|
THE POSSIBILITIES OF DEVELOPMENT
IN EASTERN CHRISTIANITY
By
Valentin Tomberg
<>One of the most important
experiences that can be had amongst the peoples of Eastern
Europe is that in those countries an intensive participation of the
soul in the life of the Church is no hindrance
to the taking up of Rudolf Steiner's spiritual science. No conflict
arises in the souls of those people who, on
the one hand through destiny and inner propensity, are strongly
connected with everything that belongs to the life
of the Eastern Church, and on the other, have turned with the same
devotion towards anthroposophical life. It is
even possible -- apart from various outer situations to observe the
opposite : Not only does the coexistence of
Anthroposophy with Eastern Christianity not cause any conflict in the
souls of honest, unprejudiced people ; but
rather it tends to cause an inner security in the whole soul-life of
such people. Out of this there develops a
soul-life which combines clarity of thought with warm open-heartedness
and a naturalness of the whole personality.
So we can say : In the realm
of the soul,
Anthroposophy is wedded with the spirit
of Eastern Christianity. Through this marriage there arises something
just as positive as arises through the marriage
of a truly scientific attitude of mind with Anthroposophy. For just as
the meeting between a scientific outlook
and the communications of spiritual investigation creates no conflict
in the soul, so such religious convictions
meeting with anthroposophical truths create no conflict.
Now a religious conviction of this kind that keeps the heart open for
the truths of spiritual science is, in spite
of all, still existent in Eastern Christianity ; for there was in it up
to the very recent times, always more love
of Christ than anything else. The essence of the life of Eastern
Christianity was the inner communing of men with
the actually present Christ. This communing and this love of Christ was
held to be more significant overall than
problems of dogma and organization, for the essential difference
between Greek and Roman Catholicism lies primarily
in the fact that dogma and organization play quite a different role. A
fact that can be observed everywhere is
that the Greek Christian does not fee] himself bound in his thinking
to definite forms ; it is no sin for him to think freely.
The faithful Roman Christian, on the other hand, merely through the
face of belonging to
the Roman Church, is duty bound to a particular kind of chinking laid
down by the Church leaders. The thinking
of the Catholic has to submit to the orders of the "infallible"
official teaching in Rome. The infallibility dogma, decreed from Rome, is a final
break with the free spiritual life.' It is no longer compatible to
think freely and to be a Catholic. In the Eastern
Church it is still compatible. Personalities such as Soloviev and
Dostoyevsky were free in their thinking, and
yet absolutely Orthodox. This was only possible because the dogma was
not really grasped intellectually. It hovered
in the heights of heaven, high above
the level of the intellect. And therefore it did not pressure
the intellect -- it is actually more the object of an upward-gazing contemplation than an ordinance for thinking. In the East
the dogma did not crystalize out as thought alongside other thoughts. It remained
'hovering' at a certain supra-thought level, without descending into
the realm of intellectual chinking, as if
awaiting men -- with their faculties of comprehension -- to grow
upwards toward it. The dogma was experienced,
for instance by Soloviev, not as an ordinance, but as a goal for
thinking. For him the Nicean Creed, for example,
(which by the way is not spoken in the Church, but sung) was not to
prohibit other modes of thought, but rather
a call to research, a stimulus for independent cognition. And this
stimulus, in his case, has the best possible
results. For in him we have a man who ascended in his chinking co a comprehension of Christianity, without, in the process,
estranging himself from the spirit of the Eastern
Church.
Because the dogma in the East was preserved at a certain starry height,
it does not work coercively on thinking
as is the case in Catholicism (and also in Protestantism) ; but rather
it leaves a free space for the intellect.
During the millennia of her development, the Eastern Church had little
interest in the intellectual. She had the
feeling that the teachings of Christianity were exalted above human
opinions. The source out of which the convincing
efficacy of Christian truths should flow into the souls of men cannot
be sought either in the realm of argument,
nor in authoritative ordinances ; but rather in the immediate influence
of Christ Himself. The Church is the place
where one communes with Christ. And all men have a right to this
communing, the laymen as well as the Patriarch.
No representative of Christ is needed on earth, no "throne of Peter",
because Christ has risen and lives with us
even until the end of
time. And the actually present Christ was loved by many people in the
East -- nor merely believed in, but loved.
This love has always been the true inner
life of Eastern Christianity.
Neither the Bible, nor Church tradition, are the essence which Eastern
Christianity is based upon ; rather it is
based on the love of Christ. And why a free spirit still holds sway
there is because nothing in the world can compel
one to love. Love arises in freedom.
The magic breach, the unspeakable beauty of the Christ Figure, is the
source from which conviction of the truth
of Christianity streams into the souls of men. It is this immediate
breach which makes up the true life of Eastern
Christianity. Moreover, it is also true that in Russia there is no
doubting of Christ's existence. He is either
loved or hated there. Even the godless Bolshevik movement is, in its
true soul depths, far from doubting the reality of Christ. What provides the
thrusting power of that movement, what fires its ardor, is certainly
not doubt. It is hate
-- the fiery will to destroy
this Christ breath. One does not "doubt" what one hates with all one's
soul.
One is not "skeptical" regarding what one is determined to kill.
