Talk:The Christian Community

marriage in the Christian community

This article has no non-anthroposophical references. It is in violation of the arbitration rulings concerning anthroposophy-related articles and has been so for months. If adequate, non-anthroposophical sources are not cited in the next week or so, I will propose it for deletion.DianaW 03:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a Christian denomination

It’s POV to claim that The Christian Community is Christian. Other churches don’t agree. For example, the Catholic Church tries to recognize as many baptisms as possible. But not even the Catholic Church can recognize the baptism of the The Christian Community [1]. The ideas of The Christian Community are not accepted as Christian by any of the churches in the main branches of Christianity. “Infobox Christian denomination” is unsuitable; I'll look for another infobox now, one that doesn’t classify the group as “Christian”. Jan Arvid Götesson (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

This seems a bit problematic. The Christian Community was founded by christian priests. Though they developed some peculiar and unorthodox beliefs, Jesus remains in the center of their belief system. Members of the Christian Community see themselves as christians. It's absolutely ok to mention that major denominations regard some sacraments like baptism as invalid in their eyes. But that doesn't make the CC a non-christian movement. 500 years after the reformation there is no longer an organization that can confirm or deny the belonging to Christianity for all. Though there are definitively esoteric elements within in the CC, it doesn't help to classify them as "esotericism". The CC still has more things in common with other christian denominations than say with Wicca or Neopaganism. --Zinnmann (talk) 10:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Zinnmann:Thanks for your response. First I want to say that I’m not arguing as a member of a Church wanting to distinguish Christian faith from the ideas of The Christian Community. I’m looking at this objectively. These are my responses to your comments:

Zinnmann wrote: “The Christian Community was founded by christian priests.”

My response: This is an empty statement. Obviously, if you were born in Europe in the 19th century and were interested in spiritual questions, you would start out from a Christian tradition, because that was all that existed around you, unless you were one of the few Jews. Your statement is almost equal to ”The Christian Community started in Europe”. It had to start somewhere. Baháʼí is not Muslim, but it arose among devout Muslims in Persia.

Zinnmann wrote: “they developed some peculiar and unorthodox beliefs”

My response: They didn’t develop “some” peculiar and unorthodox beliefs. They developed ideas – their main ideas – that are incompatible with Christian beliefs.

Zinnmann wrote: ”Jesus remains in the center of their belief system”

My response: Anybody who knows anything about the anthroposophical movements knows that Rudolf Steiner is at the centre. The anthroposophical movements are a cult centered on a person. It’s naïve to take at face value how followers present their organisations. COMMENT 18 September 2020: THIS TEXT HAS BEEN DELETED FOR REASONS EXPLAINED FURTHER DOWNLet me compare with a political party. Wikipedia says this: ”Parts of the AfD have racist, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, and xenophobic tendencies linked to far-right movements such as neo-Nazism and the Identitarian movement.” AfD wouldn’t approve of that description; the description is based on objective observation of AfD. In the same way, anthroposophical movements must be described on the basis of what they actually think and do, not on their promotional materials. The centre of their thinking is the ideas of Rudolf Steiner. Further, their Christology is so different that there is hardly a Christian Christ‑figure at the centre.

Zinnmann wrote: ”Members of the Christian Community see themselves as christians.”

My response: Irrelevant. The decisive fact is that they have developed ideas that are impossible to even contemplate in a Christian context, such as reincarnation and karma.

Zinnmann wrote: “It's absolutely ok to mention that major denominations regard some sacraments like baptism as invalid in their eyes. But that doesn't make the CC a non-christian movement.”

My response: You are playing down the importance of this. Today all major Christian churches do everything they can to be as welcoming as they can to individuals who belong to other denominations. Read the catechism of the Catholic Church, for example. Churches do their outmost to recognize individuals as baptized. But the ideas and practices of The Christian Community are so different, so that no Christian church is able to recognize that The Christian Community are baptising people. Baptism is fundamental in Christianity, and the fact that The Christian Community does not have a Christian baptism means that they are “a non‑christian movement”.

Zinnmann wrote: “500 years after the reformation there is no longer an organization that can confirm or deny the belonging to Christianity for all”.

My response: The only way to answer the question “who belongs to Christianity?” is to study what the Christian churches say, and form a judgement based on that. It’s a bit similar to the question ”Which are the sovereign states of the world?” No-one has the power to decide that; you have to study what all sovereign states say about that. The objective answers are that the Principality of Sealand is not a sovereign state, and The Christian Community is not part of Christianity.

Zinnmann wrote: ”Though there are definitively esoteric elements within in the CC”

My response: You are downplaying again. There are not just some esoteric elements mingled into otherwise normal Christian thinking in The Christian Community. The very different, novel, un‑Chistian and Steiner‑centric ideas permeate the lives, thinking and practices of the long-standing members of the anthroposophical movements. The only exceptions might be some new followers who are not yet deeply involved.

Zinnmann wrote: ”it doesn't help to classify them as ‘esotericism’.”

My reponse: Sorry, I don't understand that. Help for what? The only question is what classification is best. “Christian” is a worse classification than ”Esotericism”.

Zinnmann wrote: ”The CC still has more things in common with other christian denominations than say with Wicca or Neopaganism.”

My response: That is not relevant. The only relevant question is whether The Christian Community is outside what can reasonably be recognized as Christian. They are outside, by a wide margin, so it’s not relevant if other groups are further away. Besides, The Christian Community is arguably as far away from Christian churches as the movements you mentioned. As I said before, all anthroposophical movements are cults centered on a person active in the twentieth century COMMENT 18 September 2020: THIS TEXT HAS BEEN DELETED FOR REASONS EXPLAINED FURTHER DOWN(like Scientology is centered on L. Ron Hubbard) and the similarities of the The Christian Community with Christian churches are superficial borrowings, despite the original Christian faith of many of the original founders. Jan Arvid Götesson (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

What's the central idea of christianity? I would say: Jesus of Nazareth was/is the son of god. He died on the cross in order to save the world. He was resurrected. All of this is accepted within the CC. Judaism and Islam on the other hand accept Jesus as historical figure, but deny his divine nature. How would you define the least common denominator of all christian sects? --Zinnmann (talk) 08:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

We both don’t have English as our first language, so first I want to say that I use the word Cult in the relatively modern, English sense.

You ask, “What's the central idea of christianity?” and you continue that you “would say: Jesus of Nazareth was/is the son of god. He died on the cross in order to save the world. He was resurrected. All of this is accepted within the CC.”.

The ideas of the members of The Christian Community are very different to the thinking of Christian churches. So different that it is not obviously true that the three short sentences you wrote are “accepted within the CC”!

But that is not the main point. The main point is that all branches of anthroposophy are a cult (in the English sense) centered on the person Rudolf Steiner. So even if The Cristian Community did have a Christ-figure in its belief system that is a bit similar to the Christ of Christian churches (which is probably not true), that Christ-figure is not at the centre. This means The Christian Community is not Christian.

Exactly defining the least common denominator of all Christian sects doesn’t add anything to the discussion. The reason can be explained in three steps.

1. Rudolf Steiner is the main source of inspiration for anthroposophists, including The Christian Community; for many or most he is an authority.

