Interview with Micah Edelstein,  President, Anthroposophical Society in Canada Conducted by Geraldine Snowden and Robert McKay April 25, 2020

21 Nov Interview with Micah Edelstein,  President, Anthroposophical Society in Canada Conducted by Geraldine Snowden and Robert McKay April 25, 2020

This interview contains Micah’s personal thoughts, experiences and opinions and no part of the interview represent views or opinions of the Anthroposophical Society of Canada. 

Since the interview was made, Micah has stepped down from the board of the South Shore Waldorf school to focus on building the next phase of the school. 

Geraldine: 

Micah, can you tell us a little bit about yourself, a bit of your biography?

Micah: 

Sure. I was born into a family that was already at the Toronto Waldorf School (TWS). Both my parents were active Anthroposophists and still are. My dad was teaching Biology and Woodwork and was also helping finish the building because the school had just been built and wasn’t completed yet. My mom was working in the kindergarten, then she joined the doctor’s clinic when it opened in Hesperus. She is trained in Germany as a doctor’s assistant and helped Dr. Kenneth McAlister for 22 years at the doctor’s clinic. So I was totally surrounded. I was at the Waldorf School during the day, and then often I would walk over to the doctor’s office and usually hang out until my mom was finished work. And also at Hesperus. So I was immersed in Waldorf Education, Anthroposophical medicine, retirement living, and an amazing community from birth. 

Geraldine: 

Can you identify some experiences that prepared you to meet Anthroposophy or lead you to Anthroposophy?

Micah:

I came to Anthroposophy as an adult, or returned to it. I was brought up in it, really immersed in it. But then I went to university and I went as far away from it as I’ve ever been. I will describe it in terms of cosmic imagery. We are on this orbit, a deep orbital swing, the perigee, and apogee. My apogee, the farthest out, was during my university years. 

I’m on the perigee right now, going ever deeper, as I get more and more involved in Anthroposophy and that includes the Society work. I was asked to join the Society by Judy King who was finishing her 7 year term on Council. Eventually I agreed after a year and a half of her asking. I worked for about a year with the Council. I was also asked to be on the board of the South Shore Waldorf School in Nova Scotia. And now we’re building the next phase of the Waldorf School. So the journey is continuing.

Rob: 

When you grow up with Anthroposophy the way you did, it’s not yours yet. Was there a point at which you identified yourself with it? You could have rejected it but decided not to. Was there some pivotal point?

Micah: 

Really good question. There was. It was a very clear moment. I realized, when I was in university and far away from it all, that I just couldn’t stop thinking about it. I realized that it was a big part of me, like destiny or karma that was really waiting to be fleshed out. I also wasn’t going to find real nourishment out there in the world away from these centers and communities where Anthroposophy has become the foundation of our activities. I just knew that I had been given something, and that my path in life was not to reject it. It was actually to go into it, and work with it. And as soon as I realized that, I just felt like it was the right decision. I mean, it continues to impress me, how enriching it is, how much we can actually do if we consciously work with Anthroposophy. It’s like a force in the world. But of course, the art is learning how to work with it.

Geraldine:

Could you tell us what Steiner book that you have read that has profoundly affected you?

Micah: 

Every book I read has a profound effect. I remember Steiner writing that it’s not right that anthroposophists read every book he’s written, but that they read a book that speaks to what they’re doing in their lives. So I’m always aware that it can’t just be reading, because that’s not Anthroposophy. Anthroposophy needs to be living, brought into our activities. The book that’s really inspired me recently is The Mission of Christian Rosenkreuz. It’s a wonderful book about the being and incarnation of Christian Rosenkreuz and his mission, and what he has made possible for humanity. If we didn’t have this personality, then we actually wouldn’t be able to have certain experiences. It’s because of him that humanity is able to, for example, choose lives of great suffering that ultimately bring us and others towards higher truths. It has a profound connection to the Parsifal story and to events in our biography when viewed as chapters of significant soul suffering that lead us to understand Christ in our own way. 

Geraldine: 

Why do you think that pursuing the study of Anthroposophy is so worth the effort and important for the world?

