English translation (from German) of the 1926 reprint, by Claire French, Herta Uhlherr and Helga Uhlherr.
Published in 1996 by Temple Society Australia, 152 Tucker Road, Bentleigh, Victoria 3204.
© Temple Society Australia 1995
In 1875 Christoph Hoffmann, the spiritual founder and first President of the Temple Society, published his book Occident and Orient. In its original German text the book comprises three parts:
Part 1 - The Temple Society and its settlements in the Holy Land.Part II - The Orient and its needs.
Part 111 - The Occident and its future.
Christoph Hoffmann was a reformer, perceptive and responsive. He did not want to turn the world upside down. Rather, by going back to the roots of Christianity and focusing on the kernel of Jesus' teaching in all its vitality, he wanted to show a way of building a better world in the service of the Creator. In direct responsibility before God, he and his followers earnestly strove to come closer to what Jesus saw as God's Kingdom of love on earth, and to work realistically towards its spread in the here and now. This work Templers believed then, as they believe now, to be at the heart of Christianity in action, and to be facilitated in well-functioning Christian communities of like-minded people as the proving ground for the practice of Christian values and ethics.
For some 80 years, far beyond the pioneering days of Christoph Hoffmann's Generation, the Temple Society continued its community settlement endeavors. In 1948, the loss of its settlements signaled the end of its work and live presence in the Holy Land.
Great as this loss was, it did not detract from the spiritual heritage of Christoph Hoffmann and his co-founders. That spiritual heritage, documented in the abovementioned Part I of Occident and Orient, continues to bear tangible fruit, albeit in the different environments of Australia and Germany. Its inner truth remains as challengingly relevant in our time as it was well over a century ago.
It is with a view of communicating this continuing relevance of the Temple Society's principles and spiritual aspirations to a wider circle of readers that this English translation of Part 1 of Occident and Orient is published.
What caused the small Temple Society to purposefully prepare for and embark on the daunting task of establishing Christian communities and settlements in the Holy Land under most arduous conditions?
What motivated Christoph Hoffmann and the men and women of the co-founder Generation to daringly break new ground and, against heavy odds, to remain true to their commitment?
The pages of this book yield answers to these and other questions, and contribute to a better understanding of the practical Templer way of life as one of many ways in the rich diversity of human endeavor.
On behalf of the Temple Society I sincerely thank all who have contributed to the work of this translation and its publication. In particular, I thank Dr. Claire French, Mrs. Herta Uhlherr and Mrs. Helga Uhlherr for their dedication, patience and perseverance.
To the persons responsible for the printing of this English edition, thank you for a job well done.
Dietrich P. Ruff
President of the Temple Society
Melbourne, November 1993
The Origins of the Temple Society
In Württemberg, Pietism did not really come into its own until the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th century, when it was already declining in other parts of Germany. However, Pietism lost its vigor in Württemberg, too, from the middle of the 1830s on and as it did so, it again drew closer to the State Church, which it had once actively opposed.
At about the same time, a new attack against the principles of Lutheran orthodoxy was launched by Dr. David Friedrich Strauss and the so-called "critical school" of Tübingen University.1 The controversy did not remain confined to theological circles for long but was brought before the General public by both parties. The man particularly involved was Friedrich Th. Vischer, a Professor of aesthetics at the University of Tübingen. In lectures spiced with popular humor, Vischer declared war both on the faith of the traditional Church and on Pietism. Now both
camps felt it necessary to counter these attacks; in 1845 the weekly "Süddeutsche Warte" ("South German Sentinel") was created for this purpose, published by Christoph Hoffmann together with Philipp and Immanuel Paulus. This paper became the rallying point for the more thoughtful among the Pietists and traditional churchgoers, who felt their respective parties were in need of spiritual renewal.
While this controversy, which affected only a small circle, was raging, another movement, which affected all of Europe, developed and reached its climax in the revolution of 1848. Political aspirations for the unity of Germany as well as for the freedom of the individual, hitherto regarded as rebellion and high treason, now came to be considered highly commendable, and their exponents suddenly found themselves in the position of having to determine the fate of Germany. It is no wonder, then, that in such an unforeseen contingency there was a great deal of disagreement amongst these people as to their aims and the means of attaining them, with the result that the first elected German National Assembly, the Diet of Frankfurt, which had been welcomed with such high hopes, ended in complete failure for the moment.2
However, many Germans have an ingrained awareness of the important concerns of mankind; they need and search for a truth that transcends the limits of time and nationality. Their minds and hearts would not have been satisfied by a merely political movement, whether successful or not. Thus a religious interest was linked with the political quest (in 1848), and the former gradually grew stronger as the political excitement subsided under the pressure of the Reaction, which came to a head in Europe with the coup d'@tat of Napoleon III. After all, educated Germans had for some time now found their inspiration and consolation in the great German poets and philosophers: Lessing, Klopstock, Wieland, Herder, Goethe, Schiller, Kant, Fichte, Schelling and Hegel. In fact, during this politically divided and repressed period, the works of these men were the only intellectual nourishment available to students. So the new Generation had acquired the mistaken belief that, like itself, the whole populace could do without Christian ideas and be uplifted by great literature and popular science instead. To these people, Church and religion seemed to be, if not totally unnecessary, then merely a means of making their modern philosophy of life palatable to the masses.
If the political revolution of 1848 had been successful, the new State authorities would certainly have strongly opposed the Christianity of the established Church and would have tried to change it to conform to their own views, or to abolish it. Even after the political movement was suppressed, this could still have happened, as the majority of public servants, including those in the highest positions, espoused the intellectual and spiritual views of this modern culture.
As it happened, things turned out quite differently, mainly as a result of the presence of the Roman Catholic Church. Amidst the general confusion, overlooked and vastly underestimated by politicians and modern educators alike, it emerged as the strongest power because of its spiritual unity and its efficient international organization. In Germany it became the only secure support for the shaky thrones and quickly increased its formerly limited freedom to move. Soon it was able to renew its old claims to power. From 1848 onwards, Ultramontanism became the powerful clerical party. 3 This development had the effect of encouraging the Protestant clergy. Knowing about the concessions that the State granted the Catholic Church, they could now also hope to preserve and strengthen their own doctrinal and administrative system. Luther's Church sought and found refuge under the wings of Rome. The majority of Pietists took part in this attempt to gain more power for the Protestant Church. In doing so, they more or less unconsciously gave up the true spirit and essence of Pietism and degenerated into a faction of the clerical party.
As a result of these developments in Germany, the small circle supporting the "South German Sentinel" had to make a decision. One of its editors, Christoph Hoffmann, had defeated Dr. Strauss in the elections of 1848 and had become the only Pietist delegate in the Diet of Frankfurt. Here, in the center of political activities, he realized that there was no future for Pietism in the unfocussed state it was in; either it would be swallowed up by the clerical party or it had to decide for itself what its own goal really was. Personal experience had convinced Hoffmann that the solution of all problems, and a healing of the spiritual disintegration and the social abuse that followed, were to be sought and found only in Christianity.
However, conditions around him made Hoffmann realize that Christianity could not fulfil this task because it had degenerated in both the Catholic and the Protestant Churches. lt was therefore impossible for him to join either the Roman Catholic or the Protestant clerical party; instead he began to search for the causes of this degeneration and for the original meaning and essence of Christianity by going back to the original sources and the history of Christianity. He published the result of this investigation in an article4 stating that the sickness that had befallen the nations could only be cured by building the Temple, i.e. by forming a society organized independently of the churches on purely Christian principles, similar to the first Christian communities. In other words, the Society would have to be based on bringing together God's people.
Many discussions on carrying out this project took place within the small group of people who contributed to the "South German Sentinel" and who had been involved in the election campaign. Some of them decided in favor of Hoffmann's idea that the prophecies of the Holy Scriptures should be taken as a guideline and that consequently the building of the Temple in Jerusalem should be their goal.5 In this way the Temple movement came into being. Those who did not agree, including two of the co-editors of the "Sentinel", resigned. In July 1853 the "South German Sentinel" was declared to be an "instrument for bringing together God's people". In the summer of 1854, four men volunteered to act as a steering committee to bring together the people of God in Jerusalem. These four were Christoph Hoffmann, Christoph Paulus, Georg David Hardegg and Louis Höhn (who died soon after).
Despite strong attacks from the Church and from conservative Pietists in Württemberg, this committee began preparations to consolidate the Temple movement. Their first step was a petition to the German Federal Assembly in 1854, asking the German Federation to use its influence in the Middle Eastern war of the time to facilitate Christian settlements in Palestine. The Federal Assembly replied that nothing could be done in this respect.
To provide the Temple movement with a visible base, a settlement was started at the Kirschenhardthof, a rural estate near Marbach on the Neckar, and from 1856 to 1873 this small community functioned as the center of Temple endeavor.
In 1858 enough money had been collected to send three men to Palestine to explore the country for several months and ascertain whether it would be suitable as the starting point for establishing the Kingdom of God on earth, as prophecy proclaimed. On their return, they reported that conditions there did not rule out the realization of the projected goal. Even in the current mismanaged state, no insurmountable difficulties were anticipated. The report stipulated, however, that no settlement could succeed there unless it was backed by an organization intent on achieving the great goals of biblical prophecies.
From then on the Temple movement detached itself completely from Pietism, which had fallen back under the yoke of clerical power. This separation became total when, at a meeting which took place at the Kirschenhardthof on 19th June, 1861, the decision was made to leave the State Church of Württemberg and to constitute an independent religious society with the name "German Temple".
In Württemberg about three thousand people joined the Temple Society. They were united and guided by district and town elders and a bishop. In addition there were isolated members in other German states as well as in Switzerland. A sizeable number of "Friends of Jerusalem" (a name that participants in the Temple movement had adopted previously) could be found amongst the German settlers in Southern Russia and in North America. The main link with these distant members was the "South German Sentinel". In a school at Kirschenhardthof young men were trained as evangelists, whose task it was to spread the ideas of the Temple Society.
The original committee was endorsed as the Council of the German Temple, and the business of the Society was entrusted to it.
The Temple Society was born.
Founding Templer Settlements
in the Holy Land
In order to maintain contacts with Palestine, the Committee decided immediately after the return of the first three scouts to send several young men there to learn Arabic and to familiarize themselves with the general conditions of the country. Four young men volunteered and after a year's preparation they embarked for Palestine in 1860. There was not enough money to enable the Committee to start a permanent mission there. But these first emissaries decided to remain in Jerusalem and in other towns of Palestine, living off the work of their hands.
Meanwhile, the desire to attempt permanent settlement in the Holy Land continued to grow among the members of the Temple Society. The increasing turmoil in German politics which seemed to herald war and bloodshed strengthened their desire to emigrate, especially as it became clear that in the prevailing conditions the Temple Society would have little chance of making a lasting spiritual impression in Germany itself. When the fratricidal war between Austria and Prussia finally broke out in 1866, the Temple Society saw its worst fears confirmed. The Committee now believed it ought to permit a first attempt at settlement in Palestine. Several families as well as some single people traveled to the Holy Land and, attracted by the fertility of the plain of Jesreel, they founded a rural settlement on the heights surrounding this plain. But the difficult climate and other problems connected with settling inland overtaxed the spiritual and other resources of the settlers. The majority died of fever and the rest dispersed to seek refuge in various other places.
On 25th March, 1868, the Committee and the Elders resolved to send two leaders of the German Temple to Palestine, in order to make preparations for a more substantial settlement there; These were Chr. Hoffmann, who was to start a Mission post, and G.D. Hardegg, who was to administer the work of settlement. This important step seemed a daring undertaking considering the size and means of the Society. But it was necessary to prove to the many enemies, as well as to those friends who were indifferent or undecided, that the Temple Society was unshaken in its faith in the prophecies and determined to act in accordance with its faith, with the aim of opening other hearts and minds to eternal truth. The Society was prepared to practice what it preached.On 6th August, 1868, the two men left with their families. Their journey took them first to Constantinople, where the Prussian Embassy passed on for them to the Turkish Government their application for a free grant of vacant leasehold land for the purpose of settlement. The Turks kept them waiting several months for an answer. In the end they were told that they should first of all apply for Turkish citizenship. Knowing the general conditions of the country and backed by the Embassy, the two men refused to do this. They continued their journey, unable to wait any longer for a reply from the Turkish Government. On 30th October, the two emissaries of the Temple Society set foot in the Holy Land at Haifa, which they had been told was the most favorable location for an initial stay.
Considering all relevant circumstances, Haifa indeed proved to be the best choice for a settlement. It was most suitable both as a receiving center and as a place to organize future settlements in the north of the country. Early in 1869 it was therefore decided to begin settling in Haifa, although we had learned in the meantime that we could expect no encouragement from the Turkish Government.
Meanwhile, there had been developments in the south of the country at Jaffa, the port for Jerusalem, and these had an influence on our own cause. In autumn 1866 the founder of a North American sect, Mr. Adams, had started a settlement at Jaffa which, because of the difficult climate and internal wrangling, had been forced to disband again after only one year. Several of the blocks of land which the Americans had acquired and the houses which they had built on them became the property of P. Metzler, a Missionary of the Pilgrim's Mission of Basle, Switzerland, who had been working devotedly in Jaffa for many years and had started a small hospital and a school for Arab children. Soon after our arrival in Haifa, Metzler received an urgent call to go to Russia and so had to leave Jaffa. He appeared in Haifa quite unexpectedly and asked us to take over his houses and property to ensure the survival of the institutions he had founded. The Temple Society agreed to his request. It was decided that Hardegg should continue to manage Haifa and Hoffmann should go to Jaffa to take over the Mission there. That is how the second Templer settlement in Palestine began in March, 1869.
It was our intention to build up the settlements in very gradual stages in order to allow the first settlers to prepare a place for those who would follow later. This is the reason why, after these first seven years, the number of settlers in Haifa has only grown to about 350, that in Jaffa to about 200. In view of the fact that Jaffa does not have any land for agriculture, a rural settlement about an hour's walk from Jaffa had to be established for farming families from 1871 onwards. This settlement was named Sarona and now has about 80 people. Gradually a number of families has also settled in the capital, Jerusalem. Together with the single Templers in employment there, they form a small community of about 100 people. As there are also some families and single people at Nazareth and at Ramleh as well as in some of the great sea-ports of the Middle East, the number of Templers in the Orient is about 750 altogether.
For six years the settlements existed independently of one another. Then the need was felt to co-ordinate their administration. There was also a difference of opinion between Hardegg and Hoffmann as to the further development of the work. The third co-founder of the Temple Society, Christoph Paulus, also moved from Germany to Jaffa in autumn, 1873. Mr. Hardegg relinquished his position as leader of the Haifa community in spring, 1874, and resigned from the Temple Society. Now all the settlements together elected Hoffmann as president and Paulus as vice-president. The newly adopted Constitution of the Temple Society in its settlements as well as in Germany is published in an appendix. Another appendix contains a short description of the settlements as of spring 1875.
What Templers Believe
As I begin this short description of the spiritual aspirations and the belief of the Temple Society, I realize how difficult it is to explain this subject in a way that will be generally understood. For on the one hand, the majority of the educated classes in Germany has been taught that what a person believes does not matter as long as he leads a decent, moral life, while on the other hand the clergy, the self-styled representatives of religious faith, insist that faith means the acceptance of their doctrines, thereby reinforcing the conviction that faith is of no value.
It is self-evident, and confirmed by experience, that a person can accept all the dogmas of the Church, endorse them and take an oath on them, without this influencing his attitude or his actions in the slightest way. Indeed, the Protestant Church insists that its fourteen-year-old children take this oath at Confirmation, whereas in fact many young people take their confirmation day as the signal that they are entitled from then on to indulge in whatever they please, sometimes including indiscretions. Other examples show that it is even quite possible to be particularly fervent in preaching and asserting these dogmas, while succumbing to arrogance, envy, vindictiveness and lying, in short the worst vices of human nature.
However, even though just accepting a dogma, in other words the mere confession of faith, cannot elevate a person spiritually and morally, it by no means follows that it does not matter what a person believes and thinks. On the contrary, a correct philosophy of life, a proper understanding of God and of man, is invaluable, because it is absolutely necessary for the correct appraisal of any situation; It is the only adequate compass in our journey through life. But it is useless to imagine that memorizing Bible passages or the catechism, and being exhorted by parents and teachers to believe in the Bible will be able to give us this proper understanding. For this understanding matures slowly in the course of many years of experience and contemplation. A person who does not know why he can and must believe in the Bible may still profess his belief in it, but his supposed belief is only an arbitrary opinion based on insufficient experience. Therefore it is quite wrong to make belief in the Bible and its teachings, let alone the mere confession of this belief, the necessary condition for joining the religious community, because confession without conviction is a lie and true conviction can grow and mature only in the course of life.
The way to ensure that the right philosophy of life is preserved in a religious society is not by teaching and recommending to the members the doctrines which try to express this philosophy. It is far better to make sure that spiritual leadership is placed in the hands of people who possess a mature religious understanding. More of that later, when the question of Christian priesthood is discussed.
It follows then that the Temple Society does not stipulate a particular creed which one must accept in Order to become a member. Much less do we wish to restrict free research in science or history through articles of faith. On the contrary, it is the Temple Society's wish that its members carry out thorough research, in order to progress towards greater enlightenment and become proficient in all the gifts of the Spirit.
However, the Temple Society, like all other religious organizations, cannot do without the spiritual bond created by a common faith. So the Temple Society, too, has its belief which must be shared by anyone who wants to be a member. But this belief is identical with the goal which is to be reached and which is already expressed in the name "Temple". The spiritual and physical perfecting of man are the goal and the task of every religion and thus the goal and the task of the Temple Society. Templers believe that human beings can come closer to perfection than they are at present, and are willing to take part as actively as they can in co-operative efforts to bring about this improvement.
Other churches believe in the paralyzing doctrine that all the evils of our present condition are willed by God and hence cannot be altered. The Temple Society has gone back to the biblical teaching that death and all other evils are disturbances of the condition ordained by the Creator, disturbances which must be counteracted and finally overcome by removing their causes.
We do not know of any poet's or philosopher's ideal for a perfect state of mankind that could compare with the Kingdom of God referred to by the prophets of Israel. They described it as a level attainable on earth and with the prospect of resurrection and eternal life. The realization of this ideal began with the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, as told in the Gospels.
It is true that modern theologians claim that the idea of resurrection was first borrowed by the Israelites from the teachings of Zoroaster during their captivity in Babylon. Dr. Strauss and his school are supposed to have discovered that the description of Jesus Christ in the Gospels is that of a fictitious legendary character.6 But even if this were so, it would not alter the fact that this ideal and the way to its realization as demonstrated by the Christ of the Gospels meets a profound human need and therefore shows us the goal we must strive towards and the way to attain it.
In short, the Temple Society does not demand from its members belief in the historical authenticity of the Scriptures nor in the historical truth of the events reported in the Gospels, but rather a belief in the eternal truth of the biblical prophecy and of the Gospels, together with the resolve to realize the ideals of the prophetic literature by following the example of Christ as described in the Gospels.
Naturally, this belief removes the main reason for doubting the historical truth of the Bible. After all, only very few people would be interested in this question simply from the point of view of history. But as the Church constantly demanded belief in the prophets and the apostles without ever seriously trying to establish the prophesied conditions of the Kingdom of God, and moreover labeled every endeavor in this direction as unrealistic, it is no wonder that the more intelligent among the populace turned towards those who roundly declared the Bible to be a book of fairy tales. This view reinforced the human taste for worldly, transient things which is latent in all of us and which is disturbed by any reminder of the higher, eternal destiny of mankind. Consequently people felt justified in laughing at religion as nothing but fantasy and, under the pretext of scientific research, extolling the animal side of human nature as the only real one.
Templers are totally opposed to this way of thinking, whether it presents itself in pious or in scientific guises or as unconcealed, crude animalism. However, true progress and all research and striving towards greater understanding or real improvements are perfectly compatible with the faith of the Temple Society. just as Columbus could not have discovered America without believing that the earth was circumnavigable, so Luther could not have broken the fetters of the papacy without believing in Jesus Christ.
It is, of course, conceivable that someone might envisage another form of perfection and other ways of reaching it, saying, "I do not believe in the Kingdom of God as foretold by the prophets. Nor do I believe in its realization as described in the Gospels. But I can visualize another ideal of perfection and I shall try to realize it in my own way." We will not argue with such a man, whether he has found his ideal in Schiller or Goethe, in Kant or Hegel or wherever. We shall simply say to him, "Follow your conviction and your conscience; the outcome will show whether your goal and path or ours bring real improvement."
In any case, the period of poetic and philosophical idealism which began in the 18th century is nearly over. In future we are more likely to have occasion to defend our belief in the Kingdom of God against the hypocrisy of the clerical party and against the power of materialism, which rejects all divine realities, than to be concerned by the dreamworld in which so many noble minds wasted their energy in the first half of this (19th) century.
The Temple Society and Pietism
Observers who are unfamiliar with the religious movement in Germany will find it puzzling that Pietism, out of which the Temple Society originated, was so hostile to it from the beginning. More than that, it was often the Pietists who stirred up the Church authorities, as well as the people not interested in religion, to persecute the Templers.
Since an explanation of this fact will be useful in under standing the Temple movement, allow me to say a few words about Pietism in general and Pietism in Württemberg in particular. I am well qualified to do this, as my father was the founder of the Kornthal Congregation, the most recent manifestation of true Pietism, and I grew up right in the center of all its traditions and am well acquainted with them.
It is well known that the spiritual father of Pietism is Ph. J. Spener, who was active from 1670 to 1705 in Frankfurt, Dresden and Berlin in various Church positions. Within the Church, he founded small groups of people who tried to replace the sterile orthodoxy of the Church by requiring and practicing true Christian behavior and by inspiring belief in the "better times" to come promised by biblical prophecy. After Spener, the Pietistic movement was headed by A.H. Francke who, protected by the Prussian Government against the intrigues of the Church authorities, founded the extensive educational and charitable Institutions of Halle, which have become known by the name of the Halle Orphanage. Finally the community of the Moravian Brethren founded by Zinzendorf at Herrnhut can be regarded as the mature fruit of the whole movement from 1724 on. 7 The fact that their organization and administration was concentrated here made it possible for them to extend their settlements, missions and educational institutions over several European countries, and even to other continents. Hence the community of the Moravian Brethren is still active to this day, whereas the Pietism of Spener and Francke began to die out after the middle of the 18th century and was forced to withdraw into ever smaller circles by stronger spiritual movements.
Just when Pietism was weakening in other parts of Germany, it began to flourish in Württemberg under J.A. Bengel and his followers. It spread in the urban and rural population of Württemberg, reaching substantial numbers by the beginning of the 19th century. This development is surprising at a time when German minds generally were increasingly turning away from religion towards creative literature and science. It can be partly explained by Württemberg's position in the middle of Catholic regions and by its distance from Prussia which, under Frederick the Great, exercised the strongest spiritual influence on the Protestantism of North and Central Germany. Another more important reason lies in the special characteristic of Württemberg Pietism, namely its heeding of prophecy. Its founder, Bengel, had thoroughly studied biblical prophecies, particularly those of the Revelation of John, and had brought them to the attention of his followers.
Thus the view spread in all the Pietist circles of Württemberg that not the Protestant Church as it had come to be since the Reformation, but the Kingdom of God as the prophets describes it had to form the basis of Christian hope and be the standard against which the events of the times were to be judged. This way of thinking took hold of the popular imagination in Württemberg and one outstanding witness to the general popularity of Bengel's ideas is the poet Ph. Fr. Hiller, whose hymns express them in a simple but powerful way. These hymns became true folk songs and had to be printed and reprinted in their thousands.
