenseele hineinkommen wollte, gewissermaßen auf in das, was der Mensch durch den Intellekt erkennen kann, und in das Unerkennbare, zu dem der Mensch nicht selbst gelangen kann, sondern nur durch eine Offenbarung.
Aus diesen Untergründen heraus kann man die ganze mittelalterliche Theologie begreifen, besonders die thomistische Theologie, die von dem Katholizismus als die allein maßgebende erachtet wurde. Davon wird heute manches gesagt werden können. Worum es der Anthroposophie zu tun war und ist, das ist nichts anderes, als in einfacher und schlichter Weise auszusprechen, was für die geistige Anschauung da ist.
Und wie Anthroposophie zu dem Satz kommt, der Atheismus ist eigentlich verborgene Krankheit, so kommt sie zu dem zweiten Satze: Den Christus nicht zu finden, zu dem Christus keine Beziehung zu finden, ist für den Menschen ein Schicksal, ein Schicksalsunglück! Atheismus ist eine Krankheit, den Christus nicht zu finden ist ein Schicksalsunglück; denn man kann ihn finden im innerlichen Erleben. Dann aber stellt er sich dar als diejenige Wesenheit, die durch das Mysterium von Golgatha gegangen ist. Man kann durch innerliches Erleben allein zu dem Christus kommen, man braucht nicht anthroposophische Forschung, um ein religiöser Mensch im christlichen Sinne zu sein. Dann aber, wenn man zu dem Christus kommt, dann wird man ein Glied der geistigen Welt und man kann wirklich von einer Auferstehung der menschlichen Wesenheit in der geistigen Welt sprechen, von einer Erweiterung des Seelenwesens in dem Erleben der geistigen Welt, und man kann davon sprechen, daß derjenige Mensch, der den Christus nicht findet, in einer gewissen Weise in bezug auf seine Weltanschauung beschränkt ist. Atheismus ist eine Krankheit! Nicht zum Christus kommen ist ein Schicksal, nicht zum Geiste kommen ist eine seelische Beschränktheit!
Nun, meine sehr verehrten Anwesenden, Anthroposophie hat es aus solchen Untergründen heraus im Grunde genommen nur mit Religion zu tun, [nicht mit Theologie], und mit Religion nur insofern, als die Menschen, die religiöse Bedürfnisse haben und diese in den gegenwärtigen Bekenntnissen nicht befriedigen können, an die Anthroposophie herankommen. Anthroposophie will nur das tun, was innerhalb der heutigen Zeitbedürfnisse notwendig ist, und was die anderen nicht tun. Welche Gesinnung dem zugrunde liegt — ich muß das immer wieder charakterisieren —, können Sie aus folgendem entnehmen.
Schon vor vielen Jahren hielt ich einmal in einer süddeutschen Stadt — damals war sie eine deutsche Stadt, heute ist sie es nicht mehr — einen Vortrag über «Bibel und Weisheit». Bei diesem Vortrag waren auch zwei katholische Priester anwesend. Nach dem Vortrag kamen die beiden zu mir und sagten: Wir haben eigentlich gar nichts in Ihrem Vortrage gefunden, was vom katholischen Standpunkte aus angefochten werden könnte. — Ich sagte: Wenn ich nur immer so glücklich sein könnte! — Darauf sagten die beiden: Ja, aber eines ist uns aufgefallen; es ist nicht, was Sie sagen, sondern es ist die Art und Weise, wie Sie es vorbringen, und da müssen wir sagen: Sie reden zu Menschen, die in einer gewissen Beziehung vorbereitet sind. Sie reden zu einer Art von Gemeinde, welche eine bestimmte Bildung hat; wir aber reden für alle Menschen. — Ich sagte: Hochwürden, es kommt nicht darauf an, daß wir das nach unserem subjektiven Empfinden entscheiden, sondern darauf, daß wir uns als Menschen einleben mit unserer Arbeit in die Zeitenentwicklung, daß wir uns nicht einbilden, wir reden für alle Menschen, sondern daß wir uns eine solche Frage beantworten nach dem, was objektiv in der Menschheitsentwicklung lebt. So, wie ich mir einbilden kann, ich rede für alle Menschen — und mich darin sehr irren kann —, so könnten Sie sich das einbilden. Für den Enthusiasmus ist es sehr gut, wenn man diese Einbildung hat. Aber fragen wir einmal: Kommen noch alle Menschen, die heute ein Bedürfnis haben, über den Christus etwas zu hören, zu Ihnen in die Kirche? - Da konnten die beiden nicht Ja sagen, denn natürlich wußten Sie, daß eine Menge Menschen, die auch den Weg zum Christus suchten, nicht zu ihnen in die Kirche kamen. Da sagte ich: Sehen Sie, für die, die nicht zu Ihnen kommen, und doch den Weg zum Christus suchen, für diese rede ich. — Das heißt, sich seine Aufgaben aus der Zeitentwicklung heraus stellen, und nicht sich einbilden, man rede für alle Menschen, sondern sich zu fragen: Sind Gemüter da, die in einer besonderen Art dieses oder jenes entgegennehmen wollen?
