NUTSHELL

Steiner’s Doctrines, in Brief

(and Tamped Down)

What, in a nutshell, are Rudolf Steiner’s teachings? One of his devout followers, Hermann von Baravalle (aka Herman V. Baravalle), attempts to give an answer in his book WALDORF EDUCATION FOR AMERICA. [1]

Von Baravalle — who should know his stuff, since he was a teacher at Steiner’s original Waldorf school in Stuttgart, Germany — begins by saying that Steiner agreed with most religions that the human soul or spirit is “not dependent on the body.” [2] So the human soul does not die when the body dies. Von Baravalle goes on to say that, unlike some religions, Steiner's doctrines state that the soul existed before birth. But, according to von Baravalle, the greatest distinction between Steiner’s views and the views of most religions is that Anthroposophy (to give it it’s correct name — something von Baravalle doesn’t do in the book) “does not appeal to authority from the past ... In Steiner’s conception of the world the potential for revelation, for knowledge, exists right with us.” [3]

Several points need to be made immediately:

◊ Steiner’s books and lectures are actually loaded with references to ancient teachings. Taking his lead from Theosophy, Steiner melded Christianity with Hinduism, Buddhism, ancient myths, Persian and Egyptian dogmas, and the like. Self-evidently, these are doctrines derived “from the past” [4] and quite often Steiner's point is that ancient peoples were wiser about spiritual matters than modern people are — he uses these references to bolster and substantiate his own doctrines. These are "appeals to the authority of the past."

◊ It is not correct to suggest, as von Baravalle does, that Anthroposophy is different from most religions because it allows for the possibility that revelation can occur in the here and now. Contemporary revelation is a tenet of the Pentecostal faith as well as Mormonism, to cite just two examples. Evangelical preachers such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell have often professed direct communiqués from God. The Pope does the same. Many faiths include the belief that the potential for revelation is within us. [5]

◊ Steiner taught revelation can occur in the present to anyone, but he attached some strings. He taught that seekers generally needed to become an initiate in his new religion, which meant — among other things — developing organs of clairvoyance. [6] All of Steiner’s doctrines proceed from the clairvoyance he claimed to possess. [7] Few if any of his followers have claimed psychic powers to equal his. Thus, most adherents of Anthroposophy proceed by faith, nor by personal revelation. In whom do they put their faith? Rudolf Steiner, who is now dead — so in this sense, too, his followers take their faith “from the past.”

Personal revelation, according to Steiner, becomes possible because “Human nature can unfold more completely as part of an evolutionary process.” [8] Evolution is, indeed, a central component of Steiner’s theology. [9] He did not subscribe to scientific, Darwinian evolution, however. He spoke of an ongoing process of spiritual development that will — in the distant future — produce virtually perfect, divine, humans. “It is one of the central ideas [of Steiner’s] that our human consciousness, our whole inner life, and our capabilities undergo evolution....” [10] One consequence of this belief, which von B. skims past, is that seekers may need to wait centuries or even millennia before evolution takes them to the state of existence they yearn for. For now, they need to rely on Steiner — i.e., take his teachings on faith.

Von B. asserts that Steiner asserted that ancient peoples (who were less evolved than ourselves) had different consciousnesses than we have today. “These people were fundamentally different in the way they looked at life, their way of inner striving, their questions, and their needs.” [11] Steiner frequently asserted that various humans are less evolved than others, a condition that exists even among humans alive today: Some are descended from higher racial stocks and some from lower. (See my essay, “Steiner’s Racism”.) Steiner also differentiated true human beings from people who are not really human, and/or who are automata, and/or who may be seen as blind moles burrowing through the dark earth. (See my essays “Compassion and Its Absence”, “Foundations”, etc.)

Von B. explains that, according to Steiner, people in the past had different perceptions of the earthly and spiritual realms than are possible to us today. “Out of the spirit they spoke about non-physical forms of existence ... [Their beliefs were not fantasies; rather, they reflected] a change in consciousness, a difference in the condition of human minds ... The ancient attitude had its emphasis on the beyond.” [12] Steiner actually incorporated such notions into his doctrines (e.g., nonphysical forms of existence, such as the nonphysical bodies that true humans incarnate, and the spiritual lives we led in the spirit worlds before birth, etc.). [13] He thus took various elements from the past, but always within the assertion that he had superior knowledge, thanks to being more evolved and possessing exceptional powers of clairvoyance.