There were many teachers who gathered around themselves different groups of Pietists, but they all followed Bengel's lead in his emphasis on prophecy. There are two in particular I will mention: Pastor Philipp Matthäus Hahn8 and the farmer Michael Hahn. The former is outstanding because of his deep insight into the nature and the course of development of the Kingdom of God. He explained these in his writings, but could not put them into practice because of his untimely death. Michael Hahn, on the other hand, was able to create an organization of religious communities which, under the guidance of their leaders, have survived to the present day and have even expanded their scope. It is mainly because of their more structured nature that they now constitute the most important sections of Württemberg's Pietism.
Finally, in the middle of Württemberg Pietism and independently of all Church administration, there appeared a new community of Brethren in 1818, similar in many respects to the Zinzendorf Community, but also different from it, because it kept Bengel's emphasis on his interpretation of prophecy. This new community at Kornthal became the unifying focal point for several of the different groups into which Württemberg Pietism had become divided. These groups had in common
(a) the characteristic disenchantment of all Pietists with the doctrinal and liturgical rigidity of the established Church, but also with the way the Church was already being influenced by the spirit of modern education and
(b) their waiting for the Kingdom of God, which was to be expected in 1836 according to Bengel's calculations of apocalyptic numbers.
When this year passed without having brought the hoped-for, highly significant events, Württemberg Pietism began to show the same change that had appeared in Spener's Pietism as early as the time of Francke and Zinzendorf. Confidence in the prophecies was lost, the idea of God's Kingdom as a yardstick was abandoned and activities became limited to working for charitable institutions and Protestant overseas missions. At this point the original contrast with the orthodox Church ceased to exist. Pietists still cultivated their private circles and the special institutions of the Brotherhood, but Pietism as such turned into an auxiliary of the so-called believers, more correctly the clerical stream within the Church, the chief purpose of which was to moderate or eliminate, with the aid of Pietism, the inroads modern thinking had made on the Church. Carried through strictly and logically, this would lead to the re-establishment of the spiritual conditions of the sixteenth and seventeenth century, against which Pietism had originally rebelled. It can therefore be said that Pietism has reversed its spiritual direction completely, so much so that today virtually no one can find any difference between Pietists and Church members any more.
Still, the memory of former times and of the higher spiritual awareness among the earlier Pietists has not yet faded in Württemberg. Some old-timers remember the early years of Kornthal and the spirituality of the men who led the community in those years. Parents and teachers have passed on their memories to the younger people, who can thus sense how superficial and cold spiritual life has become compared to those times. There is a generally felt yearning for a more vital spiritual life than that offered by Pietism turned orthodox, and this yearning is felt even by those who do not have these memories. That is why quite a few Pietists joined the English and North American sects, who seek the essence of Christianity in emotional excitement or in preaching zeal, through which they strive to gain converts for their peculiar doctrines or for the General dogmas of Protestantism. Still others believed they could find the missing spiritual fulfilment in the mysterious doctrines of the "New Church", or in the lectures of the itinerant preacher Werner, famous for his charitable institutions. This General fragmentation is a sure sign that Württemberg Pietism has lost its direction during the last thirty or forty years and is disintegrating spiritually. ion towards creative literature and science. It can be partly explained by Württemberg's position in the middle of Catholic regions and by its distance from Prussia which, under Frederick the Great, exercised the strongest spiritual influence on the Protestantism of North and Central Germany. Another more important reason lies in the special characteristic of Württemberg Pietism, namely its heeding of prophecy. Its founder, Bengel, had thoroughly studied biblical prophecies, particularly those of the Revelation of John, and had brought them to the attention of his followers.
The Temple Society has nothing in common with all these later forms of Pietism except the common denominator of all religious movements, namely the feeling or insight that man does not live by bread alone but needs spiritual nourishment as well. Moreover these movements, different as they were from one another, all condemned the Templers; some were openly hostile. Even those of them which, like the Temple Society, are against the Church, are so for quite different reasons; they consider divided opinions to be necessary, whereas Templers hold firm to the goal pointed out by Christ: "There will be one flock and one shepherd"
On the other hand it is true that the Temple Society is very closely related to the old and genuine Pietism, without however being a mere repetition and renewal of this movement. The best of Hiller's hymns and those of earlier Pietist poets such as Arnold and Schröder already express the Templer spirit; however, in everyday life and work it was impossible for these men or their contemporaries to remain on the spiritual heights which they experienced or caught visions of in rare hours of illumination. Certainly the person closest to the Temple Society is Ph. M, Hahn, whose writings about the nature of the Kingdom of God and how to realize it in the life of the individual and of humanity at large are so clear that they could be called a text book for the ideas of the Temple Society.9 Unfortunately he was not able to translate into practice the blueprints he had prepared, as he died in his fiftieth year. His followers, excellent men though there were among them, did not possess his penetrating, comprehensive vision of the Kingdom of God and, though their work was directed towards the same aim, it was more limited in scope.
If anyone thinks it ridiculous of such a small society, which has not even one influential man in its midst, to engage in such a wide ranging task, we just remind him that a few Galilean fishermen undertook to spread Christianity across the face of the earth and that their work succeeded.
The Temple Society and the Church
Church concerns which, since the expansion of Christianity over the Roman Empire had had a mostly beneficial, but sometimes harmful influence on the fate of nations, had, it seemed, finally lost their importance towards the end of the 18th century. The educated classes of the more enlightened nations of Europe were no longer interested in the Churches, and the governments treated Church matters either arbitrarily or with indifference.
However, the French Revolution of 1789, which at first seemed destined to crush the Church completely, eventually had the effect of giving the needs and inclinations of the large, uneducated masses more weight than the opinions of the educated classes. Thus Church concerns gained renewed importance, because the great mass of the population, which is guided more by habit and emotion than by rational principles, cannot break loose from the Church and its influence. At present (1875), things in Europe are such that on the one hand people cannot do without the Church, yet on the other hand it is the Church's demands which most disturb the internal order of the strongest nations of Europe and hence threaten peace in the most dangerous way.
Given these conditions, it is imperative for everyone, including the Temple Society, to reach a clear verdict regarding the Church and its problems. The Temple Society in fact did this in 1861, when it officially left the Protestant State Church of Württemberg without joining any other Protestant or Catholic Church. We shall briefly explain the reasons for this here.
We regard the victory of Islam over the Middle Eastern churches in the seventh century, and the victory of Luther and the Reformation over the papacy in the sixteenth century as God's just judgement against the Eastern and the Roman Churches. Neither of these two churches has since undertaken a fundamental reform, so the judgement remains in force. Thus we are Protestants not only by birth and habit, but by conviction, and so could not join a Catholic church. It is not that we reject on principle all that distinguishes the Catholic from the Protestant churches. Yet the doctrines of both these churches are so different from the true spirit of original Christianity that even and particularly - the good which they have retained becomes extremely harmful, because it prevents people who mean well, but have little discrimination, from recognizing that their church is leading them astray.
To give an example: The Protestants largely fail to realize that, although the knowledge of God is the one goal of all human beings, in reality people are at very different stages of spiritual development, and that it is the duty of the more spiritually enlightened ones to look after those who are further behind, i.e. to become their teachers and guides and generally to exercise over them that spiritual power which Christ expressed in the words: "If you forgive any man's sins, they stand forgiven; if you pronounce them unforgiven, unforgiven they remain". (John 20:23). So the Catholic Church is quite right in insisting on the necessity of a priesthood or a spiritual authority. But its mistake is to hold, in practice and on principle, that a priestly appointment conferred by men automatically invests the appointed man with that spiritual power over others. Such a rule makes priesthood a tool of the lust for power and opens the portals of the sanctuary to cupidity and religious arrogance. Everyone who has studied Church history is aware of the abominations and atrocities which have sprung from this error.
Again we have to agree with the Catholic Church that while people have not all attained perfect knowledge of God, and while even the most spiritually developed human nonetheless still remains a physical being as well, the need will exist for public and symbolic divine worship to prepare humans for the ultimate, purely spiritual communion with God. Protestantism has usually failed to acknowledge this need, whereas the Catholic Church is meeting it with a rich development of its cult and liturgy. But the very usefulness of this system of worship as a school and preparation for the knowledge of God has become harmful in the Catholic Church because of disastrous aberrations. Firstly, a great many errors arising out of misconceptions regarding the invisible world have slipped into its ritual and cult-life, which should be a pure representation of truth, with the result that churchgoers are taught misconceptions instead of divine truth. This applies, for example, to the cult of the Virgin Mary and other real or supposed saints. Secondly, the Church has in many cases declared the external rites and ceremonies to be the essence of divine worship, whereas they can only be the image and symbol of this essence.
Thus, for example, baptism with water was declared to be actual spiritual rebirth, and the offering of bread and wine in the Eucharist to be an actual and forever repeated sacrifice of the body of Christ. Moreover, many newly invented rites were introduced and miraculous effects ascribed to them. Whilst all this certainly had the effect of increasing the power of the priesthood, it was also instrumental in producing a host of superstitious ideas which prevented people from gaining true knowledge of God, confused their consciences and made Christianity very similar to the idolatry and the magic practices of pagan cults. The consequence was to increase ignorance and weaken morality, a pure system of worship on the other hand should be a means of enlightening the mind and liberating the soul from all passions.
As far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned, we cannot share the majority of Protestants' total repudiation of the papacy as a central authority for safeguarding the highest spiritual values, unrestricted by national frontiers. We believe, on the contrary, that it is in accordance with Christ's spirit, which transcends all national differences, that one supreme, universal priest should represent humanity before God. His truly spiritual judgement should combat the evil which so often takes hold of whole nations and their leaders. In short, there should be an international power promoting progress and spiritual development: one shepherd, one flock. (John 10:16). It cannot be denied that the Roman popes, when they were acting in this sense, achieved great and beneficial things which would not have been accomplished without them. Amongst these achievements we count the civilizing of the barbaric Germanic tribes in various countries of Europe, the defense of Christianity in Western Europe against the heathens who advanced from the east and the north, and against Islam which threatened Europe from the south and the west. It was the Roman Church which bound the European peoples into a family of nations united by common laws, mores and rights, and it was again the international tribunal of Rome which often prevented wars and bloodshed by arbitrating over their internal quarrels.
However, there is a world of difference between this high ideal of papacy and the way it is realized in the Roman Church today. In the Middle Ages the popes were already replacing their high calling more and more with the worldly lust for power, prestige and pleasure. They exploited the power of the high priesthood for base personal and national interests. The tyranny they showed in their rule, the intolerance of the crusades against heretics and non-believers, and the atrocities of the Inquisition are ample proof of their spiritual weakness.
When Luther's Reformation awakened a general striving for more light and truth about matters divine and human, the Roman papacy showed itself to be the most determined opponent of this progress. With the help of the Jesuit Order it was often able to stem the tide of progress and cause the nations engaged in reform to decimate themselves in bloody wars. It was this which cost the papacy all its prestige in the eyes of the educated and, for a long time afterwards, Rome was obliged to exercise prudence and moderation. Lately, however, the papacy and the Jesuits have found the general tendencies of our time favorable; hence Pope Pius IX has published his Syllabus in which he declares war on all ideas relating to progress and the spiritual development of mankind. More than that, he forced the Roman Catholic Church, through the Vatican Council of 1870, to declare the infallibility of the Pope. This represents a complete reversal of the task of the papacy; it has now become an international power to reintroduce darkness and superstition and to suppress all striving for perfection, which is the task set mankind by God.
These facts make it clear why the Temple Society not only could not think of joining the Catholic Church but must regard it as a great obstacle to the Kingdom of God on earth; as to the present Roman papacy in particular, we must regard it as the chief enemy of the favorable evolution of mankind. In the battle between the papacy and that section of humanity which strives for higher development - a battle which currently occupies all thinking people and in which, thanks to the determination of Prince Bismarck, the Germans seem destined to play a leading part - the Temple Society stands squarely on the side opposing Rome. However, despite its definitely Protestant principles, the Temple Society nevertheless cannot join one of the different Protestant State Churches, nor any other Protestant sect.
The reason for this is that the structure, institutions and ordinances of these ecclesiastical organizations have not sprung from the same spirit which brought forth the Reformation. This was already in evidence when the various Protestant Churches were first constituted. There was always a division in the Protestant movement and this split has not been overcome yet, but it has taken different forms at different times. This division originates from the fact that in Luther and the other early reformers, the Reformation expressed a purely personal and individual aspiration, namely the need to be certain in one's own heart - quite uninfluenced by what others decreed about one's goal and the conditions necessary for mankind's healthy evolution. Armed with this inner certainty, Luther was able to oppose the Pope and the hierarchy and to tear down the old ecclesiastical structure which had been held together by Tradition, superstitious delusions, pious or scholarly opinions and inventions prompted by priestly lust for power. This old Church structure had until then been presented to the people as the Kingdom of God and had used its influence to hold back the spiritual development of humanity. Luther's act of spiritual heroism was made easier by the fact that he had never given any serious thought as to how a new and better building of God's Kingdom should be effected; he boldly put his trust in God and simply followed his conscience. Since then freedom of conscience has remained the Protestants' Motto.
However, it was not long before Luther himself found out that freedom of conscience alone was not enough to establish a new order. Other men also claimed the same freedom for their opinions, dreams and fantasies. Although Luther's spiritual authority, and sometimes the power of the local rulers, were mostly able to silence them, differences with more serious consequences developed among the leaders of the Reformation. Whereas Luther wanted to remove from the liturgy and from Church practices only that which contradicted the Bible, Zwingli fought for the complete elimination of everything which could not be incontrovertibly proved from the Bible. He considered Luther's procedure to be half-hearted and not yet free of Catholicism.
whereas Luther himself always looked upon the church procedures which he initiated with the help of the local rulers as merely "human ordinances". Luther's successors retained this view in theory; in practice they treated these human ordinances as if they were the most important and decisive factors. This development, which also occurred among reformed theologians, can be explained by the growing recognition that it was impossible to hold together a nation, let alone the whole of Protestant Christianity, with just the Protestant principle of freedom of conscience. As it turned out, this latter aim was soon abandoned in favor of State Churches, whose parishes often did not extend beyond a few square miles in the fragmented Germany of those days. Thus the Constitution of the Protestant Churches turned into a real mockery of Christ's teaching regarding the unity and harmony of his community on earth.
Even so, these fragmented and sometimes tiny State Churches could only be maintained with the help of despotic State power, and the abuses of this secular power (e.g. the measures the English kings of the House of Stuart employed against dissenters) were in some cases reminiscent of the worst excesses of the Inquisition. In Germany, too, there were instances of great cruelty and even bloodshed when Lutherans and Calvinists imposed religious conformity upon one another and upon weaker sects. Later, when Pietism awakened a new movement towards spiritual life among Protestants, the so-called "Confessional Scriptures" (from the Confessio Augustana of 1530 to the Formula of Concord of 1577) were still being invoked as legally binding rules to suppress these new initiatives with the aid of State power, or at least to obstruct their expansion as much as possible. When finally towards the end of the 18th century, with the rise of Rationalism, the educated classes generally began to doubt the Bible and the truth of Christian teaching, the clergy again tried to oppose these new tendencies with the same well-tried weapon, i.e. spiritual coercion. But the rusty old weapon broke and the Protestant Church itself now opened its doors to all manner of opinions. In so doing, it did return to the Protestant principle of freedom of conscience, but at the same time it widened this principle to an absolute freedom of opinion within the Church. This, however, loosened the last remnant of the spiritual tie binding its members together. The Church declined into a mere State institution for religious ceremonies and moral teachings.
In recent years governments have found that, as all the foundations of middle-class society are crumbling, a church firmly fixed in the hearts and souls of its subjects could be of considerable value to the State itself. So they tried to resuscitate the spiritually dead Protestant State Churches. These efforts were welcomed by people of religious feeling on the one hand, and on the other hand by some of the clergy longing for the fleshpots of former Church glory. But as the old contradiction between Protestant freedom of conscience and Catholic control by the Church could not be resolved, the venture resulted in nothing more than a ridiculous Neo-Lutheranism, and in the birth of a new clerical party on Protestant territory and this is essentially just an appendage of the Roman Catholic Church.
Given this state of affairs in the Protestant world, the Temple Society, in order to remain viable, had to dissociate itself from the decaying corpse which went under the name of Protestant Church. The Temple Society holds fast to the Protestant principles, but it has nothing in common with the Protestant church edifices, whose whole essence contradicts both the idea of the Reformation and the idea of the Kingdom of God.
The very concept of allocating Protestant Churches according to the territories of secular rulers is unworthy of the Kingdom of God. The Protestant sects which have developed in England and Holland and to an even greater extent in North America, (e.g. the Baptists and the Methodists) have freed themselves from this limitation and they are quite right to reject any interference by State authorities in matters relating to divine worship and Church administration. The Roman Church itself denies this right to the State, even though experience has shown that in practice it is the State which more often has to protect itself and its subjects against the unfounded demands and sometimes murderous intentions of the papacy, which is blindly served by a totally obedient clerical hierarchy.
The Temple Society agrees with the Protestant sects that the Church, or rather divine worship, must be free from State interference, provided that no citizen has the right to demand from the State special protection or special support for his way of worshiping God. The Roman Church does not fulfil this condition it wants to be free of the State in order to oppress others, or rather to give such power to the Pope. The State is not only entitled, but obliged to exercise special vigilance over both the Catholic Church and the Protestant State Churches.
Although the Temple Society agrees with most of the Protestant sects that Church and State should be separate, it does not wish to join any of them. The reason is that none of these sects are using the plan of the Kingdom of God according to prophecy as a guideline for their practices and their divine service. So we find in them the same confusion regarding priesthood and divine worship which has hitherto prevented Protestantism from developing towards realizing the Kingdom of God on earth.
On the one hand they uphold the principle (correct in itself) that true divine service does not consist of words and gestures, nor indeed of any external actions, but of an inner attitude. On the other hand there is the undeniable human urge to practice some form of external divine worship, for which holy seasons, holy places and certain holy rituals are indispensable. And it is vital that these points be agreed upon, otherwise there will be total confusion, such as in fact exists wherever people of different religious practices live side by side and each sect insists on the value of its own religious life. Yet if they did not, the consequence would be a growing disdain for everything sacred from childhood onwards - the majority of people would become godless. There is no need to discuss what effects that would have on spiritual and moral life.
Then there is the principle (again right in its essence) that every human being who wants to be a Christian should have a direct spiritual relationship with Christ and with God. Given this principle, people feel justified in concluding that any form of human mediation, any form of priesthood, is no longer necessary. But close observation of human nature shows that practicing this principle would lead to great disorder. It seems clear that the spiritual condition of most people definitely requires a human mediator between themselves and God, i.e. some form of priesthood, partly because without it people would forget about Him and partly because in moments of crisis they would feel forsaken by God.
Indeed, this need is so urgent that in all religious societies, even in those which reject priesthood and any spiritual office (such as the Plymouth Brethren and the Darbyists), such positions still develop. They have tried to overcome this contradiction by saying that the appointment of a preacher, a pastor or an elder (or whatever title the office is given) is only necessary for conducting public worship, and that the appointee does not have to be a real priest, i.e. a mediator between God and man. But this subterfuge does not answer the real need, nor does it correspond to how those who still accept the place of a Holy Office really conceive of it. Religiously-minded people want real priests and need them.
Thoughtful readers will ask themselves how the Temple Society resolves these apparent contradictions. We will answer this question in two separate chapters about divine worship and priesthood.
Divine Worship in the Temple Society
God, who gives life and breath to all, does not need the worship of human beings. He needs neither our pious thoughts and attitudes, nor any outward, visible rituals. The purpose and value of man's divine worship can therefore only lie in its effects upon man himself, upon how it uplifts and improves his spiritual and social situation his inner and outer condition.
Some mystics have spoken about an unselfish love for God, and it is true that such a completely perfect Being as the creator of the universe must surely be is a worthy object of our awe and adoration, even if man could expect no advantage from revering God, nor needed to fear dire consequences if he does not. Human beings really do need God's help in every way, and recognizing and revering what is worthy of adoration is one of our most fundamental needs. We can never avoid trying to satisfy our basic needs and, since God Himself planted the desire to be happy within us, it would be ridiculously arrogant of us to imagine that we could love or revere God quite unselfishly, without at the same time considering whether this is to our benefit or disadvantage. When thinking of God, any attempt to separate pure admiration for His perfection from the desire to reach our salvation through Him is therefore purely hair-splitting.
Just as a father cannot be displeased if his children love him because they owe their present and future well-being to him, so it cannot be wrong, or displeasing to God, if His creatures love and revere Him for the same reason. On the contrary, the very fact of our recognizing that our well-being can come only from God is the best and purest adoration we can offer Him. Hence nothing will change the fact that our striving for the salvation which only He can give is the legitimate source of divine worship.
Another example of hair-splitting which causes much confusion is the belief that the fear of God can be separated from the love of God. Some even go so far as to see the fear of God and the love of God as two opposing principles. Contradicting the testimony of history, some believe that only the God of the Old Testament is a vengeful God, who threatens with cruel punishments, and that nothing was known in those times about God's love for mankind, which is supposed to have been recognized only in the New Testament. In reality, however, Moses taught just like the Gospel that God loves human beings, that He wants them to be happy and that therefore their love for God must be the motivation for divine worship. And the Gospel, just like Moses, teaches that according to God's law the happiness God intends for man can only be achieved by following a particular path of human development, and that anyone who does not follow this path not only risks the most terrible consequences of his error, but insofar as he is personally to blame for his misfortune, he also burdens himself with immense responsibility before the judgement of God.
Here then we have in the New Testament the same threatening and punishing God of whom Moses and the prophets speak; moreover, our daily experience of the destinies of men, and the voice of conscience testify Him to be the true and real God. Christ exhorts His disciples to fear God, who can destroy body and soul in hell (Matt. 10:28), and when the Apostle says that there is no room for fear in love, but that perfect love banishes fear (1 John 4:18), then those who love God still know that those who do not love Him and who do not follow His immutable laws have reason to fear Him even today.
In this respect there is only one difference between the teachings of Moses and the teachings of Christ: Moses speaks about both God's love for mankind and His punishing justice to only one nation, and only in regard to how they manifest in earthly life, whereas the New Testament removes this limitation and reveals God's love and wrath, including the prospect of their continuing effect beyond man's earthly existence, to every individual in every nation. By the way, this expansion of the teaching had already been envisaged by Moses and the prophets as a future possibility and its basic tenets had been incorporated into their blueprint for the Kingdom of God on earth. That is the reason why their prophecies will continue to have such great and lasting importance until the building is finally completed.
lt has been necessary to mention these plain and simple truths because they have generally been forgotten in the West, particularly by many famous philosophers and theologians so that, in spite of the great progress of civilization, we are enveloped by a dark night of ignorance, compared to which even the notorious darkness of the Middle Ages seems like pleasant twilight. It is useless to speak about divine worship with anyone to whom these elementary principles are not clear, for such a person has no understanding of the subject, even if he is a learned theologian, philosopher, bishop or prelate. That is why this preliminary discussion was necessary.
Thus it is clear that fear of God and love for Him are the basic elements of divine service. Once all people are completely filled with this understanding, they will know for themselves whether they still need an outward form of divine service and, if so, what institutions and rituals will be required. Then, as Jeremiah says: "No longer need they teach one another, neighbor or brother , to know the Lord; all of them, high and low alike, will know Him." (Jer. 31:34).
Until we have reached this stage, there can be no doubt that those people who have not yet attained perfect spiritual communion with God will need instruction, an educational institution to learn fear and love of God. The outward form of divine service is precisely such an educational institution which up to now we have therefore not been able to do without - and won't be able to for a long time yet.