2. Rudolf Steiner had a complicated system of thought that was very different to anything taught by any Christian Church.

3. Hence it follows that The Cristian Community is bound to move away very far from the common denominator of the Churches. Further, there is no force attracting The Christian Community back to Christian beliefs, because the centre of their world is the teachings of Rudolf Steiner. Jan Arvid Götesson (talk) 12:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course, Steiner and his ideas are of great importance for the CC. I wouldn't deny for a second that a lot of the beliefs within the CC are pretty far from mainstream christianity. But that doesn't make them non-Christian. As said before, it's ok to state that most major denominations don't accept the baptism of the CC. But since there is no official institution that validates cults as Christian or non-Christian, we only can operate with the belief systems of these cults. What do the have in common? What sets them apart? Mormonism is a similar case. They may not be recognized by other denominations as Christian. But since they refer to Jesus of Nazareth, his death and resurrection, it makes no sense to regard them as non-Christian. How would you distinguish these "fringe Christians" in terms of definition from the "real Christians"? And how would you label the union of both groups? --Zinnmann (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

You do not respond to my main argument. My main argument is as follows. The anthroposophical movements is one of the cults that have grown up around certain individuals during the twentieth century. COMMENT 18 September 2020: THIS TEXT HAS BEEN DELETED FOR REASONS EXPLAINED FURTHER DOWNOther examples are the Lyndon LaRouche movement and the L. Ron Hubbard movement. It is a fact that individuals, in our era, quite often become psychologically trapped in cults (in the modern English sense of the word). In the case of the anthroposophical movements, the fixation on the individual Rudolf Steiner and his ideas are at the centre. In the case of The Christian Community, the ideas of Rudolf Steiner is at the centre, not the old tradition about Jesus. The references that Rudolf Steiner and his followers make to Christ are extremely different to the older Christian beliefs about Jesus; that fact alone probably makes The Christian Community non‑Christian, but that’s not the main point. The main point is that some kind of story about Christ is not at the centre of the actual world view of The Christian Community. What is your response to that argument?

I want to add that Wikipedia is objective and must not rely on a movement’s official presentation of itself. COMMENT 18 September 2020: THIS TEXT HAS BEEN DELETED FOR REASONS EXPLAINED FURTHER DOWNOn the web site scientology.org we can read this: “Developed by L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology is a religion that offers a precise path leading to a complete and certain understanding of one’s true spiritual nature and one’s relationship to self, family, groups, Mankind, all life forms, the material universe, the spiritual universe and the Supreme Being.” However, Wikipedia correctly states that the Church of Scientology is “variously defined as a cult, a business or a new religious movement … the church has been described … as both a cult and a manipulative profit-making business … an anti-constitutional sect … a dangerous cult … In some countries, it has managed to attain legal recognition as a religion”. That’s a fair description.

In the same way, a fair description of The Christian Community must be based on the fact that their belief system is determined by the ideas of Rudolf Steiner.

It’s important to respond to all arguments in a discussion, so I’ll comment again on the rest of your post; I apologize for writing long messages.

Zinnmann wrote: “Of course, Steiner and his ideas are of great importance for the CC. I wouldn't deny for a second that a lot of the beliefs within the CC are pretty far from mainstream christianity.”

My response: Again you downplay. His ides are not of “great importance”, they are totally decisive for the thoughts and practices of members of the anthroposophical movements, since they are a person‑centered cult. The beliefs are not “pretty far from mainstream christianity” they are fundamentally different. The reason is that the beliefs have a different source: not the scripture and tradition of churches, but the whims of Rudolf Steiner. Rudolf Steiner used some things from Christian tradition, such as the names ”Christ” and ”Jesus”, but in a superficial way for his own purposes. Zinnmann wrote: “But that doesn't make them non-Christian.”

My response: The fact that their beliefs have a different source, a source that has no deeper similarity to Christian tradition, does make them non‑Christian.

Zinnmann wrote: “As said before, it's ok to state that most major denominations don't accept the baptism of the CC.”

My response: This is a basic fact that must be included in the article under any circumstances. I get the impression that you suggest this as a compromise between the statements “They are Christian” and “They are not Christian”. But an irrefutable fact is not a compromise.

Zinnmann wrote: “But since there is no official institution that validates cults as Christian or non-Christian”

My response: Official institutions with powers to validate do not exist in most contexts. COMMENT 18 September 2020: THIS TEXT HAS BEEN DELETED FOR REASONS EXPLAINED FURTHER DOWNIn history for example, we can only look at global consensus. David Irving is no longer presented as a “historian” in Wikipedia because it is no longer possible to give him the benefit of the doubt that he has honestly tried to respect what historical sources say. So you are right that “we only can operate with the belief systems of these cults. What do the have in common? What sets them apart?” Fine. Let’s do what you suggest. The result of such an analysis will be that the belief system of The Christian Community is cultish adherence to Rudolf Steiner. You erroneously base your argument on the fact that a few things from Christian churches have been superficially plastered onto Rudolf Steiner’s ideas, in a very changed form.

Zinnmann wrote: “Mormonism is a similar case. They may not be recognized by other denominations as Christian. But since they refer to Jesus of Nazareth, his death and resurrection, it makes no sense to regard them as non-Christian. How would you distinguish these "fringe Christians" in terms of definition from the "real Christians"? And how would you label the union of both groups?” My response: :Other groups are not relevant to this article. It is not necessary for this article to distinguish all ”fringe Christians” from all ”real Christians”. When we look at The Christian Community in isolation, as we should, we can see that they have something other than a traditional gospel‑based belief in Jesus as the ”motor” of their belief system. That’s the only relevant fact. Jan Arvid Götesson (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Please, let's try to keep this discussion structured. For future readers it is easier to follow the discussion if we answer each other in indented blocks.

You are focusing very much on the person of Steiner. That is legitimate, but it cannot answer the question of the belonging to Christianity. The vast majority of Christian denominations go back to individuals and reflect their ideas. This is the case with Paul the Apostle and the early christendom as well as with Arianism. Luther, Calvin, Hutter etc. are further examples. They all take up the faith practiced at their time and supplement it with their own reflections. Without these additions, there would not be the multitude of denominations, since a splitting off would not be necessary. And of course the remaining members of the old community regard the newcomers as heretics, as no true Christians. Conclusion: The reference to a central founding figure is no proof of non-belonging to Christianity.

The comparison with LaRouche and Hubbard does not lead anywhere either. The LaRouche Movement sees itself primarily as a political movement. And although Scientology's status as a church is disputed, the organization is here categorized as a "new religious movement".

What is still missing is a definition of the defining core of Christianity. You don't have a definition, but at the same time you are very sure to know which elements do not meet this definition. That's a contradiction.