Micah:  

Anthroposophy is working homeopathically in the world. People have been exposed to it. Almost everybody has been exposed to it. But they’ve either quickly rejected it or become aware of it. Either way it keeps poking at them. And that’s kind of how I see it. It is stimulating us to wake up and really question things that, if you don’t have Anthroposophy, you might just adopt unconsciously. A lot of the time I think, it’s an untruth that would be adopted. Anthroposophy is bringing truth and a foundation of truth, and that’s really what it is. It’s not that it’s the only way. It brings the soil, you could say, that enables truth to flower.

Rob: 

I would love to hear you talk about biodynamic farming, because I know you’re involved in various ways. And I know there’s some interesting stuff going on down in Nova Scotia. 

Micah: 

Biodynamics seems to be an entrance into Anthroposophy. I keep hearing people discover biodynamics, and then they get very excited about it. In that way they’re brought also into contact with Anthroposophy. Personally, I haven’t been so practically involved in biodynamics recently, only because of the work I do for the Society and for the South Shore Waldorf School. But today I was helping build a garden here at the Robert Pope Foundation near the school. It’s a foundation in honor of Doug Pope’s brother who died of cancer. Doug wants to bring health awareness and offer a place for artists to come and study and be in nature and do various artistic retreats. Doug and I are great friends. I’m also helping Kaitlin Brown, the new Kindergarten teacher, create the Land of Milk and Honey. It is a 25 acre biodynamic farm near the school with milk goats, a donkey and sheep. Next year there will be a cow. It’s a farm for the school community. Kaitlin is adamant that human requires daily animal contact. I milk the goats for her. 

Rob: 

What’s it been like for you to be on the board of the Waldorf School?

Micah:

It’s been good. I have to say, I’ve never really been a fan of boards. And now I’m on two!  I’ve been able, for the most part, to work in the way that I prefer to work, which is actually to bring something new and to work out of the will, which also means into one’s karma. I don’t think boards are particularly effective, for example, in cultivating a healthy spiritual life. They can actually interfere with spiritual progress. The problems we see arising in many Waldorf schools now are issues related to the inability of boards and faculty to work out of anthroposophical life. Rudolf Steiner articulated how essential anthroposophical life and work are for the success of Waldorf education. The two are intimately related, like night and day. It’s also understandable how the two cannot be separated either at the board or faculty level. Anthroposophical life brings Waldorf pedagogy and culture into a healthy relationship with the earthly, material decisions boards are tasked with. What I bring into my work at the school is my experience of being nurtured by an anthroposophical community and education. The wonderful benefits of working with the spiritual being of the school and holding away awareness of overly material mindsets that can bring something unhealthy into spiritual life or destroy it to a degree. Katja Rudolf is also a member of our South Shore Waldorf community, and helped to rescue the Toronto Waldorf School during its financial crises. The two of us are drawing on our experiences to try to avoid similar pitfalls of ideas and decisions that work counter to what nourishes Waldorf schools and communities.

Rob: 

Can you give me an example? Can we put a little meat on the bones there in terms of what these dangers look like?

Micah: 

One of the biggest dangers in this whole movement is that Waldorf schools don’t stand firmly as anthroposophical grounded Waldorf education. There tends to be a bit of a timid-ness especially on the board level to really stand firmly as a spiritual education. Boards are usually populated by professionals, they bring wonderful skills like legal and business knowledge. But when those things become the drivers for decisions, that’s the beginning of the end, in my opinion. That’s not working consciously with the being of a Waldorf school. We have to meet some legal requirements and some financial disclosure needs to be there, but at the same time, the school needs to be active, vocal and confident in its spiritual work and foundation. 

Rob: 

So any attempt to, you know, hide Anthroposophy under a bushel in a way, is going to get in the way of a school becoming what it can be?

Micah: 

I would say that’s what most schools right now are dealing with, this question of how much Anthroposophy is in the school and at what level. I bumped up against AWSNA planning the Waldorf alumni conference and I think that it can become a challenge for Waldorf education. Fixed views are not in the spirit of Waldorf education in my opinion. It’s about diversity and freedom and putting these great souls (teachers) in the driver’s seat. Each school can be allowed to be independent and unique and different in many ways. Each one is the expression of the faculty body. And of course, no two human beings are the same. So we’re going to have a different psyche in every school but Anthroposophy is what grounds and connects it all. In Steiner’s lectures on education he speaks to the experiences within the teacher. If the teacher’s teaching math, they have to connect the math to their own biography, their own life experience or it’s not going to be received the same way by the student. And that’s really saying the opposite of what standardized education is all about, where it doesn’t really matter who’s delivering it. It’s just about getting through the curriculum. So then you just have a mouth talking versus an actual life experience being presented to the student.