Von Baravalle goes on to explain that the evolution of mankind is not random (as Darwinian evolution is) but displays a definite pattern. “We see one pattern which comes out of the past: The further we go back, the more the emphasis on the physical existence is secondary and the more the emphasis on the inner qualities, what we call human values and the spiritual nature, gets stronger ... This question is: Is this evolutionary process still going on? Is [the modern] emphasis on the physical existence getting stronger still? Again Rudolf Steiner gives a very important answer: Yes, it is [emphasis by von B].” [14] This pattern would seem to suggest that ancient peoples were more advanced, i.e., more spiritual, than we are today. But on the contrary, Steiner’s doctrines assert that ancient peoples had a sort of natural clairvoyance [15], comparable to the intuition of spirit realms that he said newborn infants possess. [16] The people back then were immature, like contemporary infants. We have evolved to become more comfortable in the physical world; this is a necessary stage in our evolution. But of course the physical world is a place of snares: To gain a new, superior form of clairvoyance — to free ourselves from the snares of the physical world — we need (can you guess?) Rudolf Steiner and his “wisdom." Following Steiner, we will gain the insight needed to evolve toward full spirituality in the future.

Von B. explains that Steiner’s doctrines explain that mankind has turned a corner. The high point for materialism came in the nineteenth century, and since then people have gradually turned their gaze once more to spiritualism. “Rudolf Steiner says that this beginning will grow ... You can, for instance, talk to many people today about the idea of reincarnation, whereas you would make [sic] an utter fool of yourself a few decades ago if you brought up the subject.” [17] For Steiner, reincarnation was much more than merely an “idea.” It was a central tenet. [18] Von B. characteristically soft-pedals Steiner’s teachings, but the underlying message is plain. Our souls are independent of our bodies. Our souls existed before birth and will exist after death. Our souls, in fact, have moved through a long, evolutionary series of past lives, and they will move through many further evolutionary stages in future lives. (“The idea of reincarnation complements the idea of evolution; every individual goes through these evolutionary stages.” [19]) Is there any evidence to support these propositions? Von B. provides none. Are these propositions consistent with Biblical teachings? No: The Bible says when we die, we go to heaven or hell. V. B. skims over such minor quibbles.

One more point before we move on: Oddly enough, considering that Anthroposophy does not rely on dogmas from out of the past, Steiner’s teachings about reincarnation include the “age old [sic] thought that runs through the Oriental cultures, the thought of karma.” [20] (Note, again, the soft pedaling: not karma, but the “thought” of karma. Actually, Steiner asserted the actuality of karma over and over.) Now, the turning point: Hermann v. B. explains that evolution had to take us toward materialism, so that we could balance our natures and sharpen our wits, but now we may turn back again toward the spiritual. Strengthened by our brush with the material world, we will soon attain spiritual wisdom far greater than we enjoyed in the dim past. [21] 

At this point in his manuscript, v. B. touches lightly on the subject of education for the young — and here Steiner’s racism peeps out: Hermann (or Herman) v. B. says that Western teachers would enjoy having Eastern pupils, who are more pliable than Western kids. Asians are less evolved than Western peoples, you see: They are “still imbedded in” an ancient, inferior spiritual mindset. [22] V. B. actually allows himself to refer to a “low, Oriental view.” [23] The nasty invidiousness of Steiner’s belief system threatens to burst into full view, here, but when von B. quickly shifts his discourse to a different topic, he sets out propositions that may strike some as equally offensive. He waves away all views except Steiner’s: "Rudolf Steiner took a completely different view.” [24] Keep count as we proceed. Before Von B. is finished, we will have seen seen rejection of Judeo/Christian religion; embrace of an occult form of evolution; intimations of racism; rejection of science; intimations of clairvoyance; promises of revelation at every hand, indications of racism; reincarnation; karma; surprising news about the evolution of animals; unusual calculations on the age of mankind; weird assertions about early human embodiments; and other mind-stretching (or -deadening) beliefs. 

Steiner’s view is that there is no real division between the material realm and the spiritual, although the material universe can be deceptive and spiritually harmful. “The whole spiritual world and the material world are connected ... what we have as a physical existence was once a spiritual existence that took on certain forms in the course of evolution. Now there comes a most surprising difference between Steiner’s world conception and the usual ones. In Rudolf Steiner’s world conception man is as old as the world.” [25] This is, indeed, an unusual view. All of geology and scientific accounts of evolution are swept away. (According to science, for instance, the universe is about 15 billion years old, whereas homo sapiens emerged about 350,000 years ago.) [26] We are left with Steiner’s “surprising” view. And what reason to we have to accept this view? None, apparently, except that it is “surprising.” I’m not being flippant. Hermann v. B. offers no evidence to support Steiner. Instead, he seems to believe that Steiner’s views are sufficiently interesting and “democratic” [27] that they justify themselves. In this, he is faithful to the views of his guru, who evidently believed that if he blew their minds, people would flock to his banner. Some who enjoyed having their minds blown did flock, and some still do today.