Let us repeat then: it is clear that genuine divine worship is purely an inner process, consisting solely of man's attitude towards God, which is based on his understanding of Him. This was emphasized again and again by the Old Testament prophets as well as by Christ and his apostles. 10( On the other hand, it is equally clear that human beings need to be taught to recognize God, so that gradually everyone will develop the capacity for true divine worship. There is no contradiction in Christ saying, "When you pray, go into your room by yourself" (Matt. 6:6), even though he places great value on people praying to God together (Matt. 18:19-20). Neither is there any contradiction in the fact that the same Apostle Paul who discouraged the Galatians from observing Jewish feasts and seasons (Gal. 4:10), who left the choice of keeping seasonal festivals to the individual (Rom. 14:5) and who told the Colossians not to worry about certain festivals, new moons and Sabbaths because they were only the shadow of true divine service (Col.2:16-17), nevertheless took part in these Jewish divine services when he had the opportunity, and that he introduced to the gentile Christian communities which he founded and which could not take part in Jewish services, the rudiments of a formal divine service with the necessary fixed times and ordered rituals.
It is not, therefore, a question of whether public divine worship should be held or not, but merely of how it should be conceived and organized.
We know that Moses gave the people of Israel a form of public worship or a cult-life 11 which taught the knowledge of God not only with words, but also by means of a visible dwelling of God among men with all its implements, measurements and fittings, together with certain rites to be performed in this holy place. The public worship of God was spread over the natural divisions of time such as days, months and years and thus permeated and governed the entire life of society; moreover it imposed on the individual its special demands regarding food, clothing, how he conducted his affairs, etc. as a condition of his taking part in the religious and cultural life of his people.
The Catholic Church has imitated this procedure and has also created a rich religious culture which affects the life of society and of the individual in many ways. But there is a difference in that the Catholic culture was developed gradually out of many haphazard traditions and whims, whereas the Mosaic one was homogeneous and accompanied by the command: "See that you work to the design which you were shown on the mountain." (Ex. 25:40).
As previously stated, the Protestant Churches have demonstrated a remarkable uncertainty with regard to their religious culture. They agreed in principle that the external observances did not matter: this accounts for the motley variations of cult and ritual in the Protestant countries. Yet in practice they all stressed the great importance of participation in their religious observances - they just differed in what they regarded as most important: for some it was the way to handle Communion, for some the particular form of baptism and for some the strict observance of the Sabbath.
This disagreement results from the fact that Protestants never actually realized the importance of the role of ritual in divine service, but considered the sermon (i.e. teaching by the spoken word) to be almost the only means of preparing people for genuine worship. In practice, however, they still succumbed to the old error of equating outward ritual with actual worship and expecting from its correct performance all those blessings which can only flow from an appropriate inner attitude. A remnant of this erroneous over-estimation of outward forms found its way into the Protestant doctrine of the sacraments, e.g. when baptism is thought to be actual rebirth, whereas in reality it can only ever be a visible symbol of it, and when the Eucharist is seen as the actual ingestion of Christ's body and blood, whereas bread and wine can only be the visible symbol or image of what they represent.
It is well known that Luther himself thought he should retain something of the old Catholic error in this regard, because he was rightly afraid that if the importance of outward form, of liturgy and ritual, were not recognized, then public divine worship might well become too cold and uninspiring. In this respect he showed a deeper understanding of human nature than the other Reformers - human beings cannot do without an outer sanctuary and if they do not have an Ark of the Covenant, they will invariably revert to casting a golden calf. Luther tried to satisfy this need by retaining two of the Catholic sacraments, but this proved a failure and was the reason for future irreconcilable splits in Protestantism. The Prussian kings tried in all good faith to overcome these unfortunate splits by ordering an administrative union, but it was in vain. The Neo-Lutherans thus have some excuse for their blind fervor in making this, Luther's weakest point, into their shibboleth 12 thereby starting new confusions.
In the light of this situation, there is only one way for the Temple Society to go in order to escape from the general confusion within Protestantism. We accept the Protestant teaching, correct in principle, that true worship does not consist of any outward ritual, but only of an inner attitude. Consequently we do not demand that our members must participate in any particular outward observances as a necessary condition of their membership. Instead it is left to the conviction of the individual how he will act with regard to baptism, holy communion, Sundays, feast days, holy seasons and places, and rituals in general.
However, this does not mean that the Temple Society declares this complete renouncement of all visible forms of divine worship to be the correct and ideal state of affairs. On the contrary, it is only an emergency measure, made necessary by the current doctrinal confusion and designed to avoid an involvement in unnecessary disputes. Doing without all outward rituals can only be a temporary stage. It is certainly better to be totally without religious observances for a while than to accept the imperfect and often misleading rituals of the present-day churches and sects as perfect or, worse still, to believe them to be, in effect, divine worship itself, which even the most perfectly conceived order of service or liturgy can never be. By adopting this procedure, Templers are spared the dilemma of appearing to sanction a religious service by outwardly participating in it, although they know in their hearts that it is flawed, or speaking up about its flaws but still participating, and so appearing hypocritical. If a builder clears the place where a new building is to be erected of the debris of former inadequate and ruined buildings and thus creates a totally vacant space for the time being, he does not do this in order to keep it empty, but only so that when he puts up the new structure, nothing will prevent him from doing so in total accord with requirements and with the rules of architecture.
In this respect the Temple Society's views are opposite to those of the Protestants since the beginning of the Reformation. They have been saying that external rituals are generally quite unimportant and of little significance, but the churches have nonetheless clung to particular fragments of them with great tenacity; we, on the other hand, abandon these fragments completely, while we firmly hold fast to the truth that external, visible forms of divine service are neither immaterial nor insignificant, but of the greatest importance in educating mankind. It is precisely for this reason that these visible rituals must be established properly, as in Moses' Ark of the Covenant, with not one nail missing or in the wrong place.
In such a cult-life, is the emphasis to be placed on teaching verbally, i.e. by means of sermons or readings, or pictorially, metaphorically, through various art-forms, as practiced by Moses and the Catholic Church? We think that this question is of secondary importance and that finding an answer is not urgent for the moment. But in view of the many different levels of education evident in human beings, we can even at this stage say that representing spiritual things in visible images will help many more to understand and will leave a deeper impression on the majority of the congregation than a sermon alone. So there is no doubt that in the future religious culture of the Temple Society, music and visual arts will be widely used. Still, we will have to be very careful that no arbitrary human fantasy and no wrong ideas about spiritual things are included, because even the slightest contamination could defeat the purpose, which is to educate people towards the true knowledge of God. Obviously the artists, who are to become the new Bezalels 13 of our future religious culture, will themselves have to possess a clear understanding of God and the spiritual world. Otherwise even the greatest creative talents or skilful techniques will not guard them against making all kinds of mistakes.
In their educational effect, the correct determination of holy seasons, the introduction of sacred rituals and the whole order of life derived from these are even more important than the establishment of sanctuaries and their decoration, because the former deeply influence the life of the individual and of society. In this connection the cultlife of the future must not contain anything arbitrary either - everything should harmonize perfectly with the laws of man's physical well-being and spiritual development. Man, as a free and rational being, should and must not submit to any arbitrary doctrines of any priesthood; he is, however, duty-bound to participate in that kind of life which best furthers his physical and spiritual well-being.
One may well ask how future observances, however perfect they may be, will ever become generally accepted, since the lack of knowledge about God, which makes this kind of ritual necessary, at the same time greatly impairs people's capacity to judge how life should properly be structured. As this question also concerns the future, it is enough to give a general point of view in answer here.
Sheer ignorance is not what prevents people from recognizing and accepting good when they come across it. What blinds them is rather their belief that they already know and possess everything they need. The power of preconceived ideas ties people to Tradition and convention and makes it difficult for them to recognize and accept any improvement. Of course, it is possible to force people to accept something which they are not sure about. If they are pressured long enough, they get used to the innovation in time. We know that both Islam and the papacy used this method to get their religious culture adopted throughout whole countries and continents. But reason and Holy Scripture forbid us to gain acceptance for our future cult-life in this way. So we can seek only to persuade, not to coerce; as to breaking down opposing prejudices, we can rely only upon the power of God, who has at His disposal the most diverse means of guiding the hearts of men like streams of water.
But let us return from these contemplations of the future to discussing current procedure in the Temple Society and the reasons for it. 14
Knowing God - the prerequisite for true inner and outer divine worship - does not consist of comprehending what man cannot possibly understand, namely the nature of God and of those things we cannot apprehend with the senses; even less does it consist of blindly accepting dogmas constructed about these things by ancient and modern theologians. Rather, it is firstly a growing consciousness - available to all thinking people - of the eternal power and divinity which reveal themselves in God's works, i.e. in the creation of the universe (Rom. 1:20) 15, and secondly, it is an understanding of God's ways, in particular of His dealings with humanity. (Ps.103:7).
The prime purpose of God's education of the human race is to achieve that spiritual and social condition of humanity which the prophets of Israel described as the Kingdom of God on earth, and which Jesus Christ made it his mission to realize (Matt. 5:17). Hence it follows that Christian knowledge of God consists primarily in understanding the Kingdom of God.
The essential task of the Temple Society is to implant in all people with open, receptive minds this insight into the purpose and the ultimate divine goal of all human living and striving - just as it should be the task of every Christian congregation, church and society. Unfortunately the various Christian churches and sects have so lost sight of this great aim that often even the name and the concept of the Kingdom of God have been forgotten by clerics and laity alike. Furthermore, researching the source of this knowledge, the wisdom of the prophets, has even been declared to be an aberration of human reason.
However, as mentioned in the chapter on Pietism, interest in prophecy and in the Kingdom of God re-awakened over the last 200 years, first in small groups then in ever-widening circles, and today there are whole religious societies which make studying the prophetic literature their top priority, e.g. the Irvingians in England, the Adventists in America and others.
The Temple Society is not concerned with names and definitions. Rather it wants to help people gain an insight into the nature of the Kingdom of God and thus to strengthen them in their efforts to bring it about. Not the person who talks most fluently about God's Kingdom, but the one who actively, sensibly and competently works for the good of mankind proves by doing so that he knows God. For it is the well-being of mankind in this and the next world that is the Kingdom of God; not until all people are happy will the Kingdom of God be realized.
So the Temple Society can measure what stage of spiritual development its members have attained by what they are doing towards the common good; at the same time, their work for the common good is also an exercise which helps to consolidate the insights they have already gained and to spur them on to further enlightenment. However, this spiritual exercise and the urge it generates to grow in insight cannot replace the institutions which promote this insight itself. On the contrary, a person striving for greater enlightenment will all the more feel the need to learn from others who have a deeper insight into the nature of God's Kingdom. It follows from the above that the best educational institution would be a visible cult-life specifically designed to lead from the revelation of God in creation to insight into how God interacts with human beings, i.e. to the Kingdom of God. Until we have such an ideal cult-life, the Temple Society must rely on the spoken and written word as a means of furthering the spiritual growth of all those capable of understanding.
In this context I am not speaking of schools for girls, boys and young men although these are very important for human life; because of the youth of their pupils, these schools are limited to teaching subjects young people can grasp. This topic will be dealt with in the appropriate chapter. No, here I am speaking about educating adults who are, or should be, mature enough to reflect upon the Kingdom of God and who are able, therefore, to examine critically what they are told about it.
It can be taken as proof of the need for a visible cult-life that even those religious societies which tried their hardest to do away with it, for instance the Quakers, never succeeded completely. This applies also to the Temple Society which, because of the present state of affairs, felt forced to do without ritual as much as possible, but still had to keep a little. This remnant consists of retaining the Christian calendar, i.e. the celebration of Sundays and holy days. We cannot and do not claim that the celebration of Sundays and feast days, which we have kept as it is practiced in the majority of Christian churches, is wholly perfect and hence in its final form. But we shall keep it until we find a better one, because regular breaks from normal everyday life are absolutely necessary for man's body and soul.
Another observance that we have retained is congregational meetings on Sundays and holy days - again we believe that these meetings are absolutely necessary as a means of nurturing the spiritual bond between members. The main part of these meetings consists of discussions and deliberations about the most important permanent and temporary tasks and concerns of the congregation. lt is self-evident that someone will have to preside over and lead these meetings; but the right to speak is not limited to one class of person as it is in the Protestant churches. Anyone who has something of importance to the community to bring up is allowed to speak. In order to preserve the character of divine worship in these meetings, we have retained communal hymn-singing (introduced during the Reformation) and publicly spoken prayer (but not, of course, read mechanically from printed prayer formulae) and also reading a text from Holy Scripture.
It has already been mentioned that, because of the futile and destructive debate about the sacraments still going on within Christianity, we leave it up to each individual member to decide how he would follow Christ's injunctions regarding baptism and holy communion. So these rituals, which usually constitute the main part of public worship in Protestant Churches, are left to the private conviction of the individual. We cannot as yet say for certain how large a part they will play in our future religious life. Still, life's needs have prevented us from doing without public religious observances altogether. New-born infants, who are to grow up under the educational influence of the community, are presented before God with in the congregation. Newly-wed couples, should they so desire, are publicly blessed and prayed for in the congregation, which is naturally interested in the foundation of a new family. At funerals, too, the congregation expresses sympathy to the bereaved by its attendance.
These minimal public expressions of religious culture which we have had to retain until something more perfect can be achieved, will appear to many as very cold and sober compared with the magnificence of the Catholic
The Place of Science
in the Temple Society
With the rediscovery of Roman and Greek antiquity, scientific research began to bring light into the darkness of ignorance which had weighed heavily upon Europe until the 15th century. At the same time, the need arose to safeguard the freedom of scientific research from the demands of the Church, which had every reason to fear that the free exercise of the spirit of inquiry would endanger its authority. To some extent, the invention of printing, the discovery of America and East Asia as well as other events of the time were results of the newly awakened spirit of inquiry, but they also contributed so much to its development that the attempts of the Church to suppress it were of no avail.
The movement's most powerful ally turned out to be the Reformation, which in turn was armed with incalculable support by the results of scientific research and which shook the power of the Church to its foundations. Soon, however, the Protestant clergy found it was in its interest to oppose the movement of scientific research, which was alleged to be much too liberal, in order to prevent its own authority from suffering. Thus the two warring Churches became allies in their attempt to restrict free research. The Protestant clergy, however, had far fewer resources and institutions available for this purpose than the Roman Church. The split between the two churches weakened their position in their common fight against the upsurge of the new spirit.
This became even more evident when some enlightened secular rulers discovered how scientific achievements contributed to the worldly power of a nation while intellectual freedom gave it moral strength. As could be expected, the first states which learned to use this new source of national wealth and power, and therefore partially protected the freedom of science against the churches, were mainly Protestant, in particular the United Dutch Republic. Their example was followed by Catholic France under Louis XIV, and England; finally a German state, Prussia, under the reforming governments of the Great Elector and then King Frederick II, also promoted freedom of scientific thought and rejected the Church's tyrannical claims. Even today the Church has not given up these claims. On the contrary, Pope Pius IX renewed them with surprising boldness in his famous Syllabus, and the Jesuit Party tries in all Roman Catholic countries to implement the principle that science must be subject to Church authority. The Protestant clergy, as far as their limited power permits, try to imitate the procedure of the Ultramontane Party in this regard.
Considering these experiences, it is only natural that those interested in scientific progress regard the churches - particularly the Roman but also the Protestant Church - as their enemies, and try to limit their power and influence as far as possible or to get rid of this influence altogether.
The Temple Society is not touched by this conflict between Church and science at all; yet, in this question which is currently being much discussed both in Germany and in England, it cannot but agree with the representatives of science. This is so, firstly, because the churches cannot prove their right to exist, and secondly, because no one can be expected to give up a conviction based on research for the sake of someone else's alleged authority.
But this conflict has given rise to a fallacy, namely the belief that any religious faith at all is incompatible with the right to free research on the one hand, and with the results and the present state of scientific knowledge on the other. This error is to be found among the supporters of the Church, who think that by fighting against the recognition of science they are protecting the interests of religion itself; but it also exists among the friends of science, who are consequently influenced to reject not only the churches, but religion itself, and see in every religious person an enemy of scientific progress who must be treated accordingly.
If this conflict between faith and knowledge really existed, every intelligent person would have to decide against faith. This is because faith has to be supported by reasons and no one is capable of believing something if he knows for certain that the opposite is true. Hence, if there were any real conflict between faith and knowledge, the faith of the Temple Society would also fall. Therefore it is necessary to study the relationship between faith and knowledge in all its implications and to examine in particular whether the faith of the Temple Society is at variance with the results of scientific research, in which case the Temple Society would either have to suppress free research or give up its beliefs. To this end it is necessary to look at science itself and at its role.
The opinion that Christianity and science are irreconcilable is largely based on the peculiar organization of scientific teaching, which goes back to the origin of the universities in the Middle Ages and which, in its basic features, still exists today. At that time the so-called faculties came into being, namely theology, law and medicine, with philosophy making up the fourth. The last mentioned faculty in fact comprised all fields of human knowledge, including the understanding of nature, its phenomena, laws and measurements, as well as the laws that govern the activities of the mind. Studying all these areas included in philosophy was considered to be merely a preparation for the other three faculties. This led to the mistaken assumption that the first three faculties were the real science or at least the most important part of it. In reality, however, it is the other way around.
Theology is not a definite science like zoology, or chemistry, or geometry, etc., but rather the combination of all those very different kinds of knowledge which are necessary, or at least useful, to a person charged with guiding others in the most important area of life, namely religion. Religious leadership itself is not a science, nor is it the object of scientific study, except perhaps in the sense that rules can be found and methodically classified for any power or indeed for any field of human activity, and this procedure could then be called pseudo scientific. We will not find a mathematician, a natural scientist or a historian who acquired his knowledge without study. But we can find many examples of people who were excellent religious leaders without ever having studied theology, and even more examples of learned theologians who have very little, if any, aptitude for religious leadership.
From this it does not follow that the study of theology is unnecessary or harmful. But as Jesus Christ and most of his apostles were able to guide and enlighten people without such study, it follows that in theology the only element which can be called scientific is of secondary importance and not essential. That this so-called scientific theology cannot be classed as an independent science is immediately obvious when we examine the various theological disciplines. There we find aspects of historical science, e.g. church history, history of dogma, an introduction to the books of Holy Scripture, canon law; then aspects of philosophical sciences such as dogmatics, ethics, parts of rhetoric, e.g. homiletics - all presented as separate subjects. Other subjects combine many different sciences, for instance exegesis (the study and explanation of Scripture) requires a knowledge of philology and linguistics plus those parts of history, geography, archaeology, and many other areas necessary for understanding particular passages. In short, if theology is to be made into a separate science, all natural boundaries between the various fields of knowledge will have to be abolished to make out of theology a universal science.
By definition, the special subject of theology ("theology" means study of God) cannot be expressed in scientific terms at all. God cannot be reached via the experience of the senses nor by historical research. If one wants to supplement these by drawing conclusions and by so-called philosophical speculation, one just gets opinions and views, but no mathematically or empirically or historically supported factual knowledge. Therefore it is high time to stop talking about theology as a science beside other genuine sciences. This only obscures its true value.
Similar considerations apply in the case of jurisprudence, which also consists mainly of a collection of those parts of the historical and philosophical sciences which are useful for the judge and the lawyer in the practice of their profession. In the same way medicine is not a science, but a combination of elements from natural science and philosophy useful to the physician in the practice of his art. - In both these fields, as in theology, the sciences are of great value, but not absolutely indispensable, as may be seen from the examples of men who, without having studied jurisprudence or medicine, were still great law-givers, wise judges and excellent doctors.
No one has ever become a painter or a sculptor just by studying the theory of these arts (i.e. the methodical collection of their rules) and by learning those branches of knowledge which would be useful in the practice of art. This does not mean that such knowledge is not of great value to people practicing their art. Similarly one does not become a priest or a prophet, a judge or a doctor by studying the theory of these arts or by learning those branches of knowledge useful for practicing them. Nevertheless, these studies and especially the accompanying scientific competence can be of great value in preventing many mistakes in the practice of these important arts (if indeed these activities can be called arts).
However, we must not overlook the fact that the acquisition of real knowledge, i.e. the understanding of truths or facts which have been established mathematically, empirically or historically, can never do any harm. For whatever is really true remains true for ever and the progress of knowledge does not consist in repudiating once-recognized truths, but in discovering, testing and absorbing new truths and adding them as positive gains to the store-house of certain knowledge that already exists. This is not to deny the importance of so-called negative progress, i.e. uncovering and eliminating wrong assumptions. Thus the custodians of science cannot be spared the task of constantly re-examining the treasure store of knowledge handed down to them.
But we want to emphasize that there is a difference between genuine science and the theory of the arts which, when it appears in the form of methodical classifications, is usually also counted among the sciences. In the arts, strict methods of proof are not possible; the scientific part lies not in the content but only in the methodical compilation of the instructions passed on to the student. Yet this scientific appearance proves nothing at all about the truth of the teachings in question. If the teachings are in fact wrong, they will lead the student into error and will thus become real obstacles to his working in a useful and correct way. This is true for theology, jurisprudence and medicine just as much as for the visual arts. In the theories of these activities we therefore find the peculiar state of affairs that one teaching displaces the other and that what is regarded as ultimate truth today is condemned as the most absurd error tomorrow; indeed, that different masters are teaching opposing doctrines at one and the same time, forming their own sects or schools of thought which compete against and denigrate one another.
This kind of dispute is relatively harmless in the field of fine arts. But in theology, law and medicine the different systems or schools of thought have a profound effect on people's lives and it is of the utmost importance whether a more or a less correct procedure prevails. Given the fact that these systems are always advancing hundreds of reasons against each other, but that scientific confirmation is not possible, the final judgement can only be made according to the good or bad effects such systems have on people's lives. However, that kind of divine judgement is often not generally understood until centuries or millennia later, and in the meantime the greatest errors and misunderstandings can spread far and wide. In the past, for instance in the Middle Ages, the strategy of the various sects or schools of thought was to give themselves the appearance of Christian orthodoxy and to accuse their opponents of heresy. Whoever succeeded in doing this had control over people's minds. The tangible rewards of such a victory were fame, wealth, positions of honor and other advantages, and these, rather than genuine belief in the truth of the prevailing doctrine, more often served to attract students and to strengthen the party.
Instead of using Christian orthodoxy, the new trend is to use the appearance of being scientific in exactly the same way. That school of thought or system which succeeds in making people believe it is scientific is the winner and collects the rewards, i.e. prestigious positions, wealth, etc. Anything labeled unscientific on the other hand has no hope of being accepted. Now, as in the Middle Ages, the prevailing opinion of those who are deemed competent to judge is the deciding factor. In the Middle Ages it was the clergy, nowadays it is the so-called educated class. So long as this favored class cannot reach unanimity, might decides right; in the Middle Ages it was the power of the Church, today it is the power of the State. This now takes sides, using its power to fight its opponents and to favor and promote those who pay homage to that system which has been declared from above to be scientific. Thus suppression, discrimination and sometimes even persecution take place in the name of science today, just as they did in the name of orthodoxy in the Middle Ages.
Anyone unfamiliar with these facts should study how the various schools of thought in Germany been discredited as being "idealistic". Instead we now have materialism" (or the opinion that everything previously regarded as spiritual reality is purely a dream and a product of the digestion) finding favor with its claim to being the only scientific system. The opinion of the educated class is still wavering, but if the State should side with this new ideology, then "scientific" fanaticism will bring forth rich fruit, the blossoms of which can already be seen in many an arrogant book or newspaper article along those lines.
