These last days I have been suggesting that there is a certain **distinctive** form of spirituality that animates much of the New Age movement.
Now it seems to me that the image often given by the New Age is that much of its spirituality is **not** so distinctive – but rather that it is universal and all-embracing.
But I have been trying to suggest that although I blithely accepted this for many years, it no longer seems true at all to me.
And that one can observe certain distinct qualities that highly differentiate much of New Age spirituality, from other kinds of spirituality.
I suggested, for example, that one of these was a call to detached centredness, sometimes with a corresponding nonchalance in the face of tragedy.
Still although I sense more and more deeply a distinctive kind of spirituality that lies behind the claim to an all-embracing holism, it remains difficult for me, at least at the moment, to do more than **suggest** all I feel in this regard.
But in the unfinished manuscript I have been quoting (with a few small changes), I turned to the image and example of the Christian esotericism of Rudolf Steiner, again, just to suggest what I am trying to say …
“Whatever Rudolf Steiner’s faults and failings, whatever his regrettably critical attitude toward the Church, and the Church’s understandably critical attitude to Rudolf Steiner, neither the Church, nor the neo–paganism of the New Age, should be under any illusion that Rudolf Steiner’s esotericism is simply just another species of New Age esotericism.
Clearly it is not. Its entire thrust is very, very different. If Rudolf Steiner’s Christian Hermeticism is not so concerned with the objective of simply becoming calm, centred, detached, unconcerned;
If Rudolf Steiner’s Christian Hermeticism is about epistemology via thinking, passionately thinking and strengthening thinking so as to cognise a vast spiritual world centred in the Mystery of Golgotha;
If Rudolf Steiner’s Christian Hermeticism is about engaging passionately with the culture of the West from Plato and Aristotle to Goethe, Hegel and Schelling;
If Rudolf Steiner painted a profoundly tragic picture of human evolution since the Fall and the battle with the forces of darkness,
If Rudolf Steiner drew profound strength from the daily intonation of the Pater Noster (though admittedly an esoteric version thereof) and encouraged the profound value of saying 'forgive us our **debts** ... deliver us from **evil**' ...
If Rudolf Steiner’s Christian Hermeticism is about all of these things … so profoundly different from so much of the New Age milieu;
If Rudolf Steiner’s esotericism appears so different from, say, the neo-theosophy of Alice Bailey, it is not simply by ACCIDENT.”
4 comments:
Huge, huge topic, head.
And unfortunately I can't do it much justice in a very personally pressured situation.
But I'll try to give you a FLAVOUR ...
Steiner felt that human evolution had reached a point where freedom was paramount.
The Church while valid to an earlier era, he felt, now imposed, far, far too much for *modern* humanity
He even questioned the idea of faith. He claimed that there was an epistemology/clairvoyant perception that would allow people in freedom to KNOW - directly cognise spiritual mysteries - including the Christ Mystery.
His Anthroposophy was intended to be a methodology to lead to this cognition.
Ironically many including myself, feel it is very much more than a methodology and very much a religious system ...
But that is the last thing that Steiner wanted ...
With blazing sincerity, I believe he wanted something very, very different.
And fell into despair at his followers' attitudes.
He's quoted somewhere to the effect - this may not be quite exact - 'What is the point of telling everyone we are not a cult - when we keep behaving like a cult?'
Steiner was baptised a Catholic and spoke of realising great mysteries in the Mass in his childhood.
He knew people of the Church throughout his life.
And towards the end was approached by a Lutheran for his *advice* in renewing the Church.
As a result, a movement called the Christian Community exists with small churches - and seminaries in Germany and America for training priests.
These churches aspire to freedom in a great degree, and aspire to be based around the sacraments rather than theology ...
Still although Steiner advised this group, lectured to it, etc - he seems to have very much wanted to keep his Anthroposophy very, very separate to this ...
Head, this is very much a CRUDE FLAVOUR ... typed fast and furiously.
It's a complex topic, many of my statements may lack nuance ... but there you go.
For myself, the tragedy of Anthroposophy suggests to me that freedom needs to be found with faith, with institutions ... not without ...
And as deeply as I esteem Steiner's genius, sincerity, love ...
his failure has only served to point me more towards the Church ...
Trying to dispense with the institution and faith in favour of methodology only seemed to lead to a dubious religious system ... though not without admirable successes in many regards. The Steiner schools, for example.
In my opinion.
Nice to visit you in your home here Roger.
You know, Steiner's advice to those Lutherans resulted in the Movement for Religious Renewal. This was not a church but meant to help renew the existing churches. Of course, they didn't want to hear about it. So then the Christian Community Church was founded.
Now James Gillen has told me that he read, whilst at the Goetheanum, about Rudolf Steiner "begging down" a tenth century version of the Mass. This was the inspiration for the Act of Consecration of Man.
I have told the above to some Christian Community priests and they maintain that their Mass is somehow "new".
You can read about the history of the Mass in Charles Leadbeater's book:
http://www.anandgholap.net/Science_Of_Sacraments-CWL.htm
So the protests I have heard from some Christian Community priests, do ring a little hollow in face of the facts as presented by Rev. Leadbeater. As per usual the truth rest on facts, not opinion.
-Bruce
Thank you so much, Bruce.
I feel you've clarified and amplified my all too rough comments admirably.
I've had some regrets about much that is also *missing* from my hasty comments - including the fact that Steiner clearly held so many ideas contrary to the teaching of the Church (eg. reincarnation).
But while I don't have time to adequately amplify now -
More of what I think in this regard is contained in a series of six installments of this blog starting with
The Viper’s Sting: Rudolf Steiner on Philosophical Materialism -
December 15
to No Eclipse
December 22.
Incidentally, I also consider these entries among the most central and important to the heart of what this weblog aspires to address.
Finally Bruce, I've been meaning to visit you in your very meaningful web-home too - but things remain pressing here ...
Post a Comment