Hermann v. B. continues his exegesis of Steinerian evolution: “When you start from a conception of non-material existence ... [the emergence of man in physical form] could be imagined as crystallization ... The process starts ... with a gaseous state ... then it goes to the liquid [state], then to the solid state ... [S]piritual existence would partially materialize itself during that process ... What would a scientist ask about a point of view like that? How could a human being exist in a gaseous state? He [sic: the scientist] would scratch his head in perplexity." [28] In case you are scratching your head, let’s pause here to regroup. Humans are as old as the Earth, and older than the physical Earth. We sort of crystallized out of the spiritual world, although only partially. The process of manifestation was gradual. In early stages, we existed in a gaseous state and then a liquid state. Our physical, partially manifested bodies were, at those stages, gaseous and then liquid. Note that Steiner was not referring to man’s evolutionary ancestors, the way Darwin did.Rather, Steiner’s teachings assert that man — who was here from the start — was always man, but man evolved as the universe itself evolved.

Von Baravalle disposes of the possibility that man evolved from lower animals thus: “The animals aren’t the predecessors of man ... but in the course of evolutionary process many of the animal forms rushed more quickly into contact with physical existence. Humans held back. Therefore, animals have a stronger component of physical processes in their nature. A beaver, for instance, just goes to work and builds his dwelling place. We are not so well adapted to the physical that we can go around and make houses ... We still need an architect....” [29] I think that’s clear enough. But notice von Baravalle’s rhetorical sleight of hand. This is how he “proves” Steiner’s tenets:  He states something implausible (animals crystallized out of the spiritual before men did) and then draws a “logical” conclusion: “Therefore” animals are more fully physical than we are. Q.E.D.

All of this is, I might add, a reasonably accurate presentation of parts of Steiner’s teachings. Sanitized parts, partial parts. But no outright misrepresentations.

Hermann (or Herman, as he found it more convenient to be known in America) takes a stab at prognostication: “What will happen in the future according to this world conception? Well, when the spirit has an independent form of existence, it can even survive the end of the material world. [30   I’m breaking in here just to point out that once again Hermann/Herman tries to affirm Steiner’s teaching by simply saying they are attractive (e.g., we can outlive the end of the world] You will see that these thoughts with all their implications may be more sensible [or at least more appealing] than present [i.e., scientific or conventionally religious] views ... People lead a good life, adhere to their religions, and believe strongly in their messages, Then when you do not go to a [church] service on one Sunday ... you die in the state of that sin ... [so you will not] be among the blessed for eternity.” [31] Once again we see Hermann/Herman setting up a straw man, in this case positing a caricature of conventional religious belief. Then, employing the logical fallacy called “appeal to ignorance” (we don’t know that “A” is true, therefore “B” must be true), he makes an irrational affirmation of his Anthroposophical faith.

What is the justification for all this balderdash? Freedom, says Herman: “[W]hy did we have to go through all these troubles [i.e., evolution]? For one prize only ... It is freedom ... We see in Rudolf Steiner a man who had courage ... to bear witness in the humble service of freedom and individuality.” [33] Not wishing to launch an ad hominem attack on Steiner, I’ll refrain from commenting on his “humility” (he, who was always right about everything: oops, I slipped). But notice how Herman, addressing an American audience, knows how to trim his sails. He assures us that Anthroposophy (whipped up by an Austrian, in Germany, where he celebrated German culture and the Aryan race) is as American as apple pie: freedom and individuality. 

At this point I should add a personal note or two. I’m not aware that I ever laid eyes on Hermann von Baravalle. But I may have. (And think what this means. You are reading a sentence written by someone who either did or didn’t actually see someone who actually knew Rudolf Steiner. What is that, one degree of separation? It’s a small world after all. [34]) Von Baravalle held a faculty position at Adelphi College in Garden City, New York, at the same time that I was a student at what was then called “The Waldorf School of Adelphi College.” (Adelphi, unaware of the occult nature of Steiner’s views, had several links with the school, including a Waldorf teacher-training program that the college agreed to host. All of this fell through when scandal rocked the school. If you’ve read about this is some of my other essays, you may want to skip ahead now.)

