|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
I have never really thought of the New Age movement as being a formalized religion, but rather more a philosophical approach to life. The beginning of the New Age movement as we know it today began in 1965 with the founding of the Findhorn Community in Scotland. This community is seen as embodying all the principles and ideals of the New Age movement. As the community grew it began to be a model and inspiration for other groups such as Alternatives in London, Esalen in Big Sur, Ca., and The Open Center and Omega Institute in New York. This movement emerged in the 1960s and became a major force in Western culture in the 1980s.
As relatively easy as it might be to point to the beginning of the New Age movement, it is quite a bit harder to pinpoint its main features and beliefs. This has lead to a lot of confusion and misconceptions about the New Age movement. This confusion and misconception comes about for three main reasons. First, the movement borrows from several different religious movements, such as eastern mysticism, and attempts to incorporate them into concepts taken from the Judeo-Christian tradition. Second, many of its beliefs and practices seem remarkably similar to practices from the occult. Third, there is no overarching structure which can specify the teachings and regulate the practices.
To many of its believers, the New Age movement is seen as a metaphorical and symbolic expression of the human desire for transformative, creative, and free existence. Those in this movement envision the human race as one family living and sharing the same planet in harmony. The movement is intended to encourage people to delve deeper into the mysteries of God, the universe and the self.
There have been responses to the New Age movement from most, if not all sides of Christianity. However, the majority of these movements have come from the evangelical or fundamental traditions. These groups tend to see the New Age movement as competitors to traditional Christian values and beliefs. In responding to the New Age movement, those in the evangelical or fundamental tradition tend to work toward making a clear expression of Christian values and doctrine, refuting the teachings of the New Age and showing that they cannot be reconciled with Christianity, exposing weakness of the New Age tenets, denouncing many of its leaders and alerting Christians to the subtle dangers within New Age practices and beliefs.
The response to the New Age movement among mainline Protestants has been more varied than the Fundamentalist or evangelical response. Attention has been drawn to the gnostic elements of the New Age movement and stress has been placed on the incompatibility with Christian doctrine. Some of the areas of doctrine that are listed incompatible with Christian faith are; the nature of God, the uniqueness of Jesus Christ, the nature of humanity and the cosmos, and the stress on the irrational and the intuitive.
Some in Protestantism have been more accepting of the New Age movement. This is a relatively new development in Protestantism and has not been received well. Two particular churches, St. James Church in London and St. John the divine in Manhattan, have brought quite a bit of attention to themselves by incorporating New Age practices in their programs. This open-arms attitude is based on the belief that all those who are on a genuine spiritual quest must be treated in a friendly manner, even though they are not ready to ascribe to a doctrine of Christianity that stresses dogma over personal experience. The most controversial change that has occurred in these churches is a program called ‘alternatives’ at St. James. This program covers a wide variety of New Age topics without any Christian input or evaluation. Offerings in this program include programs on Eastern meditation, channeling, psychic protection and personal transformation etc.
The Catholic responses to the New Age movement can be divided into four different strands. The first one is strongly influenced by the responses of the fundamental and mainline Protestant churches. It strictly follows traditional Catholic doctrine and theology and focuses on dogma. It sees the New Age movement as of dangerous political and spiritual development, which could have a detrimental effect on both religion and society.
The second approach takes the same basic assumptions about the first approach but it is also willing to concede that there might be some positive sides to the New Age movement also. It continues to criticize the New age movement for adopting a theology that warps Catholic teaching but concedes that something can be learned from the success of the movement.
The third approach is actually the official Catholic response to the New Age movement. It incorporates materials from the first two responses and influences Catholic pastoral practice because it lays down guidelines for Catholics as they encounter people involved in the New Age movement.
The fourth response is more ecumenical in nature. It attempts to delve into the principals and beliefs of the New Age movement and find as many similarities as can be found in regard to the Catholic and New Age worldviews.
The wide range of Christian responses from the New Age movement shows that any evaluation of this movement should be done with much discernment and understanding. While there are certainly many theological incompatibilities between New Age and Christianity, there could be a lot to be gained from New Age practices. We need to realize that not all ideals from New Age are totally incompatible with Christianity. And much like New Age is being incorporated into Christianity, the reverse can also happen such as the emphasis on environment does not need to be based on pantheism, it could be based on traditional Christian doctrine. The church is always in need of re-vitalization. While such re-vitalization surely doesn’t need to be focused on New Age ideas and practices, it can draw inspiration from them.