Should anyone ask what exactly constitutes the scientific nature of such a school, doctrine or ideology, surely it is not the scientific form of its presentation and arguments that is decisive. Certainly, the proponent of such a doctrine must be a master in the art of scientific, i.e. systematic presentation, in order to count as the favored legitimate spokesman of his party. But such men are also found in the ranks of the Ultramontane Party and other sects, which are condemned out of hand as unscientific. Although these men know very well how to present and argue their position learnedly according to all the rules of the art, they nevertheless only achieve recognition of their personal talent and knowledge, while their system or doctrine remains condemned as unscientific. Conversely, those who just know how to express the doctrine of the day with modest skill are at once counted among the "scientifically educated" if they faithfully echo their masters' arguments for the validity of their doctrine. from Wolff to Kant and Hegel have in turn become the leading ideology of the day, how they have achieved, defended and lost their position over a century. At present belief in these systems has almost vanished, as they have been discredited as being "idealistic". Instead we now have liturgy, or even with what is left of it in the Protestant Churches. But our few essentials have the incalculable advantage that at least no wrong impressions about the Kingdom of God and its laws are implanted and cultivated through them. At the same time they still offer a way to further those who wish to grow in the knowledge of God. So we shall keep these modest procedures until we are enabled, by the fuller grace of the Divine Spirit, to establish a religious culture worthy of being called a faithful image and therefore a thorough preparation for the worship of God in spirit and in truth. 16
We can therefore say that the content is more important than the form of the doctrine. However, rigorous proof as it is required in mathematics, in natural science or in history cannot be produced for any system in theology, jurisprudence or medicine. Otherwise such a system would have been universally accepted a long time ago and it would remain valid for ever, just as e.g. Pythagoras' Theorem (that in a right-angled triangle the square of the hypotenuse equals the sum of the squares of the other two sides) has not been disputed since it was formulated. This shows that all these different systems are based not upon scientific proof, but merely on more or less well-founded beliefs.
So the area concerned with beliefs is much larger than is generally accepted, and the language used in the Middle Ages, where orthodoxy - right belief - was the criterion, was really more appropriate and gave rise to fewer misconceptions than today's labeling of some beliefs as scientific and others as unscientific. The teachings of historical j jurisprudence, those of homoeopathy, naturopathy and other therapies, and those of materialism, rationalism and whatever other ways of looking at spiritual things there are, do not differ from their opposing system as one science does from another, or even as knowledge differs from ignorance. They are and always will be just different ways of making sense of what exists in this world - in short, different belief systems.
The supporters of these various ideologies are hardly ever willing to concede that this is the case because if they do, they lose the advantages of presenting their point of view as a matter of science, namely credibility with the public and assistance from the State. This need not be regarded as intentional fraud but is usually self-deception. These people really believe they are fighting for science itself when they argue for the party with which they have sided for more or less pure reasons. Youth in particular is susceptible to this kind of self-deception. Only the mature person, and unfortunately even he but rarely and belatedly, eventually attains the inner clarity which can distinguish between incontestable, proven truth and those other things which seem convincing to oneself, but cannot be proved to others.
This happened for instance to Dr. Strauss, who was unable until shortly before his death to state clearly in his book "The Old Faith and the New" that his theological works (which he regarded as pure products of science in his youth) were in fact the products of a new belief. 17 At present it is particularly the German supporters and prophets of Darwinism who, full of their own importance, claim an exclusively scientific attitude, when in reality their contribution in newly discovered facts (i.e. in real knowledge) is infinitesimal. The greater part of their doctrine is nothing but a new belief, which in their opinion is, of course, the only reasonable one, compatible with science. However, scientists of other persuasions just call it another point of view.
It cannot be denied that the disputes among different theological and other schools of thought have been very useful for the progress of the real sciences, because they forced the combatants to defend their positions by doing research, which yielded sometimes more, sometimes less real knowledge. It even seems that without this incentive, the urge to keep researching would decline and science would therefore stagnate.
Moreover, belief as such is not an inconsequential matter. How a person fares depends in the first instance upon what he believes regarding the important issues of life. This is so because what we truly believe determines how we act, and it is through our actions that we create our own heaven or hell in this and in the next life. Therefore it is not only worthwhile to argue about matters of belief in as far as they concern the important issues of life, but it is also each person's duty to uphold the belief which he considers right and therefore necessary for human happiness, and to convince others of the truth of his belief. But it does not then follow that this conflict between opinions will last for ever, even though it has lasted for several millennia already, nor that the progress of mankind depends on it in any way. It can and certainly will end at some time in the future, because of the judgement of God mentioned earlier, which ensures that the harmful effects of wrong beliefs will be revealed in upheavals of such tremendous proportions that no one will remain unconvinced. When at that time only one, namely the true belief rules the hearts and minds of all human beings, then this true faith will have to meet man's spiritual needs in this respect, too, that it spurs him on to all the activities which are necessary for scientific and other progress.
It is not true that ignorance makes man happier than the search for knowledge, and it is equally untrue that constant erring combined with the urge for research is appropriate to human nature and therefore necessary for man's happiness. These two statements, of which the first goes back to Rousseau and the second to Lessing, have gained for their originators the reputation of being great thinkers, but in reality they contain the most blatant and unacceptable nonsense.
It is more correct to say that, as long as man lacks a full understanding of truth, the jealous disputes among rival sects and opinions to some extent fulfil the function of stimulating the urge for wider knowledge, an urge which would be a natural part of a generally accepted, correct world view.
However, even if we acknowledge that the perennial conflict of the sects has been good for some scientific progress, the adverse effects of the conflict by far outweigh this benefit. Firstly, such conflicts more often than not bring out the worst and ugliest sides of human nature such as arrogance, envy, hypocrisy and malice, which cause incalculable moral harm and a great deal of mischief. Secondly, even the advantage for science is doubtful when one remembers the illusions often promulgated as ultimate scientific knowledge over short or long periods of time, thereby obstructing progress much more than helping it. An example is so-called Naturphilosophie, the philosophy of nature, which grew out of Schelling's school in Germany, and which stopped true scientific research into nature and its laws in this country for more than half a century, keeping Germany far behind France and England for a long time.
The worst of the bad effects of this conflict of opinions was due to the fact that the State interfered and supported a system of guilds or professional fraternities in the fields of religion, jurisprudence and medicine, in which the arbitrarily favored church, party or school could easily exclude its opponents from university chairs and teaching positions and even from practicing in the religious, legal or medical professions. The rich booty falling to those who professed the ruling opinion lured a great number of unqualified and incompetent people into these careers and the running debates became more heated and malicious. Quite properly, the supporters of the schools of thought excluded from all these benefits demanded impartiality from the State authorities. This is already extremely difficult when only two schools or systems are involved in the conflict; as soon as there are more than two, the State can no longer afford to be impartial because of the enormous cost and administrative effort involved.
The only possible solution for the period of conflicting opinions is therefore that the State ceases to take sides and completely abolishes the protection and privileges for which the parties are competing. The State must disengage itself from religious, medical and legal activities and hand them over to private enterprise. That this is possible has been shown by the example of the United States of America. But to do this, it is also necessary to remove the three faculties, theology, medicine and jurisprudence from the universities and the State's other educational institutions and so allow them to become truly scientific institutions.
This idea, and the separation of true science from all Church and school systems which still call themselves scientific without any justification, will strike many a reader as quite new and incomprehensible. It is therefore necessary to explain clearly what science really is.
The name "science" is justified only for those teachings which can be formally demonstrated so that thereafter only the completely ignorant or the genuinely stupid can doubt them. For man in his present state there are three great fields of knowledge in which such irrefutable knowledge can be obtained. The first is nature, the second history, the third the facts of consciousness.
In the field of natural science what counts is empirical demonstration, i.e. conviction by perception through the senses. The whole descriptive part of natural science is concerned only with the exact observation and classification of natural phenomena based entirely upon sense perception. The other part of natural science, which endeavors to explain the phenomena by means of general laws, has to use hypotheses, since the laws of nature can only be inferred from their effects. However, the correctness of a hypothesis must also be tested against observations made via the senses. Certain components of natural science such as anatomy, physiology, etc. have until now been included in medicine. But they are clearly particular areas of the broad field of natural science.
History includes everything related to human activity from the earliest times until today. It does not permit direct demonstration via sense perception, but only historical demonstration through evidence, which can be of an objective or a personal nature. A significant part of history has until now been arrogated by theology and jurisprudence, and has therefore been made to serve Church and State systems from the start.
The liberation of these sciences from such alien purposes can only benefit science as a whole. If the historical sciences lag a little behind natural science with respect to the immediacy and therefore the reliability of their proofs, they have the advantage that they are purely descriptive and consequently seldom need the assistance of hypotheses.
The third field of knowledge, philosophy, (a name which has, as we know, been used with the most widely differing meanings), is concerned with facts that, while not directly observable by the senses, nevertheless convince a person directly through his consciousness. They have to do with consciousness itself and its expressions, i.e. with man's thinking and willing. We are speaking of Psychology logic and morals, in short about sciences which examine the immediate revelations of our consciousness about itself. Here the method of testing is based on inner self-observation. This field also encompasses the whole of mathematics, where the methods of proof consist solely of reducing the particular statements about quantities and their relationships to axioms, i.e. statements which our consciousness immediately endorses as true. Likewise, general linguistics belongs to this field as the science which examines the foundation of the grammars of all languages in the history of mankind.
lf the State would only limit its scientific institutions and demands to these real sciences, in which genuine progress, i.e. a gradual increase of human knowledge is obtained through the work of centuries, it would avoid the unpleasant necessity of having to concern itself with the bickering of so-called scientific systems and theories. At the same time science itself would be better served, because the temptation to fake results in favor of party opinions (which is such a disturbing influence on genuine research at present) would disappear almost completely. There is no need to fear that this change would jeopardize the application of science to life; for it is exactly the interests of real life that will always motivate men, who want to occupy themselves with religious leadership, physical healing, settling conflicts or using and cultivating nature to benefit man, to select from science what they need for their special concerns, and thus to create their own theological, medical, legal, economic, military or other theories, and to have them taught in schools founded for that very purpose. The State could then remain neutral and need not endorse any one of them as the only valid theory or school, with privileges and monopolies.
This is not the place to expound in detail a plan for a "clean" separation of science proper from the mass of theories which claim with more or less justification to be true and correct and which all quite wrongly insist that they are scientifically proven or provable. What we want to clarify here is only the fact that the Temple Society can allow complete freedom to science proper without relinquishing its own position. The conflict we are dealing with is not a conflict between religion and science, but rather between different religious or irreligious opinions. For instance, a person who finds it impossible to believe in God or the eternal destiny of the human personality will naturally find himself in conflict with Scripture and all religion, and therefore also with the Temple Society. Yet it is not science which produces this conflict, but the personal opinion of whoever thinks in this way. As God and eternity can be found and demonstrated nowhere in nature or in history or in the immediate consciousness of man, they are outside the field of science proper.
Hence, the progress of science can never jeopardize belief in God and in eternity, just as the progress of one branch of science cannot hinder the progress of another. It would be ridiculous to fear that the discovery of a new principle of geometry could throw doubt, e.g. on the existence of Charlemagne, which we know about from historical documents, and vice versa. And it is just as foolish to fear from science any danger to belief in God, as neither the most learned scholar of nature or history, nor the most profound philosopher can know - solely by virtue of his science - one iota more about God and religion than a simple fisherman from Galilee or a cowherd picking mulberries.
In view of the prevailing confusion of belief and knowledge we have to clarify another argument which is often thought to be irrefutable, and undeniable proof that either religion has to bow to science, or science to religion. The clergy demand the latter and thereby naturally incur the opposition of all those who know anything about science because, as mentioned before, man cannot possibly believe something of which he knows the opposite to be true. It is even more absurd when many advocates for the freedom of science demand that religion should conform to science, since science does not deal with religious questions at all. Such demands only create enemies for science, because the great majority of people still finds it more appropriate to have its religious beliefs determined by ancient traditions or by the ordinances of the priesthood than to follow the fashionable opinions of a few professors who consider themselves to be more omniscient than the infallible pope.
But - and this objection requires an answer - Scripture contains reports about natural phenomena and historical events which could be studied scientifically and historically. Such study could possibly bring to light scientific errors or historical untruths in the Bible. In such a case, the clerical party demands that science sacrifice reason to faith; the scientific zealot demands that the biblical texts in question should be declared to be fairy tales, myths and lies, thus discrediting the Book from which we get indispensable insights for our spiritual life. What does the Temple Society say regarding this problem?
We are convinced that Holy Scripture contains in the Mosaic Law (if understood and applied in the spirit of Christ) the only correct and therefore permanently valid basic rules of conduct both for the individual and for society. It contains in the wise words of the prophets of the Old and the New Testament the eternal ideas and goals of humanity, and in the Gospels and the other books of the New Testament the sublime record describing the realization of these ideas. People who do not find this in the Scriptures cannot be members of the Temple Society, nor can they be regarded as Christians, i.e. as disciples and servants of Christ. For such a person the question whether the natural phenomena and historical reports described in the Bible are true and reliable is no different from asking whether Herodotus or Livy or any other writer is credible. It would be foolish to try and limit him in any way in his biblical research and evaluation, and even more foolish to threaten him with civic sanctions should he express his opinions and try to substantiate them.
On the other hand, the person who - like us - finds in Holy Scripture the source of absolutely indispensable insights for man's spiritual development will naturally place more importance on the question of whether the historical reports in the Bible, including the miracles, are authentic and credible, because he values the Bible more than other books. Even so, for him, too, this question will be of secondary importance. If he is not qualified or not in a position to scientifically research or check biblical reports such as the story of the creation, the places of origin of mankind, the great flood, or what actually happened in the biblical miracles, or the historicity and credibility of the biblical books when compared to the monuments and traditions of the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks and Romans, then he will let these things stand. He will give the biblical narratives as much credence as his own personal life experience, not scientific reasons, will permit him.
So the Temple Society would not dream of making personal belief in the literal truth of all historical details in the Bible a condition of Christianity, nor of morally coercing its members into this form of blind faith. No other Christian religious society should ever have done so either. Even less should a worldly power ever have forced people by means of external pressures into a faith which is not only blind, but also hypocritical. Blind faith makes man stupid, hypocrisy poisons his moral life; both make man a slave of worldly and spiritual tyrants, who, under the cover of pious pretenses, satisfy their own pride, their desires and their passions. God broke this yoke by means of the French Revolution, and all attempts to put it together again will only result in its more radical destruction.
A person who recognizes the Bible as a source of spiritual light and who also has the calling and the ability to do scientific research will study those scriptural points that are amenable to scientific and historical research without being influenced by preconceived blind faith or by fashionable ideas masquerading as scientific points of view. Should he find in the Bible something which, to the best of his knowledge, disagrees with the results of scientific research, he can of course, only accept what he believes to be true and hence assume that the Bible contains historical errors. This does not detract from the spiritual value of the Bible in any way. A prophet who shows others the true path for their spiritual development need not be absolutely free of errors in unessential details. Likewise a researcher who believes in the Bible should not be condemned if scientific reasons compel him to concede this or that superficial error in the Bible.
However, we deny the claim to infallibility made by scholars who naively insist that what they believe to be scientifically established will therefore have to be accepted from now on by everyone else; in reality, the methods of science as well as those of history are always fraught with 'the possibility of error and self-delusion. Science never makes mistakes, but unfortunately its practitioners often do. The natural remedy against such mistakes by the learned is for everyone to make use of his right to publish the findings of his research together with his reasoning, and thus to open them to correction through further research. Only closing a case and refusing further examination is unscientific, because this seeks to hinder progress.
Errors are most likely to abound in those areas where the frontiers of science are not properly understood and where one believes one knows what one does not know. For example, questions like whether the books of the New Testament were really written by those authors whose name they bear or whose name Tradition has given them, or whether these books did not originate until the second century are historical; they can be discussed in a scientific text and brought to a more or less certain conclusion by means of historical evidence.
However, questions like whether there is a spiritual development of humanity to the point where the person who reaches it can perform miracles, whether there is life after death, a resurrection, a future world, whether God exists - all these are questions which cannot be dealt with scientifically, because they lie outside the scope of the methods of proof available to humans. Of course, everyone who believes in these things or denies them will have his reasons for his belief or disbelief. But, if he believes that he can establish these reasons scientifically, then he does not know what science really is, or what its scope and its limits are. So anyone who maintains that he can disprove scientifically what the Bible teaches about these things is deluding himself and misleading others just as much as is the person who asserts that the truth of the biblical teachings on these questions can be scientifically proven.
However, questions like whether there is a spiritual development of humanity to the point where the person who reaches it can perform miracles, whether there is life after death, a resurrection, a future world, whether God exists - all these are questions which cannot be dealt with scientifically, because they lie outside the scope of the methods of proof available to humans. Of course, everyone who believes in these things or denies them will have his reasons for his belief or disbelief. But, if he believes that he can establish these reasons scientifically, then he does not know what science really is, or what its scope and its limits are. So anyone who maintains that he can disprove scientifically what the Bible teaches about these things is deluding himself and misleading others just as much as is the person who asserts that the truth of the biblical teachings on these questions can be scientifically proven.
From all this it is clear that a conflict between science and Christian faith is just as impossible, if not more so, than a conflict between botany and morality. The conflict exists rather between the Christian faith and the ideologies or world views opposed to Christianity. This struggle cannot be resolved by force, nor by scientific research, but only by the verdict of a higher judge, i.e. by the fruits produced by these different belief systems. A person not able to foresee those fruits must wait until he has to experience them. Anticipation of the future, or conscience, is therefore the organ of faith which, like any other organ, can be damaged by neglect or abuse so that some people, whole social classes and entire epochs seem to lack it completely.
In contrast, it is fairly unimportant how the scientist treats the external facts related in the biblical reports, i.e. how he explains them scientifically and confirms or denies them. In this field scientific research must, of course, be given complete freedom.
It follows further that the Temple Society, without compromising its faith in the Kingdom of God on earth which the Bible heralds, must welcome scientific progress and value science as one of the most important elements of human life and a powerful tool both for the spiritual perfection of man and for the improvement of our physical environment. It is therefore appropriate that science has an important place in the education of young people. This will be discussed in the next chapter.
The Education of Young People
The important topic of the education of young people has been much discussed since Rousseau's famous book was published. 18 The question currently being asked is whether the State or the Church has the right to determine the principles according to which young people should be educated. However, if the question is formulated in this way, it is hardly possible to reach a generally acceptable decision, because there are very good reasons for objecting to both alternatives.
State control of schools fails to give young people a much needed religious education. On the other hand, Church-controlled schools have been with us for centuries, yet the different churches themselves admit that people's attitudes have become more and more irreligious. Nevertheless, difficult as the choice may be, neither the State nor the individual can avoid choosing one or the other, since public schools are indispensable, and it is therefore important to know how and by who they should be run.
Actually no one denies that it is right and necessary for the State to control the schools. Even the Church addresses its demands to retain or resume the administration of schools to none other than the legislative power of the State, thereby recognizing that it is the State which can and must control schools. The question should therefore be rephrased thus: should the State put the running of schools into the hands of the Church or not? In view of the highly unsatisfactory results which the Church education of Christian nations has produced, this question is not difficult to answer at all. If the Church laments the moral depravity and spiritual benightedness of the masses, it is really accusing itself of having done a bad job as an educator. If the Church excuses itself by saying that the establishments of higher education have long been permeated by secular thinking and that therefore the educated classes have become alienated from the Church, this constitutes an even greater self-accusation. For the Church's efforts regarding the education and training of the young must have been extremely inadequate if, even in those times when the Church still ruled all minds, secular schools were deemed necessary.
Those who know how teaching and education were handled under the influence of the Protestant orthodoxy and on the Catholic side in the Jesuit colleges, and who also know how things were in the elementary schools under the influence of both Churches before secular influences improved them, will have no trouble understanding that the State had to take away the administration of the schools from the warring Churches with their endless bickering and infighting. Religious influence on teaching had to end.
The problem is that in this way the religious element so vital in the education of young people is lost from the school curriculum. It goes without saying that religious instruction cannot take place in a school which is not based upon any firm religious foundation, where one teacher is a Catholic, the next an orthodox Lutheran, the third a Calvinist, the fourth Jewish and the fifth without any religious faith at all. Only people who have no idea of the nature of religious faith can dream of a creed less religious education. Indeed, dropping religious instruction from the school curriculum would not only do no harm, it would actually be an improvement. For religious faith is not a science which can be taught and learned like arithmetic, and lecturing about Church dogmas to young people who are not yet able to test the reasons for faith will only lead to stultification, hypocrisy or contempt for everything sacred. In this aspect at least, there would be no reservations about removing the religious element from schools completely.
A school, however, is not only an institution for imparting knowledge but should also be a place for developing the character and personality, and it cannot avoid this role even if it would like to do so.
Now the kind of education a person receives is determined by the educator's goal; the spirit of a school will be quite different if, for instance, the teacher believes in the goals expressed in the biblical prophetic literature, i.e. in the Kingdom of God on earth and in the possibility of attaining eternal life, than if he considers all this to be nonsense. By the same token, the spirit of a school will be different if the teacher believes that submission to the papacy is the prerequisite for temporal and eternal happiness than if he gets his ideas about the destiny of man from Protestantism or from the Talmud or from the materialistic view of life of Mr. Moleschott. And depending on the nature of the teacher and the school, subjects like history, geography and even natural science will be treated quite differently and the teacher's influence on the attitudes of the students will be quite different. Any directives a minister for education might issue cannot change this fact, unless the minister himself emerged as a prophet of a new religion - but even then he would first have to have his religion accepted by the parents before he had the right to teach it to their children.
Having to create schools which are independent of the Church, i.e. non-denominational, therefore puts the State in a very difficult position. For unless it can found a new religion, schools not under Church administration will inevitably become schools without religion and therefore bad schools, and all parents and citizens who still have some religion will be justified in being suspicious of them. All those expedients by means of which some people believe these difficulties can be overcome will seem adequate only to superficial minds, and this for the following reasons:
If we say the State could demand a generally religious attitude from schools but exclude all particular religions, it is rather like saying that the State should look after transportation in general but exclude all railways, ships or Transport vehicles - it should just get people to their destination.
lf, however, we say that schools should not be religious, but should only concentrate on moral development and edification, we forget that there are widely divergent views about the nature of moral education and its aims amongst the members of the different churches as well as among the freethinkers.
Yet, if we take this moral function away from schools as well and say that their task is to equip young people for this world and not for heaven and that therefore instruction in various fields of knowledge is quite adequate, we again forget that a school council organized along these lines will by no means be impartial but, by its very nature, equally opposed to all religions - because, as we know, every religion claims its own moral teachings to be indispensable not only for salvation after death, but also for moral rectitude in this life.
In short, whatever it does, the State will satisfy only a minority, namely the supporters of a particular religious or irreligious system, while the majority will be dissatisfied with existing school conditions.
However, it is not our task to advise governments as to what they should do about schools - we have only explained the difficulties, or rather the impossibility, of freeing schools from all sectarianism and from religion in general in order to come to what really concerns us, namely how religious education and Christian schools in particular should be conceived and organized. For it is self-evident that the Temple Society, which after all is a religious organization, has to base its schools and its education upon a particular religious foundation.
Here we must not forget that, however important their positive or negative effects may be on the education of the coming Generation, schools are by no means the only, nor even the most powerful of all educating influences. More powerfully than by schools, young people are affected by family life, within which, long before its schooling starts, a child gains its most decisive impressions, which may further or hinder its development; family life also keeps on exerting its influence on the child to a greater or lesser degree throughout its school years.
Because of the moral and economic problems of our society, education within the family is often inadequate and is supplemented by creches, baby-minding centers, Kindergartens foundling homes, institutions for neglected children, orphanages and educational centers for boys and girls. But no matter how beneficial these supplements may be in very many cases, and no matter how much we recognize the good intentions and dedicated work of the founders and directors of these institutions, they all still remain nothing but substitutes which try to replace family upbringing; luckily the latter still predominates. Yet as the years pass, young people grow away from the influences of the family and come increasingly under the influence of an educational agent which is almost more powerful than the family and just as independent of schools and that is the influence of the society within which our young men and women are growing up. The predominant attitude of society influences young people more and more as they grow older and away from the influence of school.
The fact that modern society within every civilized nation is divided into a multitude of very different schools of thought and tendencies could tempt us to conclude that these opposing tendencies would neutralize each other, i.e. cancel each other out, and that therefore society's educating influence on young people would be diminished or even removed altogether. Yet this would be a great mistake. Young people generally move within one social circle and are therefore exposed to its formative influences, which may be beneficial or detrimental.