Mit einer anderen Gesinnung wandte sich Anthroposophie auch niemals an irgendein religiöses Bekenntnis. Wenn wir auch in der Waldorfschule dazu gelangt sind, gerade die Praxis unseres Unterrichtes aus der Anthroposophie heraus zu gestalten, so haben wir doch ganz davon abgesehen, aus der Waldorfschule eine solche Schule zu machen, durch die die Anthroposophie in die Gemüter der Kinder hineingepfropft würde. Mit Bezug auf den Religionsunterricht lassen wir die katholischen Kinder unterrichten von einem katholischen Pfarrer und die evangelischen von einem evangelischen Pfarrer. Nur für die Dissidentenkinder ist eine Art freier Religionsunterricht eingerichtet worden, aber durchaus in christlichem Sinn. Da bringen wir aber nicht abstrakte Anthroposophie vor - auch keine konkrete Anthroposophie,wie sie an die Erwachsenen herangebracht werden kann —, sondern da versuchen wir mit aller Mühe, dasjenige an die Kinder heranzubringen, was ihrer realen Entwicklungsstufe entspricht; das muß aber alles nach Inhalt und Methode erst gesucht und gefunden werden. Durch den von uns eingerichteten freien Religionsunterricht haben wir erreicht, daß nun auch diejenigen Kinder, die sonst gar keinen Religionsunterricht hätten, wieder an das Christentum herangebracht werden, und sie kommen in Scharen, um an dieser Art des christlichen Religionsunterrichtes teilzunehmen. Aber niemals haben wir eine irgendwie religiös geartete Propaganda getrieben innerhalb der anthroposophischen Bewegung und am wenigsten wurde von der Anthroposophie aus irgend etwas unternommen gegen die einzelnen theologischen Systeme.
Denn, was in dieser Beziehung der Anthroposophie allein obliegen kann, das ist, die einzelnen theologischen Systeme in ihrer Differenzierung begreiflich zu machen, und nicht, sie zu bekämpfen. Darin habe ich immer meine Aufgabe gesehen, wenn ich vor den Menschen gesprochen habe, die zur Anthroposophie gekommen sind: begreiflich zu machen, warum der Katholizismus Katholizismus, der Protestantismus Protestantismus, das Judentum Judentum und der Buddhismus Buddhismus geworden ist, und wie in ihnen allen — ich glaube, das ist eine christliche Vorstellung — dasjenige Wesen lebt, das durch sein Schicksal der wirkliche Christ in seiner Seele zu erleben in der Lage ist.
