28 THEOSOPHY AND PROTESTANTISM
It seems to us beyond question that certain tendencies of Theosophy, especially those we have characterized as 'moralist', exhibit a Protestant attitude, particularly that of Anglo-Saxon Protestantism. We certainly do not wish to say that these tendencies are the exclusive monopoly of Protestantism, but they are preponderant in it, and it is largely from Protestantism that they have been spread abroad in the modern world. We find yet another analogy between Theosophy and current tendencies in Protestantism (especially 'liberal' Protestantism, which is the extreme form of this movement as well as its logical outcome) in the substitution of a vague 'religiosity' for religion properly so called, in the predominance of sentimental elements over intellectuality to the point of suppressing the latter almost entirely. Have not the modernists, whose mentality, as we have said, is fundamentally Protestant, even sought to achieve this in the heart of Catholicism itself? All these tendencies are closely related, and it is surprising that Theosophists calling themselves Catholics (there are such) proclaim their modernist or 'modernizing' sympathies on every occasion. [1] We have also said that 'neo-spiritualism' is generally linked to Protestantism, for it is especially in Protestant countries that sects with such leanings come to birth, develop, and multiply in an astonishing manner,
indicating a grave disequilibrium of the religious mentality. But of all these sects, it is Theosophy, along with certain spiritist groups, that can be characterized as 'pietistic', that most exhibits the Protestant spirit.
If we examine the methods Theosophy employs for its diffusion, it is easy to see that they are identical to those used by Protestant sects. With the one as with the other there is the same proselytizing fury, the same insinuating suppleness employed to reach the various targeted groups, which creates all sorts of associations that are more or less independent in appearance but are all intended to cooperate in the same task. Need we recall here, for example, the Protestant initiatives pursued in every country by means of the Y.M.C.A. and its subsidiaries, [2] where all are admitted without distinction of religious confession in order to enlarge the field as much as possible for a proselytism that is no less ardent for being disguised? And this is not all: associations such as the latter, even while denying that they are 'confessional', nevertheless admit the Protestant inspiration that directs them. But alongside these are others that make a show of absolute neutrality but are no less closely linked thereto, and sometimes have some of the same personnel at their head, or in any case count a Protestant majority among their directors. Such are the 'neutral' associations of 'boy scouts', existing side-by-side with overtly Protestant associations. [3] The same holds true for anti-alcoholic leagues and the various secret or half-secret societies which we discussed in the last chapter, and which, although for the most part 'neutral', nevertheless have an essentially Protestant origin. Now these are the same characteristics one finds in the many auxiliary organizations instituted by the Theosophists: whether these organizations have an avowed aim of Theosophist propaganda,
whether
they proclaim themselves independent and open to all even while acknowledging their origin, or even whether they dissimulate their origin more or less carefully-all are in fact subject to a single direction; all are directly or indirectly consecrated to the 'service' of Theosophy, sometimes against the wishes of a great part of their membership, who are perfectly unconscious of the role they are made to play.