I can give you another example. I agreed to work on the school building, with the expectation that the community would participate because I felt it could be a community building initiative that would strengthen the being of the school, the school would continue to grow and the students would benefit. To my surprise It didn’t really happen from the parents. It happened from the grade four and five students. They would come out during recess and say, can we help? Initially I thought, no, I can’t say yes. But then I had no choice because we needed to fill in a large hole. I looked around, there’s all these rocks and I said, “Hey, kids, grab all the rocks and throw them in the hole.” And it took about 20 minutes. Then they just kept coming back and asking for more work.

Two days ago, one of the kids was helping put the shingles on the siding and he said he had experience. He’s only eight years old. I set him up and he starts nailing the shingles on and then he asked me if he could set up the measurements. And I said, yeah, you have to measure four and a quarter inches. Do you know how to do that? And he said no. So I showed him the tape measure and I said, you know, these are inches and an inch has four quarters. It’s written with the four on top and the four on the bottom. The bottom tells you how many are in the whole. Then I said, are you old enough to learn fractions? And he didn’t really say anything. Then I went back to what I was doing, and then I kind of panicked, and I thought, oh my God, I just left him, and he’s already on the next row. And I went over and checked it quickly and he had got it perfect. He understood perfectly the four and one quarter measurement. And I thought, oh, that’s Waldorf education, because it was coming through my experience. It was very grounded. There was no abstraction. 

Geraldine: 

So the child knows and feels now that this is his school.

Micah: 

That’s it! It’s a very deep connection that he’s going to have his entire life. When you give kids direct experience, it’s a solid foundation for their entire life. No matter what they’re asked to do in life, they feel they can do it.

Rob: 

A great story, I love it. So let’s talk a bit about your voyage into working with the Council. You’re the president of the Society at the moment. It’s a big part of your life these days.

Micah: 

Yeah, it is actually, especially in the last month, because we have this AGM coming up and I was really pushing with Michaelic enthusiasm to plough forward. We’re going to do this. We’re not going to be stopped. But then it became clear that it would actually cause more harm. So the question arose, do we do the AGM at a later time in the year? We didn’t feel good about that because actually in the bylaws there has to have been an AGM by June. So we thought, let’s just try to do it virtually. We had to really think about that. What does it mean to do a virtual AGM? How do you do it? The length, for example. People are not going to be online for eight hours. So how do we do this in a much shorter time?

I was really against the idea initially. But I’m actually excited about it now. I think it can be a fun experience and we might actually have the largest AGM attendance ever because people from across Canada can come, not just those in one city. Some people are not going to like the idea and they’re not going to want to join. We understand that because we do recognize the importance of face to face. There’s no question there. There’s a motion to allow for this type of AGM now in the bylaws, which we didn’t have. My original wording was to allow for it under exceptional circumstances, because I think there’s always the danger that future Councils could, just out of convenience, say they want to do a virtual AGM. Not necessarily out of necessity. So that’s something we have to just carry. 

The Council work has been great. It’s interesting how my role as the president came about. Dorothy Lebaron was passionate about choosing the next president before she left. She did wonderful work. And I really enjoyed having Dorothy as president. She worked with Jeff Saunders to pick one of the existing Council members as the next person. As we do with the selection of the general secretary, we put some names forward. We really consider them individually before voting. It usually goes through three rounds because we all have our first, second and third preferences. And then, based on the consensus, we decide.

I told everyone I really think we need to find a different way of managing the Society. I don’t believe in the structure we have. It would take some work, but we can change the structure. We don’t have to be a Not for profit corporation (NFP). We could just be a society. That’s why we have the current structure, because the government expects certain things from a NFP. We have to deliver on those. We need financial statements, to hold an AGM, and elect a treasurer, secretary and president. But we also have the option to create everything on our own within the framework of a society. We would be free to come up with everything. And we’re still legally recognized including as a charity, which is how the Waldorf School here in Nova Scotia is set up. It’s set up through the Society Act. So I said to the Council that they are asking me to do something I don’t believe in. I can’t select another president. Then there was this debate about whether I could actually abstain. We decided I could. So I abstained. And then enough people put my name forward as president. I was in an awkward position because now you are asking me to do something I don’t want to do. 