The headmaster at the Waldorf School of Adelphi College was John Fentress Gardner. He tried the same tack as von Baravalle: He tried to make Waldorf and Anthroposophy seem to be consistent with American values. In an essay titled “The Founding of Adelphi’s Waldorf School”, Gardner said he tried to defuse worries about the weird spiritualism behind Waldorf by working “to gain understanding for [the school and its methods]. I minimized the difference between a Waldorf school and other schools....” [35] Among Gardner’s tactics was his claim that “There was nothing in Rudolf Steiner that [the prototypically American writers] Thoreau and Emerson and Whitman would not have approved wholeheartedly.” [36] This claim is obviously untrue. Many of Steiner’s doctrines would make Emerson’s or Thoreau’s hair stand on end — and Whitman would have run screaming from the room. We’ll delve into these doctrines at length elsewhere on this site. [37] Gardner stuck by this strategy, however, as is evidenced by a book he wrote after his forced retirement: AMERICAN HERALDS OF THE SPIRIT [38] is about the American Transcendentalists Emerson, Whitman, and Melville. The third appendix deals with “Rudolf Steiner’s extensive and immensely fruitful research” which is essentially Steiner’s “clairvoyant” visions. The book’s thesis is that the American Transcendentalists anticipated spiritual doctrines that Steiner would perfect, “lending them the clarity of something fully experienced....” [39]

Unfortunately, Steiner himself undercut the contention that Waldorf schools are consistent with American values. Steiner explicitly embraced Central European (i.e., Germanic) culture and he warned that Westerners (i.e., West Europeans and Americans) would find the fruits of that culture indigestible. Indeed, Gardner was aware of Steiner’s caution: “Steiner warned against any ambitious plans to publicize Waldorf education prematurely among circles that did not share the same kind of inspiration [as he himself enjoyed] ... Steiner said, in part: ‘[T]he western nations will not be able to understand what will arise out of the whole concrete Central European spiritual culture with regard to the art of education; on the contrary, it will annoy them, and it really ought not to be told them in its original form.’” [40]

Both John Gardner and Hermann von Baravalle were faithful to their spiritual leader. While bravely setting forth some (but by no means all) of Steiner’s teachings, von Baravalle tried to disguise them in Western clothing (recollect the title of his book: WALDORF EDUCATION FOR AMERICA). To a degree, it worked; to a degree, it didn’t. The Waldorf School of Adelphi College eventually changed its name to the Waldorf School of Garden City after revelations of mystical beliefs and practices at the school kicked up a mighty brouhaha. (For two accounts of the scandal, see the opening section of my essay “Unenlightened”.) When the scandal broke, in 1979, many parents yanked their children out of the school. Adelphi, too, cut its ties to the school, and Gardner and his several of his cohorts were driven into early retirement.

As for Von Baravalle, he was spared the consequences of the scandal. Well before the scandal broke, he traveled around the US, spreading the (soft-pedaled) Steiner gospel. Von B. became known as the “Johnny Appleseed of Waldorf Education.” [41] In 1969, he returned to his native Germany, where in 1972 he suffered a stroke. He died in 1973. [42]

 

 

◊◊◊◊

Are Steiner's strange doctrines taught to Waldorf students? I discuss this in several of the essays here at Waldorf Watch. Here is a synopsis.

As a student at a Waldorf school, I was taught that animals evolved from humans, that technology is evil, that some races are higher than others, that angels can be perceived directly, that science is unreliable and shallow, that different races have profoundly different types of blood... These and other crackpot ideas come straight out of Anthroposophical doctrines. The only thing missing was the open use of the tag "Anthroposophy." The teachers did not explain that they were parroting Steiner.

Some teachers at Waldorf schools are not firmly devoted followers of Steiner — but their tenures at the schools may be brief. I've known teachers at Waldorf schools who were canned precisely because they did not devote themselves sufficiently to Steiner's occult doctrines. An English teacher at my old school was fired for being too attuned to the physical plane and not sufficiently attuned to the supersensible plane. He failed to bring "the actual spiritual life" [43] into the classroom, so he was fired.