So hätte also gar nicht, wenn nicht von anderer Seite die Angriffe gekommen wären, ein Streit zu entstehen brauchen zwischen der Anthroposophie und der Theologie, und auch heute spreche ich diese Worte nur, weil das gewünscht wurde von denjenigen, die diesen heutigen Theologentag veranstalten. Was sich aber Anthroposophie allein zur Aufgabe macht, ist die Verkündigung von anthroposophischen Forschungsergebnissen über die übersinnliche Welt. Deshalb war ich auch immer zurückhaltend besonders gegenüber den von theologischer Seite herrührenden Angriffen. Denn Anthroposophie will nicht als Kämpfer auf den Plan treten, sondern sie will die von der Zeit geforderten berechtigten menschlichen Seelenbedürfnisse befriedigen. Und alle, die in diesem Sinne mit der Anthroposophie zusammenwirken wollen zur Befriedigung dieser berechtigten, aus den Untergründen der Seele an die Oberfläche drängenden menschlichen Seelenbedürfnisse, alle, die in diesem Sinne mit ihr arbeiten wollen, sind ihr willkommen!
6. Anthroposophy and Theology
Ladies and gentlemen! I am compelled to begin with a magazine article that has just been handed to me, an article in the “Christliche Welt” (Christian World), which I had not seen before and therefore did not expect to mention in my introductory remarks today. This newspaper article states: “An anthroposophical university course will take place in Berlin from March 5 to 12. ... Theologians' Day is Friday, March 10 — This event on Friday is now an unambiguous challenge by Steiner and his followers to theologians,” and so on.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, today's event may be anything but that; what it is certainly not, and what would be a profound misunderstanding if it were, is a challenge to theologians. I myself have never been involved in this event in any other way than being asked whether I would like to contribute to this university course, which was not my initiative, by giving lectures and introductory remarks. I am least involved in today's event, that is, in the inclusion of this program item in the university course, and I would never have thought that what is to be discussed here today could be understood as an “unambiguous challenge to today's theologians.”
Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, in order to prevent any misunderstandings arising again or anew in connection with the few introductory words I have to say here, please allow me to confine myself today to the topic: The Relationship of Anthroposophy to Theology, and that, in order to avoid new misunderstandings, I will refrain from saying some of the things I would like to say here, because otherwise I would have to see how my intentions are misunderstood.
Dear attendees, it has never been my intention — forgive me if I am forced by this challenge to make a few brief personal remarks in my introduction today — it was never my intention to challenge theology in any way, and from its very beginning, anthroposophy, insofar as it is a field of work in which I myself am involved, has never sought in any way to deal with contemporary theology as such within its work. Insofar as this has happened, and I have really done as little as possible to bring it about, it is solely because there have been so many attacks on anthroposophy from the theological side, and because one — not so much myself as others — sometimes defends oneself. For anthroposophy, as a field of work, wanted to remain neutral, I would say, towards theology; it wants to work out of the current scientific spirit.
At the end of the last century, there was a certain scientific direction, certain scientific methods, a certain scientific attitude, an attitude and method which, for reasons I have already mentioned and which cannot be discussed in detail due to the brevity of time, a method and attitude which, from the whole historical development of modern times, was applied in particular to scientific research, and through which the greatest possible triumphs—I mean this not in a trivial sense, but in a deeper sense—were achieved for human progress and human welfare within scientific research. During this period, philosophy was, I would say, somewhat at a loss when it came to scientific research. Philosophy had to grapple with methods that had been applied primarily to the natural sciences and that were not applicable to philosophy, which deals with a completely different realm of facts.I would say that, theoretically and epistemologically, it was not always clear in what sense scientific methods should be used in philosophy. Experimental psychology then fell into a certain area where it seems to work more or less, or is more or less correct, but uncertainty is still present. In contrast, anthroposophy developed its own working method from a wide variety of backgrounds. On the one hand, it seeks to take into account what can be achieved with the special training in the newer methods of thinking and research in the natural sciences, and on the other hand, it seeks to take into account human needs for a spiritual world and its knowledge. On the one hand, we were faced with the fact of fully recognizing scientific methods, and with regard to the treatment of the scientific field — I have already said this — I am still as much a Haeckelian today as I was in the 1890s; not in the sense that scientific methods do not need to be further developed and that there are not many objections to what Haeckel wrote, especially from the scientific community, but that leads to a completely different area of discussion. I mean that in the treatment of the purely natural world, I am just as much a Haeckelian today as I was then. It is more a question of what one experiences in the scientific way of looking at things, namely by educating oneself in scientific precision, in scientific thinking, in other words, in the ideas and concepts that one simply needs if one wants to work scientifically. For one thing remains true for all world observation — I cannot prove it now due to the brevity of time: if the sentence applies to external sensory observation, “There is nothing in the mind that is not first in the senses,” then on the other hand Leibniz's sentence certainly applies: “except the mind itself.”
