The Founding of the Christian Community

GA 344 — 21 September 1922, Dornach

Eighteenth Lecture

[At the beginning of the meeting, the “Community Order for the Soul Shepherds of the Christian Community” drafted by the founding circle was discussed. First, the draft for point 1 was read out:]

"Affiliation. The Christian Community was founded in Dornach between September 6 and 22, 1922 as an original community, consisting of 45 priests authorized to perform the rituals entrusted to the Christian Community.

The Church of Christ recognizes as authorized helpers for the practice of the three rituals and for giving religious instruction the personalities who, on behalf of Dr. Steiner, give the free religious instruction and celebrate the cultural rites at the independent Waldorf School in Stuttgart and at sister schools.

Ernst Uehli [a teacher of religion at the Waldorf School] points out that the individuals currently teaching religion at the Waldorf School have been appointed by Dr. Steiner. Since Dr. Steiner is in overall charge of the Waldorf School, he will also have to decide who will continue to perform the cultic service there.

Rudolf Steiner: I think that the Waldorf School will always be seen as a kind of model school for this pedagogical approach, which is cultivated within the anthroposophical movement. And for the part that figures as religious education, of course, the complete idea of Waldorf school education must be considered, so that the previous practice must certainly be continued there. For those whom one is still obliged to appoint as religion teachers, exactly the same must apply as for the present religion teachers. That should be the case. There is hardly anything in contradiction to what you have here. I just don't want to be restricted in the event that I consider someone to be a proper religion teacher and then the same does not apply to the person concerned as to the current Waldorf teachers. That is something I cannot even consider. In making the appointment I can only consider personal suitability. So the question here is whether you mean by the sentence that the subsequent religion teachers should be members of the Christian Community. Has anything been done about that yet?

Emil Bock: Perhaps this formulation is not clear enough after all. This sentence could perhaps be worded as follows: Those who are appointed by Dr. Steiner to these functions will be recognized without these conditions being met. The sentence that religious education and rituals should not be carried out by all those who are not appointed by Dr. Steiner is intended only for those schools that may receive a different leadership.

Rudolf Steiner: No, the only schools that will come into question for this paragraph of yours are those that are recognized as Waldorf schools. And I will appoint the people for these until I die [to teach religion and celebrate the rites]. So until then, it will be a matter of recognizing those I appoint. And afterwards, recognition will perhaps also be sought in accordance with what is decreed for the constitution after my death, insofar as I have not settled it.

[Further points of the draft of the community order are read out. This was only partially recorded by the stenographer. Regarding point 2c:]

"The appointment of successors and the expansion of the leadership and guidance is carried out by election from among the consecrated workers, namely by the senior leaders for the office of senior leader, and by senior leaders and leaders in community for the office of leader. If a territorial structure of the work develops, the proposals of the consecrated workers working in a particular area should be sought by those to be elected before each election of a leader or leader for that area.

Rudolf Steiner: That can certainly be done. The only difficulty arises in the one point, the very last paragraph that you read. It is not entirely clear whether the appointment or co-option of the senior leaders and leaders can be changed in the paragraphs. If it can be changed at any time, then that is something that thwarts the purpose of this paragraph, which you draw up so that something other than what you want does not take place. If you formulate the last paragraph in such general terms, this paragraph in particular calls into question something that is otherwise quite clear. It could then be changed every year. Since you consider this mode of election to be something very salutary, you would be contradicting yourself if you did not add something to the paragraph to the effect that this mode of election cannot be changed or only at very long intervals, in other words, something to protect it; otherwise you would very easily end up with a democratic election after a short time.

[The stenographer's transcript shows a gap here.

Rudolf Steiner: I might have a few words to say before you leave. This can be done tomorrow.

A request has been made for clarification of the Credo.

Rudolf Steiner: What I wanted to say about the creed has already been said to some extent in other things. The creed I gave you was taken from genuine spiritual knowledge. There is something different about this creed compared to rituals. Rituals are given as something that now arises as a form of ceremony. This creed gives something that the religious person of the present day presents as their confession. You can agree or disagree with it. Or perhaps you can say to yourself today, “You have faith that I have given this creed.” You want to declare your agreement with this creed today and regard this agreement initially as an agreement with the teaching. It will hardly be possible to object to the creed in any way. However, I believe that you have described a table 5

sentence that comes from the Credo as unclear, the sentence “to spiritually heal the disease of sin from the body of humanity”. You asked whether it should not read “to spiritually heal the body of humanity from the disease of sin”.