I thought about it for two months before I agreed to it. Jeff Saunders suggested I say yes and then work to bring a new governing model. So I agreed to do it for the interim, if the Council was willing to work together to find a different way of structuring the Society. That’s where we are now, I hope we can follow through but we are working in that way. For example, one of the other motions coming forward is to allow any Council member to sign membership cards. That’s been the president’s role and I’ve been doing it. But I felt it would be nice to share it with other Council members if they want to do it, because it’s a very nice thing to do to welcome somebody into the Society and sign the card for them. 

I was a little concerned though, that the current Council really wants a leader, somebody in the driver’s seat. And that’s something I picked up in the AGM work because when I wasn’t stepping forth as the president and making those decisions, things got chaotic and confusing. I think there is a need for that type of decision making. But it doesn’t necessarily have to be a president’s role. It could be worded and carried out differently. 

Rob: 

It sounds to me like your understanding of what it means to be a leader in an anthroposophical context is going through a kind of development.

Micah: 

Yeah, it’s very much a gesture of the future. What’s being asked, what’s coming from the future and how do we move away from what’s been shaped by the past? I don’t think it can be a radical change. There are a lot of people who are used to the current way of working. It has to be done in a sensitive way, but in a way that really brings the Society forward. If we really want young people in the Society, this old model is the first deterrent to that, for example, for younger generations joining a Society with a president might be a scary idea.

Rob: 

How is it working to have both a president and a general secretary? That already is something unusual for non-profit organizations. Most organizations would not have two leadership roles like that. Corporations even join the role of board chair and CEO to simplify the decision-making structure. So how do you understand that? And what is it like to actually work as, on the one hand, the president, but also with the general secretary?

Micah: 

It’s unique because we have our national society and yet are part of the world society. So Bert Chase is really the representative of the Canadian Society with respect to the world Society. When he goes to the Goetheanum, he represents Canada. He brings back his experience of the world Society to us. That’s a great thing and I think the title “General Secretary” is a wonderful, warm title. It doesn’t convey any sort of hierarchy or duty other than to be in service as a communicator: somebody who is experiencing and communicating between these two levels of the world Society. And that’s something we’ve noticed when visiting with local members. The connection between them and the world is not so clear. People don’t understand that the work they’re doing in the world is made possible because of a world Society. It’s possible by the fact that people around the world are also working in the same way. It’s like geography doesn’t really have a say when we’re talking about spiritual work, spiritual effects. Those things transcend distances. If we’re working spiritually, we can be influenced by other people’s spiritual work as well regardless of nationality. The general secretary has a good important role, and now we need to find the right term for that role which currently is called the ‘president’.

Rob: 

Successive general secretaries have interpreted this role quite differently. When Arie van Ameringen was the general secretary, he was probably the one who was instigating a lot of things. He instigated, for example, the big Ottawa conference. Dorothy LeBaron in her role as president, certainly supported that in lots of ways. But Dorothy did a lot of wonderful work with the website and other things. But she wasn’t somebody necessarily instigating major activities in quite the same way. I’m not sure that it’s necessary that there be a single way. But it is at least interesting to explore the different ways that people are doing it.

Micah: 

Well, Arie is just a force of enthusiasm. I think if we put him in any role, it wouldn’t matter. Anything he gets involved with he really inspires through his enthusiasm. Being the general secretary at the time helped. It gave him a lot of support for the Ottawa conference, which we’ve learned was inspirational around the world. The people who came from Europe and the Unites States experienced a version of Anthroposophy that really was awakening for them. They couldn’t believe it. Paul MacKay’s words were “Anthroposophy was in the air.” I understand that to mean this was a living forum of Anthroposophy. This work wasn’t theoretical, you know, up in the heavens. This was on earth – here. It was perceptible. You couldn’t deny it. He was picking up a lot of strong Michaelic energy in the conference. 

Rob: 

Any chance we’ll do another one?