In the experience of the mind, that is, in the movement of the soul in the categories of the mind, in the experience of the ideas with which one examines natural objects and natural facts and which one ultimately needs to formulate the laws of nature, in the experience of this world of ideas, there is something that goes far beyond the experience of the merely sensual, so that when one faces natural science as a scientific researcher, one must say to oneself, if one is unbiased enough: Everything that is in the mind must be drawn from the senses, only the mind itself cannot be drawn from the senses.
But once one has understood this in a meaningful way, there is no obstacle to now considering what is, in a sense, viewed internally in the pursuit of further developing the categories of the mind through an inner soul-spiritual process, through a process that is internally very similar to external growth processes in plants and animals. One remains entirely true to one's attitude toward natural becoming when one admits that from the seed one has before one in inner contemplation, one gains the truth that the intellect itself cannot be drawn from the sensory world. One remains true to what one has learned from natural existence when one attempts to regard the human intellect itself as a seed that can grow inwardly; and when one really undertakes this attempt, the rest is a direct consequence of what I have described here and elsewhere in recent days about the growth of the human intellect into imagination, inspiration, and intuition. This is merely a matter of the further progress of inner human development. But this results in a real view of the spiritual world. In anthroposophy, we try to put this view of the spiritual world into words as best we can, using today's language. Of course, we are often forced to put what we see — I readily admit — in an inadequate way, for the simple reason that our language, like all modern languages, has been adapted over the last few centuries to the external material worldview, and today we have simply oriented the feelings we have for words more or less to this worldview.
Therefore, one always struggles with words when one is forced to put into words what has been seen through imagination, inspiration, and intuition, namely to put it into words in such a way that it can now really be verified by ordinary common sense, for this must again be a goal of anthroposophical research.
Anthroposophy was simply a field of work, and as such I understand it in the strictest sense of the word. Those people who — initially a very small circle — felt a need to hear something about what can be explored in the supersensible world through such a method of research were told and shown what can be found in this way. No one was in any way compelled to participate in this movement by anything other than their own free will. What is said about suggestive means or the like being used is, in some cases, a conscious slander and, in others, an unconscious slander of what is actually intended in the anthroposophical movement. And it is true that those who use their common sense to reflect on what is explored through imagination, inspiration, and intuition become, in a higher sense, freer human beings than people are at present. People today, for example, follow their party lines and allow themselves to be influenced by all kinds of suggestions. Anthroposophy must free people from these inner spiritual dependencies, because it demands that everyone who wants to live in it should not merely remain in ordinary, more passive thinking, but should make their thinking internally flexible, empower it, and through this internally empowered thinking, one becomes a free human being.
For reasons I do not wish to go into today, it happened that of the scientifically oriented people on whom anthroposophy was actually counting, very few initially approached anthroposophy. Today we have made a certain start in this regard. Those people who first joined the anthroposophical movement — they were more or less naive minds with strong spiritual needs — were never told anything other than what could be conscientiously found within anthroposophical research. And I was always pleased when things were said to me, for example by a highly respected personality who is also present here today: It is actually strange that you have such a large audience at all, because you avoid speaking in a way that is popular and generally understandable. You speak in such a way that people always have to do some inner work while listening, and people don't want that today, so it's actually surprising that you have such a large audience. — These are similar to the words spoken to me years ago by a person who is also sitting here today, after she had listened to a series of lectures at that time. I have certainly never sought popularity by wanting to promote anthroposophy to the world.