The "actual spiritual life" can be known and presented only by Anthroposophists. “The task of Anthroposophy is not simply to replace a false view of the world with a correct one ... The task is to raise the spirit-soul into the realm of the spiritual ... Such things as the pedagogy of the Waldorf School can arise from a recognition that humanity must turn toward spiritual activity, and not simply from a change in theory. We should work out of that spirit.” [44] The "we" in this quote is the Waldorf faculty. Steiner is giving them their orders. "We should work out of that spirit."

Moreover, the Waldorf curriculum as set down by Steiner and the earliest Waldorf teachers is almost always observed scrupulously in Waldorf schools today. Steiner said there is a right time for each subject to be taught to growing children; that's the rule observed in almost all Waldorf schools.

Steiner stipulated that "As Waldorf teachers, we must be true anthroposophists in the deepest sense of the word in our innermost feeling." [45] A Waldorf school can allow a true Anthroposophist considerable leeway inside the classroom, since s/he will always choose, freely, to hew to the Anthroposophical line. But non-Anthroposophical teachers cannot be trusted to do this, so they are evaluated carefully and, when need be, fired. 

As for the "independence" of Waldorf schools: Steiner himself said that this is really a sham at the first Waldorf, and it remains largely a sham today. Here are Steiner's words, spoke to faculty members at the first Waldorf: "[W]e have to remember that an institution like the Independent Waldorf School with its anthroposophical character, has goals that, of course, coincide with anthroposophical desires. At the moment, though, if that connection were made official, people would break the Waldorf School’s neck." [46]

Steiner argued that the Waldorf faculty members should become members of the Anthroposophical Society — the guiding body for Anthroposophy world-wide — but the school itself should maintain its professed, but unreal, separation from Anthroposophy. "Formally, the Waldorf School is not an anthroposophical institution; rather, it is an independent creation based upon the foundations of anthroposophical pedagogy. In the way it meets the public, as well as the way it meets legal institutions, it is not an anthroposophical institution, but a school based upon anthroposophical pedagogy." [47] Note the careful phrasing. The school is not "formally" Anthroposophical. "In the way it meets the public" it is not Anthroposophical. But the underlying reality is quite different.

Picking up the same passage where it left off: "...a school based upon anthroposophical pedagogy. Suppose the Independent Waldorf School were now to become officially related to the School of Spiritual Science [the education wing of the Anthroposophical Society] in Dornach [Switzerland]. Then the Waldorf School would immediately become an anthroposophical school in a formal, external sense. Of course, there are some things that would support making such a decision. On the other hand, consider whether the Waldorf School can fulfill its cultural tasks better as an independent school with an unhindered form than it can as a direct part of what emanates from Dornach." [48] The "things" that might support a formal connection with the Society include the overwhelming reality that Waldorf’s “staff consists of anthroposophists.” [49]

But revealing the true, deep bonds between a Waldorf school and the Society would be dangerous: "people would break the Waldorf School's neck." The independence" of the school is a PR ploy, a sham, chosen to protect the school's neck.

Steiner was always concerned about public perception. He often said one thing in public and the exact opposite in private. He was a liar. And Waldorf schools at least flirt with lies when they deny their true, Anthroposophical nature. It was not only at the first Waldorf school that the public was intentionally deceived. (To learn about the deceit — and the explosive results of the deceit — at the Waldorf school I attended, please see "The Waldorf Scandal" and/or "I Went to Waldorf" here at Waldorf Watch.) What is particularly remarkable about the scandal at my old school is that the school was far less kooky than many other Waldorfs. A strong effort was made to make our school seem like a normal American private school. But the truth, of course, was very different. And at many other Waldorf schools today, the truth is even more markedly different.

Any Waldorf school that is true to Steiner's intentions teaches Anthroposophy indirectly and, when need be, directly. Strenuous efforts are made to disguise this, especially from the students' parents, but we can see what the truth is. Here’s my own nutshell, to complement von Baravalle’s:

1)  Waldorf schools teach the students Anthroposophy, indirectly and/or directly.

2)  Waldorf teachers are engaged in a religious mission — they consider themselves to be spiritual missionaries.

3)  Waldorf schools are dishonest about their intentions — they teach Anthroposophy, but they deny it; they try to lure students toward Anthroposophy, but they deny it.

◊◊◊◊

Here is Steiner speaking to Waldorf teachers. He tells them that their main goal is to promote religion. He calls the religion "Christian," but what he means is his own set of doctrines, that is, Anthroposophy — which is not truly Christian at all. But put that issue aside for the moment. What we should mainly recognize, here, is that Steiner effectively admits that Waldorf schools are religious institutions.