Anyone who wishes to influence the education of young people and who limits himself to schools is therefore leaving a great deal to chance, as he receives the children already three quarters educated or miseducated by the family, and must later pass them on "unfinished" to be further educated or miseducated by society. If the atmosphere within the family happens to coincide with the atmosphere in the school, one can possibly predict a certain effect, even considering the later influences of society, whose effects should not be underestimated. But if the education at school contradicts the education within the family, or if the latter is completely lacking and not even replaced by an appropriate substitute, then the effect of schooling in the moral as well as the intellectual sphere is largely a matter of chance.
This clearly shows the ineffectiveness and incompleteness of every educational method which is not supported by an institution that influences the family and society (i.e. adults) and therefore cannot co-operate with it to achieve common goals. This institution is public life, and its educational influence is determined by two of its aspects: public religious observances and the law. Religious observances regulate the inner, the law the outer life of a nation. We have already spoken about religion in a previous chapter; we will speak about the law in a later one.
The following Templer principles for the organization of a Christian school must be considered in connection with the function of these two aspects of public life.
First and foremost, the school, or rather the teacher of young people, must not overestimate the importance of his own activity, a mistake made by almost all the founders of educational systems since the end of the last (18th) century. They acted as if the teacher were the only, or at least the dominant formative influence on the coming Generation. This error almost inevitably involves the teacher in a conflict with the stronger powers of public life which are already represented in the family, a conflict in which the teacher invariably loses, unless the State is prepared to support him against the rights of the parents by some despotic intervention. But even then nothing good can come from such a conflict, because a contradiction is created in the minds of the pupils. This either decreases their respect for the teacher and thus undermines any influence the school can have, or else it alienates the children from their parents and thus destroys the foundation of a natural and healthy development.
Schools can therefore provide education in the true sense only if the Kingdom of God rules in family life as well as in schools, in other words, if a proper religious life and a proper legal system permeate and guide adults with the same powerful Christian ideas which form the basis of the teacher's educating activity. This ideal state of affairs is, of course, still very far off. Instead, public life is full of quarrels between widely divergent views and tendencies, with the result that families too, are influenced by the most varied viewpoints regarding life. While this state of affairs persists, and while - instead of the one, true world view which should illuminate all nations, all families and all individuals - the present confusion of ideas continues, where one person feels and thinks as a Jew, the other as a Roman Catholic or an orthodox Protestant, the next has clerical or liberal or socialist views - while this confusion persists, we do not expect even the most perfect Christian schools to have a deep and lasting effect; perhaps we should not even aim at it. For no teacher is ever entitled to suggest to children that something which their parents, however mistakenly, regard as sacred and worthy of reverence is wrong and worthy of contempt.
Brain-washing or trying to convert immature young people (and immaturity must be considered to last at least until eighteen years of age) is always an evil and destructive interference with natural development, even if the teaching for which one tries to win the immature minds is the truest and the only correct one. The Christian teacher is therefore obliged to respect the religious observance and the law of his pupils, parents, although this respect will naturally limit his own educational influence to a large degree.
The above allows us to visualize what quite different results a Christian school will have when, at last, in the words of the Prophet Zechariah, "He will be the only Lord and his name the only name" (Zech. 14:9). Compared with this future, which according to the signs of the times cannot be far off, the present time, particularly as far as schools are concerned, is early days yet. Meanwhile, Christian schools can and must already do their part in bringing about that better future. But this must certainly not be achieved by the teacher's trying, either overtly or covertly, to indoctrinate his pupils with his own religious ideas, no matter how correct, because this robs them of the natural soil from which they grow, namely the bond with their families and their nation. To be sure, adults must choose which faith they will adhere to and, having chosen, must if necessary leave father and mother, brother or sister, for the sake of their beliefs. But schools do not have the right to tear at these natural bonds and, if they do, they cause more harm than good.
The task of Christian schools, through which they facilitate the coming of the Kingdom of God, consists in training their pupils to avoid everything that is harmful to the life of body or soul, and to flee from these things as from a viper. This is what the Holy Scriptures call the fear of the Lord. In order to do this, teachers naturally have to know what is good and what is evil. But it is not the teacher's job to indulge in didactic explanations on this theme. Rather is he called upon actively to encourage the young people to observe the rules of conduct he gives them, thus training them to develop self-control and to subject their desires and passions to a higher law.
Fortunately, sectarian arguments don't impinge on this field in as far as it concerns young people, and the teacher does not transgress against Holy Scripture nor against the dogmas of the Catholic Church nor against the Talmud or the Koran if he tries to encourage his pupils to be orderly, clean, moderate, chaste, truthful and just, and to prevent or stamp out the opposite vices. This opens up to the teacher a wide field of wholesome influence for the spiritual development of young people. Persons who have been trained to control their desires develop a strength of character which, when they are mature, will enable them even to sacrifice their physical life for their convictions if need be.
The other half of the Christian teacher's job is to try and develop the intellect of his students. To this end he can best - but not exclusively - utilize instruction in the various subjects of knowledge.
Intellect is developed if care is taken to avoid teaching contradictions, and also if pupils are trained to detect for themselves every inconsistency, however small. The lessons have to be organized in such a way that the pupil is trained to feel the need for and to make a habit of clarity, precision and congruity in everything he hears, learns, says or writes.
Memory training, or memorization, is usually thought to be damaging to the intellect. However, in the early stages the teacher cannot avoid giving his pupils most subject matter as facts to be committed to memory, simply because they are not yet capable of understanding why what they are being taught is correct. But this does no harm, since as they get older, they naturally learn to understand more and more what at first they believed just because the teacher said so. What kills the intellect is the attempt to force children to accept conflicting statements, or to regard statements, which have no meaning for them, as truths that they have to commit to memory. But if they have been trained to get a clear mental image of what they are learning and not to tolerate any contradictions in it, they become able, when they grow up and have to make decisions about the important questions of life, to form their own opinions by examining reasons for themselves, as befits a rational human being, without being swayed by the clamoring of the crowd or blindly following the dictates of authority.
Once education is thus concerned with the development of character and intellect, one can, without fear of overloading their minds, pass on to the pupils all the knowledge which will be useful for their future career and which modern science offers for the purpose. This can be combined with practicing such arts and skills as they will need, depending on the requirements of their future business life and social standing. Christian schools, then, are quite capable of achieving everything required by today's level of general education with regard to arts and sciences too.
As to the individual subjects, we cannot go into drafting a curriculum here for each of the various ages and the corresponding educational institutions, primary schools, junior high schools, high schools, technical or art schools, universities and technical colleges. We just wish to draw particular attention to two more points. it follows from the above that so-called religious instruction has no place in the curriculum of Christian schools because, with the fragmentation of religious beliefs that exists today, any religious instruction would necessarily involve schools in conflicts with family and public life. But even apart from this, we consider that religious instruction is not a subject for young people, because the riddles of life which are resolved through faith are still unknown to them. it is unnatural and paralyzing for spiritual development if young people are directed to accept as true and to commit to memory for the future certain dogmas and articles of faith, when they cannot yet have the slightest idea of their basis or their significance. Besides, everyone who knows something about the nature of religious faith will know that one does not get this faith through learning things by rote. But people think that catechisms, hymns and Bible quotations can be used to provide nourishment for religious feelings in the future, whereas experience shows that the force-feeding of subject matter that cannot yet be digested usually results in reducing the children's receptivity to religious feelings, and that only the few already prepared by a religious family life find it less harmful and perhaps even of some use.
So we want to describe briefly how the good that was contained in denominational religious instruction can be replaced without burdening schools with the harmful consequences of such instruction. The learning and explanation of the catechism was introduced into education for the young after the Reformation, as a first measure against the abysmal ignorance in spiritual matters; it is customary today in the German Protestant Churches for it to culminate in confirmation classes. It is high time that a more appropriate education replace this procedure.
Confirmation itself and prior instruction about making proper use of one's youth is certainly a natural arrangement. But it is blatant nonsense to lecture immature fourteen to sixteen-year-olds about doctrines which the Church itself declares to be profound mysteries, and which are barely understandable to even the maturest minds, such as the doctrine of the Trinity, of God-made man in the person of Jesus Christ, of the sacraments, etc. Even worse, it is imagined that the poor boys and girls are now convinced of these truths and that they have chosen and accepted of their own free will, with insight and upon reflection, the truth of these doctrines, when in fact these children have only yielded to the moral coercion of their parents and teachers and have learnt by heart what they are supposed to recite during the confirmation ceremony. And it is blasphemy against what is holy and a sin against the young people to have them swear an oath before God that they intend to remain faithful to these doctrines and the Church which has taught them.
This kind of nonsense should be replaced by an explanation, appropriate to the age of the children, of their natural tasks and duties. Around puberty this instruction can then be summarized in a short formal course dealing with wisdom and justice, with the meaning of our earthly life and its end, and finally with the eternal destiny of mankind. This then would be a confirmation course which would, of course, demand more from the teacher than catechism drill and which could well be followed by a confirmation that is a solemn or sworn commitment to
strive for wisdom and justice.
As for Bible stories and subject matter to be memorized, the former should already be told in the family instead of fairy tales, which are fantastical and often in poor taste. At school, Bible stories should form an important part of instruction in history. The simple, appealing and inspiring stories from the lives of the patriarchs, Moses, David, the prophets and Jesus Christ himself are very suitable fare for young children. Not because of their miraculous element, but - quite apart from this - by virtue of their purely human content, they form the best introduction for understanding God's dealings with us humans. This understanding should also be the object of teaching history and geography in the higher classes at school.
Memorizing the sayings of wise men and the songs of first-rate poets is also an important component of school education, in spite of the fact that, tackled unwisely, it often turns into a veritable punishment for teachers and pupils alike. A great deal depends on the choice of appropriate quotations and songs and although here, too, all dogmatism has to be avoided, it is self-evident that the sayings of the wisest of the wise, that is of the prophets and the apostles, and the songs of those poets who have dedicated themselves to the highest ideal, namely to God and the eternal destiny of man, should have pride of place.
The second point still to be mentioned concerns the special training in theology, medicine and jurisprudence. As we have proved that these subjects are not special branches of science but that each is an art, for the practice of which scientific training is nonetheless of great practical value, 19 we shall discuss them briefly in the following chapters on the priesthood and the law.
Here we just wanted to explain that it is not when schools have a purely Christian character, but only when they are denominational Church schools that they are drawn into arguments regarding conflicting opinions, making them useless for members of other denominations. In fact, purely Christian, but not non-religious schools, can satisfy the justified requirement of parents of other religions that their children should not have their reverence for things which are sacred to their parents destroyed or diminished.
The Priesthood
of the Temple Society
The word "priesthood" arouses distaste, revulsion and aversion in many readers. The abuses of the Catholic hierarchy do not justify this reaction, but are sufficient to explain it. However, this hierarchy constitutes a power which cannot be eliminated simply by feelings of aversion. The fact that the Catholic priesthood, in spite of all abuses and excesses, has been able to keep its position at the head of 200 million people (for the Greek Church honors the institution of priesthood just as much as the Roman Church does) is ample proof that there must be something about this institution that fulfils a human need. The Temple Society can therefore definitely not allow itself to be influenced by the aversion of most Protestants and some Catholics to priesthood, but must examine the arguments that can be brought against priesthood. Such an examination has only reinforced our conviction that a priesthood is necessary, but one that is very different from the Catholic hierarchy.
The strongest argument against priesthood is the implication that some people should have a special relationship with God and thus be more privileged than others; this conflicts with the idea that God surely loves all human beings as His children. This Argument is powerful, because the equality of human beings in respect of their relationship with God and their destiny in this and the next world is in keeping with the principle of justice. A deviation of God's ways from this principle must seem a puzzle to us, which we could solve only if we understood His very special reasons.
Now, whether we discover such reasons or not, we cannot deny the actual fact that God has advantaged some human beings over others. A European is conscious of his advantages over a Negro, and in general over all less civilized nations, and he has to admit that it is not because of anything he has done that he was born the child of European parents. A person with the good fortune to have been born and bred in a better educated and morally purer social milieu is at a great advantage compared with one who, through birth or other circumstances, has been surrounded since childhood by crude and depraved people - without having done anything to deserve this. So a favoring of individual human beings and of whole classes and nations does in fact exist, and it is true that God punishes the sins of the fathers in the children, in the sense that the latter, through no fault of their own, have to experience and suffer the consequences of the miserable situation into which they were born.
Thus people are naturally unequal, not only with regard to their spiritual and intellectual capacities, their physical endowment and the social conditions into which they are placed by birth and other circumstances, and not only because fate later indiscriminately favors one much more than another: some people are also favored with regard to their spiritual development. A person's freedom and initiative, however, are not ruled out by this. In the worst as in the best situation, the active, striving person will succeed better than the lazy one; but some things which a favored person can accomplish remain impossible for the less favored one. And while it is undeniable that there are immense differences of character of spiritual and Moral strength and competence, in short of spiritual caliber, among human beings, it is still extraordinarily difficult, often impossible, to judge how much of a person's worth, whatever that worth may be, results from his own striving, and how much can be ascribed to favorable or unfavorable circumstances for which he deserves neither credit nor blame. If, therefore, we do not wish to ascribe the preference given to one person over another to chance, in other words, if we believe in the omnipotence and the wisdom of the Creator, we also have to admit that God favors some and disadvantages others, even before they have done anything good or bad to deserve this favor or disfavor.
Naturally, human reason finds this puzzling. But it is ridiculous to try to solve this puzzle by closing one's eyes to the facts and accusing those who draw attention to them, as if they were to blame for them. Yet this ridiculous behavior can be observed every day in people who consider themselves to be philosophers, theologians and enlightened people. The prophets are criticized for saying that descendants suffer the consequences of their forbears' mistakes, and for claiming that the people of Israel were favored above other nations. The apostles, and Paul in particular, are accused of being mistaken, because they say that the whole of humanity is suffering from a spiritual weakness, which is passed on from generation to Generation, and that God has chosen some human beings rather than others to show by their example how perfect man can become. Because they draw attention to obvious facts, these men are thus accused as if they had created this state of affairs themselves. That is as if a poor man, resenting the fact that his 100 dollars are less than the rich man's 100,000, were to blame the teachers of arithmetic for causing his sad situation by their unjust principles, maintaining that they need only decree that 100 is as much as 100,000 to make him instantly equal to the rich man.
Just as crazy is the notion that the apostles and prophets need only have declared that there was no original sin, no discrimination in the selection of human beings and no special favors granted by God, for perfect equality among men to have been established at once. There is some excuse for this madness in the fact that orthodox theologians have made these matters into dogmas which everyone must believe, instead of speaking about them as undeniable facts, as the Bible does.
Reasonable people will not argue about the existence of these puzzling facts, only about their explanation, just as people who can see will not argue about the existence of sunlight or other visible natural phenomena, only about how they might be explained. Holy Scripture does not teach that there is original sin or favoring of individual people and nations - it presumes that these facts are known. Instead, it teaches both how the puzzle might be understood and especially how we can act sensibly in view of these facts that we cannot change.
The objection raised against priesthood because of the presumed equality of all human beings before God is removed as soon as one recognizes that this equality does not in fact exist at all, whether or not one accepts and understands the explanation of the puzzle given by Holy Scripture. We could therefore choose not to speak about this explanation. But partly in view of the importance of the matter, and partly because of the light which an understanding of it sheds upon the whole of human life and therefore also upon the Temple Society's basic tenets about the latter, we feel compelled to say a few words about this divine mystery, as the Scriptures call it.
The preference shown certain persons and classes of people is the expression of a general law which rules the whole of visible creation, namely the law of becoming, or the law of gradual evolution. Asking why the Creator has submitted man to this law is as pointless as asking why God created the world in the first place. Granted, man's spiritual nature, or rather his spiritual potential, differentiates him from the rest of creation. But he is also and above all a natural being, and as such he is subject to the law of gradual evolution. In fact, his spiritual being evolves from his natural being, and if God did not want man to evolve He would simply have created something different, such as a purely spiritual entity, not a human being. If man was to be man he had to be subjected to the law of gradual evolution, and if he was to exist like other natural beings, not only as a single specimen but as a species, i.e. as a human race, then it follows that not only every individual, but the whole of humanity had to be subjected to the law of gradual evolution.
If, on the other hand, man were only a natural being without a spiritual potential, then his whole development would be governed by natural laws and the question of good and evil would not arise. But as he is able to do evil, i.e. oppose the process of development the Creator intended for him, he inevitably faces the consequences of this opposition, which interferes with his development and creates circumstances completely different from those for which he was destined by virtue of his spiritual potential. These circumstances continue and, because of social cohesion, affect the following generations, hindering their spiritual development, even if they themselves have no evil intentions. In the course of time, this results in immense differences between people by virtue of the double law of the natural and the spiritual constitution of man.
Moreover, since in all men the spiritual being develops later out of the natural being - although it is already present and effective in the very beginning of existence it necessarily follows that the proper development of man is usually difficult. lt is easy to deviate from the path, and every single evil deed committed in the world makes it easier still. This is demonstrated by the fact that, in spite of his spiritual potential, it costs man great effort to progress in the development of his spiritual side, whereas regression, spiritual and moral backsliding, requires no effort at all. Thus humankind has a tendency towards deterioration, as every unprejudiced observer notes with regret. The Roman poet Horace expressed this in the following verse:
"Our parents, already sunk below the standards of their forbears, Have begotten us who are less virtuous, and soon will beget sons who will sink even lower."
(Hor. Od 111, 6)
However - and here we come to the divine secret revealed by the prophets - to counter this development towards corruption, the Creator has decreed a different and victorious development towards the original destiny of man, and this will be accomplished by a powerful upsurge of spirituality in the human race. But precisely because it is happening within human beings, this victorious spiritual development is also subject to the law of gradual realization. Consequently some individuals before others, and first of all one single individual, must overcome the obstacles to spiritual development. From this spiritual progenitor of mankind the victorious power will pass first to a few, and from these few to more, until it finally extends its liberating effect to all. Thus mankind's redemption from the necessity of spiritual decay is being effected through human beings, but for that very reason it is a slow process.
This gradual growth of man's spirit towards the greatness of the divine Spirit applies just as much to the individual as to the whole of humanity. This is the reason why, until spiritual evolution reaches its goal, the law of deterioration or corruption will remain in force and one of its manifestations will be that while some will have the good fortune to develop early, others will lag behind for the time being.
That same solidarity amongst human beings which causes degradation in one to spread to all others means that those who are favored should be motivated by their own insight to undertake the task of striving to extend their better state to those who lag behind, instead of selfishly exploiting their better circumstances for their own benefit. Thus they become the redeemers of their brothers; it may, however, require the sacrifice of their natural life. We need not go into detail here as to how superlatively this duty of sacrifice for those who remained behind was fulfilled by that unique person who had the privilege of initiating the rebirth of mankind.
Note it is precisely the priesthood of this unique individual, namely Jesus Christ, from which Protestant Christians derive their second objection, which we have to counter here. They say that, because Christ sacrificed himself as a priest for all people, no further human mediators are required; instead, each individual should follow Christ directly. The same thing is expressed in another way, namely that all disciples of Jesus are priests and that consequently no special priesthood is necessary among them.
In effect, the first form of this objection is already countered by the second for, if all Christ's disciples are priests, it follows that in spite of Christ's own priesthood, other priests are still required in order to make the effect of his sacrifice available to all people. This is also evident from the many explanations of this point in Holy Scripture, for example Ephesians 4: 11-13; 1 Peter 2:5 and 9; Revelation 5:10. Furthermore, we would like to refer the reader to the writings of Philipp Matthäus Hahn, who treats this subject repeatedly in his sermons and demonstrates conclusively that, according to the teaching of Christ, his disciples are at all times called upon to represent Christ on earth. Each one of them within his large or small sphere of activity is to be a mediator between Christ himself and those people who are not yet as close to him.
Schleiermacher claims that Protestantism and Catholicism differ in that the Protestant Church has to base its relationship with its members upon their direct relationship with Christ, whereas the Catholic Church tries to lead people to Christ through their relationship with the Church. This may accurately describe how Protestants in fact behave. But such behavior is completely unbiblical and therefore unprotestant, and a believer in the Bible would have to become a Catholic on this issue, if it were actually true that the Catholic Church leads people to Christ through the Church. Most of the numerous current conversions of Protestants, who believe in the Bible or are generally religious, to the Catholic Church can be explained by the very fact that the Catholic procedure seems to meet the human need for visible leaders to Christ, a need which the Protestant Church seeks to deny.
If Christ were still visibly present on earth today, it would be somewhat easier to understand how the individual could follow him directly. But as Christ is no longer on earth, and as he expressly declared that he would give the keys of Heaven to those who believe in him, so that they could open or shut its gates not only for themselves but also for others, this supposedly Protestant procedure violates Christ's clearest orders. What was instituted by Christ himself is dissolved and people are directed towards a purely inner approach to Christ, the reality of which they have no means of testing and which in most cases is therefore simply a matter of imagination. People think they have Christ within and mistakenly believe this opinion to be the faith which gives substance to their hopes and makes them certain of realities they do not see.
This, to be sure, is one point which was not resolved during the Reformation because the reformers, including Luther himself, were not yet able to give their attention to this aspect of the Bible and of human life. Faced with the lie that the Pope and the priests had received absolute and arbitrary power from Christ, their first priority was to establish that no priesthood has a right to forgive or refuse to forgive sins unless it strictly adheres to Christ's commandments as its guideline. The struggle to establish this supreme principle occupied them all their lives, and they had to leave the exact interpretation and practical application of Christian priesthood to the future. For the time being they had to content themselves with a provisional structure, which could not possibly hold up for long and is indeed collapsing at the present moment. However, Luther himself never categorically denied the need for human priesthood, but only asserted that every Christian was entitled and obliged to practice it. This doctrine of the priesthood of all believers is the basis of the last objection brought against the institution of a priestly office.
However, that this doctrine of the priesthood of all believers is not enough to satisfy people's needs is already patently obvious from the fact that all Protestant churches or sects nonetheless found themselves obliged to instal special church offices, or to allow them to develop in practice, without of course ever giving them the title of priest, because of the justified aversion towards the Catholic priesthood. They were careful to call them pastors, preachers, elders, etc. or not to name them at all.
So it is simply not true to say that Protestant churches have no human mediators between Christ and the individual. But it has also been demonstrated that, by itself, the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers is no guarantee that the necessary priestly duties will, in fact, be carried out properly. It is quite true that the office does not make the priest, but that certain qualities are necessary for priestly office. It is also true that all those who call themselves Christians should possess these qualities. But in reality we find that very many do not possess them, because they are Christians in name only, not in actual fact, and that even those who really are Christians or disciples of Jesus in their attitudes, nevertheless possess these attitudes and priestly qualities in very different degrees. Moreover, the capacity for priesthood, precisely because it exists in different degrees, does not necessarily also include the decision to in fact exercise this capacity in particular cases, and so to fulfil the obligation connected with it. On the contrary, it is usually the person with a certain degree of spiritual development who recognizes the difficulty of the task much more clearly than less capable people, and therefore often needs the incentive of having a particular office to help him make the decision to carry out his spiritual duties. Thus the principle of the priesthood of all Christians remains correct; but its gradual realization (as it is for example described in the above quotation from Ephesians 4) requires the institution of a properly organized priesthood. This will become clearer in the brief description of priestly tasks which follows.
In order to gain a true picture of the tasks of priesthood, one has to get rid of current images of the priest as a somber ascetic, or a fanatical inquisitor, or a lazy cleric, but always as a person who has no understanding of the demands of real life, and who can at best be of value only to pious women or perhaps to the sick and the poor. Through studying history, some people have been able to gain insight into conditions in past ages. By learning about the effectiveness of the priests in ancient Egypt and, to some extent, about the organization of the Catholic priesthood in the Middle Ages (despite the one-sidedness already evident in its development), they have the opportunity to gain a much worthier picture of priestly activities. However, only a very few are able to do this, and we can see how difficult it is, even for men who have studied history and theology, to rise above the present low opinion of priesthood, when we consider the caricature which modern thinking has made out of the priests of the Israelites and the complementary activity of the prophets, for instance Samuel.
