Freedom and the spirit Book

I like and agreed with much of this book; but some of his views are problematic when seen through the lens of Christian orthodoxy. His dependence on Boehme, despite his clear reservations, is most of what I take issue with.
Berdyaev's notion of freedom is analogous to Boehme's ungrund or abyss. That wouldn't be such a problem if Berdyaev didn't make claims such as that "it existed before being" and that "God has no control over it". He comes dangerously close to making an idol out of his notion of freedom. I certainly agree with the importance of freedom within Christianity, I only part company with the kind of interpretation he gives to freedom. He should have been more circumspect when borrowing a concept from Boehme like this one. Most Christian thinkers who have liked Boehme (myself included), have also been cautious in approaching his thought. It borrows far too much from systems like Kabbalah and Hermeticism. This does compromise Boehme's orthodoxy; sometimes in subtle and not so subtle ways. This is evident in some of his writings, more than in others. I have an interest in some of his ideas, but he is an author that one has to be very cautious in being influenced by. Berdyaev recognized that Boehme's thought was heterodox in some points, yet he still allowed himself an over dependence on him when it came to concepts like the ungrund, which wind up being the most problematic for Boehme's orthodoxy, i.e. relating to his erroneous views on the Trinity and his dualistic theism.
Apart from the above problems, which are not altogether minor, I liked most of this book. His comments on theosophy and anthroposophy are quite accurate and mirror my own criticisms. I do feel that he did not sufficiently recognize that his more positive take on Kabbalah, and previous forms of theosophy, is not totally consistent with his negative views on 19th century and 20th century theosophy and anthroposophy. Both do have roots in earlier forms of theosophy; especially in Steiner. Blavatsky and Steiner are largely the fruit of Europe's interest in Hermeticism, Kabbalah, Neo-Platonism, Hinduism, occultism, secret societies, etc. While I agree that both (especially Blavatsky) are an even more spiritually tainted brew than what came before, I cannot in all honesty fail to recognize some continuity between earlier occultic movements and those found in anthroposophy and theosophy. This ties in to what I said above about Boehme; Berdyaev was appropriately critical of those two movements, but failed to sufficiently recognize the problems with Boehme and the esoteric movements he himself was influenced by.
As it stands, this book was well worth reading, but I am a little disappointed in the above errors. I liked much more of the book than I disliked I have to say. I probably do like The Meaning Of History more, but this was a good second book to read by Berdyaev. If it wasn't for my above reservations, it might have been on par with what I've read of Florensky and Bulgakov.