"[W]e must work into the depths of the students’ souls through what is revealed to our individual insights. In this way we prepare them to grow into religious adults ... It is possible to introduce a religious element into every subject, even into math lessons. Anyone who has some knowledge of Waldorf teaching will know that this statement is true. A Christian element pervades every subject, even mathematics. This fundamental religious current flows through all of [Waldorf] education." [50]

If you like the religious doctrines of Anthroposophy, you may well want to send your children to a Waldorf school. But if not...

Steiner says that children must be prepared so that they can find their own religious orientations. This sounds liberal and enlightened: Students will be freed to make their own decisions. But note that Steiner stresses "Christian" elements in each and every course taught in Waldorf schools. This is religious instruction that pushes the kids in a particular direction. A rightly run Waldorf school will infuse "Christian" (Anthroposophical) teachings into every subject, Steiner says. This is the underling purpose of Waldorf education.

I'll close by repeating the same quote, this time in full, leaving out no words:

"The point is that future stages have to be prepared for properly — that is, based on the correct insight into human nature. In my lectures I have used the comparison of the river that disappears underground and resurfaces at a lower level. During the first seven years the children have an inborn religious attitude. This now enters the depths of their souls, becoming part of them, and does not resurface in the form of thinking until the arrival of puberty. During the second life period we must work into the depths of the students’ souls through what is revealed to our individual insights. In this way we prepare them to grow into religious adults. We impede this process if we do not offer our students the possibility to find their own religious orientation later on. In every human being there is an individual orientation toward religion, which, after the fifteenth year, has to be gradually won. Our task is to prepare the ground so that this can happen properly. That is why, at this age, we have to treat the religion lessons just as we do the lessons in the other subjects. They must all work on the child’s soul through the power of imagery; the child’s soul life has to be stimulated. It is possible to introduce a religious element into every subject, even into math lessons. Anyone who has some knowledge of Waldorf teaching will know that this statement is true. A Christian element pervades every subject, even mathematics. This fundamental religious current flows through all of education." [51]

— Roger Rawlings

---

---

The harmony of all creation, through all the hierarchies.

Many people of faith have such a vision —

but Steiner's diverged far from orthodox religious teachings.

[http://www.fromoldbooks.org/]

---

[Herman V. Baravalle, WALDORF EDUCATION FOR AMERICA (Parker Courtney Press, 1998).

John Fentress Gardner, THE EXPERIENCE OF KNOWLEDGE (Waldorf Press, 1975.)

Franz E. Winkler, MAN, THE BRIDGE BETWEEN TWO WORLDS (Harper & Row, 1960.)]

---

Waldorf students are not often told this,

but the forms of art they are encouraged to create

are intended to reflect spiritual realms and realities.

---

To examine advice Steiner gave to Waldorf teachers,

please use this link: "Advice"

For intriguing statements Steiner made

about science, use "Science".

For more about the Godhead,

use "All".

You will also find information about

Brahman, chaos, primal wisdom,

 Logoi, and other related matters.

◊◊◊◊

ADDENDUM

What is life like in a Waldorf school community?

The following brief message, 

from someone who was deeply involved in a Waldorf school, 

provides part of the answer:

Teachers and parents alike are urged to increasingly restrict their social circle to people affiliated with the school and/or local Anthroposophical people.

The notion is that other influences will be bad for the children; neighborhood kids will want to do terrible things like watch TV and play soccer and have houses and yards full of plastic junk.

You can best avoid these conflicts if you just don't associate with people outside the school. Of course, you'll mess your kids up in other ways if you take this Waldorf attitude too seriously, but . . . 

— Diana Winters

◊◊◊◊

ENDNOTES

[1] Herman V. Baravalle, WALDORF EDUCATION FOR AMERICA (Parker Courtney Press, 1998). I have written other essays about von Baravalle’s advocacy of Anthroposophy: See “Oh My Stars”, “Humouresque”, and “What a Guy”.

[2] Ibid., p. 13.

[3] Ibid., p. 13.

[4] See, e.g., Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, RUDOLF STEINER (North Atlantic Books, 2004); also Rudolf Steiner, SPIRITUALISM, MADAME BLAVATSKY, AND THEOSOPHY (Anthroposophic Press, 2001), Rudolf Steiner, THEOSOPHY (Anthroposophic Press, 1994), and Rudolf Steiner, THEOSOPHY OF THE ROSICRUCIAN (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1981). 