Now, the peculiar thing was that people from all walks of life and also from all religious denominations came to us. And insofar as anthroposophy, simply through its work, came into a certain relationship with the religious currents of the present, it never actually came into any conflict with the religious needs of the people who came to it: people — as I said — from all walks of life. For example, I have often been asked by Catholics in our midst whether it is possible, in terms of practical religious practice, to remain Catholic while participating in the anthroposophical movement.
Especially to Catholics, I had to say: Of course it is also possible to participate in what anthroposophy offers as a very good Catholic, because anthroposophy is there not to talk about the supersensible world in terms of a particular creed, but simply on the basis of what can be researched in the supersensible world. So it would suit me best to simply tell people what comes out of the supersensible world and not to participate in any polemics at all. For those who honestly say what they see know what causes polemics and how fruitless they actually are. My original intention was simply to say plainly and honestly what can be found through anthroposophy, without regard for polemics. But things don't always work out that way in life. Within the anthroposophical movement, people of all faiths came together, including Catholics, and so I had to say: Of course, Catholics can also participate in the anthroposophical movement; they will only come into conflict with the practical practice of religion on one single point, and that is ear confession. Not because it is ear confession, for that could be regarded as a mere matter of conscience. I have found enough Protestant clergy who have been practically panting for a kind of auricular confession in order to establish a more intimate relationship with their congregation. One can have different views on this. But the point here is that the Catholic Church denies the sacrament of the altar to those who have not first made auricular confession. And because of this prevention from participating in the most important sacrament of the Catholic Church, it is extremely difficult for Catholics to reconcile the convictions they receive from the supersensible world with this behavior, which is unfree and which they must nevertheless obey due to the Roman Catholic church constitution. Confession, as it is practiced, tears Catholics away from the free pursuit of the supersensible world—not because of anthroposophy, but because of the Roman Catholic Church constitution.
Catholics could avoid this if they could avoid auricular confession. They cannot avoid it because otherwise they would not be able to participate in the Eucharist. This is the difficulty Catholics face. Nevertheless, many Catholics have found their way into the anthroposophical movement in order to satisfy the needs of their souls.
Dear attendees, it was natural that people of all denominations were drawn to anthroposophy; it was natural that, simply out of our time, a strong need arose within the Anthroposophical Society to talk about what concerns Christianity. Now I would like to say the following about this: just as with all other objects of research, insofar as the supersensible and the sensible converge in these objects in this world, anthroposophy first considers the content of Christology in this way; and in the same way, with the help of its supersensible research into the content of Christology, it attempts to investigate and provide what can be attained with its methods. Now, it is difficult to say in a few words what characterizes anthroposophy's position on Christology, but I would like to note the following.
We see human beings here in their earthly life between birth and death as having their existence in the physical body with their soul and spirit life, as being bound to their physical body in relation to seeing and processing what is in their environment, also in relation to their work itself, in relation to their will life, and in general in relation to the way they place themselves in this sensory-physical world. When a person turns their gaze back, which they naturally do when they wake up and look at their surroundings, they initially gain insights simply through the senses of their body, through the mind, which combines the experiences of these senses and the insights about what is in their physical surroundings.
But since the mind, the intellect, carries within itself its original spirituality, its own spirituality, human beings can — if they only reflect sufficiently on themselves, if they only look away from their surroundings a little and look within themselves — not deny that through his own activity he comes to a conclusion that ultimately culminates in an idea that has only a spiritual content, and this spiritual content is — if I may express it this way — the divine idea of the Father. This is where anthroposophical research must intervene with its means. I can only characterize this briefly; it gradually makes the whole process of human cognition transparent — this will also become clear from the lectures in this course. It also aims to point out what happens to a person when they try to turn their gaze away from the outer world in order to look, as it were, at what they themselves have done and ask themselves: What have you actually done there? What gives you the right to summarize the outer world [into a concept]? And by pursuing this experience far enough, the human being comes — if I may use the word again — to the divine Father experience. And anyone who understands this coming to the divine Father experience anthroposophically comes to a very definite judgment. I ask you not to misunderstand this judgment, which is a fact that I must express radically.