This identity of tendencies and methods can be explained quite naturally by the Protestant origins of the heads of Theosophy and the majority of their adherents. Among them are even a good number of former 'clergymen' who, if they have abandoned their ministry, have not for all that altered their mentality and who keep it intact under the 'Old Catholic' mask they have lately adopted. But must one stop there and must one believe that the spirit of religious competition opposes Theosophy to Protestantism properly so called, as it opposes it-whatever one may say-to Catholicism? The case is in no way the same, for one must take into account the indefinite multiplicity of sects intrinsic to Protestantism in consequence of its 'free examination', that is to say in consequence of its absence of principles and of any traditional authority. The Protestant sects are also very much in competition with one another, although this does not hinder their being united by very real ties, for these are only different expressions of the same general mentality. And here, rivalry does not necessarily imply a fundamental hostility, because there is nothing comparable to the unity of Catholicism. It is for the same reasons that the schismatic Churches describing themselves as Catholic (we do not, of course, speak of the Eastern Orthodox Churches) inexorably tend to draw near to Protestantism, and present the same phenomena of dispersion. It would even be difficult to trace a neat line of demarcation between the schismatics and Protestant communions. Do not the Anglicans, for example, love to call themselves Catholic? Fundamentally, the attitude of Theosophy toward Protestant sects does not differ greatly from the relations of these sects among themselves. And this is why Hindus can regard the Theosophists, at least in their present orientation, as a new Protestant sect that has arisen to add itself to all those that already exist. One more or one less in such a multitude can have only
minimal importance. For the rest, we have known men who have passed successively through various Protestant sects and who have then come to Theosophy, or vice versa; these are people of whom a former Belgian Theosophist has justly said that they 'lend to certain groups a Salvation Army air. [4] One has exactly the same impression in reading certain passages from Theosophical publications, the tone of which is quite similar to that of Protestant sermons. Such connections cannot be accidental. We do not wish to say, of course, that Theosophy proceeds from a particular branch of Protestantism, but when we speak of Protestantism in general, as we do here, what must be understood above all is a certain state of mind, a certain mentality. It is precisely this spirit and this mentality that reveal all the analogies we have noted: they pertain to Theosophists, as in various degrees they also pertain to many other 'neo-spiritualists'; they pertain also (we repeat) to the self-styled Catholic 'modernists' and 'immanentists'; and likewise, in the philosophical domain, they pertain to contemporary pragmatists and intuitionists. This does not prevent the existence in these currents of thought or in their point of departure individual or collective influences that are exercised in a more or less hidden way, and that are favored in their action by the labyrinthine muddle of all these groups and schools. The divergences, if not entirely superficial, are in any case much less fundamental than the shared tendencies, and it could be said that everything happens as if one were in the presence of a multitude of efforts tending, each in its own domain, toward the realization of a single plan.
Concerning the relationships between Theosophy and Protestantism there is a further question: if it is reckoned that Theosophy is anti-Christian in principle and that it always remains so despite its present 'neo-Christian' allure, must we then conclude that Protestantism itself must logically become anti-Christian when its tendencies are pushed to the extreme? However paradoxical such a conclusion might appear at first sight, there are facts that lend this at least some probability, especially when one recalls that many Protestant sects like to call themselves 'Christian' without any modifier, or
again 'Evangelical'. [5] Such is the case particularly with 'liberal Protestantism', which does not even admit the divinity of Christ, or admits it only as a 'manner of speaking', and which is hardly more than a simple 'moralism' disguised as a pseudo-religion. In our view this degeneration is more logical than the middle term at which selfstyled 'orthodox' Protestantism rests-as if there could be an orthodoxy where no rule can effectively intervene to limit the arbitrariness of individual interpretations!
Moreover, it must also be noted that messianic and millenarist ideas are singularly popular in certain Protestant sects [6] such as the 'Adventists', who announce the end of the world and the glorious return of Christ for a date not so far away. In addition, today more than ever those claiming to be prophets and messiahs strangely abound in all those groups occupied with occultism. We have known a certain number of these apart from Alcyone and Theosophy, and still others are spreading in spiritist circles. Must this be seen as a sign of the times? Whatever the case and without venturing the least prediction, it is quite difficult in the presence of all these things not to recall the words of the Gospel: 'For false Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.'7 Assuredly, we are not yet there; the false Messiahs we have seen until now have offered wonders of a very inferior quality, and those who have followed them were probably not very difficult to seduce, but who knows what the future holds in store? If one reflects that these false Messiahs have
never been anything but more or less unconscious instruments in the hands of those who have raised them up, and if one looks at the series of attempts made by the Theosophists, one is led to think that these are no more than trials, experiments which will be renewed in various forms until success is achieved. [8] In the meantime, these efforts always have the result of troubling some minds. We do not believe moreover that the Theosophists, any more than the occultists and the spiritists, have the strength to succeed in such an enterprise by themselves. But behind all these movements is there not something more fearsome, of which their leaders perhaps do not themselves know, and of which they are in their own turn merely the instruments? We merely raise this last question without seeking to resolve it here, for to do so, we would have to raise extremely complex considerations that would lead us far beyond the limits we have set ourselves for the present study.