Is Anthroposophy A Religion?

Anthroposophists and Waldorf faculty members deny many things. Crucially, they often deny that Anthroposophy is a religion. For instance, at the Waldorf Answers website, the denial is absolute: 

“No, anthroposophy is not a religion, nor is it meant to be a substitute for religion.”

Yet there is persuasive evidence to the contrary. Here are the words of Christopher Bamford, editor-in-chief of SteinerBooks: 

“[S]teiner felt…he had to infuse Theosophy, which had an anti-Christian bias, with the real meaning of Christ….” 

Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, the author of several books on occult and esoteric subjects, puts the matter this way: 

“Rudolf Steiner…a pivotal figure of twentieth-century esotericism…blended modern Theosophy with a Gnostic form of Christianity, Rosicrucianism, and German Naturphilosophie.”

To cite one more authoritative source, the ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION says this:

“Anthroposophy is continuous with the Rosicrucian stream of the Christian esoteric tradition.”

Summarizing, then, we can say that Anthroposophy combines Theosophy, certain gnostic or esoteric forms of Christianity, and perhaps another spiritualistic thread or two.

o 0 o

There can be no doubt that Christianity, in whatever form, is a religion. If Anthroposophy is Christianity blended with other spiritualistic traditions, we are justified in at least suspecting that Anthroposophy is indeed a religion. But let’s delve deeper. Bamford and Goodrick-Clarke agree that Steiner “infused” or “blended” Christianity with Theosophy. Steiner himself made no secret of the importance of Theosophy in his life and thought. Steiner was a Theosophist before breaking away to set up Anthroposophy as a separate spiritual movement, and he was outspoken in his admiration for a key leader of Theosophy, Helena Blavatsky: 

“One thing can be said of the writings of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. Only one who does not understand them can underestimate them. Anyone who finds the key to what is great in these works will come to admire her more and more.”

Well, then, let’s consult Helena Blavatsky, asking her whether Theosophy is a religion. She gives a typically scrambled occultist answer: 

“It is perhaps necessary, first of all, to say, that the assertion that ‘Theosophy is not a Religion,’ by no means excludes the fact that ‘Theosophy is Religion’ itself. A Religion in the true and only correct sense, is a bond uniting men together — not a particular set of dogmas and beliefs. Now Religion, per se, in its widest meaning is that which binds not only all MEN, but also all BEINGS and all things in the entire Universe into one grand whole … Thus Theosophy is not a Religion, we say, but RELIGION itself….”

So, is Theosophy a religion? No. Or, in other words, yes. It is the essence of religion. It is Religion. 

Where does this bring us? The two major sources from which Steiner drew, Christianity and Theosophy, are religions. According to its adherents, Christianity is the one true religion of salvation. And according to its  adherents, Theosophy is the one true overarching, whole-encompassing Religion. What, then, is Anthroposophy? It is a combination of these religions. The result, the blending of these sources, must necessarily be a religion as well. A religion added to a religion yields a religion. (Claiming that the result is a science, not a religion — because it provides the path to Truth — is unconvincing. Virtually all religions claim to provide the path to Truth. Indeed, making this claim in a system of meditations, prayers, and other spiritual exercises — a system such as Anthroposophy — is an identifying characteristic of religion.)

o 0 o

Of course, to find the most compelling evidence for the religious nature of Anthroposophy, we need to examine the work and words of Anthroposophy’s founder, Rudolf Steiner. The evidence there is overwhelming. Note, for example, that Steiner wrote many prayers for his followers to use — a compilation of his prayers is titled PRAYERS FOR PARENTS AND CHILDREN. Note the first word in the title. Additional prayers, meditations, and spiritual exercises penned by Steiner can be found in such books as START NOW! and BREATHING THE SPIRIT. Writing prayers for use by others is the activity of a religious leader, while reciting prayers written or prescribed by a religious leader is the activity of faithful adherents. 