Only since Ewald's "History of the People of Israel" can a tendency to go back to a more correct perception be observed. But even here the tendency is weak, as well as being obscured by this scholar's peculiar ideas about the origin of the biblical sources. Nevertheless, we may expect some progress in this regard through the extensive discoveries of historians researching Egyptian antiquities. In the meantime, the concept of a true priesthood can only be inferred from the needs of human life, and from indications found in the words and deeds of Jesus Christ and the apostles. For Christian priesthood can only be derived from the priesthood of Christ, and it comprises all those activities which contribute to the realization of the Kingdom of God on earth.
Still, there is some truth in the usual assumption that the main task of Christian priesthood is pastoral care. We just have to keep in mind that this care is not achieved by a very dubious preparation of the soul for heavenly bliss, but rather by trying to ensure the soul's health in this present life. For this, treating all important facets of daily life with proper attention is essential; that includes caring for physical well-being and fighting disease. Whenever men of apostolic power are not available, such a many-sided task usually requires the cooperation of several men, who should be the most advanced spiritually and should preferably be equipped with knowledge in the main areas of human life. For this reason the apostles, in all the communities they founded, appointed several presbyters (i.e. elders), from whose Greek title the modern word "priest" has developed.
The task of the elders does not consist in performing particular specialized duties, but in the spiritual leadership of a small or large community or congregation. The inner aspect of their task consists in having the well-being of the congregation and its individual members at heart and in bringing all their important concerns before God; the outer aspect is that they constantly fight and overcome all the evils which obstruct the spiritual development of the community and its members. Consequently they must exercise spiritual discernment and distinguish good from evil, encouraging the former and fighting the latter. They have to assist individuals who, because of illness or other difficulties, cannot cope on their own, and they have to oppose those who would harm themselves or others. In short, they have to see to it that the will of God or the destiny of man is perceived and implemented in the life of the community and its members.
Anyone who knows human nature will testify that there is a need for such work, and we can observe it being carried out wherever the memory of the eternal or spiritual destiny of man has not faded altogether in the life of a community, and thus wherever spiritually more advanced or more highly educated members live side by side with others, who are less advanced or educated, but who are conscious of their shortcomings and the obligation to strive for perfection.
The difference between this office of elders and the position of the Protestant pastor or preacher and the Catholic priest is that the latter are responsible to both the Church hierarchy and individual members for the performance of specific actions, which are thought to be their proper function. Apart from this they either have no further obligations, or else they are restricted by many constraints. The elders of the first Christian communities on the other hand were, as the elders of the Temple Society are today, committed only to facilitating the growth of the Kingdom of God in their community, and accountable for anything done to obstruct this aim or not done to further it.
One does have to admit that, before the bishops at the Vatican Council relinquished the last remnants of their independence to the Roman usurper, the position of the priests, and especially of the bishops in the Catholic Church was more in keeping with the original tasks of the elder or the Christian priest than it is in the Protestant Church, whose clergy are really only officials, who are employed by the ruler or the people in order to perform the so-called ecclesiastical functions and who are paid for this. That is why the edifice of the Catholic Church stood firm and solid through so many storms and was even able to withstand the attacks of secular power, whereas now that bishops and priests are no longer allowed to function in the name of Jesus Christ, but only in the name of the Roman pope, this edifice is doomed to certain decline.
Another important aspect must not be overlooked while the Temple Society is re-establishing in its elders the original function of Christian priesthood. Even the apostles did not feel able to perform on their own all the activities connected with priesthood. They needed to hand over some sections of their work to men who had the necessary abilities and who felt called to this work. These men, working with them in the same spirit and towards the same goal (see Acts 6), also carried within themselves the image of the Kingdom to be established with the same kind of devotion and clarity as the apostles. Likewise in the congregations Paul founded among the heathens, there were priest-like men able and willing to perform particular tasks, which Paul enumerates in 1 Cor. 12. In the old Mosaic priesthood, too, the children of Aaron were surrounded by the institution of the Levites, who performed particular duties within the sanctuary. In a similar way, the Catholic Church in the West supported its clergy by establishing monasteries and religious orders, and this was very successful. Unfortunately, enforcing compulsory monastic vows and other serious mistakes made by the Church meant that this success gradually became a curse rather than a blessing for the people.
The Reformation made a clean sweep in this area, too, completely abolishing monasticism with all its false principles. But the needs which these institutions either met or at least seemed to meet, remained as strong as ever. As the Christian spirit had become too weak to satisfy or even to recognize those needs, the gap was filled partly by active and enlightened individuals, and partly, to an increasing degree, by the power of the State. In the course of time, however, some of those spiritual activities mentioned by Paul (in 1 Cor. 12) were neglected or, if they showed themselves, they were declared suspect and persecuted, for instance prophets and miracle workers. Still, one could not do without teachers, healers, helpers and governors, and so there developed the sciences, medicine, national economy and administration, the police and the law, partly through private initiative, partly through State intervention.
It is well known how much has been achieved in all these areas, especially since these activities were freed from the unjustified tutelage of the Church, which after all no longer really understood them. We must give credit to those men, from Voltaire to our present time, who succeeded in breaking the Church's shackles, which were designed to obstruct human progress: they completed the work of the Reformation. Apart from particular discoveries and achievements in different fields, the enduring gain to come out of this liberation of the human spirit is the insight that every attempt to confine man's endeavors in these individual areas to a specified direction by means of external control will not only be in vain, but is also incompatible with the nature of the Spirit and violates the law of evolution or progress.
It is, however, in the nature of things, as is shown by the present state of the civilized nations, that the mixture of directions and opinions, and the lack of connection between the different areas of learning and between the loftiest leading ideas will, in the course of time, result in confusion. This will not only wipe out the benefit which society could have gained from progress in individual areas, but will also do great damage to the prestige and consequently the influence of science and art. Regarding the last point, it is true that the State can counteract this development, but then science and art would become dependent on the State and on the arbitrary opinions of the people who happen to be in power at the moment. That would be just as undesirable a constraint as Church control was in former times.
But even if the disadvantage of State infallibility can be avoided through the sound judgement and open-mindedness (both extremely rare) of the people in government, or through constitutional non-interference by the State in spiritual and intellectual pursuits (as is the case in North America), there still remains the much greater disadvantage of spiritual and intellectual confusion that can be observed in Europe today.
Man is not designed to be a specialist limited to a single discipline, be it law, medicine, art or anything else. If he turns himself into such a specialist, he robs himself of the spiritual impetus which should vitalize his individual tasks. Working without a vision, he deteriorates into a learned philistine, a wooden professional, an artist or poet working purely for his daily bread; in short, he becomes soulless. This is the wasting sickness which, as we all know, killed the civilization of the Greeks and the Romans, long before the mass migration of nations buried it in the darkness of barbarity.
The present condition of the Christian nations of the West is approaching this death through lack of vision, as representatives of the various disciplines each attempt to substitute for a universal and supreme idea some subordinate idea arising from separate fields of study, which they seek to make into their religion. This is not yet a state of absolute soullessness, but a confused interaction of opposing and limited minds, where everyone thinks himself the proper leader and looks down upon the rest. Such spiritual anarchy, if not checked, will, just as its political counterpart does, eventually lead to death, either directly or after a spell of despotism.
This spiritual anarchy is particularly damaging to the minds of aspiring young people, who are left with the choice of submitting to one of these limited minds, in whose sphere of influence they happen to be placed thus becoming channeled into one extreme direction or of giving up all faith in ideas and just exploiting their field of knowledge in their pursuit of maximum physical comfort and sensual pleasure.
To avoid this, those who have recognized the highest idea, i.e. the idea of the Kingdom of God, and truly believe in it, have to engage in all the fields of study possible and necessary for human life and pursue them in the spirit of the Kingdom of God, which is the Spirit of God Himself. In this way the ideas and mentality prevailing within the individual activities which are part of human life will find their true relationship to the whole and will be protected from the rampant proliferation of one-sided ideologies.
The Spirit of God rules each individual mind not by coercion but by lifting it up to gain a wider vision, as Solomon so beautifully expresses it in his description of wisdom or the Spirit of God in the seventh and eighth chapters of the Bock of Wisdom.
lt is true that one can study any field of knowledge without this Spirit; one can also be inspired by some other idea than that of the Kingdom of God, and be guided and motivated by it in one's studies and one's application of knowledge to life. However, even the greatest knowledge does not protect one from foolishness and error, and the question: "by what ideas should man allow his thoughts and actions to be guided?" can never be answered from the point of view of an individual discipline of learning. In contrast, the idea of the Kingdom of God, or the revelation of the prophets regarding the eternal destiny of man, provides a reliable standard against which all individual ideas and minds can be tested and brought into harmony with one another, all biases having been removed.
However, this idea of the Kingdom of God, like all other ideas, cannot be grasped just by knowing about and studying it. The ideas, or in other words the revelations, of the spiritual world take hold of and dominate the heart and soul of a person and develop within him spiritual powers and talents, as well as the irresistible urge to put the ideas into practice in his own life and within the life of a community or a nation. It is precisely the all-encompassing and creative effect of these ideas which indicates that they have their origin in a spiritual world which is higher than man in his natural, half animal state. But it is also clear that a man who is carried away by a particular idea in orte direction will come into conflict first with his own god-created nature, then with all those who are dominated by a higher, or even only by a different idea, and that this will have a destructive effect on himself and society. This effect will be the more damaging the more highly his intellectual and spiritual capacities are developed and the greater is the share of knowledge and artistic skill he has gained as a result.
If a number of such blinkered minds each tries to realize and promote his particular idea, a social condition comparable to a lunatic asylum will result, where the inmates, though they may be the most learned and most cultured of men, have lost their power of judgement and constantly fight with each other because, as a consequence of their illness, they can use their power of thought and will, together with their remaining mental capacities, only in a distorted and deranged manner. lf a society has lost the all-encompassing and all-governing idea of the eternal destiny of man, or if this idea is advocated only by individuals who have a superficial knowledge of its fruits without being personally inspired by it, i.e. by the Spirit of God, then chaos will reign supreme. lt is the misfortune of our time that the minds of men were long ruled by a parody of the Kingdom of God, namely the Church, and that all free endeavor was suppressed by force, because the Spirit of God was missing in the Church. Now most intelligent people have arrived at the conclusion that a true spiritual unity through the power of truth alone is not possible, and that mankind has to choose either spiritual coercion (which the State can exercise in favor of the Church or some other system), or the lunatic confusion of ideas which has erupted since the liberation of human minds.
The Temple Society, possessing the idea of the Kingdom of God - an idea destined to rule the earth must be prepared, until such time as it can show the world by a magnificent example that a national life based on this idea is possible, to face the same fate as our Lord and Master. For the representatives of one-sided ideologies will see in the Temple Society the greatest of one-sided follies, and the Church, using the power which it is still able to exercise over the masses through its pseudo-priesthood, will malign the true priesthood of the Temple Society, which it will not join because of pride and envy, and will try to destroy it in its infancy by means of false accusations. Faced with this situation, our best course is to do what we can to re-establish this true priesthood with its various tasks.
Beside the elders, whose task it is to keep a constant watch on the whole community and to provide leadership, there is in the Temple Society a second, extremely important section of the priesthood. This consists of the teachers, doctors, administrators and judges, who should all be equipped for these callings above all by the Spirit of God, i.e. by the idea of the Kingdom of God. They also have to be skilled in all the knowledge, sciences and arts which can help them in practicing and developing their special gifts (2 Tim. 1:6).
This implies that the organization of the priesthood will have numerous facets: teaching is divided into a great number of branches and levels and into the most diverse institutions furthering science and the arts. Similarly, medical practice, apart from including all the different branches of medicine, will require assistants such as nurses, pharmacists, etc. And as society progresses in agriculture, industry and commerce, the tasks of administrators and judges will grow in scope and specialization. It is not possible to go into the further organization of priesthood in all these multiple branch activities at present, because in such a small society as ours, priesthood can only be realized in embryonic form, like the mustard seed in Matt. 13:31-32. But it is necessary to counter two separate fallacies.
Firstly, the idea of a priesthood of teachers, doctors and administrative officials immediately reminds our contemporaries of medieval conditions on the one hand, and of the organization of the Jesuit Order on the other. This leads to the suspicion that new external or spiritual fetters are to be placed on the development and activity of the higher professions. The opposite is true. The Temple Society must favor the greatest spiritual and intellectual freedom, because only those with the best scientific education of our time are able to appreciate the value of the divine ideas. The schools of the Temple Society can therefore not be episcopal seminaries or Jesuit colleges, where young people are spiritually stunted into limited stereotypes and scientifically drilled in order, by means of a sacrificio d'intelletto (i.e. by sacrificing one's own conviction) to become useful automatons in the hands of the high priests. The priesthood of the Temple Society will rather be recruited from men who have practiced and developed their intellectual and spiritual talents in open contact and free interplay with all the ideologies of the time. Honesty of conviction is therefore the first basic principle for anyone who is to exercise any spiritual function in the Temple Society. From this follows not only the right but also the duty to oppose any authority which cannot justify itself by demonstrating its spiritual power (2 Cor. 10-3-5).
The second fallacy we have to counter is the opinion that God's Spirit and His gifts are only revealed in so-called miraculous appearances, in dreams and visions, in ecstatic states and miracle healings, and that clear, logical insight and rational procedure must therefore necessarily be lacking in Spirit. There is no room for this error within the Temple Society, so we need not fear that the Temple Society's striving for God's Spirit and His gifts could lead to aberrations such as those of the Anabaptists of Münster and the "heavenly prophets" opposed by Luther.
However, if we consider science and the arts to be means by which the Spirit of God can exercise its beneficial influence, then it certainly does not follow (as the limited rationalism of our time believed) that the power of the Spirit is necessarily confined to these means, and that therefore all reports concerning activities of the Spirit which we cannot explain rationally (such as the history of the prophets, the miracles of Christ and the apostles) would either have to be explained in terms of our present knowledge or declared to be deliberate lies or the products of "unconscious myth-making".
Considering the narrow limits within which our knowledge is still confined in spite of all the progress science has made, and considering in particular our ignorance regarding the nature and the power of the Spirit, which we nonetheless have to recognize as the highest of all powers, we cannot just disbelieve the miracles of the Bible, nor can we dismiss out of hand the possibility of similar miracles happening in our own time. However, we do not make belief in the biblical accounts of the miracles a condition of participating in the Temple Society. Only the belief in the spiritual destiny of man, and hence in the miracles of the future, by which this destiny will have to be fulfilled, is required. In this we follow the instruction of the Apostle to aim at the gifts of the Spirit (1 Cor. 14:1). However, we do not believe that the Spirit of God, which is the source of man's spiritual potential, will reward the stupidity of those who neglect to develop their potential using the scientific and artistic means available to them, with a supernatural outpouring of spiritual powers.
There is no reason why the description of the gifts of the Spirit which the Apostle gives in 1 Cor. 12 could not be fulfilled in the following way: elders could become apostles through wisdom, insight and faith; poets could become prophets by aspiring to eternal ideals; teachers could become real teachers by perfecting their understanding; doctors and all those working with the forces of nature could, by a spiritual application of their knowledge, develop the gift of healing and the power to perform miracles; and officials, by applying their professional expertise in the Spirit of Christ and according to the noble vision of the prophets (Isaiah 32), could become true helpers and governors.
So we retain our faith in the miraculous but, in the face of all real or alleged miracles, we also do not wish to do without the gift which members of the Temple Society can and must use, particularly in these confused times, and that is the gift of discernment - distinguishing between spirits. Not miracles (which, according to the Scriptures, can be performed by false prophets, too) but the Spirit of God and its fruits (Gal. 55.22) are the divine vindication of true priesthood. We will also use this yardstick - the only valid one - to judge the alleged revelations of somnambulism and spiritism, which are currently exerting a powerful influence upon so many religious people in America and Europe. If ecstasies, visions, signs or voices from the spirit world constituted sufficient proof that such phenomena are divine revelations, then we would have to give Mohammed - or closer to our time, the Mormons our full trust. We do not need to involve ourselves in long and mostly impossible enquiries into the extent to which these so-called revelations are produced by spirits, delusion or deliberate deceit. All we have to do is to examine the spirits according to their teaching and their fruits. Should these be found wanting, we will not believe, though an angel came down from heaven. (Gal. 1:8, Col. 2-.l8).
Since the performance of public divine service has, until now, been considered the most important and almost the only duty of the priesthood, some clarification on this point is necessary. The simple form that our services still take at present makes it quite possible for any elder who undertakes to perform this task to do so with hardly any assistance. All he has to do is to preside at the meetings of the congregation on Sundays, and to say a few solemn words on behalf of the community on special occasions, such as asking for blessings for marriages or for new-born babies, or speaking at funerals. Sacraments in the ecclesiastical sense, i.e. rituals whereby the priest professes to sanctify people without their involvement, without their knowledge even, have no place in the Temple Society.
While the current confusion of opinions still affects the Temple Society, the performance of the rituals directed by Christ has to be left to the individual according to his conviction. Therefore, at least for the time being, it is not part of public worship. But if in the future a suitable ritual were developed, which could teach by means of symbolic representation of the Spirit, then it would become necessary to supplement the work of one or more elders by the participation of various kinds of artists and, of course, teachers and others with particular gifts of the Spirit.
It remains for us to say something about the education and training for the office of priesthood, which should replace the present university faculties such as theology, medicine, etc. it has already been explained in the chapter on education that these faculties do not belong with the teaching of pure science. Such purely scientific teaching in the branches of history and the natural sciences, as well as in language, mathematics and philosophy, should be at least as good as it is at present in Germany's inappropriate faculty system. As this educational reform has not yet been carried out, the priests of the Temple Society must naturally seek their scientific knowledge at the institutions which follow the old faculty pattern. But it must be understood that their special training as elders (or priests in the ordinary sense of the word, or as preachers, pastors or ministers in Protestant terminology), as physicians, judges, etc. cannot come from these institutions, which can only supply the scientific grounding for these professions.
This is generally recognized in practice for those special professions which we would count as part of the priesthood, in that young doctors, after finishing their academic studies, have to undergo their actual professional training by working for a time as residents in hospitals or as the assistants of experienced doctors; the same applies to members of the legal profession and the civil service, who cannot regard themselves as qualified without having first worked for a year under supervision. lt is also being recognized more and more in recent years that the actual professional training of theologians should take place at a seminary after the completion of their theoretical studies. However, the unsatisfactory, often misguided operation of the Churches cannot lead to the desired result.
As the practical training of future doctors and administrators is already largely taken care of, the Temple Society will thus have to concentrate mainly on the task of supplying young men who have finished their theoretical studies with a "theological" college founded on the right ideas of priesthood. The idea of any such college is to make it possible for the candidates to observe at first hand how the j ob they are to do is carried out. A training college for religious leadership is therefore only possible at a place that is the religious center of a nation or a religious society, and its teachers can only be men involved in practicing spiritual leadership. So the episcopal seminaries of the Catholic Church are founded on the right idea in this regard. But they are certainly quite wrong to try to train young minds at an immature age for the priestly profession. This misuses the natural spontaneity and receptivity of the young mind and subjects it to moral coercion. At the same time, scientific education is inappropriately relegated to second place and controlled so strictly that the mind becomes paralyzed.
If there were any statistics available on the number of gifted boys and youths who have become drop-outs and misfits, one would find that no career path produces as many ruined lives and failed young men as theology. The reason for this lies in the unsound training program, so the cure is to have young people complete their free scientific education first and only then, once they have reached the maturity of approaching adulthood, to choose their particular profession, especially if it is spiritual leadership which, properly understood, is after all the most difficult and all-embracing one.
Finally, we would like to point out that practical necessity has already led several religious societies in England and America to recognize, in the training of doctors at least, the priestly character inherent in this activity. Soon all progressive minds will agree that the separate streams of the various disciplines of learning will have to be combined into a spiritual unity, and this unity is true priesthood.
The Social Problem and the Law
The social problem, i.e. how society can properly be organized according to the true nature and destiny of man, is at present being discussed in all Western nations. Where the interests of the privileged class clash with those of the masses, who are less favored regarding property, social status and education, the conflict of opinions has escalated into a bitter struggle, threatening the world with bloody upheavals. This problem can only be solved by creating a social order which takes the needs of all into account.
The Temple Society is not in a position to provide such an order within a nation, because so far its ideas have been adopted as guidelines by only a very small number of people living far apart in different countries. So we could bypass this subject altogether. However, as we are convinced that the Temple Society is destined in due course to unite all nations in the same understanding of everything important to human life, through the power of truth - as there will come a time, therefore, when whole nations will freely accept its leading principles - one is justified in asking us how, in this eventuality, human society should be organized according to Templer principles.
In a very small way the Temple Society is already in a position to implement its social principles in everyday life. The laws of those countries in which Templer communities exist are nowhere so detailed as to leave nothing for the communities to do, as far as the organization of the daily life of their members is concerned.
In so far as the laws under whose protection we live in the various countries have regulations regarding daily life, we obey these laws and the governing bodies which enforce them, as Paul prescribes (Romans 13: 1-7), not only for fear of punishment, but also for the sake of our conscience. But where these laws do not prescribe anything, there is room for us voluntarily to implement the social principles of the Temple Society to rule our daily life.
Besides, as a rational being, man is obliged to form an opinion about the laws he is bound to obey: are they just, or is there room for improvement and reform? Such an opinion must be based on social principles. This is even more important if the constitution of the country in which the individual lives has Legislation enabling its citizens to express their opinion. This is the case in nearly all countries today, not only in republics but in monarchies, too. When new communities, no matter how small, are formed, especially when settlements are founded, there is naturally quite significant scope for the application of social principles within the laws of the country.
For these reasons we must outline the social principles of the Temple Society here; the practical details we shall leave to the future. But first we have to correct a misconception which is often found in religious circles, due to a lack of knowledge of the world. lt is the belief that the Kingdom of God or Christianity has nothing to do with the organization of public life on this earth, and that all planning for social improvement and good laws is already a deviation from the purely spiritual essence of religion, the sole concern of which should be to improve the soul or the individual.
We will not analyze here why this opinion is nonsense; we will just say that the best sign that a doctrine truly leads to eternal salvation is precisely that its teaching brings about satisfactory social conditions on earth. lf it is not able to do that, it is even less able to improve people's hearts or lead them to salvation. Christ and his apostles spent most of their time helping to alleviate people's terrible earthly suffering, for instance from disease. Even the Lord's Supper was essentially a social institution.
It is not only ignorant, but hypocritical and wicked to try to justify this misconception by saying that death, sickness, poverty and other external evils are used by God to test and better us, and that therefore we have no right to change these conditions. As if only the poor needed improving, when it is well known that greed and hedony are to be found at least as frequently in the so-called better classes as in the lower estates. Everyone hopes to escape suffering as much as possible; but the difference between the true Christian and the hypocrite is that the latter will walk past the suffering of others with pious excuses, whereas the Christian would rather take upon himself disadvantages and even danger and suffering, in order to prevent or alleviate the suffering of others.
There is no need among honest people to elaborate any further, because everyone feels that it is Christianity which enables and motivates people to make a real effort to counteract social injustice, this source of immeasurable misery. Schiller himself has this to say about the calling of a Christian:
"He is sent into the world as a savior, and his strong arm shall free from every need, from every harm."
What, then, are the principles of Christianity and the Temple Society for the organization of society?
Those who are at all familiar with the spirit of Christianity know that, on the one hand, it demands respect for the natural differences between people, as well as for those of rank, estate and wealth which have evolved over time. lt condemns, as a rebellion against divine order, any violent rebellion against the law in general, including those laws which serve to protect these differences. On the other hand, Christianity certainly does not declare these differences to be the final and perfect order of things; on the contrary, it strives towards a progressive reduction of social inequality.