Micah: 

For sure. We need all these stars to line up. I remember in Ottawa, I said the next one should be in Halifax. This led me to the alumni conference idea. But it didn’t happen because it didn’t have the team that Arie had. Our team was really a two-headed monster. In the end, it was two ideas, two separate initiatives, trying to create one event. There was a bit of hesitancy to become one body and one idea. Also, alumni are hard to reach and to inspire because they are out in the world living their busy lives. It was a hard sell to convince them to come to a conference. One of my hopes is to create more activities in the Society. I’m most vocal about the need for activity and less administration. 

Rob: 

What future activities might you be thinking about? 

Micah: 

We can’t come to ideas for activities abstractly. We’re very aware an idea can be amplified if there’s other people who are excited about it. It’s got to resonate with a larger group and then we can say, OK, this is it. The next big project that keeps poking its head out and saying, you know, this needs to be done, is a teacher training in Nova Scotia. Within the last year there are ten people who want to take the teacher training, and if we had a program here, they would be enrolled. However, they can’t make it work financially to go to Toronto so then they just don’t do it.

Another thing that we’re exploring is community housing development. People can invest in it and then it would provide housing for faculty members, housing for seniors and also rental income for the school. It could eventually be a source of capital funding for practical arts classrooms, for example. We need space for woodwork and metalwork. The students are already asking for this. 

Rob:

Have you had a chance to go over to the Goetheanum?

Micah: 

Yes, I’ve been going to some of the youth conferences. And I was able to attend the AGM in, 2018, the one where the first vote happened regarding Paul MacKay and Bodo von Plato about the continuation of the next seven-year term. There was the whole build up to that. All this fighting about issues connected with their years there. They had been there for over 20 years as first members. And then this experience of having all these local anthroposophists just flood the auditorium for the vote itself. People who hadn’t participated in any of the other AGM events, but just came for the vote.

Rob: 

That was interesting. What did you think of all that?

Micah:  

I’m a big believer that people do always elect the right people. When it comes to elections, every decision is the right decision for that time. But, of course, we have to live with who we elect. Everything goes back to the individual. If the person we elect is a great person, is a great soul, we know we’re going to be better off. If they win the election though because of their strength, through their connections, and they‘re not such a great person, I think they still deserved it, but we’re just going to be a bit disadvantaged. So I agree with the decision. I think the members made the right choice. And every day we move away from that, it seems to be confirming that fact. New possibilities have been created because they are no longer forced on members, because those individuals had become very influential. For example, even physical seating in the auditorium reflected their influence. The people who really supported them were in the first 10 rows of the auditorium.  As you moved up towards the back, nobody even knew who they were. And it was good because we could really look at it objectively and say, OK, these are the arguments, you know, how do I feel about this? And then, of course, there were the gasps when the results were read. There were actually gasps from the front rows. They just couldn’t believe that Paul Mackay and Bodo von Plato were not reconfirmed. And that showed me that it was an unhealthy situation because as much as we have a connection with people, we also have a responsibility to also see how the other members feel about the people we might like. I think it was a good decision.

Rob:

What’s come out of it has been very interesting in terms of the way the existing Vorstand has tried to operate. What are your thoughts and perceptions about that?

Micah: 

They thought they recognized that this is very much a time of transition and there is this cry for a new way of leading, as well as new demands from the world and society that they have to meet. They are going slowly. They’re not electing a new Vorstand member until they solve these other challenges. They’re putting most of their time into including more of the general secretaries from around the world. They want the general secretaries to take on more of the responsibilities. I don’t know practically how it’s going to work. It sounds good in theory. General secretaries feel very important, and they are important. But that also invites adversaries. It’s always a question of whether the individuals who are the general secretaries are able to work out of service, and not out of any other reason. It’s really a role for a diplomatic soul, a soul that doesn’t really have any particular attachment to things, but is able to hold many concerns and many responsibilities and make a good decision. I didn’t see that at the last AGM, I saw very strong individuals in general secretary roles, which is OK. But it brings a different way of working. I don’t know how it’s going to work.

Rob: 

It certainly seems like an interesting time. I mean, they’re exploring in Dornach, and you’re exploring here with the Council. It certainly seems like a creative time. We’re not just mindlessly following governance structures. There are people who are trying to be awake and alive, like yourself, in terms of figuring out how to do things in a way that’s current with this time.

Micah: 

Yeah, it is an awakening time. And they are listening. If you wrote them an e-mail and said, “Hey, Vorstand, you’re doing great work. Consider this.” They might not respond. But in my experience, every communication has a little bit of an influence in broadening their perspective.