In this context, it is important to note that Steiner wrote prayers to be recited by students in Waldorf schools. Here is one:

Steiner attempted to disguise the nature of this prayer, just as Waldorf schools generally disguise their nature as religious institutions [10], just as Anthroposophists generally disguise the religious nature of Anthroposophy. Steiner cautioned Waldorf teachers against allowing outsiders to know that Waldorf students are required to recite prayers. With specific reference to the prayer I just quoted, Steiner said: 

“We also need to speak about a prayer. I ask only one thing of you. You see, in such things everything depends upon the external appearances. Never call a verse a prayer, call it an opening verse before school. Avoid allowing anyone to hear you, as a faculty member, using the word ‘prayer.’” 

Steiner enjoined Waldorf teachers from admitting the truth, which is that the “verse” he wrote is self-evidently a prayer. Not only does Steiner call it a prayer (“We…need to speak about a prayer”), but the substance and phrasing are clearly those of a prayer: The children address God, thanking her/him, and offering him/her love. When they recite this “verse,” they are praying: “I reverence, O God,/ The strength of humankind / ... From Thee come light and strength,/To Thee rise love and thanks”.

Also revealing is Steiner’s decision to hold Sunday services for Anthroposophically inclined Waldorf students: 

“We hold the Sunday services within the context of the school. They are part of the school … I would certainly deny any association with a Sunday service outside the school. It only makes sense if there are a number of children receiving religious instruction from an anthroposophical basis and there is a Sunday service in our school for these children.” 

Children who are taught about  religion don’t need Sunday services; only children who are taught to embrace  a religion need them. Because the services were held on Sundays, we can infer that the religion being practiced was Christianity or an offshoot of Christianity — i.e., Anthroposophy. Steiner’s meaning is clear. “[R]eceiving religious instruction from an anthroposophical basis” is tantamount to being taught Anthroposophy. Steiner often denied that Waldorf schools teach Anthroposophical dogma, and I believe this is generally true. But as I have argued in other essays, Anthroposophy can be injected into a child’s psyche/soul by subtle, indirect, manipulative methods that I have called brainwashing. Children at Waldorf schools can absorb the spirit and viewpoint of Anthroposophy without needing to learn the precise phrasing of specific doctrines. Explicitly, Steiner said that in the Waldorf school “there are a number of children receiving religious instruction” based on Anthroposophy, and he wanted to provide appropriately Anthroposophical “Sunday services” for them. And so, as we will see, Steiner acknowledged that Anthroposophy works much as “other religious groups” do. In this formulation of Steiner’s, Anthroposophy takes its place in the ranks of world religions.

o 0 o

Not all Anthroposophists deny that Anthroposophy is a religion or that Waldorf schools are religious. A few bold Anthroposophists break ranks and speak the truth. Here are two statements made by Anthroposophist and Waldorf teacher Eugene Schwartz:

“I’m glad my daughter gets to speak about God every morning: that’s why I send her to a Waldorf school. She’s learning stories from the Old Testament, or the Hebrew Scriptures … She’s learned that God created the world in seven days; she’s learning about Abraham, and the terrible existential struggle he had when he was asked by God to sacrifice his son. She’s going to learn about the king, the battles, the Israelites. [S]he’s learning it as truth. She comes home filled with this, bubbling up with it. She speaks about it as she crochets socks for her sister, she talks about it as she gets out her violin and begs to practice. She’s filled with it. That’s why I send her to a Waldorf school. She can have a religious experience. A religious experience. I’ll say it again: I send my daughter to a Waldorf school so that she can have a religious experience.” 

And:

“I would like to say if a public school superintendent came up to me and said [he would] like to start a Waldorf program, can you help me? … I would say ‘Yes, let me give you these ten books by Rudolf Steiner, starting with THEOSOPHY, OCCULT SCIENCE, THE PHILOSOPHY OF FREEDOM. Read them and let’s talk.’ And if he came back and talked I’d go further: ‘Do you realize how much Christianity there is in our school? Do you realize that we are thinking about these children in the light of reincarnation and karma? That’s how a teacher’s working with them. Do you want me to say this to your parents? Do you know, Mr. Public School Superintendent, the degree of courage that it’s going to take to have a Waldorf program in your district?’ If he hasn’t jumped out of the window by then, maybe we can work with something. But how many public school superintendents have courage? Do we really think they are the people who are going to move Waldorf education forward into the future? I doubt it.”

o 0 o

The following is an excerpt from a message historian Peter Staudenmaier posted on the free speech forum, waldorf-critics: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/1286. I have modified the message slightly for use here.