At the very top you have already referred to the assessment of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which regards the baptism of the CC as invalid. Let me supplement this with the assessment of the "Evangelische Zentralstelle für Weltanschauungsfragen" of the Evangelical Church in Germany. Their conclusion is: "Der von Steiner geformte Kultus, sein Vollzug und sein Erleben, hat in der CG die gleiche Autorität wie die biblischen Schriften. Insofern handelt es sich bei der „Christengemeinschaft – Bewegung für religiöse Erneuerung“ um ein anthroposophisch interpretiertes Christentum neben den konfessionellen Kirchen." Roughly translated this means: "The religious life formed by Steiner, its execution and experience, has the same authority in the CC as the biblical scriptures. In this respect, the 'Christian Community - Movement for Religious Renewal' is an anthroposophically interpreted Christianity alongside the confessional churches". Both organisations therefore clearly distance themselves from the CC. However, neither church claims that it is an explicitly non-Christian group. --Zinnmann (talk) 08:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Let me begin by replying to your fourth paragraph, where you said, ”What is still missing is a definition of the defining core of Christianity”. I would tentatively suggest this definition: The core of Christianity is that the teachings of Jesus, as transmitted in Scripture (faithfully to his words or garbled, we cannot know which), together with some early Christian creeds, is the determining factor in the spiritual life of the Christian individual.

Secondly I want to say something about my sources. I have been informed by insiders about the ideas of members of The Christian Community, including priests. I have been informed about the ideas of the followers in the early twentieth century, before I was born.

Thirdly I want to say that I don’t try to win arguments. I’m only interested in achieving the best description of things for the hundreds of Wikipedia articles I edit (most of them not on the English‑language version of Wikipedia). I might agree in the end that the word “Christian” should be included in the classification of The Christian Community. My reason for starting this discussion is that I think it’s not correct to classify The Christian Community as ”Christian”; at least there needs to be a qualification such as “Esoteric Christian” or “Fringe Christian” or “Syncretistic Christian”.

Fourthly I want to explain why this post is long. The reason is that you and I propose two different interpretations of the nature of The Christian Community. You think that The Christian Community is a Christian splinter group, comparable to, say, Waldensians, that they are Christians who were dissatisfied with the established Church. I on the other hand argue the The Christian Community is a cult whose origins lie outside Christianity, and its beliefs and practices are determined by a non‑Christian source.

Now I can return to your introductory statement. You wrote that I focus very much on the person of Steiner. The reason is that the person Steiner, not the tradition about Jesus, is the driving force in the spiritual lives of the members of The Cristian Community. You wrote: “The reference to a central founding figure is no proof of non-belonging to Christianity”. That depends on what the founding figure does. If the founding figure is not Christian and inspires some Christian people to form certain beliefs, it’s possible that the resulting religion is not Christian.

I’m sure we can agree that for reasons not fully understood – they could be biological or cultural factors, or both – human beings in our era usually have intellectual, cultural and spiritual interests and needs. We all begin life with no knowledge or experience. Then we start our life journey and develop a world view.

Some people join cults. The article Cult says that “In modern English, a cult is a social group that is defined by its unusual religious, spiritual, or philosophical beliefs, or by its common interest in a particular personality, object or goal … It is usually considered pejorative … a derived sense of ‘excessive devotion’ arose in the 19th century”.

There is a big difference between, on the one hand, having an ordinary faith or conviction, and, on the other hand, being in a cult. An ordinary religious person, for example a priest in a mainstream Church, is possible to have an intellectual discussion with. A member of a cult on the other hand has a mind that will shut down if one tries to have a conversation with that person. COMMENT 18 September 2020: THIS TEXT HAS BEEN DELETED FOR REASONS EXPLAINED FURTHER DOWNThe reason why I mentioned the movements started by Lyndon LaRouche and L. Ron Hubbard is that they are cults. A cult need not be religious. Political cults have in common with The Christian Community the fixation on something that normal people can see is idiotic. This sets cults apart from most Christian churches.

There are Christian groups that are cults, for example Exclusive Brethren. But the members of a group such as Exclusive Brethren are, in their way, trying to follow Jesus, whilst the spiritual life of members of The Christian Community is determined by the writings of Rudolf Steiner.

Let me return to my image that we start out on a journey in life with little knowledge, but we have an innate human predisposition to have intellectual, cultural or spiritual interests. Some people have strong tendencies to look for ”meaning” and “answers”, or “a good cause”, religious or non‑religious. Some of us are unlucky enough to step on a “land mine”: we may accidentally encounter a cult, before we are intellectually mature enough to dismiss their claims. Cults are by definition very stupid. It’s hard for knowledgeable people to understand how anybody can be interested in them. But millions of people are involved in idiotic things such as biodynamic agriculture and homoeopathy, because they were intellectually unprepared when they first stepped on the ”land mine”.

We outsiders can see that the ideas and writings of Rudolf Steiner are uninteresting, boring, anti‑intellectual impossible to discuss intellectually and whimsical. But they form the basis of a cult. This makes the case of Rudolf Steiner different to the cases of Martin Luther and other people you mentioned, who have influenced a particular Christian denomination. A reformer such as Martin Luther doesn’t remove the “defining core of Christianity” as the determining factor in the spiritual lives of the the followers. Which Rudolf Steiner did. The big difference between The Christian Community and real Christian denominations is that the teachings of Rudolf Steiner is the factor that determines how the minds of members of The Cristian Community work, not the Bible. You wrote: ”Conclusion: The reference to a central founding figure is no proof of non-belonging to Christianity”. My response is: If a founding figure comes up with something that replaces the ”defining core of Christianity” with something that is not Christian in the minds of his (perhaps previously Christian) followers, a description of the founder (or “reference”) is proof that the group in not Christian.

The word “replaces” is perhaps not optimal, because it suggests that The Christian Community are all people who have been converted from Christianity. I would rather say that Rudolf Steiner has created a new kind of spiritual entity, where ”Rudolf Steiner’s thinking” holds the place that ”the core of Christianity” will hold in a Christian denomination, and ”the Core of Islam” will hold in a Muslim group. It is true that ”Rudolf Steiner’s thinking” includes a few words and other things that are taken from Christianity. But that doesn’t mean that ”Rudolf Steiner’s thinking” has much of a connection to “the core of Christianity”.

So, my argument is 1) that the spiritual core of The Christian Community is “Rudolf Steiner’s thinking”; 2) that this thinking is not Christian; 3) that The Christian Community is therefore not Christian; 4) that resemblances between Christian ideas and “Rudolf Steiner’s thinking” are superficial borrowings; and 5) that The Christian Community is unable to move towards Christianity because it is a cult centred on Rudolf Steiner, and that – like all cult members – the members of The Christian Community are not psychologically capable of discussion. Those five points is the hypothesis I suggest in this discussion. You have been reluctant to argue directly against my hypothesis. For example, you protest that it not true that The Christian Community is cultishly, slavishly bound to Rudolf Steiner’s pronouncements. Instead you present a different description. I think this is a fair summary of your argument: 1. There were some Christians in Central Europe. 2. An independent thinker, Rudolf Steiner came along with some unusual ideas to them. 3. The people who listened to Rudolf Steiner started a new Christian group. 4. Other Christian groups say this new Christian group has distorted Christianity, but that is not evidence that the new group is not Christian, because Christian groups tend to condemn one another. 5. All new Christian groups are shaped by founding figures, but the core of Christianity usually remains. 6. Hence The Christian Community is Christian.