One comes to the conclusion that simply the completely healthy human being — the human being who is completely healthy in his physical body — comes to this divine Father experience — that is, that the one who does not come to this divine Father experience carries within himself somewhere something of degeneration, even if it is of a hidden nature. In other words, anthroposophical research leads us to say that not coming to the divine Father experience means illness in human beings. This is, of course, a radical statement, because the illness cannot be seen by ordinary physical means, because it lies, if I may say so, in the subtleties of the human organization. But in fact, for those who can conduct anthroposophical research, the conclusion is clear: atheism is an illness.
What I said yesterday about developing the ability to judge what is right or wrong, healthy or sick, is particularly relevant here. If a person follows this path alone, they will initially only arrive at the divine Father experience. But if they then continue along this path, if they become aware of the deficiency that lives in their soul, if they only come to this experience of the Father, if they become aware that, basically, the limitation of modern humanity to intellectualism also involves a kind of limitation to this divine experience of the Father, then human beings must come to the conclusion that they must go further from this divine experience of the Father. External observations can be very helpful here.
It is a curious fact that it is precisely in Western countries, where the scientific mindset has reached its maximum intensity, and where people do not want this scientific attitude to interfere in the realm of the supersensible, which is to be preserved for religion, it is precisely in these religious movements of Western countries that the spirit of the Old Testament has once again intervened with particular success in our more recent times. And we see that the West, even though it outwardly accepts and preaches Christianity, does so entirely in the spirit of the Old Testament; we see it, in a certain sense, transforming Christ into God the Father and not perceiving the difference between God the Father and Christ.
In the East, on the other hand, where the separation between religion and science is not as present in the human mind as it is in the West, in the East, where this bridge is more or less present as a fundamental inner soul experience for the human soul — we find it, for example, in the writings of the great philosopher Vladimir Soloviev — there we see how the Christ experience is immediately present as an independent experience alongside the Father experience.
And in this way one comes to say to oneself: Although a completely healthy person cannot be an atheist if he summarizes what the outer world gives him in the concept of God, to which he must give a spiritual content, but he remains initially with the concept of the Father. However, with this concept of the Father, one cannot go beyond summarizing external natural events; it fails immediately when one wants to use it to follow one's own human development; one is then left, as it were, abandoned. If one delves into this inner human development from the point at which one has arrived, when one has taken the outer world into one's soul — if one follows the inner development, then, if one follows it impartially, one will come to the Christ experience, which is initially an indefinite inner experience. But this experience is followed again in an appreciative way by anthroposophy. Simply by honestly observing the development of humanity on earth, human beings come to grasp the mystery of Golgotha, the historical mystery of Golgotha, for themselves. They come to this through the inner development of spiritual organs, [which lead them to] imagination, inspiration, and intuition. If, with the help of these means of research, one follows the path taken by human development from antiquity to the mystery of Golgotha, one finds that everywhere in religious ideas — not only in the Old Testament religious idea, but in all religious ideas — there was a tendency toward the coming Christ spirit.
Then one can simply learn to recognize through contemplation how this Christ Spirit was not united with the earth in the time before the Mystery of Golgotha. If we trace everything that was sought in the mysteries, everything that was in the popular [pre-Christian] religions, we see how the ideas they had of the gods ultimately merged everywhere into what is the idea of Christ. We see how people's minds rose above the earth to the supernatural when they turned their souls to their gods. And we see how, at the beginning of human development on earth, simply through the human organization, human beings were given more than what they could perceive through their senses and their intellect in the environment of their earthly existence. What I would call instinctive vision, dreamlike vision, vision of a spiritual — non-earthly — world to which human beings felt they belonged, entered the human soul — most strongly in ancient times, then less and less. At the moment when human beings were led by the mysteries or by popular religions to be lifted up with their souls to what they could see as extraterrestrial and with which they knew themselves to be united in their deepest inner being, at that moment human beings experienced their rebirth within themselves.