“The leading historian of anthroposophy today is Helmut Zander, whose background is in the history of religion. In a 2002 article, Zander thoroughly explores the question of whether anthroposophy is a religion. Zander’s basic argument there is that Steiner rejected the label of ‘religion’ for his own spiritual teachings in order to posit anthroposophy as the transcendence of religion and science, a move that Zander considers unconvincing to non-anthroposophists.

“Other German historians of religion share this view, and characterize anthroposophy as ‘the most successful form of “alternative” religion in the [twentieth] century.’ One of the better overviews of Steiner’s place within the broader religious landscape of early twentieth century Germany is Thomas Nipperdey’s book RELIGION IN UMBRUCH: Deutschland 1870-1918.

“Such classifications are by no means uniformly contested by anthroposophists themselves; consider for example the entry ‘Anthroposophy’ by anthroposophist Robert McDermott in ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION.

“For further background on this question, I recommend the very extensive discussions of anthroposophy in Wouter Hanegraaff’s book NEW AGE RELIGION AND WESTERN CULTURE.”

o 0 o

Having established that Anthroposophy may justifiably be termed a religion, let’s shift focus slightly and ask how often this religion shows up in Waldorf classrooms. Steiner, as we have seen, claimed that Waldorf schools are not meant to teach Anthroposophy to the students. Here’s another form of this denial: 

“We are not interested in imposing our ‘dogmas,’ our principles, or the content of our world-view [sic] on young people … We are striving to include in our instructional methods a way of dealing with individual souls that can originate in a living spiritual science.”

But Steiner was propounding a distinction without a difference. If Waldorf pedagogy arises from “a living spiritual science” (i.e., Anthroposophy), then the “individual souls” of the students are continually being worked upon by Anthroposophy. And if Anthroposophy works much as other religious groups do, then the students are receiving religious ministrations.

Steiner came close to saying as much when he asserted the following:

“[W]e believe that spiritual science differs from any other science in filling the entire person….”

A little set of logical deductions: a) If Waldorf students are to be worked upon by living spiritual science (Anthroposophy), and if spiritual science fills the whole person, then Waldorf students will be filled by Anthroposophy. b) If Waldorf schools aim to fill their students with spiritual science (Anthroposophy), then a clear function of Waldorf education is to spread Anthroposophy. The spreading could occur by pouring spiritual science into the students (perhaps without divulging the dogmas), or by arousing interest among the students’ parents, who of course would influence the students at home. Either way, directly or indirectly, the schools would spread Anthroposophy. And this is in fact what Waldorf schools aim to do. As Steiner said: 

“One of the most important facts about the background of the Waldorf School is that we were in a position to make the anthroposophical movement a relatively large one. The anthroposophical movement has become a large one.”

This is “one of the most important facts about” Waldorf schools; this is their aim. Waldorf schools set themselves up as conduits for the religion known as Anthroposophy. They are, in other words, religious institutions.

o 0 o

Steiner was reasonably candid about the importance of Anthroposophy to Waldorf schools. 

“The anthroposophical movement is the basis of the Waldorf School movement.”

Still, he continued to maintain that Waldorf schools don’t explicitly teach Anthroposophy. 

“[W]e had to create our curricula and educational goals on the basis of a true understanding of the human being, which can only grow out of the fertile ground of anthroposophy. Then we would have a universally human school, not a school based on a particular philosophy or denomination….”