You seem to be uncomfortable with the suggestion that the members of The Christian Community, or the believers in any of the other idiocies that the irresponsible Rudolf Steiner started, are pitiful beings who will in most cases remain psychologically trapped in a cult for the rest of their lives. There is a big difference between on the one hand Steiner‑people and, say, an old Russian woman who has an icon corner or a Dominican friar. Talking to a pious Orthodox woman or a Dominican is meaningful, because there is old culture, beauty and sometimes interesting thoughts in their traditions, and often there is self reflection, openness and doubt. But talking to members of twentieth‑century cults is just depressing. Disciples of Rudolf Steiner have in common with other cult members that the way out of the cult to a better life is usually not intellectual reasoning, but a personal crisis where they see they have wasted a big part of their lives on something humiliatingly stupid.

I can read German, but thanks for the translation from the Evangelical Church in Germany. Wikipedia must respect sources, so it is relevant that the Evangelical Church in Germany says ”ein anthroposophisch interpretiertes Christentum neben den konfessionellen Kirchen”.

I would like to quote another assessment published by the Evangelical Church in Germany, about anthroposophy. The Christian Community and anthroposophy are the same thing; in the context of cults there is no such thing as independence, even if the The Christian Community claims to be independent. Therefore it’s relevant to read the „Einschätzung“ of anthroposophy published by the Evangelical Church in Germany [2]. The bold font below is mine.

Einschätzung

Anthroposophie ist eine esoterische Weltanschauung, deren Hauptquelle nicht diskutierbar ist, da sie nur von einem „Eingeweihten“ eingesehen werden kann. Da das Menschenbild ebenso wie das Christus- und das Gottesbild aus dieser Quelle zu sein beanspruchen und nicht biblischen Ursprungs sind, erscheint Anthroposophie mit den Grundlagen aller christlichen Kirchen unvereinbar:

•  An die Stelle des in Jesus Mensch gewordenen Gottes tritt eine unhistorische ewige Christus-Wesenheit.

•  An die Stelle der Gnade Gottes, die den Schuldigen annimmt und ihm die Schuld abnimmt, tritt die Notwendigkeit, aus eigener Kraft das negative Karma abzuarbeiten.

•  An die Stelle der verheißenen Auferstehung tritt Reinkarnation – eine Folge vieler Erdenleben.

•  Neben die Bibel tritt als Quelle der Christus-Erkenntnis das „Fünfte Evangelium“ aus der „Akasha-Chronik“.

(Google translate does a good job of translating, if readers don’t know German.)

Personally I think that the polite language used by the Evangelical Church in Germany („ein anthroposophisch interpretiertes Christentum neben den konfessionellen Kirchen”) is motivated by pity and respect for the unfortunate members of The Christian Community as human beings. As I wrote earlier, Christian churches try to find as much common ground with other human beings as possible. The Evangelical Church in Germany realises, like we all do, that anthroposophists are stuck in a cult.

Conclusion and suggestion: The problem currently is that The Christian Community is classified and Categorised as “Christian”, which is factually incorrect. As I said initially, a minimum requirement is that a qualifier is added, such as “Esoteric Christian” or “Fringe Christian” or “Syncretistic Christian”. Jan Arvid Götesson (talk) 09:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

It’s regrettable that discussion has stopped and nobody has joined the conversation. I have written long posts; this could be seen as Bludgeoning the discussion, id est having one’s way by the volume and repetitiveness of one’s contributions to a discussion. My excuse is that I’ve been careful to respond to all counterarguments, and that have tried to explain something that is counterintuitive: Despite the claim of the The Christian Community to have “Christ” at the centre of their faith, the classification and categorization of The Christian Community as “Christian” is incorrect because the spiritual lives of members is determined by on non‑Christian source. I would be grateful for responses to my argument. Jan Arvid Götesson (talk) 03:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I still do not agree, but unfortunately don't have time to continue the discussion at this moment. --Zinnmann (talk) 06:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

All the bizarre walls of text about Irving and other totally unrelated outrages that have nothing to do with the Christian Community clearly demonstrate what we are dealing with here. I have removed the recent propaganda edits by Jan Arvid Götesson. This is an encyclopedic article, not Jan Arvid Götesson's blog.

The Christian Community was founded by ordained Lutheran priests, and its founder was probably Germany's leading liberal Lutheran theologian in the WWI period, and from the start it was rather ecumenically oriented and liberal in its theological views. Claims that the Christian Community "isn't a Christian community" is essentially a fringe perspective, typically held by extreme fundamentalists belonging to other churches of the more extremist and anti-liberal kind, often so-called "free churches" themselves founded by laypeople (such as "Brunstad Christian Church") in opposition to established churches, priests, the government and academic theology.

It is unsurprising that The Christian Community, with its very liberal views regarding both Christianity and other religions, ecumenical focus and traditionally elite membership, is unpopular among Christian fundamentalists who hold opposite views in every regard. --Ilsori (talk) 00:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, Steiner is not the founding figure of the Christian Community, something he was very clear about himself. The founder of the Christian Community was Friedrich Rittelmeyer, the well-known liberal Lutheran theologian. While he sought advice from Steiner and was inspired by Steiner's writings about Christianity, the core basis of the Christian Community is Christianity and Jesus Christ, and the main tradition that it arose from was Liberal Christianity, which they took a step further in what could be said to an ultra-liberal direction (in the sense that they reject dogmas, view other religions than Christianity as equally valid). The Christian Community is not the same as anthroposophy. Most people involved with various parts of the loose anthroposophical movement don't even belong to the Christian Community (but other religions/denominations, or no religion at all). --Ilsori (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ilsori: The first problem with your comment and your edits is that you are angry. Calm down; Wikipedia is a collaborative project.

The second problem is that you edited the article immediately without seeking consensus on this discussion page. When I saw that the user Zinnmann objected, I stopped editing the article and discussed with Zinnmann.

The third problem is that you start out by focussing on a user (me) instead of the question at hand. You write “bizarre walls of text” and “recent propaganda edits”. I'm sure impartial readers would agree that my edits were not unreasonable, even if they didn’t agree with me.

The fourth problem with your comment and your edits is that you take everything that those involved with the Christian Community say at face value. The only important thing is what the Christian Community actually is, not the biographies of the founders, or what the founders and their followers have said and say that they are. You complain about my comparisons with other persons and groups that are described in an unflattering manner on Wikipedia. Those examples of mine – admittedly quite wordy – are there for a reason. I wanted to show how Wikipedia, when it functions well, tells the truth about things. COMMENT 18 September 2020: THIS TEXT HAS BEEN DELETED FOR REASONS EXPLAINED FURTHER DOWNThe first sentence of Scientology is as follows: “Scientology is a set of beliefs and practices invented by American author L. Ron Hubbard, and an associated movement. It has been variously defined as a cult, a business or a new religious movement.[2][3][4][5][6][7]”. That’s not flattering – “invented”, “cult” – but it’s the consensus among those of us who are not involved in scientology. In the same way, the Christian Community should be described on the basis of what they do and are, not what they claim.