Now, my dear friends, if we follow the development of humanity up to the Mystery of Golgotha from the anthroposophical point of view, we see that precisely these abilities, which were within human beings, actually became less and less and were no longer there at the moment when the Mystery of Golgotha entered the earth. Certainly, remnants always remained, because development does not proceed so abruptly. Individual human beings retained, if perhaps an imprecise vision, then at least an instinctive awareness of what had once been seen; this can be traced into art. Then the Mystery of Golgotha came to earth. And in the mystery of Golgotha, anthroposophy sees the inflow of the spirit that previously could only be sought in the extraterrestrial into a human body: the inflow of Christ into the human body of Jesus. How this can be imagined in detail can only be discussed with those who are positively engaged in research in this field. Anthroposophy shows how, from that time on, from the mystery of Golgotha, a different era began on earth, the era spoken of in all the ancient religious creeds. And Christ, who passed through the Mystery of Golgotha, Christ, whom Paul saw on the road to Damascus, Christ then remained within the earth with humanity. That is what the words mean: I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. He lives among us, he can be found again. With a certain amount of preparation, the Paul event can be renewed again and again. But then, when the path to Christ is sought in this way, by looking at his own inner development, the human being experiences through contemplation the Christ who has been walking on earth since the mystery of Golgotha; then he finds Christ in his inner experience in the same way that he finds God the Father through his experience of the outer world, unless he is pathologically atheistic.
Thus, I can only very briefly and sketchily indicate how anthroposophy, through real research, comes to regard the Christ event as an objective fact. In all possible details, anthroposophy attempts to present the Christ event as the most important fact of human life on earth, as something that has objectively happened. Therefore, the whole spirit in which the Christ event is presented in anthroposophy is such that this event can simply be accepted as fact. And we have experienced within the anthroposophical movement that, for example, professed Jews in the truest and most honest sense have come to recognize the mystery of Golgotha. But with this, my dear friends, perhaps the anthroposophical movement has already anticipated what must happen in the future development of humanity: that by pointing directly to what can be seen in the mystery of Golgotha, the path to Christianity can be rediscovered.
It is certainly questionable whether there is not a deeper meaning to what is contained in the book by Friedrich Nietzsche's friend Overbeck, namely that modern theology is no longer Christian at all. If there were some justification for this, then one might perhaps say with some justification that anthroposophy is suitable for leading people to the Christ experience in a living way. It presents the time in which the Christ event took place in such a way that there was still so much of the old instinctive views present in individual human beings that the spiritual background, I would say, the spiritual substantiality of the mystery of Golgotha could be seen and recognized in the first Christian centuries. We then see how this becomes less and less, we see it completely fade away with a phenomenon such as Scotus Erigena, we see medieval theology developing more and more, where attempts were made to deal with what modern humanity had to develop, with the intellect, which, when left to its own devices and not developing further inwardly, cannot approach the supersensible worlds. It divided what wanted to enter the human soul, as it were, into what man can recognize through the intellect and into the unknowable, which man cannot reach himself, but only through revelation.
From these foundations, one can understand the whole of medieval theology, especially Thomistic theology, which was regarded by Catholicism as the only authoritative one. Much can be said about this today. What anthroposophy was and is concerned with is nothing other than expressing in a simple and straightforward way what is available to spiritual perception.
And just as anthroposophy arrives at the statement that atheism is actually a hidden illness, so it arrives at the second statement: not finding Christ, not finding a relationship to Christ, is a fate, a misfortune of fate for human beings! Atheism is an illness, not finding Christ is a misfortune of fate; for one can find him in inner experience. But then he presents himself as the being who passed through the mystery of Golgotha. One can come to Christ through inner experience alone; one does not need anthroposophical research to be a religious person in the Christian sense. But then, when one comes to Christ, one becomes a member of the spiritual world, and one can truly speak of a resurrection of the human being in the spiritual world, of an expansion of the soul being in the experience of the spiritual world, and one can say that the person who does not find Christ is in a certain way limited in his worldview. Atheism is a disease! Not coming to Christ is a fate, not coming to the spirit is a limitation of the soul!