It is impossible to know whether Steiner believed his own statements, but we can usually understand the meaning of his statements. In this case, his position was that Anthroposophy is not a philosophy or denomination. It is “spiritual science.” It is objective truth. It represents “true understanding.” Thus, Steiner could argue that a Waldorf is “not a school based on a particular philosophy or denomination,” because he had waved his wand (metaphorically speaking) and defined Anthroposophy as being neither of these things. But calling a religion something other than “religion” does not, in reality, change the nature of the religion. A religion by any other name is still a religion.

Steiner himself sometimes undercut his claim that Anthroposophical dogma is not taught in Waldorf schools. For example, speaking to Waldorf teachers, he said this: 

“For the seventh, eighth, and ninth grade independent religious instruction we could move into a freer form and give a theoretical explanation about such things as life before birth and after death. We could give them examples. We could show them how to look at the major cultural connections and about the mission of the human being on Earth. You need only look at Goethe and Jean Paul [i.e., Johann Paul Friedrich Richter, a German author] to see it. You can show everywhere that their capacities come from a life before birth.”

Teaching Waldorf students about reincarnation in the way Steiner specified, in a school which has its “basis” in “the anthroposophical movement,” is tantamount to teaching the students Anthroposophical dogma. Karma and reincarnation are central tenets of Anthroposophy. And note that Steiner was not saying that karma and reincarnation should be taught in the abstract. He said that they should be presented as living truths, as facts for the students to embrace: “You can show everywhere that [great men’s] capacities come from a life before birth.”

Steiner’s most important admission about the place of Anthroposophy in Waldorf schooling came in the following statement, which he made in private during a meeting with Waldorf faculty members: 

“You need to make the children aware that they are receiving the objective truth, and if this occasionally appears anthroposophical, it is not anthroposophy that is at fault. Things are that way because anthroposophy has something to say about objective truth … Anthroposophy will be in the school when it is objectively justified, that is, when it is called for by the material itself.”

Since Steiner promoted Anthroposophy as the one system that provides true explanations for virtually all phenomena, physical and spiritual, he was here effectively acknowledging that Anthroposophy will pervade virtually every subject in the Waldorf curriculum. And it will do so in order to provide the concepts, principles, and conclusions that reveal “objective truth” about the subjects being studied. Anthroposophy will not go unspoken; it will be present in the instruction, either overtly or covertly (or both). 

When will Anthroposophy be “called for by the material” in Waldorf schools? Almost always. Waldorf teachers have little choice in the matter. Anthroposophy is, for them, the truth. To omit the Anthroposophical perspective from academic classes would be to omit the truth, in which case the teachers would be knowingly telling the students falsehoods. The good intentions and professionalism of the teachers would prevent them from doing so.

So, when will Anthroposophy be present in a Waldorf school? Almost always. And because Anthroposophy is a religion, this means that religion will be omnipresent in a Waldorf school. To remove the religious (Anthroposophical) practices and content from Waldorf education would be to gut it.

We can drive this point home further with the following anecdote. Rudolf Steiner once corrected a Waldorf teacher who had brought Anthroposophy into the classroom. Here’s what Steiner said:

“The problem you have is that you have not always followed the directive to bring what you know anthroposophically into a form you can present to little children. You have lectured the children about anthroposophy when you told them about your subject. You did not transform anthroposophy into a child’s level.”

Note this well: Steiner did not tell the teacher that he had erred by bringing Anthroposophy into the classroom or by openly teaching the students about Anthroposophy. He told the teacher he had erred by not explaining Anthroposophy in language the students could grasp.  “You did not transform anthroposophy into a child’s level.” This is completely different from saying that Anthroposophy should not be taught. In fact, it is the direct, absolute opposite of saying that Anthroposophy should not be taught. It is an explicit admission that Anthroposophy belongs in the Waldorf classroom. Anthroposophy belongs there in a form the students can understand. It belongs there in a form that will affect the students as strongly as possible. It belongs there because that is the whole point of Waldorf education. This is the “directive” Steiner gave to Waldorf teachers: “bring what you know anthroposophically into a form you can present to [your students].”