The main mistake in your comment is that you say that my texts “clearly demonstrate what we are dealing with here”, but then you fail to explain what has been demonstrated. You assert that “[c]laims that the Christian Community ‘isn't a Christian community’ is essentially a fringe perspective, typically held by extreme fundamentalists belonging to other churches of the more extremist and anti-liberal kind”, but that has nothing to do with what I have written, since I have nothing to do with fundamentalists or any other group. My texts cannot have demonstrated a hostility towards the Christian Community that is inspired by certain ”other churches of the more extremist and anti-liberal kind” since I have no connection to any such group and have no regard for their opinions.

Your assertion that my views are a “fringe perspective” is incorrect. The main churches, wanting to be charitable and welcoming of all people, cannot recognise the baptism of the Christian Community, which is the strongest indication that they do not recognise the Christian Community as Christian.

Finally, the undisputed facts that Steiner is formally not the founding figure of the Christian Community, that Friedrich Rittelmeyer and others had a background in liberal Christianity, and that the Christian Community has only a partial overlap with anthroposophy cannot change the judgement of objective outsiders: the Christian Community is a cult centred on the non-Christian ideas of Rudolf Steiner.

One more thing: It’s childish behaviour not to sign with your real name. If you don’t sign with your name, you have no right to criticise other people. I know Wikipedia allows these infantile pseudonyms, but honourable people sign with their name. Jan Arvid Götesson (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

There isn't really much point in responding to walls of text about David Irving, who has absolutely no connection to the Christian Community, and no similarity whatsoever with what is essentially a very liberal Christian congregation founded by a group of academic theologians and theology students in Switzerland in 1922 as a reaction to the First World War. Going on about scientiology, a commercial organization founded by an American fraudster with no serious background in theology, serves no serious purpose either. They are treated entirely differently in the countries where they operate: The German government views scientology as an anti-constitutional/extremist commercial sect; obviously the German government doesn't view the Christian Community in that way, and the only time they did was during the Nazi regime.

Conservative and fundamentalist Christians are on the completely opposite end of the spectrum from the Christian Community with its liberal views; the fact that some of those question the "Christian-ness" of the Christian Community is already addressed in an appropriate manner, but we don't write the entire article based solely on the opinion of the most conservative or fundamentalist members of competing churches. We don't write the entire article on liberal Christianity, or other topics related to liberal Christianity, based on how the Catholic Church views them either, even though the latter has far more members. Liberal Christian groups, which are often western and more academically oriented, have always been fairly small when compared to all the Christians of the world, but that is no reason write about them solely from an ultra-conservative worldview. --Ilsori (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ilsori: 1. You behave like an edit warrior. You edit the article at the same time as you post on the discussion page. Behave yourself. Wikipedia is a collaborative project.

2. You ignore, deliberately or (more likely) because you are blinded by your ideas, the main points of my argument, and you talk about unimportant things instead. Therefore I have to repeat my two main points:

3. First, it is not possible to write a correct Wikipedia article about organisations and people if you take at face value what organisations and people write about themselves (or take at face value what people sympathetic or hostile to them write). When we discuss what an objective description of the Christian Community would be, it is relevant but not decisive that the founders of the Christian Community were Christian; it is relevant but not decisive that the organisation now claims to be Christian.

4. Second, the Christian Community is a cult, in the modern English meaning of the word, centered on the pronouncements of Rudolf Steiner. This would only be an assertion, if I didn’t back it up with evidence. I'll do that in point 8.

5. You should stop claiming that the judgement that the Christian Community is arguably not Christian is based on ”the opinion of the most conservative or fundamentalist members of competing churches”. Secular people who takes the time to study this boring subject will come to the conclusion that a slavish adherence to the (mind-numbingly uninteresting) statements of Rudolf Steiner determines the beliefs and practices of the Christian Community.

6. Stop with your ad hominem attacks. I do not write ”walls of text”. I patiently lay out a logical argument. It would be good if other wikipedians were willing to join this discussion. Even if they did not agree with my conclusions, honest people would agree that I put forward a coherent argument.

7. You – again – return to the fact that I mentioned people and organisations as examples of the fact that Wikipedia articles do no take what people say about themselves at face value. My argument would be the same if I hadn’t mentioned them. The only way to stop you from continuing your irrelevant references to those comparisons is the delete such mentions from my previous posts. (Since we don not actually delete text from discussions I will use strikethrough, like I have done here). As you can see, if you look at the passages above with strikethrough, my argument remains the same after I delete all references to those persons and organisations; your repeated complaints are a distraction.

8. I now return to the point that the Cristian Community is a cult centered on the random pronouncements of Rudolf Steiner. An example is baptism, which is central to Christian churches. I quote from Die Christengemeinschaft in Deutschland [3]:

Das Kind, das bis zur Pubertät noch auf dem Weg vom Himmel zu Erde ist, wird in der Christengemeinschaft nicht in Wasser getaucht. Es wird an drei Orten des Leibes mit geweihten Substanzen berührt: mit Wasser, Salz und Asche. (The child … is not immersed in water in the Christian Community. It is touched in three places of its body with consecrated substances: water, salt and ashes.)

We may compare this with Rudolf Steiner: “Achtzenter Vortrag, 5 Oktober 1921, vormittags” on page 370 in Vorträge und Kurse über christlich-religiöses Wirken II. Spirituelles Erkennen Religiöses Empfinden Kultisches Handeln. Neunundzwanzig Vorträge mit Fragenbeantwortungent gehalten in Dornach vom 26. September bis I0. Oktober 1921. Bibliographie-Nr. 343 (1):

Nun werde ich Ihnen schildern — wie gesagt, alle diese Dinge sind natürlich im Werden —, wie etwa die Taufhandlung vollzogen werden kann, nachdem ich auf diese Weise versucht habe, Sie darauf aufmerksam zu machen, daß man zu den Substanzen der Welt ein anderes Verhältnis haben muß, als es der heutige Zeitgeist hat. Nun hat man zu der Taufhandlung vorzubereiten drei kleine Gefäße, die eigentlich die folgende Form haben sollten von der Seite gesehen (es wird an die Tafel gezeichnet), so daß man sie so anordnen kann auf einem Tischchen. In diesen drei Gefäßen hat man etwas Wasser, Salz und Asche. Die Imagination ergibt, daß man eigentlich reine Holzasche verwenden sollte. Das Tischchen — ich werde später über diese Dinge noch zu sprechen haben auf dem diese Gefäße stehen, ist am besten mit einem blauen Teppich oder dergleichen belegt. Die drei Gefäße stehen dann auf einem roten Deckchen und sind so angeordnet, wie ich es hier gezeichnet habe. (Attempt at translation: Now I shall describe to you – as stated before, all these things are things in the making – approximatley how the act on baptism may be performed, after I have tried in this way to draw your attention to the fact that one must have a different relationship to the substances of the world than the zeitgeist of today has. One should prepare three small vessels for the act of baptism, which should really have this shape, seen from the side [picture is drawn on the blackboard] so that one can arrange them on a small table. In these three vessels one puts some water, some salt and some ash. Imagination would have that one should really use pure wood ash. The small table – I shall have to talk about these things later – on which the vessels stand, is preferably covered with a blue carpet or something similar. The three vessels then stand on a red doily and are arranged in the fashion I have drawn here.)