Present-day socialism's motto: "prosperity and education for all" corresponds to the spirit of Christianity. Only it would be more correct to name education first, as education is the source of prosperity and not prosperity the source of education.
The prophets' descriptions of the Kingdom of God which is to be realized on earth correspond with this socialist motto, by promising world peace, intellectual and spiritual education for all and economic security for every individual (e.g. Micah 4: 3-4; Jeremiah 31:34; Zechariah 3: 10 and 12:8). But they go much further and deeper: they point out that anything that damages health and stunts or shortens life will cease. More than that, they promise an extension of human life difficult for us to imagine (Isaiah 65: 19-25), and go even further by assuring us that earthly existence will pass over into eternal life, thus overcoming the power of death. Holy Scripture knows nothing of the false polarity between this world and the beyond, as introduced by the Churches. It does not teach that man - in practice it is, of course, only the poor person who is always meant by this - should forego all earthly happiness in advance, consoled by the prospect of eternal bliss. Rather, it merely teaches what is in the nature of things, namely that happiness in this world, and salvation in the next, are neither to be reached in one jump, nor by means of beautiful dreams and fantasies; that man in his search for happiness must be prepared to put up for a long time yet with the burdens of earthly existence as it is today; and further, that he will have to take upon himself the additional burdens generated by the struggle to improve conditions.
As for the teachings and the work of Jesus Christ himself, he expressly agreed with the social ideas of the prophets and declared their realization to be the purpose of his life (Matt. 5:17); but at the same time he maintained that this realization could come about only through the Spirit of God. History, both pre- and post Christian, confirms this. Even in pre-Christian times, exceptional, wise men suspected or recognized more or less clearly that the evils which arise when one class of people is given social preference over another, and when privileges of rank, birth and property exist, should be done away with. But as they were unable to assure people of their eternal destiny, they could neither attain nor communicate the Spirit, which alone is able to produce liberty, equality and fraternity among people or, which amounts to the same thing, make mankind capable of achieving this perfect social condition.
For this reason, the social problem of antiquity, which consisted in the privileges of caste, nationality and class, has never been solved. In spite of the wise teachings of the Buddha, the Indians kept their caste system, and in spite of Greek philosophy, the Greeks thought they were justified in treating all non-Greeks as barbarians who were not entitled to human rights. The Romans, too, who tried to amalgamate different peoples into a unified empire, nevertheless adhered all the more rigidly to the power of the free citizen over the slave.
In contrast, wherever Christianity was alive, it had the effect of mitigating, limiting and balancing social privileges and differences between races, nations and classes. lf in our own time social conflicts have intensified, approaching the social conditions of pagan antiquity, this has only been possible because Christianity in the Churches has degenerated and the salt has lost its flavor.
From the position of prophecy or of the Kingdom of God, one cannot but grant the socialists that the inequality of property and of class, as well as of talents and of the sexes, means that our condition is imperfect and must progressively be improved through the Spirit of Christ, until imperfection is finally overcome altogether. But it is equally true that this social improvement will never be achieved by astute debates about human rights, nor by clever socio-political measures, and even less by the brutal violence of the masses. The only way to social improvement is through ennobling the human mind by the Spirit of Christ, i.e. by earnestly striving to achieve eternal life. This striving will teach the privileged classes to use their privileges only to help uplift the disadvantaged; it will also enable the less privileged to achieve education and consequently affluence. So Christ's Spirit creates a bond of peace and understanding between the opposite poles of society: a spiritual brotherhood, which must eventually manifest in practical life also.
According to what has been said so far, the greatest inequality which exists among people is not the difference in outer circumstances, in possessions, income, etc., but the difference in spiritual development. If we compare men like Paul or Luther with the animal-like dullness of a primitive tribe, or on the other hand with the arrogant turning away of so many educated and uneducated people today from everything that goes beyond pleasures of the flesh and reminds them of the eternal goals of human life, then we find much greater differences than those between capitalist and worker, or between prince and pauper.
It is a cosmic law, which we cannot change, that the differences between people's social conditions can be balanced out only to the extent to which differences in spiritual development are equalized. Once all members of a society or of a nation will have reached the spiritual stature of Paul or of Luther, we will no longer need any social Legislation, except Legislation arising automatically and without any conflict of interests, because of the understanding and insight common to all.
As long as people are at so many different stages of spiritual development, however, the social order of the highest stage will not work and a lower order is necessary; however its Legislation must not be geared towards holding back, but rather towards furthering higher development. The Temple Society considers that the model of social Legislation for present-day spiritual conditions that is unsurpassed so far is the Mosaic Law. So this law is the yardstick by which we measure the existing laws of modern states, and according to which we organize the social conditions in our communities, in so far as they are not already regulated by the laws of the State. In saying this we have to guard against several misconceptions.
Theologians challenge us by quoting from Scripture: "no flesh can become justified by the Law", "the Law provokes the wrath of God", "the justification before God comes not through the Law but by faith alone", etc. One is tempted to ask whether these objections are sincere or whether they are mere sophistry, invented to accuse the Temple Society of violating the principles of the Reformation. If these objections were meant to be taken seriously, they could be used not only against the Temple Society but against each and every national constitution, because no nation can exist without law.
Let us assume, however, that the theological and pious circles from which these objections arise are really as limited in their outlook as they pretend, and really believe that every law and its enforcement contradicts justification by faith, which Paul teaches and which Luther quite rightly re-instituted. Then we have to say that those who raised these objections understand neither us, nor the apostle, nor Luther.
The apostles and reformers recognized full well that a code of law was necessary for the existence of human society. Paul and the other apostles prescribed obedience to the law of the land, and themselves instituted new laws and rules of conduct to be implemented in Christian communities. In order to quote all they said in this respect, we would have to copy out a large part of the New Testament. However, they clearly state that a mere superficial obeying of the laws in no way justifies man before God. On the contrary, a meticulous, literal observance of the Law can be combined with a totally wrong attitude such as pharisaic arrogance, satanic envy and vulgar greed. These attitudes are much more despicable and destructive than overt law-breaking, so that the tax collector, who feels he is guilty of the latter, is more likely to be acceptable to God than the Pharisee, who deems himself to be above reproach because he is outwardly pious and obedient to the Law.
To eradicate this kind of hypocrisy , Christ and his apostles taught that acceptance into the Kingdom of God depends on having an attitude which motivates one not only to avoid breaking the law, but to achieve much more than any law could possible demand. For Christ says that we should be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect (Matt. 5:48)
The Spirit of Christ thus establishes a higher, greater law, in which the demands of the Mosaic Law are included and far surpassed. The teachings of Luther and the other reformers are in complete accord with this. The Temple Society also agrees, declaring that the Mosaic Law has to be kept to ensure a healthy social order; that obeying the Law cannot be difficult for those filled with the Spirit of Christ, which after all urges them to even greater achievements; but that from those who are not yet quite filled by this Spirit, observance of the Law in everyday life must be demanded, because this is indispensable for the preservation of society and as a preparation for higher stages of spiritual life. The law is therefore, as Paul himself says, a school (Gal. 3-24), which is still needed while there are still people who need educating.
From another quarter, namely from those who have had their taste formed by the modern poets and philosophers, comes the question: why the Law of Moses? Admittedly, a law is necessary; but it need not be founded upon the authority of divine revelation on Mount Sinai, it can be built on reason and on an understanding of the nature and the destiny of man. This is the source from which man must derive his duties and the motivation to fulfil them; then he will no longer need the Ten Commandments or an ancient lawgiver.
Our answer to that is: Quite so; but where are the men who have such a complete and perfect understanding of the nature and the destiny of man? Once society is entirely made up of such individuals, a constituted law formulated in commandments will no longer be necessary. But while the vast majority of people possess only very little of this understanding, we cannot do without authority. All education requires authority; people have to be trained in good habits before they can fully understand the reasons for this training, so that they do not adopt bad habits in the meantime. Therefore the question can only be whether Moses, or the sages of Greece and Rome, or the philosophers of modern times should be the authority with which we guide and train those people, including especially the young, who have not yet reached spiritual maturity.
We do not intend to evaluate the individual ideologies which might be suitable. We shall not discuss whether Kant's moral philosophy or Hegel's legal philosophy or the recently introduced philosophy of the unconscious, etc. should be our guide. We would rather state straight away why we feel obliged to give definite preference to the legislative wisdom of Moses over all other authorities, whose value, by the way, we neither deny nor underestimate.
This is not because we prefer what is ancient or familiar, for there are codes of law as old as or older than the Mosaic Law, and upholding Mosaic Law in our time is quite unusual, rather than being a continuation of traditional concepts. Neither has our choice been based on belief in the miracles which prepared and accompanied the giving of the Law to Moses on Mount Sinai, because other codes of law also claim divine revelation and use miracle stories to validate their claims. We have a different reason for believing the biblical miracles about Moses, though we have not seen them, rather than the Egyptian, Persian, Greek, Roman or Islamic legends about revelations and miracles, which are used to legitimize the lawgivers of these nations.
What decides us for the Mosaic Law is that the educational influence of this law produced the prophets of Israel, i.e. those men who have given us the clearest and most satisfying explanation of the nature and destiny of man. Christ himself declared that he came only to fulfil the divine plans proclaimed by the prophets. By sanctioning the wisdom of the prophets in this way, he naturally extends his approval to the Mosaic Law, the basis of the prophets' education. The reader is referred to the decisive and solemn declaration of Jesus Christ which describes the starting point of his work (Matt. 5:17-19). As Christ is for us an authority in the realm of the spirit, so Moses is for us an authority in the realm of law. We recognize both as authorities, because conscience confirms the truth of their teaching, and the historical fruits of their work provide overwhelming testimony in their favor.
A third objection, more important than the two previous ones, arises out of real imperfections in the Mosaic Law. Moses permitted polygamy, slavery (and consequently also the buying and selling of slaves), and arbitrary divorce (at least by the husband). In many respects he favors the Israelite over the non-Israelite. He orders true religion to be upheld through the extermination of idolaters and through severe punishment for every deviation of the Israelites from the religious rules of their faith. As a punishment for crime, he prescribes the principle of retribution without regard for rehabilitation of the criminal, and so on.
Should or could these rules be brought back, now that our customs and laws impose stricter demands in some cases, and more lenient demands in others, due to the influence of Christianity or modern education?
An attempt has been made to overcome this difficulty by distinguishing two components in the Mosaic Law: the moral law and the ritual or ceremonial law, of which the latter is said to be superseded, but the former is supposed to be valid forever. However, it is wrong to make this distinction. The Law itself does not make it, and Christ stated that not one iota of the Law would be abolished.
Even if such a distinction were possible, it still would not overcome the difficulty: the Ten Commandments at least would have to be retained as valid for all times, (and this has indeed been done), otherwise one could quite arbitrarily declare some parts of the Law to be binding and others not. This would of course negate the authority of the Law and leave the field wide open to arbitrary and opposing opinions. Yet, even if only the Ten Commandments are retained literally, the above difficulty remains, as e.g. the commandment of the Sabbath would obviously belong to the ritual law, and the first commandment does not prescribe moral action but religious conviction. Nevertheless its infringement had to be punished by death, whereas according to Christian principles, there should be no coercion at all in religious matters, and therefore no punishment.
Indeed, some of the harshest and most despicable measures the papacy employed against so-called heretics (i.e. people with religious views different from theirs) rest on a literal application of the first and third commandments, whereas the second commandment, which forbids the Generation of images, is conveniently ignored. Similarly, the literal application of the fourth commandment about keeping the Sabbath holy, as enforced, and still upheld to some extent, by the Puritans in England and in North America, has not had entirely beneficial results. Furthermore, it is not only contrary to the principle of religious freedom, but also contradicts the letter of the Law by celebrating the Sabbath not on the seventh but on the first day of the week.
All this proves that a literal application and implementation of the Law is quite impossible and would conflict with the divine plan for human development. lt would obviously be a backward step if, like Mohammed and the Mormons, we reintroduced polygamy on the grounds that the Law allowed it, or if we, like the plantation owners in the Southern States of North America, declared slavery to be a divine institution. In order to be consistent, we would have to reintroduce the whole Mosaic cult as it was, including circumcision and the prohibition of pork, which is spiritually and physically impossible. Individual attempts in this direction, as they were made in a grand manner by Islam and on a small scale by some Protestant sects of North America, have always resulted only in distracting people from the great challenges of life and embroiling them in superstition, fanaticism and controversy. Therefore the eternal validity which Christ accords the Law can definitely not be sought in its literal interpretation, either in religious institutions or in the general social order. In both cases, the true spirit of the Law needs to be understood, so that we can work towards that perfect fulfilment of the Law, where not one iota is lost.
The individual institutions arising from a spiritual interpretation of the Mosaic Law cannot be predicted here, because identifying them will depend upon time and necessity. The Mosaic Law has influenced the Legislation of existing states, very differently in different countries, of course, depending on what circumstances demanded and on what the more or less correct interpretation of the lawmakers made possible. In so far as these differences are based on the wide variety of human circumstances, they will still be there even when everyone understands the whole of the Mosaic Law correctly and accepts it as the foundation of all individual codes of law. As the Temple Society has not been accepted by any nation, it cannot for the moment even contemplate the elaboration of a new Law, but must limit itself to applying the Law to those few cases which occur in a small and dispersed community and can be settled by voluntary agreement. However, in order to give some idea as to the spirit in which the Law of Moses should be applied, we add what follows.
A misunderstanding due to the inadequate insight of the Christian theologians gave rise to the notion that the Law of Moses is severe, harsh and even cruel. lt cannot be our purpose here to disprove this incorrect idea, but we refer the interested reader to the excellent monograph by a Swiss scholar in jurisprudence. 20 We just point out that Paul (who was well versed in Mosaic Law and who has been accused of being its worst enemy) declared that the true content and basis of this Law was Love (Gal. 5:14). Every application of this Law which is not motivated by the final goal of the welfare of all violates the spirit of the Law, however accurately it might correspond to the letter of any commandment.
The harsh elements which are contained in the letter of the Law and of which the most striking ones have been cited above, are not rooted in the spirit of the Law but, as Christ says, in the hard-heartedness of men. Moses was able to limit this to a certain degree, but he could not eradicate it sufficiently to change social conditions prevailing in all of antiquity, such as slavery and the inferior position of women. The reason for this weakness of the Law lies in the fact that in pre-Christian times the eternal destiny of man was no more than a dream, a hope, and a matter of personal opinion. It had not yet been proved by the fact of the resurrection and so was not yet generally believed among the nations.
However, Moses tried to soften and to limit the harsh elements of the Law by a number of commandments for the protection of the weak, the defenseless, the poor, widows and orphans, strangers and the frail, as much as this was possible in the face of the hard-heartedness of the people at the time; so much so that his law is humane in spirit. Our social problems would be substantially reduced if we fulfilled many of these commandments to the letter. So we have to concede that our present Legislation, although in some respects more humane than the letter of the Mosaic Law, still falls considerably short of it in many other respects.
The exaggerated emphasis on the property law for instance, which we took over from Roman Law, has had the effect that many of the laws of Christian nations lag behind the Mosaic Law. lt is hardly necessary to point out that the Mosaic Law, though it does not make property the sole foundation of the social order as in Roman Law, certainly does not subscribe to the opposite extreme, namely communism. Protection of the individual, of marriage and the family, of the right to property and personal dignity - these are the foundations of the social order according to the Law of Moses, and must therefore be retained by the Temple Society. Socialist ideas opposing these foundations of human life, as established by nature and hence by the Creator, are rejected by the Temple Society as being impractical and harmful dreams. The social condition of the people of Israel in its good times, under the Law, was in spite of all its inadequacies, much better than that of most Christian nations at the present time.
However, the benefits of the Mosaic Law were initially meant for the people of Israel, and the Law itself establishes a considerable difference in legal status between an Israelite and a non-Israelite. Moreover, within the country and nation of Israel, measures sharply opposed to the principle of religious freedom were used to ensure that the true knowledge of God would survive in the face of the idolatry predominating in the rest of mankind. In fact, in opposition to the pagan national religions, Moses founded a national religion, and commanded that its place on earth should be established by the sword and secured by bloody coercion. This imperfection of the Law can be explained by the fact that spiritual conditions were less than perfect. If the true knowledge of God was not to disappear without trace from the face of the earth, due to the hard-heartedness of men, then the use of drastic measures was unavoidable as self-defense until the dawn of a greater spiritual light.
The Christian Churches, especially the Catholic Church, but the Protestant national churches to some extent, too, have proved by following the Mosaic Law in this particular respect that they have lost the power of the Christian spirit. But they cannot use the excuse that they acted in self-defense, because they proudly claimed to possess this true spirit, and based their legitimacy and their supposed right to persecute those of different persuasion on this very claim, assuming the title of Christ's vicars on earth. So we can say that they have indeed sunk to the status of national religions, while claiming to be the universal religion. Their use of force against so-called heretics was thus founded on lies and amounted to murder.
From these remarks our readers will be able to form an impression of the Temple Society's understanding of the Law, and our answer to the social problem. All this will become much clearer when an independent nation becomes so imbued with the Temple Society's ideas that it creates its social conditions in this spirit. Political forms are of secondary importance in this context, i.e. whether those who are given the task of establishing and enforcing laws are elected by the people or appointed by a monarch. What is crucial is that those who hold this office, besides having all the necessary knowledge of history and other subjects, are guided by the right ideas. For while it is given to man to create his social conditions according to his own will, whether the Legislation he creates can bring about beneficial effects depends on whether it corresponds to man's's essential nature and needs. How ever, this nature and these needs are independent of all human arbitrariness or opinion, having been fixed once and for all by the Creator of nature and the spirit-world. Man can but recognize them and live accordingly, or fail to recognize them and perish.
Thus it is clear that the social well-being of a nation depends on whether the true ideas that are in accord with nature, and therefore with the will of God, are uppermost in the minds of its citizens, especially in the minds and hearts of its law-givers, judges and administrators,- in short it depends on whether the Spirit of God governs human thoughts. A brief description of the social conditions which are necessary for earthly happiness can be found in the prophecies of Isaiah (32:1-8).
Building the Temple in Jerusalem
The spiritual and material conditions which we have described in the previous chapters, and which we call "the Temple", can be brought about in any part of the world and their healing benefits will no doubt one day be recognized by all nations and accepted all over the world. The idea of the Temple is thus not a limited, national concept, but rather transcends all national differences, because the spirit which pervades it is all-encompassing. Every human being, every family and every nation on earth can live according to the Temple Society's ideas, as the organization of the Temple Society allows room for all natural, i.e. God-created potential to develop, merely protecting this development from becoming one-sided or from degenerating.
No place on earth is intrinsically holier than any other - the whole earth is full of the glory of the Lord - and the Kingdom of God shall extend across the seas to the ends of the earth. Moses, preparing for the Kingdom of God, decreed that true worship could take place only in the tent of the Covenant and later in the Temple at Moriah. This limitation was removed by the coming of Jesus Christ, and the obstinacy with which the jews clung to their own alleged holy place, just as the Samaritans clung to theirs, was punished by the destruction of these national temples, thus fulfilling Christ's prophecy: "The time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem" (John 4:21).
The Temple Society certainly does not intend to revive the Jewish superstition that was condemned by divine judgement, and claim that Jerusalem is holier and a better place for worship than any other place on earth. Rather, we abide by the saying of Christ that genuine worshiper will worship the Father in spirit and in truth. This corresponds with the words of the prophet Malachi (1:11): "Everywhere fragrant sacrifice and pure Gifts are offered in my name".
Of course, it does not follow from this that Jerusalem alone should be excluded from the worship of God. On the contrary, if the Temple is to be built everywhere, then clearly it not only may be built in Jerusalem, but indeed should be built there. The judgement of God, which decreed that Jerusalem and Palestine were to be destroyed by the Gentiles, was not meant to last forever, but, according to Christ's own words (Luke 21:24), only until the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled. There will and must come a time when the Temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem, too, in other words, when the spiritual and material conditions ordained by God will be established there. An integral part of this process will be the introduction of religious observances and consequently the designation of holy places of public worship.
There is not the slightest reason why the places where the national sanctuaries of Israel once stood should be deliberately excluded as places of worship. Excluding them would be just as superstitious as the Jewish choice of those places was in ancient times, against which the prophets bore witness (e.g. Jer. 7:4). Instead, there can be no better indication of the power of spirit and truth than if a place of worship reflecting this spirit is built on the very spot where the hypocritical Pharisees and Sadducees obstinately resisted the spiritual Temple of Jesus Christ.
Thus the Crusaders of the Middle Ages were quite right in their choice of Jerusalem in particular as the spot to found a place of Christian worship and in their wish to secure it by establishing a Christian state or kingdom in Palestine and Syria. It was, however, a fatal mistake to believe that they could achieve this lofty aim by force of arms. This mistaken belief arose out of their ignorance of the true nature of Christianity, an ignorance into which the Church, led by the popes, had allowed the nations to fall.
This error is not excused by the spiritual decline which has undoubtedly occurred in the Christian world. One should at least have recognized this decline, instead of trying to cover it up with the lie that the Church was still in possession of the Spirit of Christ, and that consequently violence and bloodshed, which the Church demanded in the name of God and Christ, were acceptable, even holy, means to do God's will. Neither in Palestine nor in any other country on earth can the Temple be built by means of crusades and so-called holy wars. God's judgement of this aberration was not long in coming: the achievements of the Crusaders were short-lived, and the bloody chaos in the Orient caused by the crusades made possible the rule of Osman and his Turkish forces.
However, the error of the Crusaders does not prove that the Temple should not be established in Jerusalem and elsewhere by the power of the spirit; and it is ridiculous if Protestants, just to prevent the Temple idea from growing, twist the words of Christ cited above to mean that we are forbidden to establish the Temple in Jerusalem.
These considerations, which indicate that Jerusalem and Palestine, just as much as any other country, deserve to be the location for Christian activity aimed at spreading the knowledge of God, or, to use the common expression, for missionary activity, adequately justify the Temple Society's endeavor in this country: it has exactly the same rights as the Catholic monasteries and the Protestant missions in Palestine. These considerations, in fact, constitute a perfectly good reason for preferring Jerusalem an d Palestine to any other place, because, as mentioned above, carrying out Christ's work in this country would be an even greater testimony for the power of Christ's spirit than if the same goal were pursued and attained in any other country.
It is all the more remarkable then that our plan to establish the Temple in Jerusalem has been met with the greatest opposition by the representatives of the Protestant missions, especially by the Mission of Basle and their spokesmen in Württemberg. lt is not worth analyzing the origins of this hostility, it is enough to mention that it exists; and as it cannot be put down to ignorance, we have to conclude that the spirit in which these missions are run differs radically from the spirit of the Temple Society.
There is another objection to our activity in Jerusalem, namely that it is wrong to engage in spiritual activity in foreign countries instead of working at home. This objection can be dealt with very briefly, as it concerns every form of missionary enterprise as much, or rather as little, as the Temple Society's endeavor in Jerusalem. In those cases where this objection is sincere, it springs from a narrow-minded patriotism, which has lost sight of the great destiny of Christianity for humanity as a whole and which, if followed through consistently, would take us back to the low spiritual standards of pagan antiquity. It also rests, at least in part, on complete ignorance of the value of spiritual endeavor. This kind of objection is never directed against settlements established in distant countries for the purpose of trade and industry, nor against emigration to America and Australia, nor against scientific expeditions to the North Pole or Central Africa. On the contrary, these enterprises are rightly recognized as a useful expansion of German activity. This leads us to conclude that people think only religious activity is totally worthless, or of such small importance that beneficial consequences for the fatherland cannot be expected. In fact, the opposite is true. Prejudices of this kind, which arise from too narrow a point of view, cannot be overcome by debate but only through actual demonstration, so it is enough just to have mentioned them here.