[5] There is little basis for asserting that Anthroposophy is unique. To a great extent, it is merely warmed-over Theosophy. But even if we look far afield, we can find parallels with other unusual or heterodox faiths. Consider Mormonism, for example. Anthroposophy and Mormonism (i.e., the Church of Latter Day Saints) have no direct connections with one another. Mormonism has grown to become a major, avowed faith, while Anthroposophy has remained a minor, covert faith. And yet:

   ◊ Both are, at least in part, reworkings of Christianity — that is, they acknowledge the paramount importance of Jesus Christ, but they incorporate additional teachings beyond those derived directly from the Bible. Instead of "reworkings," some would label these faiths corruptions of Christianity.

   ◊ Seen from the perspective of orthodox Christian teachings, both are heretical — with the former straying even farther than the latter from mainline Christian dogmas.

   ◊ Both hold out the possibility of contemporary revelation. Another way to put this is that neither faith accepts the Holy Bible as the final word, i.e., God’s inerrant, perfect, complete Word. Anthroposophists look to Steiner (and his most “advanced” devotees) for recent news from the spiritual world. Mormons look to the Book of Mormon and the teachings of Joseph Smith’s successors.

   ◊ Both faiths place God or the Godhead at the pinnacle of spiritual authority. These doctrines differ, in varying ways, from the orthodox Christian conception of the triune God. For orthodox Christians, the three persons of God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are different aspects of the same ultimate Divinity. Steiner separated the three persons of God and placed them in their own über-hierarchy above the nine-step, triple-tiered hierarchies of other spiritual beings. Mormonism teaches that the Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are physically separate beings (tritheism). Indeed, Mormonism asserts that each of these beings has a physical body. The three beings work in coordination with one another, but they are not a single consciousness. Steiner taught that the Godhead is the author of a creative force that is at work almost everywhere, but otherwise the Godhead is far removed from our world and lives; a vast horde of other gods is far more immediately involved in our reality. The Godhead works toward God, as it were.

   ◊ Anthroposophists believe in Steinerian evolution, which — operating through the agency of reincarnation — allows for future human perfection. Steiner taught that it is possible for humans to rise, in future incarnations, to the level of the “gods.” Mormonism teaches that a similar sort of progression may allow people to eventually become “gods.” Whether Mormonism includes or implies the doctrine of reincarnation is the subject of debate. See, e.g., www.religionnewsblog.com/11847/room-for-reincarnation-in-lds-theology .

   ◊ Both Mormonism and Anthroposophy stress salvation through good works, not salvation through grace. Mormonism teaches that, upon Christ’s return, people (both the living and the resurrected dead) will receive the degree of divine reward they deserve, based on their behavior during life on Earth. This tenet is comparable to the Anthroposophical belief that “good” people will attain higher evolutionary levels than “bad.” Some backward people/peoples/races will fall away as humanity progresses — according to Steiner, the good will have to battle the bad, but the good will also help some of the better bad to join them in a virtuous community. The linchpin for this teaching is the doctrine of karma, according to which each human gets her/his desserts.

Note that a system of teachings rooted in Christianity, having a theology, and offering the path to salvation, is undeniably a religion.

 

The Book of Mormon is certainly the best reference to consult in studying Mormonism. Reader-friendly editions are available, e.g., Grant Hardy (ed.), THE BOOK OF MORMON: A Reader’s Edition (University of Illinois Press, 2005). There are also guides, such as Timothy Wilson’s A PLAIN ENGLISH REFERENCE TO THE BOOK OF MORMON (Bonneville Books, 1998). 

The ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA has a fine summary article about Mormonism: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-5018/Mormon . (E.g., “Mormons regard Christian churches as apostate for lacking [contemporary] revelation ... [T]he three [Father, Son, and Holy Ghost] are considered to be distinct entities ... Mormons believe that faithful members of the church may receive God's fullness and thus become gods themselves ... After the millennium, the earth will become a celestial sphere and the inheritance of the righteous. Others will be assigned to lesser kingdoms named terrestrial and ‘telestial’”, etc.) 

For a recent overview of Mormon teachings, see “Disparate Doctrines: Two Faiths [i.e., Evangelical Christianity and Mormonism] in Conflict,” sidebar, NEWSWEEK 12/17/2007.

[6] See, e.g., Rudolf Steiner, THE FOUNDATIONS OF HUMAN EXPERIENCE, Foundations of Waldorf Education (Anthroposophic Press, 1996), p. 28.