We see that the Christian Community has taken its bizarre ritual from the ramblings of Rudolf Steiner. Baptism is central in Christianity. Below is a quote from Håndbok for den norske kirkes medlemsregister. Veiledning i bruk. Den norske kirke, Kirkerådet, 2017. (Church of Norway, 2017)

Enkelte religiøse samfunn, for eksempel kristensamfunnet eller mormonerne, har også en type dåp, men denne regnes ikke som en kristen dåp. (A few religious communities, for example the Christian Community or the Mormons, have a kind of baptism, but it is not counted as a Christian baptism.

Note the choice of words: “religious community”, not “Christian church”; the Christian Community’s baptism – and therefore the Christian Community – is “not counted” as Christian.

Why does the Christian Community have a kind of baptism that divorces it from other Christian churches or communities? Because all anthroposophically inspired movements are cults, centred on the statements of Rudolf Steiner. I rest my case.

(If anybody can point out some error in this argument – I am not an expert on everything Rudolf Steiner or the Christian Community has written, because that would be a waste of one’s life – the case could be re-opened with a large number of examples of the Steiner-centric practices of the Christian Community.)

9. A compromise is possible. The fact box could state: “Classification: Esoteric or Christian (disputed)”.

Finally, it is still childish to criticize other people hiding behind a pseudonym. The fact that Wikipedia has inherited the infantile practice of ”user names” from the youth-driven world of information technology is no excuse for an adult to behave badly. Say who you are or be quiet. Jan Arvid Götesson (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

No it's not a "cult" (at least not any more than any other Christian denominations), and no, it's not "centered on the pronouncements of Rudolf Steiner", it's centered on the pronouncements of Jesus Christ as the article and its sources make clear. The fact that they are to a degree influenced by the Austrian philosopher Rudolf Steiner's interpretation of Jesus Christ is no different from the fact that the Lutheran church is based on Martin Luther and a number of other theologians' interpretations of Christianity. Steiner is entirely secondary to Jesus Christ, and is just one of several interpretative influences, along with the liberal Christian tradition. This is no different from any other Christian tradition; for instance, regardless of how strange Laestadianism seems to us modern and liberal Christians, Laestadianism isn't primarily about "the pronouncements of Lars Levi Laestadius" and it's not a "cult" focused entirely on Lars Levi Laestadius, it's primarily about Jesus Christ and it's focused on Jesus Christ, and Laestadius, like Steiner, is important only for his interpretation of Christianity. The same is true in the Christian Community. (In fact, Steiner is less important within the Christian Community, because while Laestadius was the sole founder of Laestadianism, the primary founder of the Christian Community was Friedrich Rittelmeyer, who only consulted Steiner and asked for his advice, and Steiner never had any role leading the Christian Community)

All your talk of "ramblings" of Steiner, which it not how any serious scholar discusses philosophers or theologians, makes it very difficult to take your contributions seriously. The Christian Community is both esoteric and Christian, those two things aren't polar opposites and do not rule each other out, they have always co-existed, and esotericism is mentioned both in the introduction and the infobox. The esoteric tradition especially as interpreted by Steiner, new humanism, liberal Christianity are interpretative influences and the lense they see their core content, Christianity and Jesus Christ, through.

If you object to how Wikipedia operates regarding usernames you are welcome to establish your own website. --Ilsori (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

In this response I use bold headings to make it easy to read.

The concept of standing

In English one says that a person has or doesn’t have a standing in a profession, science or academic discipline, as in “He does not have much of a standing as a chemist” (Wiktionary).

Your background

Above you refer to ”us modern and liberal Christians”. You study theology. Your edits in many articles suggest that you hold Friedrich Rittelmeyer and the Christian Community in high regard. You appear to have a close association with the Christian Community.

The standing of Rudolf Steiner (and people influenced by him) as thinkers

You referred to my [Jan Arvid Götessons] “talk of ’ramblings’ of Steiner, which is not how any serious scholar discusses philosophers or theologians”; you say this ”makes it very difficult to take your [i.e. Jan Arvid Götessons] contributions seriously”. I use such words for two reasons. First, it’a a matter of transparency. I declare my opinion: All anthroposophically inspired thinking is worthless and uninteresting.

Second, I use this kind of language because it is the global consensus that anthroposophically inspired thinking is worthless, except that some people concede that in practical work anthroposophically inspired people can do some good things, despite the silliness of their beliefs. This is relevant because Wikipedia should present global consensus first in the articles and present minority views further down. Rudolf Steiner has no standing as a philosopher or thinker. The same goes for his followers, including Friedrich Rittelmeyer in his capacity as formal founder and leader of the Christian Community.

Your reaction

You will reject the above propositions. You have reacted angrily to my posts, as if you were personally offended. I think the explanation for this is that your background in liberal Christianity, apparently close to the Christian Community, makes it impossible for you to see what the global consensus is in relation to thing that are dear to you.

The opinion of knowledgeable people

You won’t change your beliefs, and that’s fine; people who believe in silly things may edit Wikipedia. The problem is that you are unable to admit what the global consensus on all anthroposophically inspired things is. I would like to quote Michael Ruse, Professor of Philosophy with research interests ”Philosophy of Biology (especially Darwinism), Ethics, the History and Philosophy of Science”. (If you think the quotation from Ruse is ”wall of text” you can skip the next five paragraphs.)

”When I was thirteen, my mother died suddenly. On the rebound, my father married again to a German woman, whose family were great enthusiasts for the thinking of the Croatian-born seer and polymath, Rudolf Steiner … for a number of years [Steiner] was a follower of the Russian-born mystic (some would say charlatan) Madame Blavatsky, the theosophist. He broke off to found his own organization, anthroposophy, and then for many years pushed a wild vision of gods (two Jesuses), angels, planets and their influences (astral forces) and much more. Like the theosophists he was much impressed by Indian religions and was always convinced of reincarnation. At the same time, Steiner founded a school system – so-called Waldorf Schools, very much thriving today – a dance form (eurythmy), a distinctive form of art and architecture, a type of medical treatment, a religious organisation (the Christian Community) and an idiosyncratic mode of organic farming – biodynamic agriculture.

I have never myself been attracted to anthroposophy, but I have grown to like many of its enthusiasts (including my still-active step-mother), and have a certain respect – if tinged occasionally with amusement – for its philosophy and activities. I think all of the stuff about angels and spirit forces is pretty daft, and I simply cannot get over the boredom of seeing a bunch of middle-aged people of both sexes prance around a stage while dressed in flowing garments in pastel colours (reflecting Goethe's views on the spectrum). Although I have to say that seeing my teenaged brother and his mates forced into the embarrassment of eurythmy performances made up for much.

But it does seem to me that even though there are things one might criticize about Waldorf education, there is also a care and attention to the whole child and its needs that is altogether admirable. And biodynamic agriculture, for all its silliness – you need to take a cow's horn in the fall and fill it with manure and bury it over winter to catch the astral forces, which can then be diluted and spread over the fields in the spring – has a sense about the organic that many should emulate.

As it happens, through a close friend … in her famous work Silent Spring, Rachel Carson used a huge amount of material gathered by the biodynamic agriculturalists against DDT. Since this is one of the most influential works of the twentieth century – a work that many still consider groundbreakingly important in the fight for the health of our planet – the scales are certainly tipped in favour of Steiner and his movement.