What is meant is this: To spiritually heal the sin-sickness of the body of humanity – to spiritually heal the sin-sickness present in the body. That is the meaning. “To spiritually heal the sin-sickness of the body of humanity” – well, that wouldn't make sense. You could also say “to spiritually heal the sin-sickness of the body of humanity”. I would prefer: “on the physical.” — “To spiritually heal the sin-sickness of the physical of humanity,” that is a genitive objective. I have paraphrased it because these two genitives are in succession, but they are simply given by the text. Otherwise, I have nothing to say in relation to the Credo.

[You still have the question:] Why are there monthly sayings that apply to the whole week? – The reason for this must be understood from a higher point of view. Suppose I were to explain the human soul, I would say: will, feeling and thinking are the three members of the soul, or at least the outer manifestation of it. (I write on the board – middle –: will, feeling, thinking.) Now I must not present it by writing: here thinking, feeling, willing.

No.

So it would be wrong. I have to draw it so that there is thinking, feeling and willing in the head, only the willing is weakest. In the metabolic-limb organism of man, the will is predominant. There is always one that takes over the others. And so, in spiritual activities, you have to have something that takes over the lower levels from a higher level.

A participant: When is the beret handed over to the priest when he is installed in office?

Rudolf Steiner: I would like to carry out this ceremony of handing over the beret after the ceremony. The handover would take place when the person concerned reads the first mass, then when you carry out the ceremony. Then he will simply receive the beret with the words I will speak tomorrow. That is the handing over of the office. Otherwise one would hand over a diploma, here one hands over the beret. This will be handed over when you read the first mass, with a few words spoken after communion.

I have tried to find a name to replace the word “priest”, but apart from the names “shepherd of souls” or “caretaker of souls”, I have not yet come up with any other. It is

new German language, it is hardly possible to form a word for the word “priest”. “Seelenhirte” (shepherd of souls) seems too sentimental, but you won't easily find a non-sentimental word.

[A participant] suggests retaining the word “priest”.

Rudolf Steiner: That is the simplest. But it is something that has been perceived as offensive in Protestant circles. Basically, “priest” also originally goes back to “shepherd of souls”. There are, of course, no objective reasons [not to use the name “priest”]. It is only the reason that all these things should be avoided that are common in Roman Catholicism. The “Act of Consecration of Man” is a very adequate term for “mass,” but for “priest” one would have to use the word “soul carer,” which also sounds sentimental. And a word that would not so much denote the priesthood as the dignity of a priest would be the word “consecrated person”, which denotes one who has been consecrated. “Consecrated person” is something that would be quite adequate, not so much for the word “priest” as for the word used in the ancient mysteries.

A participant: Are there any rules about the type of incense?

Rudolf Steiner: We use ordinary incense. The essential thing is that the incense spreads this kind of ethereal odor. That is essential to the matter. It is not correct that incense is only used in Catholic communities; it is used wherever ceremonies are performed that have a real spiritual basis. You mean, whether one can take an incense that does not have this ethereal smell, because the incense could be slandered to the effect that it puts people to sleep? There is no other option, as long as this prejudice has to be combated, than not to burn incense. You can omit the incense.

Werner Klein: Would that not substantially alter the spiritual facts?

Rudolf Steiner: By merely imagining the incense, it will be one degree less real. But you will have to make such allowances in relation to various things. I cannot see how you can fulfill the ideal if you want to see it fulfilled. You have incense everywhere. I have already mentioned the Freemasons; the Indians also have it. It is everywhere where serious occult practices are performed. Only in Protestant circles, when smoking is used, it smells Catholic. - One could also say, it smells Masonic or Indian.

A participant: We can get a small chapel for our worship in Frankfurt. Are there certain things to consider when furnishing the church? What color for the walls or the details?

Rudolf Steiner: I would not go to extremes here. I would keep it to a dull purple, not too loud, but a dull purple. That is the best way to get the mood right. The things that differ are done in a darker purple.

A participant: Could other rooms also be considered, for example, Masonic ritual rooms or similar?

Rudolf Steiner: Of the Freemasons you could only get those rooms that do not have their symbols, so the ballroom. The ballroom you could take under certain circumstances readily. This is a matter of opportunity. I could imagine that is no obstacle to use the ballroom of the Freemasons for your purposes.

Friedrich Ritielmeyer: Auditoriums and schools would also work, of course. For smaller communities, I would even consider private rooms to be the most suitable. But people don't have many rooms anymore. Only a few people in Germany still have large private rooms. The rooms of the Anthroposophical Societies are also increasingly at risk. In Munich, there are no longer any such rooms. Where they still exist, they would of course be usable in agreement with the boards of directors. Public education rooms would also be considered.