Now, my dear friends, from such foundations, anthroposophy basically only has to do with religion [not with theology], and with religion only insofar as people who have religious needs and cannot satisfy them in the current confessions approach anthroposophy. Anthroposophy only wants to do what is necessary in today's world and what others are not doing. You can see the attitude behind this — I must characterize it again and again — from the following.
Many years ago, I gave a lecture on “The Bible and Wisdom” in a city in southern Germany — at that time it was a German city, today it is no longer so. Two Catholic priests were also present at this lecture. After the lecture, the two came up to me and said: We actually found nothing in your lecture that could be contested from a Catholic point of view. I said, “If only I could always be so fortunate!” To which they replied, “Yes, but one thing struck us; it is not what you say, but the way you say it, and we must say that you are speaking to people who are prepared in a certain way. You are speaking to a kind of congregation that has a certain level of education, but we speak for all people.” — I said: Reverend, it is not important that we decide this according to our subjective feelings, but that we, as human beings, adapt our work to the development of the times, that we do not imagine that we speak for all people, but that we answer such a question according to what objectively lives in the development of humanity. Just as I can imagine that I speak for all people — and be very wrong about that — so you could imagine the same thing. It is very good for enthusiasm to have this imagination. But let us ask ourselves: Do all people who today have a need to hear about Christ still come to your church? The two of them could not say yes, because of course they knew that many people who were also seeking the way to Christ did not come to their church. So I said: You see, I speak for those who do not come to you and yet seek the way to Christ. — That means setting your tasks based on the development of the times, and not imagining that you are speaking for all people, but asking yourself: Are there minds that want to receive this or that in a special way?
With a different attitude, anthroposophy never addressed any religious denomination. Even though we have come to shape our teaching practice at the Waldorf School based on anthroposophy, we have refrained from making the Waldorf School a school that would graft anthroposophy into the minds of children. With regard to religious instruction, we have Catholic children taught by a Catholic priest and Protestant children by a Protestant pastor. Only for the children of dissidents has a kind of free religious instruction been established, but it is entirely in the Christian spirit. However, we do not present abstract anthroposophy – nor concrete anthroposophy, as it can be presented to adults – but rather we try with all our might to present to the children what corresponds to their real stage of development; but all this must first be sought and found in terms of content and method. Through the free religious instruction we have established, we have achieved that even those children who would otherwise have no religious instruction at all are now being brought back to Christianity, and they come in droves to participate in this kind of Christian religious instruction. But we have never engaged in any kind of religious propaganda within the anthroposophical movement, and anthroposophy has done the least possible to oppose individual theological systems.
For what anthroposophy alone can do in this regard is to make the individual theological systems understandable in their differentiation, not to fight them. I have always seen this as my task when speaking to people who have come to anthroposophy: to make understandable why Catholicism became Catholicism, Protestantism became Protestantism, Judaism became Judaism, and Buddhism became Buddhism, and how in all of them — I believe this is a Christian idea — lives the essence that, through its destiny, the true Christian is able to experience in his soul.
So, if the attacks had not come from the other side, there would have been no need for a dispute to arise between anthroposophy and theology, and even today I am only saying these words because it was requested by those who are organizing today's Theologians' Day. But what anthroposophy sets itself as its sole task is the proclamation of anthroposophical research findings about the supersensible world. That is why I have always been particularly cautious about attacks from the theological side. For anthroposophy does not want to appear as a fighter, but wants to satisfy the justified human soul needs demanded by the times. And all those who want to work with anthroposophy in this sense to satisfy these justified human soul needs, which are pushing their way to the surface from the depths of the soul, all those who want to work with it in this sense, are welcome!