Having said this, one should not turn a blind eye to the failures and dangers of anthroposophy. My father caught measles as a child and as a result had badly damaged eyesight – 50% in one eye and 25% in the other. And yet, under the influence of the Steiner movement, to the end of his days (near eighty) he was adamantly opposed to vaccination for any of the childhood illnesses. Steiner (whose ideas he embraced enthusiastically) argued that humans are a bit like Russian dolls, with different bodies enclosing each other – the outer one being physical and getting more spiritual as you go inwards. Steiner education is designed to work with this progression and thus, to the age of seven, you work on the outer physical body and then inwards during the growth of the child until fully mature. Illnesses like measles are thought essential parts of development – in getting them and working through them the physical body becomes more and more stable and integrated with the person. In other words, Steiner argued, measles are a good thing and nothing should be done to prevent them: “We also understand why, among the best minds of our period, there exists a kind of aversion to vaccination … This would constitute the indispensable counterpart without which we are performing only half our task. We are merely accomplishing something to which the person in question will himself have to produce a counterpart in a later incarnation. If we destroy the susceptibility to smallpox, we are concentrating only on the external side of karmic activity.”

I quote Michael Ruse to illustrate the global consensus that the thinking originating from the sphere of anthroposophy (including the Christian Community) is ”daft”, and that thinking has no standing in intellectual och philosophical discussion.

Objections by sympathizers

People sympathetic to anthroposophy (like you) would object in many ways: They will say that Rittelmeyer and a few others founded the Christian Community, not Steiner and so on. For this reason our discussion can lead nowhere. You assert that the Christian Community is a Steiner-inspired interpretation of Jesus Christ and Christianity. Intellectually mainstream people, who are psychologically able to look at this objectively (because we are not attracted to the anthroposophical sphere) can see that Steiner had charisma, that his followers were taken in by him, and that Steiner in effect founded all branches of anthroposophy (including the Christian Community), like a Chinese paramount leader is the true leader of China even if he officially does not hold the highest offices.

In practice, Steiner gutted Christianity and replaced the traditional beliefs with his own ideas.

You only assert, and ignore facts you don’t like

You make the same assertions over and over again, without adding evidence based on sources. I quoted sources in relation to baptism. The Christian Community has imported wholesale Rudolf Steiner’s bizarre ideas in relation to the central Christian ritual of baptism, which proves my point.

You refer to the ”ecumenical focus and traditionally elite membership” of the Christian Community. Obviously they have no ecumenical focus. They would not import wholesale Steiner’s inventions and ideas such as his ”baptism”, and reincarnation, if they had an ecumenical focus. (They have no ”elite membership” either, but that’s a minor point.)

What do you think? You did not respond to the argument about baptism.

Compromise?

I agree that it is possible to classify the Christian Community as Christian, because some sources use the word ”Christian”, with reservations. You did not respond to the suggested compromise “Classification: Esoteric or Christian (disputed)”

Double standards

You have double standards. You complain about comparisons I made to illustrate that Wikipedia does not accept people’s and organizations’ description of themselves uncritically, which means that Wikipedia should not necessarily present the claim of the Christian Community to be Christian as Wikipedia’s main and sole classification. But you allow yourself to compare with Laestadianism to try to refute my argument! That is double standards.

Perhaps you will now say that your comparison is valid because Laestadians and the Christian Community are two Christian groups with some new and different interpretations. But saying that would be the informal fallacy of Assuming the conclusion: you would assume that the Christian Community and Laestadianism are two groups within Christianity to prove that the Christian Community is unquestionably Christian. (It is a minor point that your comparison is incorrect. The Laestadians earned a certain respect as Christians. Olof Bergqvist said to my father “if the Laestadians had stayed united hell would have trembled with fear” – whilst Christians have generally not held the Christian Community in high regard.) Jan Arvid Götesson (talk) 23:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Short summary My posts are long, so I would like add a short summary of the gist of the argument. The global consensus among knowledgeable people is that the people active within the anthroposophical movements have no standing as thinkers or writers, because they believe in the words of Rudolf Steiner in a cultish fashion. Therefore Wikipedia cannot rely on the Christian Community’s description of itself. The ideas of Rudolf Steiner has replaced Christian ideas to such an extent that non-members who examine the facts doubt that the Christian Community can be described as Christian. A correct objective classification would perhaps be “Esoteric or Christian (disputed)” or “Christian or Esoteric (disputed)”. Jan Arvid Götesson (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The Church of Norway, or the Church of Sweden, and in fact most beliefs held in Norway and Sweden, are globally in the minority by far. Most of the 1.2 billion people in Africa don't agree with the theological beliefs of the Scandinavian churches, Scandinavians' views on gender equality, and a number of other things. Abortion and ordination of women are strongly opposed by very many Christians, seen from a global perspective. Does that mean that everything professed by us in Scandinavia lack "standing" because we find ourselves in the minority globally? Of course not. It just means there is a diversity of beliefs and practices in the world.

Obviously most people in the world don't subscribe to anthroposophical ideas either, mostly because most people don't care that much about a movement that is, in the larger world, relatively small (although not among the smallest) and one movement in a world that is full of belief systems and philosophies. All find themselves greatly outnumbered in a global perspective.

The fact that people from Africa, the Americas and Asia wouldn't agree with the beliefs and practices of the Church of Norway does, however, not mean that we write about the "ramblings" of the Church of Norway, how they and everything we Norwegian Christians represent are "worthless"(!), and write about Scandinavian Lutheran Christianity from the perspective of conservative Catholics who strongly oppose our beliefs, even though the latter are far more numerous. When you are talking about how the Christian Community find themselves in the minority, you are relying on the same large numbers of strongly conservative, often Catholic or at least evangelical Christians who believe abortion must be outlawed and so on (which seems to be about to happen in the U.S.). Why should their opinion matter as far as the Christian Community is concerned when it's not very relevant when discussing the Scandinavian Lutheran churches?

There is no "global consensus that anthroposophically inspired thinking is worthless", that is just made up nonsense, and it is not how serious people discuss this topic. As mentioned, those who aren't interested in anthroposophy or "anthroposophically inspired thinking" (or movements) don't care that much to form such an opinion in the first place (like they don't care enough to form opinions of all the world's many smaller and medium-sized belief systems or philosophies); they are the vast majority globally (far in excess of 99%). Given that there are over 1,000 waldorf schools, plus fairly large banks such as Triodos and GLS, and other institutions within art, farming etc., it is reasonable to estimate that at least a few million people are or have been involved with anthroposophically inspired movements in some way (e.g. past and present waldorf pupils, their parents/close family etc.). Most people who have an informed opinion at all, and who aren't actually anthroposophists (but maybe have some knowledge of the movement because they have encountered it in various settings; this would apply to a larger number; for instance in urban parts of Norway it's hard not to encounter the movement at some point), take anthroposophical beliefs with a grain of salt (much in the same way that the vast majority of Norwegians don't take the Bible literally), are aware of the philosophy's esoteric origins, realise that some of Steiner's writings are regarded as outdated by most people (including those involved with "anthroposophical" activities) and realise that not all people involved with Steiner-inspired movements are deeply into his philosophy or all his beliefs or views, while recognising the movement's role in launching some new ideas and activities that are widely respected in the countries they are primarily active (i.e. in Germany, Switzerland, Norway in particular). Those who for some reason have some kind of private vendetta against everything they personally associate with "anthroposophy" and who lump all of that together and tie it to some random obscure 120-years old quotes by Steiner that everybody would reject today, that they spend time and energy on digging up, and that most people aren't even aware of, are a tiny, tiny, tiny minority of people (I can think of 5 who are publicly known in Norway, so maybe a few hundred globally), often people who have some beef with some local school where they ran into some conflicts as employees or parents, or something, and most would dismiss them as cranks. You will find such people with idiosyncratic beliefs about virtually any reasonably large belief system, movement, group or institution. They tend to have very little "standing" (academically or otherwise). So to sum up: We are talking about in excess of 99% of the world who don't care either way and who are "neutral", a few million involved somehow with the broader movement, and a small group of people, surely far less than millions, who oppose them.