Rob: 

So you have a sense they’re listening?

Micah: 

Yeah, they are very much in a listening mode.

Rob:

What are your hopes for the Society in Canada?

Micah: 

My hopes are that there is some renewal in the next few years. I’m a little worried because when we go to all these events, the members are getting very old. I mean, I’m not worried because we always have to accept what is. But I question where this is going. The people who are there made it possible for myself and others to also work elsewhere in the world. The question is, can we inspire the next generation?

Rob: 

When you say next generation, we’re not necessarily talking about just people in their teens and twenties, but people in their 30s and 40s, too, I would imagine. The average age of the Society members in Canada is, I bet, north of sixty five. [Editors note: current average age of member who have shared their birthdate is 59］

Micah: 

Yes, for sure. And if you look at Europe, it has tons of attendance. The youth conferences get 500 to 800 attendees. They are not all anthroposophists. They’re students who feel like going to these conferences, to contribute and benefit, but they’re not going to join the Society and that’s the way it’s supposed to be. You wouldn’t want a teenager to join the Society. But certainly when somebody is in their 30s or 40s, you would hope that Anthroposophy is living in them in such a way that they feel a benefit to joining the Society. It has to benefit the individual too, not in an egotistical way, but in a spiritual supportive way.

Rob: 

One of the things I’ve noticed is that when I’ve talked to people, say, around the Toronto branch, about joining the Society they are taking the decision very seriously and not until they feel that they really have a very deep sense of connection to Anthroposophy do they want to join the Society. When I think back to Steiner’s day, as far as I can understand from what I’ve read, joining the Society was an easier thing. Joining the First Class was the more serious decision. You had to be a member for two years and people would really think hard about whether they really wanted to be representative of Anthroposophy in the world. Somehow it seems to have shifted now. And I don’t know why, but that’s my perception anyway.

Micah: 

I think part of it is that during Steiner’s time there actually were no anthroposophists and that was something that ultimately led to him becoming sick. It was really just him bringing it all, on a one way road. There was nobody who was really able to take it up as we are today, 100 years later. He didn’t have a real actively supportive body, in the membership. So that was a big deal for somebody to join the Society back then. Today, Anthroposophy is much more a part of our lives. People say, well, why do I need to join the Society to work with Anthroposophy? Why pay a fee? And there’s truth in that as well, you know. Is the Society meeting their needs as well? Of course, there’s an egotistical element there. You know, there’s a “how do I benefit”, which is not the right question, but it is a question many people are asking. We hear it. So I personally connect with what you are saying. This is a serious question. How can I contribute to Anthroposophy in me and the world by joining the Society? And there’s the recognition of what it means to join the Society and to represent it which is closely connected to the reason for joining the First Class. The Society is more free, and doesn’t have, you know, a school with mantras and formalities.

Rob: 

So you do have a sense that for the Society to move forward, it needs to find some way of establishing a relationship and bringing younger people in their 20s, 30s, 40s into an active role somehow.

Micah:

Yeah, I know these early adults are open. If it speaks to them in the right way, they won’t even ask the question about why. There’s an openness that’s waiting in the young people. But it’s not being recognized and it’s not being addressed. One example is creating events like what they’re doing in Europe. The Society is creating these accessible conferences as experiences for young people. It understands and carries the wisdom and the understanding of what the experience is going to do for the soul in that individual. And then the soul of the individual recognizes, oh, this is speaking to me. I’m going to have fun and I’m going to benefit. And that’s the extent of it. And that’s a beautiful thing that the Society is able to do. It makes a connection. It doesn’t evoke a membership card, but it creates this wonderful activity and Anthroposophy flows through it.

Rob:

And it probably makes sense, I think, to say that, you know, if somebody has gone to several conferences like that over time, they might naturally consider joining the Society and being more involved in the work. That seems to make sense to me.

Micah: 

Yes there is always that possibility, I also recognize the adults around me, when I was growing up, contributed in order for me to experience what is so meaningful and valuable. Then as an adult, you think, OK, well, now I’m in the adult role. Now I have to give back. Now I have to give a similar experience to the younger generations. I think that’s what it means to grow older. We recognize how we contribute towards helping others have similar experiences but in an ever freer and open way because if we want Anthroposophy to live in us as individuals we need to be as free as possible.