[7] See, e.g., “[T]he purpose of this book is to depict some portions of the supersensible world ... It is only through knowledge of the supersensible that our sense-perceptible ‘reality’ acquires meaning ... In compiling this book, I have included nothing I cannot testify to on the basis of personal experience in this field. Only my direct experience is presented here.” [THEOSOPHY, pp. 7-8.]. A particularly vivid description of clairvoyance can be seen in ART INSPIRED BY RUDOLF STEINER, Rudolf Steiner quoted by John Fletcher (Mercury Arts Publications, 1987), p. 95.

[8] WALDORF EDUCATION FOR AMERICA, p. 14.

[9] See, e.g., Rudolf Steiner, AN OUTLINE OF ESOTERIC SCIENCE (Anthroposophic Press, 1997), p. xii, introduction by Clopper Almon.

[10] WALDORF EDUCATION FOR AMERICA, p. 15.

[11] Ibid., p. 16.

[12] Ibid., p. 17.

[13] Re. nonphysical bodies, see, e.g., THEOSOPHY OF THE ROSICRUCIAN (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1981), pp. 22-25; for more about lives before and after our current physical lives, see, e.g., Rudolf Steiner, POLARITIES IN THE EVOLUTION OF MANKIND (Steiner Books, 1987).

[14] WALDORF EDUCATION FOR AMERICA, p. 18.

[15] See, e.g., Rudolf Steiner, NATURE SPIRITS. Lectures from 1908-1924 (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1995), pp. 62-3.

[16] See, e.g., A.C. Harwood, PORTRAIT OF A WALDORF SCHOOL (The Myrin Institute Inc., 1956), pp. 15-16.

[17] Ibid., p. 19.

[18] See, e.g., Rudolf Steiner, KARMIC RELATIONSHIPS: Esoteric Studies, Vol. 2  (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1974).

[19] WALDORF EDUCATION FOR AMERICA, p. 23.

[20] Ibid., p. 20.

[21] Ibid., p. 22. See diagram.

[22] Ibid., p. 22.

[23] Ibid., p. 19.

[24] Ibid., p. 23.

At this point, von Baravalle is saying that Steiner's view of the future is completely different from the general view with its faith in science. But we may take the statement "Rudolf Steiner took a completely different view” in a larger sense as representing v. B.'s general endorsement of Steiner's work — it has roots in some ancient clairvoyant insights, and there are some parallels between it and other ideologies today, but for the most part it is unique, and uniquely true.

[25] Ibid., p. 23.

[26] See, e.g., the Encyclopedia Brittanica.

[27] WALDORF EDUCATION FOR AMERICA, p. 14.

[28] Ibid., pp. 23-24.

[29] Ibid., p. 24.

[30] Ibid., p. 25.

[31] Ibid., p. 25.

[33] Ibid., pp. 25-27.

[34] One reason I feel entitled to laugh at Steiner and Hermann/Herman is that, from the lofty perspective of the 21st Century, we are virtual contemporaries. If it helps, think of us as three old duffers having a senile spat. 

[35] John Fentress Gardner, “The Founding of Adelphi’s Waldorf School,” ONE MAN’S VISION: IN MEMORIAM, H.A.W. MYRIN (The Myrin Institute Inc., 1970), p. 48.

[36] Ibid., p. 46.

[37] Consider, for instance, the Steiner statements I present in “Say What?”, “Steiner’s Bile”, “Steiner Static”, and “Wise Words”.

[38] John Fentress Gardner, AMERICAN HERALDS OF THE SPIRIT (Lindisfarne Press, 1992).

[39] WALDORF EDUCATION FOR AMERICA, p. 298.

[40]“The Founding of Adelphi’s Waldorf School,” p. 46.

[41] WALDORF EDUCATION FOR AMERICA , p. 8.

[42] Ibid., p. 9.

[43] Rudolf Steiner, EDUCATION FOR ADOLESCENTS (Anthroposophic Press, 1996), p. 60.

[44] Rudolf Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER (Anthroposophic Press, 1998), p. 115.

[45] Ibid., p. 118.

[46] Ibid., p. 705.

[47] Ibid., p. 698.

[48] Ibid., pp. 698-699.

[49] EDUCATION FOR ADOLESCENTS, p. 60.

[50] THE CHILD's CHANGING CONSCIOUSNESS AS THE BASIS OF PEDAGOGICAL PRACTICE, Foundations of Waldorf Education (Anthroposophic Press, 1996), pp. 93-94.

[51] Ibid.