Now it is none the less true that all prominent representatives of
Russian spiritual life (to the extent that they
are truly representative ) had
the consciousness deep in their souls chat Christ lives. Not only
Dostoyevsky, Soloviev, and Tolstoy, but there
are also less significant representatives of Russian spiritual life who
live today, and who all have, each in his
own way, a relationship to Christ. Dostoyevsky's striving to understand
and describe the battle of Christ with the dark forces in men,
Soloviev's striving to foster knowledge of Christ through his sophianic philosophy,
Tolstoi's yearning to make outer life an expression
of Christ -- these impulses of the great ones go on working even today,
and are elaborated by a whole series of
personalities (unfortunately sometimes in a most fruitless direction).
What Dostoyevsky through his life's work
sent flowing into the human feeling
by violently stirring it and awakening
it for the cask of modern man ; that to which Soloviev strove to lead thinking in free cognition ; what
Tolstoy (not as thinker, but as a striving person)
brought into the world as a mighty impulse for the will --
this was simply and solely the Christ presence close behind the souls
of these three.
And when we ask the question as to the possibilities of the development
of Christianity, we must not seek the answer
in the abstract, but in real life. And real life gives us in answer
to our question three life stories of outstanding, characteristically
representative personalities
of Eastern Christianity. Dostoyevsky, Soloviev and Tolstoy are in fact
figures of the greatest possible significance
for the development of Eastern Christianity. They are fit to cell us in
the language
of reality what are the paths
of thinking, feeling and willing of a Christianity
tested by experience and pursued in the East.
However, before we take up that subject (which we will do in the next
essay) we must first direct our attention
towards the other essential difference between Eastern Christianity and
Catholicism. We have spoken above of one
difference -- the significance of dogma. Now
it is a question of gaining insight into the difference of their
relationships to the realm of organization ; specifically, Church organization.
For as in the East, dogma hovers in the heights and religious life
consists not in a particular Creed but in direct Communion with the Christ Being ; so also is the Church
in the East more supersensible than organizational.
Her power lies not in her outer organized structure, but in a spiritual
being whose name is Sophia.
If we would understand
the true significance of the "Church"
(as in the East it is more or less clearly grasped), we will have to
concern ourselves with things which are very
hard to force into sharply outlined concepts. But this much can at
least be clearly grasped by thought : that the
outer Church is only the body,
in and above which live both a soul and a spirit.'
( To avoid misconceptions, readers may be reminded here that the
Eastern Church only recognises seven Ecumenical Councils, and therefore the
decisions
of the eighth Council, from which followed the negation of the Spirit
as an independent principle alongside soul
and body, have, for the Eastern Church, not the significance of a
dogma, but merely of an"opinion", with
regard to which a person may freely take his own stand.)
The body of the Church is the outer organization which is founded on
the threefold basis of the Creed, the Seven
Sacraments, and the Hierarchy who are called to fulfill these
Sacraments. This body is fragile and imperfect (not
in its form as Creed, Sacraments,
and Hierarchy, but in its substance
:
the men who fill out this form). But there lives in this body its soul,
and there works in it its spirit. Sophia
is the soul of the Church, the Being of
Wisdom, who cannot be possessed by a single human being because she can
only reveal herself to the community of human beings. And Christ
is the spirit of the Church. Sophia, as
the soul of the Church, belongs at the same time to the Being of
Christ. She is the breath which goes out from
the Being of Christ and is directly received by souls. She is the
effective radiance around Christ, the aura
of his Being. At the same time, however, she
is an independent being whose image is Mary, the Mother of God.
This conception -- that Sophia is on the one hand the aura of Christ,
but is on the other hand Mary, an independent
being -- explains the almost uncomprehended fact that, for instance in
Icon pictures, both Christ and Mary are
represented as Sophia. For they are members of one
Being.
And a further member of the same Being is also the visible Community. But this is a member which belongs to the realm
of death and suffering.
So now we might ask : Should not this extended body have to take the same
path as was taken by the human body of Jesus of Nazareth ? Should it
not also go through suffering and death in order to
resurrect as a new body, as Spirit
body ? Have we -- in the case of Eastern Christianity -- not only an
ideal analogy before us, but also an analogy of destiny, a repetition of the Path?
Do we not see chat Eastern Christianity,
which has remained essentially true to the Spirit of Christianity, is
taking a Path of Suffering which is leading
to the death of its body, the
Church ? And do we not hear out of the West
how -- in a thousand ways -- there come cries from those who pass by
unconcerned, cries to the crucified Eastern
Christianity : "Save thyself, and come down from the Cross !" ?
Yes, and furthermore, already the lots are being cast (by certain
"secret" societies who have their own
special plans) for the garments of the not yet dead one.
The body of Eastern Christianity
is being destroyed. We can expect that it will be destroyed. It is
heading for death. But it is not the death of
old age, of exhaustion --it is a martyrdom.
This death is a Path. And since
this path was taken, it will lead to its goal. After suffering and
death, follows resurrection. therein lies the
possibilities of development of Eastern Christianity.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted
material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized
by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our
efforts to advance understanding of spiritual injustice, political,
human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice
issues,
etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted
material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In
accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site
is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
Top
|