Furthermore, you go on about vaccination, of all things. As far as I can tell the Christian Community does not even involve itself in such questions. The waldorf schools have no objection to vaccination[4][5] and Norwegian waldorf pupils have been found to be vaccinated to exactly the same degree as those who attend public schools. This is just some crazy conspiracy theory without any basis in fact, very similar indeed to fake news peddled by the Trump camp. It's essentially a lie. It is based on some things Steiner wrote about vaccination over a century ago, but conveniently omits the fact that Steiner was a philosopher born in the mid 19th century and who died in 1925, who told people not to take his ideas for granted but to continue to form their own views, and that the anthroposophically inspired movements that exist today reject those ideas. Most of the understandings and practices of modern academic medicine evolved decades later, and pre-1925 medicine would seem horrible to people today. Martin Luther wrote horrible things about Jews, farmers and a number of other groups and issues, but nobody holds the Church of Norway of today to account for Luther's outdated and long-rejected views on these issues. Many scientists (and politicians, and others) of Steiner's generation held views that would be vehemently rejected today (e.g. on eugenics). They included people with great influence over the public schools and their curriculum. Public schools essentially taught racism during much of the 19th and early 20th centuries, and they were also religious (at least in Scandinavia). That Steiner wrote some things on vaccination that everyone reject today, over a century ago, is entirely normal, and the waldorf schools aren't responsible for that any more than the public schools of today are responsible for eugenicist, racist scientists, politicians and school administrators active in the 19th and early 20th century with views that would seem both strange and abhorrent today. And regardless, the Christian Community has no connection to waldorf schools beyond the connection that would exist e.g. between two random Christian organizations, in that they are both inspired by Christianity and the person Jesus Christ. There is no "Chinese leader" overseeing all the movements that draw some of their inspiration from Steiner's ideas.

When it comes to the Christian Community and its beliefs, it is much more interesting and relevant to discuss the theology of Friedrich Rittelmeyer, its founder, than some obscure 120-year old quotes on completely unrelated topics by the philosopher he consulted regarding ways to modernise religion. To most people this would be self-evident. Within the broader field of anthroposophically inspired movements, the Christian Community is a special case since it is inherently religious, and all Christian denominations, also the most established ones, believe in tenets/ideas that atheists and modern science tend to reject in many cases. Religion and modern science in many ways exist in different worlds or spaces, and it's not customary or very productive to rigorously "debunk" religion purely from a modern scientific perspective, an activity characteristic of the most simplistic criticism of religion, and that fails to grasp the historical and cultural purpose of religion.

The Christian Community is indeed very ecumenical, in that they accept all other Christian denominations as equally Christian and equally valid, and was conceived by its founders specifically as a modern synthesis of Catholicism and Protestantism in the wake of the First World War. Its founders had a background in academic theology and philosophy, and included Protestants and Catholics. The Christian Community is one of only a handful of Christian denominations that are established by Lutheran ordained priests and academic theologians, and it's the only such denomination that has a liberal orientation. As such it's easy to recognise that it has a special relationship with the liberal tradition within Lutheranism as found in the Nordic countries and Germany, and with academic theology within that tradition. The ones who tend to dislike the Christian Community are conservative Christians who tend to dislike many of the developments within the Lutheran churches too (such as the ordination of women), and who are themselves flocking to breakaway denominations often founded by conservative laypeople.

It is uncontroversial that both theosophy, anthroposophy and a variety of groups inspired by these philosophies primarily attracted members from various social elites, rather than from a working-class background. The Christian Community in the Nordic countries was founded in 1927 by a lawyer who was a former governor (fylkesmann, i.e. landshövding), who went on to study theology. The same is true for the anthroposophical movement; as Morgenbladet wrote in 2008, "Antroposofien og Norges åndselite fant hverandre for hundre år siden. Vennskapet er fortsatt varmt."[6] Anthroposophy and "anthroposophically inspired" movements are very much mainstream in Norway; members of the royal family attend waldorf schools, otherwise waldorf pupils tend to be children of academics, cultural figures and so on. Even critics of those movements have focused on their elite membership and how they "beskyttes av den norske politiske, kulturelle og rojale eliten" as some critics once said[7]

There is no disagreement that the Christian Community is esoteric, and that its form of Christianity is an esoteric Christianity. However it can not be reduced to only esotericism. Liberal Christianity was an important influence too, and the Christian Community cannot be understood without the contribution and backgrounds of its founders in liberal Christianity. Esotericism alone is also a very broad term. They are esoteric Christians with roots in the liberal Christian tradition and a number of clearly liberal (to some extent very liberal) beliefs and practices, who view Christianity through an esoteric lense, in other words Christianity that blends an esoteric and a liberal orientation. --Ilsori (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

However, it seems that we have an article on Esoteric Christianity. The article itself still requires some work, but it's clearly a tradition the Christian Community can be placed in. Hopefully a description as esoteric Christian with a link to Esoteric Christianity is an acceptable compromise/solution. --Ilsori (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

This discussion can rest for a while, since your latest edit in the article is intended as a compromise. Jan Arvid Götesson (talk) 05:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Restoring the article

This article has been distorted by a believer, who calls himself or herself Ilsori. This believer wouldn't accept that the Christian Community cannot reasonably be called ”Christian”, since the basis of the ideas of the members is cultish adherence to the pronouncements of Rudolf Steiner. Ilsori seems to have stopped editing, so I intend to restore the article to a wording that is objective rather than faith-based. Jan Arvid Götesson (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@AnandaBliss Please discuss before you change the article back to describing the Christian Community as a Christian denomination. It clearly is not, since the core of the beliefs of the Christian Community is cultish adherence to the pronouncements of Rudolf Steiner. Jan Arvid Götesson (talk) 06:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Jan Arvid Götesson, we need reliable sources for Wikipedia to challenge the idea that a denomination called the Christian Community is not Christian or is widely opposed as such. AnandaBliss (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

POV‑pushing

@Johann H. Fichte: Not all of your edits are wrong, but I undo them in their entirety because you are a Point-of-View-pusher. It is not possible to use your version as the basis for further editing of the article. Jan Arvid Götesson (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)