Rob: 

It’s lovely. Geraldine, did you want to add anything? You’re in the process of becoming a member.

Geraldine: 

My experience of the Foundations Studies Encounter Program at the Rudolf Steiner Center Toronto had a profound, profound effect on me. And that was through the teaching of Paul Hodgkins. He had a clear way of giving to the students the essentials of Steiner and making it very easy for us to understand. It lit a fire under you. I had the Gospel of Saint John on my bookshelf for several years. And then, you know, all of a sudden, I started to read it. And then for whatever reason, things started to really go from there. As a child I used to carry around a Bible. I loved the feeling of the pages, if that makes any sense. This friend of mine had taken the Foundation Year herself. Twelve years before. And she recommended that I do it too. Even though I sort of was dragging my feet and making excuses, I’m so glad that I did it.

Rob: 

When you talk, Geraldine, I hear something that I hear in a lot of people’s voices. We have experiences of reading Anthroposophy and doing things. But there’s something about Anthroposophy that seems to move from person to person. Somehow somebody touches us, and we may not even understand what they have said, but it awakens some kind of recognition or something.

Geraldine: 

When a student is ready, you know, a student is ready (laughter)…

Micah: 

Paul is such a wonderful soul. He brings a playfulness to his teaching and his ideas.

Geraldine: 

He does. And I remember during coffee breaks, he said to me, “You’re very curious. Just like me.”

Micah: 

I’m also very curious. I was talking to my mom the other day and I was telling her how the kids at the school ask so many questions. And she said, you did too!

Geraldine: 

Like I said, when the student is ready…

Micah: 

That’s a little observation about the communication of the heart versus head, because curiosity has to do with our heart. If we’re asking questions, that’s the language of the heart. The head is more of the answer. If we want to answer something, we’re going to Google it. But that’s really the end of the question. That’s the end of the heart experience. Curiosity is one of the signs that we’re on a very deep spiritual path. Do you find that asking a question creates more curiosity, which creates bigger questions?

Geraldine:  

Yes, you just feel like you’re just scraping, scraping the surface of cement. You know what I mean?

Micah:

Well, I just got the image that there’s this world within us that we’re not really conscious of, but something in the outer world awakens us to what’s already in us. We just haven’t become conscious of it yet, and then our curiosity leads us to it.

Geraldine: Christ is so loving, but also he’s tough. He’s very tough.

Micah:

In what sense?

Geraldine:

In teaching us about love.

Micah: 

Can you give one example?

Geraldine: 

In my own personal life, getting a life threatening disease, that was a real test. And I knew that I was not going to die, but I knew as clear as a bell that this was a test. And I had to go through with it with as much dignity as I could. And I was by myself. I just feel like what’s happening now is the same test for everybody, whether they know it or not. You’re going to say yes and want to move up the ladder or you’re just going to stay where you are. And these days are our battle right now. World War Two was with our parents. But this time is ours.

Micah: 

That is very interesting. My question with the whole Covid situation is and we know this is the work of these earthly materialistic forces that are shaping the narrative and defining how people understand it. So how do we bring enlightenment and truth, as you say, that this is a battle within ourselves? It’s not about a virus, it’s only a symptom of a spiritual problem.  How is it causing us to grow and to awaken?  Are we going to give into illusionary aspects of these adversarial powers which have the aim of degrading our humanity? We’re going to have to give up closeness, our connection with people, our right to have certain health, liberties and freedoms. Behind all of the outer events is this obvious push for global vaccine mandates, government funding, and social restrictions. And then, of course, the fines and tracking that goes with that, who’s actually following through on the mandates and who’s not. And then the fear associated with the liability of somebody who’s not following the vaccine or physical distancing mandate. So how do we, in a loving way, challenge that narrative? How do we still bring love and truth into the world, but also be a resistance in some way to just following along with it?

Geraldine: 

There’s no place for fear at this time!

Rob:

Micah, I really appreciate you taking the time to do this. I wish you all the best as the Council member and president, and I feel how much your heart’s in it. And if there’s anything I can do to help you, please let me know. I think it’s wonderful that you’re there.

Micah:  

Thank you. Those are very sweet words. They were really great questions. I got excited. Thanks.