Rudolf Steiner: In these matters, I must say that I am only familiar with one adult education centre that I have come into contact with. Adult education rooms are those that also have a public character. The adult education association led by Raphael Löwenfeld had its lecture room in the Berlin City Hall. Of course, one can use these rooms. One could also use the hall of the Bernoullianum in Basel if one gets it. I would only say in such cases, if I were to take over the hall as the person in charge: Please don't be alarmed; we have ceremonies in which we use incense. —You would always have to tell the hall providers this.

A participant: There is no longer any smell of incense the next morning.

Rudolf Steiner: It depends entirely on the sense of smell of those who enter the room. Of course, you will find people who can still detect the smell days later.

A participant: How should our group relate to Freemasonry? Several of us have become more familiar with Freemasonry.

Rudolf Steiner: The Circle as such does not relate to Freemasonry. I regard it as a purely individual matter. It cannot be that anything is brought in from Freemasonry as such, because in reality Freemasonry no longer has anything Christian. That is not something we need to discuss here. Freemasonry as such has nothing Christian. A participant: Could we exert influence on Freemasonry?

Rudolf Steiner: I think that is hardly possible. It is different if someone works in Freemasonry with the impulses that he has and receives through this community. In that way he can influence them. But that is not very easy either. Now, I do not think that is particularly desirable either. What is desirable is that this community spreads as widely as possible and that everything is done to promote this spread. With Freemasonry, you will find least of all that it has a progressive effect. I also do not believe that you can come into a conflict of duty there. I do not know where that could lie. But I will not ask you if you do not want to hint at the conflict.

A participant: I think that our movement here, our circle, is much more valuable than what Freemasonry can offer. I was already a Freemason before I joined our circle. Now I am striving to devote all my energy to our movement. I don't think I will have the time and energy to be able to give to Freemasonry what it demands.

Rudolf Steiner: There is no real conflict of duty. At most, it would make it possible for you to be less active in the lodge. But it does not give rise to a real inner conflict of duty. If you were to become a Roman Catholic priest, however, there would be a conflict of duty. But as it is, there is no conflict of duty for you at all, except that you cannot be in the lodge as much. That could also be caused by something else.

Emil Bock: We would be very grateful if you could at least give us some pointers on pastoral psychology and pathology. We then asked about the sexual question in a pastoral relationship, for guidelines for pastoral care in this area.

Rudolf Steiner: This can hardly be achieved in any other way than perhaps by you first trying, together with our doctors, to gain some insights into psychiatry in general and how it is practised in our country. This must then be incorporated into the confession. Because you can only go as far as it is an object of confession. Otherwise you will hardly be able to do anything. All physical treatment you must leave to the doctor for the time being. But the confession must be aimed at being a real sedative for those who have some kind of defect. This will be an item that must be worked out step by step in Stuttgart. It cannot be done in a few minutes. But you should also talk about pastoral therapy. It is quite possible that you will need knowledge in this area when you are ready to found village communities. Since the pastors in the villages often give physical medicine at the same time, they acquire knowledge that they can then use in their pastoral care.

[A question was asked that was not recorded by the stenographer.]

Rudolf Steiner: The wives of the married may be present at tomorrow's celebration, but may not receive communion.

A participant: How can we officially identify ourselves to the authorities? Rudolf Steiner: Is the name of pastor monopolized?

Emil Bock: I believe it is legally reserved. Only those with the title of pastor in the recognized denominations may use it.

Rudolf Steiner: As soon as I find a name for “priest”, you can also use that as an official title. But I have to find it first; perhaps it will come while you are still here. For the time being it has not been possible to find anything except these three names: “Seelenpfleger”, “Seelenhirte”, “Weiheträger”. These are adequate names, but they sound a little sentimental in modern language. Friedrich Rittelmeyer: Is there a German name for “Hostie”?

Rudolf Steiner: Why do you need a German name for it? We should only strive for a word if it can truly be a word. For something as solemn as the Mass, it is acceptable to use a word like “Human Consecration Ritual”; for the host, however, it is of course difficult to use a different word. “Altar bread” and ‘altar wine’ is a very adequate name that works quite well, but it is a long name. I cannot find a word for ‘priest’ and ‘pastor’ alone. I would even find ‘pastor’ very painful if it were not used. Perhaps it would even be better to let you use the official title of “pastor”. I think “priest” is different from “pastor”. “Priest” refers to the consecration, but “pastor” refers directly to the person who is an official as a shepherd of souls.

A participant asks whether the word “clergyman” could be used.

Rudolf Steiner: Of course there is nothing wrong with the word “clergyman”. But Dr. Rittelmeyer shook his head?

Friedrich Rittelmeyer: All these words are too heavily burdened for me.

