# Unpretentious Aphorisms on the Book: Reformation or Anthroposophy?

A writing,[^1] I do not want to write a review about it. What I will say will be only words that express my *subjective* feelings when reading the writing and that may be directed from a deeply satisfied soul like a spiritual greeting to the author.

Only in this way can I speak about a writing that, from the point of view of my spiritual-scientific striving, characterizes Pastor Ernst.

I feel that, first of all, the writing expresses the deeply religious, but also the only truly plausible view, which knows that in the development of mankind nothing truly religious can arise or develop without a real intervention of the divine-spiritual into the physical world. Without a person or persons having real contact with the supersensible, nothing religious can come into the world: Edmund Ernst is quite clear about this.

That is why he starts from the reformers' supersensible experiences. He shows how Luther's whole life was basically oriented towards contact with the supersensible. How Luther was well aware of the dangers of this contact, how he knew that supersensible beings can sometimes appear in a good mask, while they are of a devilish nature. Ernst also shows how Zwingli, in a decisive point, made his behavior dependent on a truth that had been revealed to him from the spiritual world.

The spiritual-supernatural source is spoken of simply but forcefully in the book as a religious source.

In this way, however, the author's meaning is implanted in the book, which makes the religious man. The book proves to be one that is written from a spirit-filled *heart* living in the spirit. From such a heart-felt attitude, light-filled warmth always falls on the individual's execution. And with Ernst, this warmth is never channeled into the *sought* emotional exuberance; it remains objective throughout and seeks to get the “yes” and “no” for an assertion from the objective.

Given such conditions, should we not speak of the deepest satisfaction when Pastor Ernst courageously makes three main questions the content of his book? These are three questions that I myself should never have been allowed to speak about; to hear what is said about them from such a source, may be called an inner festival of life. “1. Is there a possibility, from the spiritual experience of the Reformation, to understand what presents? 2. Must the spiritually real element of the Reformation capitulate before what 'anthroposophically oriented spiritual science' possibly brings in the way of new ideas? 3. Must the results of the spiritual scientist's research be rejected from the point of view of the experience of the Reformation?"

It must be deeply satisfying to see these questions treated in a thoroughly religious way, after Ragaz, for example, has written about the spiritual science I have described: ”In this higher knowledge, God comes to Himself in man. The promise of the snake is fulfilled: Eritis sicut Deus, you will be like God. Thus Theosophy becomes Anthroposophy” (Leonhard Ragaz: Theosophy or Kingdom of God? Flugschriften der Quelle 3. Rotapfelverlag 1922, page 18). Or: “Woe to the world if it were to abandon the God of the Bible for the God of Theosophy – it would sink into dream and death, lose God and man.” Page 34. – Anyone who acquires knowledge of the human soul through spiritual research does not find a soul like Ragaz's in her dark storms against Anthroposophy incomprehensible. One can see through her in her conscious world of ideas, and also in the subconscious and semi-subconscious depths. And one recognizes how she cannot allow the feeling to arise in her from these depths: there is a path in anthroposophy to the spiritual world. Can this not lead to a renewed understanding of the biblical word of revelation, which also comes from the spiritual world? Ragaz' soul cannot come to this feeling because she has blocked the very path through the ways to the Bible that she has now chosen, through which the Bible itself - in accordance with the corresponding time - came about, and which has been recreated in anthroposophical spiritual research in a way appropriate to the responsibilities of knowledge in our time.

Now Ernst's statement (on pages 24f. of his book) is juxtaposed with a statement by Ragaz. I truly feel a spiritual blush as I transcribe the words here: “Insofar as Steiner represents the fact that it is possible to recognize the supersensible world and that it is possible to educate people to this knowledge, he presents himself as the recipient of a message from the spiritual world. Only that he also shows – and this goes beyond Luther – how others can also arrive at *becoming such recipients through the path of seeing.*

And Pastor Ernst understands in a clear way how I would like to apply anthroposophical spiritual knowledge to human life. It is far from my intention to appear in any kind of religious way or to interfere in any religious confession. I have no other aspiration than this: to communicate to present-day humanity, in a form of knowledge with the right sense of responsibility before today's science, what I am able to explore in the supersensible worlds. I present what I may say to myself is either appropriate for present-day humanity in its state of spiritual maturity, or something else for which individual groups of people are first acquiring the maturity in an (esoteric) preliminary training.

When the Christian Renewal movement came into being, it was *not* on *my* initiative, but on that of a number of Christian theologians who were seeking a new spiritual impulse precisely out of their genuine Christian sensibilities. *believed that they could find this in the spiritual insights, especially those that are also possible through a cultus, of anthroposophy; and I was obliged to give *this* group of people everything I could give from my knowledge. I remained the one communicating the insights from the supersensible world; and the recipients and inquirers did what was necessary to establish the Fellowship for Christian Renewal.*

All this is now, through Pastor Ernst's book, once again before the public, and, in my opinion, from an effective source.

Pastor Ernst has, in addition to the above-mentioned book by Ragaz, found another on his way. D.L. *Johannes Frohnmeyer*: “The Theosophical Movement, its History, Presentation and Assessment. Second completely revised edition by Alfred Blum-Ernst.

I do not like to talk about Frohnmeyer's writing. I have to say that when so many objective untruths, often of the most absurd kind, occur in a person's assertions, then the urge to establish the “truth” in the spiritual realm cannot be very strong in him. The book shows that its author did not feel obliged to check the objectivity of an assertion before making it. A true seeker of knowledge cannot begin to deal with such an attitude. Just think of the evil nonsense that Frohnmeyer wrote about my statue of Christ, without feeling any obligation to check the evidence for his claim! Such a book should be considered by serious people as having nothing to do with the search for truth.

Pastor Ernst also faced particular difficulties with regard to this book. He characterizes them on page 8 of his book: “If, in the preparation of the second edition, a relative of the author of this writing is involved, then the cultural-historical sense of responsibility of the truth-seeker, as it has just been presented, may offer a measure for understanding the matter. Biblical literalists are asked to look for the corresponding words for the author's situation in the Gospels. The author of the second edition of Frohnmeyer knew when he began his literary work that the author of this work had been dealing with the question dealt with here since 1919. The author of this work was asked to deal with this material during a discussion of the matter. It has only become possible for us to do this after we had matured to the necessary clarity to be able to remain objective. Thus, personal relationships will not be able to cloud the objective judgment of this writing, we hope.

But I must be particularly grateful to Pastor Ernst for having brought his objectivity to bear on the Blum-Frohnmeyer book precisely because of his life situation.

I am particularly satisfied that Pastor Ernst applies all the means of examination that arise from Luther's position on the spiritual world and from the Reformation to examine my spiritual research for its justification. And I am also satisfied with the way in which he subjects my interpretation, drawn purely from spiritual knowledge, to serious philological research, for example in relation to the “I am, the ‘I am’”. I always feel completely satisfied when everything possible is done to *check* what I present. For I know that those personalities who *really examine the matter carefully* will never become *such* opponents as they usually show themselves to be today. *Such opponents* will only be those who *do not examine*, and who, without examination, *seem to* prove something from some kind of background, or who merely assert something.

---

[^1]: Reformation or Anthroposophy? By Edmund Ernst. Published by Paul Haupt, Akademische Buchhandlung, vorm. Max Drechsel, Bern 1924.