Inasmuch as establishing the Temple in Jerusalem is the kind of project which can and must be planned and carried out in any other country as well, it needs no further justification, as we have shown above. In addition, we have given enough reasons why the Temple Society, whose resources are scarcely sufficient for missionary work in any one country, should have chosen Palestine, just as the Moravian Brethren chose Capetown, the Mission of Basle chose West Africa and India and other societies chose other fields of activity. Compared with the large-scale activity of the Roman Church, whose missions encompass nearly all the world, such work in a particular country is naturally very limited in scope; however, one can extend one's field of activity and influence only as far as one's resources allow.
Of course, Jerusalem and Palestine have a far greater significance for the Temple Society than simply being preferred as a field of activity. Indeed, it is precisely this deeper significance which has aroused the wrath of the spokesmen for the Protestant missions in Germany to such a degree that they had the temerity to make the monstrous, formal accusation that the Temple Society's intentions for Jerusalem and Palestine "constituted a challenge to God's supreme power." It is thus necessary to shed more light upon this deeper significance that Jerusalem has for us.
We could make our task easier by simply referring to the numerous prophecies of all the prophets of Israel, which describe the bringing together of God's people from their dispersion, the reconstruction of the Temple in Jerusalem as well as the whole city and the whole country, and the blessings which are to flow to all nations from this exemplary people forming the future spiritual center of the world. It would lead too far to quote all these passages, so we shall just mention the most important ones, namely Is. 2:1-5 and 25:6-8, Jer. 31; Ezek. 40-48; Micah 4 and Zech. 4 and 8, also Revelation 11. The more one studies all these prophecies and compares them with the other prophetic utterances, the more one becomes convinced that the "hope of Israel", whose fundamental characteristics we have just quoted, forms the main content of all the biblical prophecies.
If all the fundamentalists in fact totally subordinated their opinions and endeavors to the Holy Scriptures, then the above quotations would naturally suffice to unite all these numerous people in the conviction that the most important aim of Christian activity, and the best way to spread Christian knowledge of God amongst all nations, is to establish a Temple in the spirit of Jesus Christ at Jerusalem, which involves rebuilding the city and the country. But how can we expect a person to submit unconditionally to the authority of the Holy Scriptures, when the content of the Bible, after honest and unprejudiced examination, runs counter to the other opinions, prejudices, hopes and aspirations he has come to cherish?
We cannot expect anyone to accept the importance of building the Temple in Jerusalem and feel obliged to do this just on the word of the prophets. But one thing we can demand: that if a person does not believe the prophets in this point, then he should not call himself a fundamentalist, but should admit to himself and to the world that he believes in Scripture only inasfar as it can be reconciled with his other convictions. Catholics are more honest in this regard: they admit that they base their belief not on Scripture, but on papal and Council edicts. Amongst Protestants, however, partly consciously, partly unconsciously, a form of hypocrisy has crept in, where one declares that one accepts the Bible as the highest authority, while in fact believing things and pursuing aims which agree neither with the spirit nor the letter of Holy Scripture.
In order to retain the appearance of agreement with the Bible, its words are twisted and interpreted until the desired agreement seems achieved. This kind of hypocrisy is the real reason for the many different interpretations, which have led people to believe that the Bible can be interpreted at will and that it is quite impossible to discover what it actually contains. Catholic theologians have also done their share of interpreting, because, for their own peace of mind and that of others, they still found it necessary to assert that their Church agrees exactly with the Bible. Prophecy has always been subjected to this pseudo-exegesis more than other parts of Holy Scripture, and it is therefore no wonder that most people believe it to be quite impossible to find out exactly what the biblical prophecies mean.
In order to refute the numerous exegeses, which have not explained but rather obscured the content of the prophecies, we would have to write whole volumes, which nobody would read anyway. For our purpose, it will suffice to point out two wrong schools of thought, each of which has resulted in a different misunderstanding of prophecy.
Firstly, there is the ecclesiastical Protestant view which, by the way, agrees in essence with the Catholic interpretation. Many Pietists have also reverted to it. In this view, a more perfect realization of the Kingdom of God on earth than the one allegedly being achieved in the life of the Churches is not considered possible. Consequently, any endeavor based on the hope of better times is declared to be idle dreaming. It is true that some nonsensical enterprises which claimed to follow prophecy provide a convenient excuse for this attitude. Such movements as the so-called "millennial Kingdom of the Münster fanatics" at the time of the Reformation, the "New Jerusalem" at Ronsdorf last century and the state organized by the Mormons in Utah in our time serve the Protestant theologians in the same way as the follies of the Adamites in Bohemia, and other excesses in previous centuries, served the Catholic hierarchy. These examples can be used to give people a horror of prophecy and achieve the desired aim of proving that the way the Church goes about things is the only sound and sensible Christian activity. Supported by this convenient opinion, the Protestant Church for centuries totally neglected its calling to persuade all nations to adopt the faith. Finally, some spiritually inspired men from several Protestant countries, unaided by Church authorities, initiated missionary activities, which gradually grew quite extensive.
However, the mission societies of our own time, although outwardly independent of the churches, still follow the spirit, or rather the blueprint of those churches and sects to which their leaders belong; they try very hard to introduce the religious observances practiced at home into the pagan countries, with varying results. Their success is greatest in degenerate and spiritually backward nations, much less in the more educated nations and social classes, almost nil amongst the Mohammedans. But even where missionary activity has found its greatest following, for instance in the Pacific Islands, it is still unable to develop an independent spiritual life in these people and to protect them from the destructive effects of contact with European nations.
This failure is due to the fact that the missions, like the churches, do not have a plan for the spiritual development of man, but believe that the spiritual rebirth which leads to salvation is achieved by accepting the Protestant creed plus the so-called sacraments or perhaps certain emotional states. This misunderstanding makes it impossible to determine the spiritual development of people, and so prevents them from forming a useful, cohesive social structure.
According to prophecy, true missionary activity, i.e. activity that spreads Christianity, consists in Christians creating among themselves such an exemplary spiritual and social community life that the attention of other nations will be attracted. They will be motivated to learn about and imitate this way of life, which brings material benefits as well.
To some extent, present-day European culture is having this effect on pagan and Islamic countries, as is shown by what is happening in Turkey, Persia, Siam, Japan, Madagascar and other places. But European culture has not brought about healthy social and spiritual conditions in Europe itself. Its only advances have been in science and the arts which, in spite of their great impact on everyday life, have not been able to provide a spiritual and moral foundation for this progress, or to further the highest human goals. That is why the penetration of European culture into the Asian and African nations does not result in a genuine overall ennoblement, but only in a veneer of superficial skills and know-how, which cannot engender those virtues which underpin the happiness of individuals, families and nations.
If, therefore, the spreading of civilization is not enough to create better conditions on earth, the missionary activity of the various denominations is justified insofar as it proceeds from the conviction that religion, in other words knowledge of the true God, is the only means for achieving true improvement. However, instead of trying to establish model spiritual and social conditions, the churches make the mistake of relying on activities which have already proved so inadequate here in Europe that the enlightened classes are increasingly turning away from
them.
European civilization has a wide-ranging, but spiritually and morally insufficient and sometimes even damaging effect on pagan nations. In contrast, the activity of the missionary societies is limited to petty proselytizing for the dogmas, rituals and sentiments of their own narrow church circle. Instead of dominating the spread of culture, as the claims of its representatives suggest, the whole of Protestant missionary activity is only a subordinate element in the great current inevitably drawing all continents towards participation in the destiny of Europe. Basically the missions are only furnishing the largest number of schools and teachers, which must contribute towards Europeanizing Islamic and pagan nations.
In saying this we certainly do not want to undervalue the charity work of noble-minded men and women connected with the Catholic and Protestant missions, serving with sacrifice and devotion in hospitals, schools and educational institutions of all kinds in Christian as well as in Islamic and pagan countries. We fully recognize the merit of those who, although motivated by different religious ideas from ours, work for the well-being of their fellow men, and we are willing to learn from them and follow their example in many respects. But we believe that the fruit of their endeavors is damaged by their being bound to inadequate church systems. In any case we note the fact that all these Christian works are less influential in spreading culture than Paris fashions or the new railway tracks and telegraph lines of European and American industrial enterprise.
Since prophecy indicates quite a different way to spread the Kingdom of God, and the Protestant missions deny that their procedures contradict the Bible, the missions are forced to interpret prophecy in such a way as to make it fit in with their procedure. They do this by seeking in church piety all that the prophets predicted about the spiritual improvement of humanity, about the establishment of a social organization founded on divine principles, about a holy city, the Temple and its ceremonies and finally about material prosperity under such social conditions. The churches long ago introduced the teaching that a real people of God, a holy land and a holy city, a real Temple of God and endeavors to improve society are not to be found in the New Testament; that only Catholic and Protestant gatherings, to hear Mass or a sermon or to discuss so-called inner experiences, are permitted; that all striving must be only for salvation beyond the grave - all of which requires a corresponding reinterpretation of prophecy. The missions adapt their procedures to suit this ideology and are consequently compelled to reinterpret, i.e. misinterpret, prophecy in the same way.
Distorting the message of prophecy, ignoring its true meaning and simply giving it a totally different meaning, was described by the high-sounding theological term "spiritual exegesis". Previous eras were more honest and gave this kind of explanation the Greek title of "allegory" i.e. an explanation which produces something quite different from the actual meaning of the words. However, whereas the jews insisted on the letter of the prophecies and of the law in order to uphold their narrow-minded national prejudices in the face of the world-embracing thoughts of Jesus Christ, the apostles for their part established a deeper understanding of Scripture, and in fact practiced a spiritual exegesis, which revealed the true meaning of prophecy. But there is nothing spiritual in attempting to support the religious bigotry of today's sects and churches by an allegorical explanation of prophecy and, in doing so, explaining away the very things that can help us to deal with the troubles and the crying needs of our time.
The weakness of the churches' so-called spiritual exegesis of the prophets has been exposed to some extent by scholarly historical study of the biblical texts in recent times. Gesenius, Hitzig and Ewald are among the so-called agnostic scholars who, free of church prejudices and using modern linguistic and historical methods, have opened up the way to a more accurate understanding of Hebrew literature, which includes the prophets. But the discoveries of these men and their students could not have any beneficial effect, because they did not know enough about Christ to understand the prophets and realize how perfectly compatible they are with Christianity. They did not find in the Law and the prophets what is of crucial importance for current conditions and Christian activity today. Instead they saw in the prophets only literary manifestations of the national spirit of Israel. They applied to them the standards which they had borrowed from totally Greek and Roman writers - standards which were alien and inappropriate. The riddles and obscurities which they naturally encountered by employing this procedure were neatly disposed of by so-called "criticism' which consist ed in using the most far-fetched assumptions and theories as the basis of their historical proofs. lt is known that the same procedure was later used by Dr. Strauss and the scholars of the Tübingen School in dealing with the New Testament. This method aroused so much distrust of biblical research that even some real enlightenment given by these scholars regarding details of Holy Scripture was not paid enough attention to have a positive influence on religious life.
Enough said about this aberration, which is wrongly called spiritual exegesis of prophecy. Now we shall examine the equally false view prevailing mainly in England and North America, but also in Germany, especially in missionary circles. This school of thought accepts the prophecies literally, but avoids applying them by claiming that they were written only for the Jews and can be carried out only by them. We Christians may regard the prophecies as a guideline only in a spiritual, i.e. allegorical, watered-down sense. So this "Jewish" theory really amounts to much the same thing as the old clerical distortion of prophecy, namely: Christian activities should definitely not deviate from the well-trodden path of the church or sect in question, and religious activities should certainly not be measured by the criteria of the Temple Society, which are derived from prophecy. In addition, this false teaching fatuously re-erects the old dividing wall between Jews and gentiles, a wall which Christ and his apostles tore down. This implies that human beings are not all suffering the same misfortune, and that for Jews there is a special path to happiness closed to all others, or where others at least have to wait until the Jews care to go ahead.
We cannot go into all the weird and wonderful opinions which spring from this bizarre world view. We will simply set against it the teachings of Paul, which make sense to every sound mind:
In the Kingdom of God neither descent nor circumcision count; all those in whom Christ's spirit dwells are the true seed of Abraham and the heirs of all the prophetic promises. Through the development of the Kingdom of God, all those groups that have become alienated from their true destiny, including the Jews, are to be regrafted upon the olive tree at last. In the Kingdom of God all the special talents of individual people and individual nations will be useful. So the Jews - once they rejoin the evolutionary process of humanity, from which process the unbelief of their forefathers has excluded them for eighteen hundred years - will also find a place within the greater whole, where all their special gifts and strengths can develop to good effect.
However, a major obstacle to this better future for the jews lies in the folly of many Christians, especially in England, who arbitrarily accord special prerogatives in the Kingdom of God to the Jews, and thus encourage arrogance and other inappropriate attitudes. The English mission to Jews, which is strongly influenced by this error, distinguishes itself unfavorably from other Protestant missions for this reason. It has all the weaknesses which characterize the Protestant and Church missions in general, and adds to them the special error of reverting from the Christian view of prophecy to nationalistic Jewish misconceptions. Therefore their alleged successes do less to further the Kingdom of God than does successful missionary activity among pagans. The conversion of Jews, which is the purpose of this mission, very rarely adds to the spiritual and moral strength of Christianity.
For these reasons, the Temple Society rejects the so-called spiritual exegesis of prophecy, traditionally practiced by the churches, and also the literal Jewish exegesis, which has only recently been reintroduced. But we adhere to the interpretation of prophecy given above, which is in perfect harmony with the spirit of Christ and the apostles. Accordingly, we believe that establishing satisfactory social and spiritual conditions among Christians themselves is the real means of spreading Christianity among all nations. It is not that we condemn the sending of missionaries or preachers and teachers to non-Christians. But as their effectiveness depends entirely upon these nations believing that they can learn something good from them, and as this belief can only be generated through their being impressed by the beneficial effects of Christianity, preaching alone without the background of a truly Christian society is useless.
Jesus Christ himself expressed this in the words: "You are the light for all the world. A town that stands on a hill cannot be hidden".
Furthermore, it is clear from the words of the prophets, and lies in the nature of things, that a spiritual center for all nations, which is based on a society organized according to divine principles, and therefore a Temple which serves as a house of prayer for all nations (Mark 11:17), a holy city (Matt. 5:35), and a holy people and country, definitely do not run counter to Christ's plan of a Kingdom embracing all of humanity. In fact, this is what Christian mission means, namely "one shepherd and one flock". The only question possible, then, is where on our planet such a center of spiritual activity should be built. It will have to incorporate all the branches of science and the arts, and its foundation must be a society in which the Divine Spirit can express itself appropriately for all the world to see. Where on this earth, then, shall this Temple, this dwelling place of God among men, be built?
lt is true that the place does not make the sanctuary -- the power of the Spirit does. There were times when Rome could with some justification be called the Jerusalem of Christians. However, in those times Christianity was at such a low ebb that there could be no question of worship in spirit and in truth; and those who were ahead of their contemporaries in spiritual striving withdrew from city life with its thinly veiled heathen activity into deserts and lonely places. The deserts of Egypt and Palestine with their hermits and monks and the Benedictine monasteries on Monte Cassino and other remote places could more aptly be called centers of Christian spirituality than Rome, Jerusalem, Alexandria or Constantinople. And yet secluded monastic life was the very opposite of what the Holy City was meant to be according to prophecy. Mecca, with its crowds of pilgrims from east and west, looked more like a holy city; but the spiritual limitations of Islam made it even less conducive to a true sanctification of human life than a benighted Christianity.
At the time of the Reformation, Luther's work, which was full of the spirit, made the small town of Wittenberg, for a while at least, a center from which light went forth to all nations. And later on this could be said even more of the small republic of Geneva, because Calvin's spirit had to some degree penetrated social conditions and reformed them, thus making Geneva the center of the spiritual movement in Europe.
Nevertheless all these realizations of the prophecy concerning Jerusalem have remained infinitely far removed from the picture which, for instance, Isaiah paints in Is.60 of the city of God on earth. In our own time, the major centers of European civilization with their conditions and their effects on society resemble this picture even less. They are more reminiscent of the opposite description, in Revelation 17, of a center of debauchery and spiritual degeneration called Babylon the Great.
In contrast, the Temple Society believes in the possibility and necessity of a complete fulfilment of everything the prophets predicted about Jerusalem. Whether this Jerusalem of the future, the center of Salvation, of the spiritual and moral improvement of all humanity, is to be located at the site of the old Jerusalem in Palestine or at some other place on earth - this is a question of secondary importance. We shall not argue with anyone sincerely trying to establish elsewhere a truly Christian society and a spiritual Jerusalem as its center. But we consider that those men, to whom the Spirit could reveal the idea of a spiritual center of humanity, deserve our confidence regarding the location of this center, too, and we hope that by making Jerusalem a reality in the very place mentioned by prophecy (Zech. 12:6), the authority of the prophets, and faith in the more important contents of their prophecy, will be strengthened.
It is worth noting that every great change in the history of mankind has had its God-ordained point of origin on the face of the earth, and although the location and character of the place are not the main thing, neither are they as unimportant as a certain superficial point of view erroneously called "spiritual" would have us believe. The religion and culture which built the pyramids could arise only in Egypt; only under the sky of Ionia could a Homer find the soil for his poetic masterpieces; only in Sparta and Athens could the Hellenic character develop and express itself in the arts and sciences; only upon the Seven Hills on the banks of the Tiber could there develop the Rome that dominated the world, and later the papacy; and it was a decisive step in Mohammed's work when he ordered the Moslems to turn their faces in prayer not towards Jerusalem, as before, but towards Mecca instead. Anyone studying Jerusalem's position in the world, both historically and geographically, will surely be strengthened in the conviction that the prophets also chose the right location.
Finally, if we are asked how building the Temple in Jerusalem (whether this Jerusalem be situated in any other place or at the site of the present Jerusalem) would differ from building it in any other country, we can only answer: the Temple in Jerusalem will have the same essential character as the Temple in any other country, but this character will develop more fully and on a grander scale at a place where the spiritual movements of many nations converge. Similarly, the Catholic rites are the same in Germany as in Rome, and the Moslem ceremonies are the same in Istanbul as they are in Mecca. Yet the essential character of Catholicism and of Islam is expressed more powerfully and influentially in Rome or Mecca than in any other place within the cultures dominated by these centers. In the same way, building the Temple in Jerusalem provides a focus where Christianity can develop the full power of its spiritual, moral and social influence.
The success of this project, which requires the concerted effort of many people, will point the way for human evolution for the next millennium. It will naturally not be achieved without a struggle against the opposing spiritual powers, and consequently it will not be completed all at once, but in several stages. Prophecy provides for this, too.
The Revelation of John distinguishes three epochs in the future of Jerusalem - and we are not ashamed to confess that this much maligned and much misused book, which is full of power and spirit, serves us as a guide through the Labyrinth of present-day conditions.
During the first stage, the Temple in Jerusalem is designed and built amidst nations which oppose it and maintain a hostile attitude towards it. Under these circumstances, it is to be expected that troubles and difficulties will impede its progress and that it will consequently be limited to the bare essentials (Rev.11:1-13).
The second stage is that of the so-called millennium of Jesus Christ on earth, with Jerusalem the recognized center of all civilized nations, i.e. the capital of a country which is regarded by the whole world as a model independent state and nation. Within such a state, it will be possible to undertake without great difficulty projects of such magnitude as the temple that the prophet Ezekiel saw in a vision, through harnessing the resources of a whole nation, with the participation of like-minded nations all over the earth. (Rev.20:1-10).
The third stage is the heavenly Jerusalem, which, after the planet has been renewed following enormous catastrophes, will descend upon a newly created humanity that has been redeemed from death for all eternity. (Rev. 21).
lt would be futile to try to work out how the rules of the Temple will evolve in the second and third stages. We shall therefore leave aside the question of the sacrificial service of the Temple of Ezekiel and also all questions about changes in external nature which will have to precede perhaps the second and certainly the third stage. These questions too, will be answered when the time comes and answers are needed.
Our task, however, and the need of our time, is to build that Temple in Jerusalem which is described in Revelation 11, and on which the prophets of Israel, particularly the last three, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, threw some light in connection with the reconstruction of Jerusalem and the Temple after the return of Israel from Babylon.
This account of the history and the principles of the Temple Society was not written in the expectation that reading it would convince the German public of the truth of these principles and persuade it to join us. The aim of this description of the Temple Society is only to give an accurate picture of our philosophy and how it has evolved, so that everyone can know what we believe and what our intentions are. With the same aim in mind, we add several appendices, in which the constitution of the Temple Society and the present situation of our settlements are described in detail.
The validity of our principles has to be demonstrated by our actions. As the Bible says, "By my deeds I will prove to you my faith". (James 2:18). But we are also obliged to state clearly what the reasons are which guide us in our activities. If one agrees with them, it is his duty to join us. If he believes he knows a better way, he will have to act according to his own convictions.
Later we shall try to prove that it is precisely the Temple Society's philosophy that can bring about a beneficial cultural movement starting in the Orient, which will improve conditions in these countries and nations, and have beneficial repercussions for Western Europe. Another reason why we had to give a fairly detailed account of the Temple Society and what it wants to achieve is to allow our readers to determine whether the philosophy of the Temple Society can be expected to produce such results.
1. The aim of the Temple Society is to build the spiritual temple described in 1 Peter 2:5 - "Come and let yourselves be built, living stones, into a spiritual temple; become a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." Its name is derived from this aim.
2. Although the spiritual Temple is not tied to any particular location, but is meant to be built everywhere, it is of special importance to the Temple Society to establish the Temple in Jerusalem, because of this city's significance for the whole of humanity.
3. in view of the current state of Christianity, the Temple Society has found it necessary to dissociate itself from the existing religious institutions and to form an independent religious society, so as not to be prevented from working towards its aim and not to be distracted by side issues.
4. The Temple Society believes in the power of God, who raised Christ from the dead; thus it is not in conflict with the essential content of the creeds of the existing churches. However, we consider it futile and counter-productive to be bound by individual texts extracted from the Bible, but rather base our teaching solely on the Old and New Testaments, as Luther did.
5. As a guideline for social conduct, the Temple Society recognizes the Law of Moses, interpreted and applied in the spirit of Jesus Christ and his apostles.
6. The Temple Society takes its aims from the biblical prophecies. Jesus Christ's purpose was to fulfil these, hence his followers have the same task.
7. The Temple Society recognizes the Gospel and the writings of the apostles as the model to be followed in trying to achieve its aim, which is to establish the Kingdom of Jesus Christ on earth.
8. According to this model, the main task of the Temple Society consists in furthering the spiritual development of its members. In particular, this involves inculcating Jesus Christ's teaching, which shows itself in loving actions; it also involves striving for ever greater spiritual gifts and powers.
9. In order to make sure that these tasks are carried out and to maintain order and harmony, the members of the Temple Society, as far as local conditions allow, form Communities, which are led by Chairmen or Elders.
10. Besides being generally concerned with the spiritual welfare of the members of their Community, the Chairmen or Elders are responsible in particular for conducting the regular meetings of the community on Sundays and holy days, as well as extraordinary meetings.
11. In view of the fact that most of the divisions among Christians have originated because the essence of faith was replaced by outward symbols and aids to faith, the Temple Society will leave procedure regarding baptism and Communion to the conviction of the individual, until such time as sufficient spiritual unity has developed to make possible a general ruling in accordance with the intentions of Jesus Christ.
12. With respect to secular authorities, the Temple Society is guided by the apostolic injunction: "Every person must submit to the supreme authorities." (Romans 13:1).
13. The conditions of admission to and exclusion from membership are implicit in the above paragraphs; the Chairmen or Elders are responsible for their implementation.
Back to Index your Email comments are invited to Alfred Klink
last updated 15 February 2002