Rudolf Steiner: “Spiritual” too? “Ordained minister” is the term to be used for the priest. Outwardly, it is a demotion if you cannot bear the name “pastor”. Why is that not possible? Do you yourself have something against the title “pastor”? “Pastor” is, for the time being, a title that encompasses both Catholic and Protestant clergy.

Emil Bock: The title “clergyman” would not be confirmed as an official title for us.

Rudolf Steiner: The German language does not have a clear word, so the word “pastor” is to be aimed for. A question is asked about the doctrine of predestination. [The stenographer did not record the wording of the question, and only parts of the following remarks by Rudolf Steiner were recorded.]

Rudolf Steiner: This is a question that cannot easily be answered in a pastoral setting because it is fundamentally a profound question of world view. In ancient times, predestination meant the names of those who were entered in the Book of Creation. But now you must realize that actually until the 5th or 6th century, at least until the time of Augustine, all thinking that referred to the spiritual world itself was thought from the spiritual world to the physical world and not the other way around. It is only in the last few centuries that thinking has been from the bottom up and no longer from the top down. So if you take the way of thinking that was natural for Augustine from the moment he was able to think philosophically at all, predestination meant the names of those who were chosen by God to be written in the book of life; they meant a configuration of the world in which the names were there. So you would get the scheme: The heavenly; now comes the first name: those who gave alms, so we have the almsgivers. As a second, those who cared for the sick; and as a third name: those who taught. And now, in what is conceived from above downwards, you do not yet have people in it at all; they must first acquire the right to these names themselves, must first integrate themselves. All these designations are type designations that descend from above, so that people must first acquire the right to these type designations. It is not people who are nurses, it is not people who are alms-givers, soul-shepherds and so on; these are the names – but they are not names that the individual bears – they must first be acquired.

It is the completely different way of thinking from which one must try to understand such a word as “predestination”. Otherwise, how do you get along with the teachings of Augustine and with the whole dispute of the minds at that time about predestination? You cannot get along. You cannot possibly ascribe to Augustine that he divided humanity on earth into two groups, one predetermined for good, the other for evil. What he meant is that he placed the types on the one hand and the other types on the other. But people themselves do not belong to one type or the other from the outset; they must first acquire their claim to a name.

Gnostic? There it is in the most eminent sense that only the one who acquires the possibility to do so in the course of earthly life belongs to those who can be so designated. Blessed is everyone who acquires the name in earthly life; anyone who does not do so will not be blessed. One must come to blessedness through the name. That is a Gnostic principle. If you hear the word “name” in the language of the older times, you will find that outwardly.... [gap].

Take these two things for the time being in my “Theosophy”. There is the human being who goes up to the consciousness soul; he wants to come to the spiritual man, there the impact from the spiritual world is “poured over”, and the germ of the “I” lies in this, which is poured over there. This also corresponds to Indian terminology. The Indian uses the word 'Nama', the Indian word for 'name'. Nama points upwards to 'Manas', not to what is below. It is the same in Egyptian. So what corresponds to the name is predetermined. If I may express myself very roughly, one could say that there is a map of heaven, where all those who will be blessed and all those who can be damned are written down; but one must acquire that which corresponds to what is written there as one's name. There is a typology that is nothing other than the expression of predestination. Augustine cannot be understood any differently; he is truly a follower of absolute predestination. With Calvin's doctrine of predestination, one really doesn't know what he wants; he ends it rather confusingly. I imagine – I haven't studied it, it's never interested me much, I haven't studied Calvin – but I imagine that with him it is so that he started from a moment when he sensed something, and then he couldn't face saying it clearly. His followers felt the need to bring it to an understanding. Today, people treat such things as if they were none of their business. I don't think that [the teaching] of Augustine can be treated in the same way as that of the Gnostics. Augustine is to be seen as an excellent human being.

Friedrich Rittelmeyer: What is the significance of Christ's resurrection after three days?

Rudolf Steiner: For three days it was undecided whether he would die or not. It was a three-day struggle with death. So it is to be understood that the things that are there [in the Gospels] are realities. It is not the case that the Christ did not really go through the pain that had to be suffered during the scourging and the crucifixion. It is to be understood that for three days there was the possibility that he would not overcome death. The struggle lasted so long. You can say that from a higher point of view that is out of the question. But he had to fight with death for three days and had this tableau of the past life and led the fight against dissolution [of the body], which he went through with his divine nature like the human being in his human nature. The human body disintegrates at death. The body of Christ Jesus has dissolved into the substance of the earth. You can just as well call that “disappearance” as “dissolving” and “remaining”.

Something redemptive is taking place; an effect on elemental spirits is being exerted by drawing them into their realm.