Rudolf Steiner was a genius and one of the most important writers of the past couple of centuries; furthermore, he was someone who directly influenced other great writers such as Owen Barfield and Valentin Tomberg; and who continues to inspire some of the most important thinkers of today such as Jeremy Naydler and Terry Boardman.
But there are many serious problems about Rudolf Steiner the man and his legacy, which tend to render him beyond the pale, a 'hopeless case' for most serious Christians - even Romantic Christians.
So, here is some personal advice about how to 'tackle' Steiner in a way that does the most good - based upon about seven years of intensive study and thought concerning Steiner's work; but as an independent outsider to his movement.
Importantly, you can booth read and listen-to All of Steiner's major works (plus most of his minor work) free of charge at Rudolf Steiner Archive and Rudolf Steiner Audio.
You can start Now...
1. There are several books from you can take Steiner whole - his philosophical books and the history if ideas, where he is absolutely brilliant and fascinating.
A theory of knowledge implicit in Goethe's world conception - 1886
Truth and Knowledge - 1892
The philosphy of freedom - 1894
Mysticism at the dawn of the modern age - 1901
Riddles of philosophy - 1914
2. Moving on from here, a different method is needed. Steiner is capable of tremendous, vital insights on a wide range of spritiual matters - especially to do with consciousness. Such gems are embedded all over the place, in the other books and the various collections from his thosands of transcribed lectures.
But these embedded gems (that you would not want to have missed) will be surrounded by a variable - sometimes a very large - amount of rubbish, nonsense, tedium; misleading and bad ideas. And much of the bad stuff with be very complicated, dry, systematic - bureaucratic in style and tendency. I find this particularly the case when Steiner is writing about practical, applied, social questions - politics, medicine, education, agriculture and so on: this comes across to me as essentially pseudo-academic and pseudo-science.
3. When Steiner addresses individuals - one man speaking to another, across
time - then he is at his best. But when Steiner addresses groups of
people, or is focused upon matters of groups, or speaks as a The Doctor - leader/
guru/ administrator/ would-be man-of-action - then I think he is at his
worst. Often you can tell when he switches from one mode to another.
4. Beyond the books on philosphy and history of ideas; I would therefore advise exploring - he is well worth reading. But read following Ralph Waldo Emerson's own practice, and practice skimming for 'lustres'; dance-across the text or swim-through the audio; seeking what speaks to you personally - and setting aside the rest.