Christian/New Age Mysticism discussion (ritual, rejecting, gospel, purification)

[Mike182]

i've only just read a thread that Victor posted a while ago, in the Catholic DIR, and i have a few issues with some of the information given on the New Age. so i'm posting this thread to address those issues. of course, the New Age covers a wide diversity, so anything i say is also open to debate

i would just like to say that i very much doubt it was Victor's intention to post anything that misrepresents the New Age, so this is certainly not anything against him ( 's Victor)

so, Victor's thread:
i've highlighted the parts concerning the New Age in green.

Originally Posted by Victor

For Christians, the spiritual life is a relationship with God which gradually through his grace becomes deeper, and in the process also sheds light on our relationship with our fellow men and women, and with the universe. Spirituality in New Age terms means experiencing states of consciousness dominated by a sense of harmony and fusion with the Whole. So “mysticism” refers not to meeting the transcendent God in the fullness of love, but to the experience engendered by turning in on oneself, an exhilarating sense of being at one with the universe, a sense of letting one's individuality sink into the great ocean of Being.(59)

i agree with this bit.

This fundamental distinction is evident at all levels of comparison between Christian mysticism and New Age mysticism. The New Age way of purification is based on awareness of unease or alienation, which is to be overcome by immersion into the Whole. In order to be converted, a person needs to make use of techniques which lead to the experience of illumination. This transforms a person's consciousness and opens him or her to contact with the divinity, which is understood as the deepest essence of reality.

no, not so much contact with divinity. the New Age is concerned 2 ways of living, the first is a complete rejection of modernity, and many New Agers move away to live in naturist communities, which are self contained and fully self-supporting. the other side of the New Age is that which is concerned with enriching people's lives and giving them a sense of great satisfaction while they are living and working within the shallow, consumerist society of modernity which gives them no satisfaction.

i think this second aspect of the New Age is the aspect of the New Age that is being talked about in Victor's article, so i'll keep to only discussing that side of things. the dissatisfaction people who turn to the New Age generally have with modernity, society, and other religions, is that they are constantly looking outside of themselves for their identity, which leads them to feel like they are rejecting themselves. the techniques involved in the New Age are self-affirming techniques, which lead to the New Ager having greater confidence to assert themselves in their environment, the environment which they feel is alienating them. this side of the New Age is not concerned with divinity at all.

The techniques and methods offered in this immanentist religious system, which has no concept of God as person, proceed 'from below'. Although they involve a descent into the depths of one's own heart or soul, they constitute an essentially human enterprise on the part of a person who seeks to rise towards divinity by his or her own efforts. It is often an “ascent” on the level of consciousness to what is understood to be a liberating awareness of “the god within”. Not everyone has access to these techniques, whose benefits are restricted to a privileged spiritual 'aristocracy'.

i shall post separately on the notion of the "God Within", but the New Age is not predominantly concerned with the individual becoming a God, it is as i said above concerned with affirming one's self in an environment the individual finds to be alienating. the ascent to higher levels of consciousness is part of the New Age, but only in so far as knowing one's self. my biggest gripe with this article is the last sentence in this paragraph, that higher levels of consciousness and spiritual awareness are only open to a privileged spiritual aristocracy. this is completely not true. yes, it takes time and effort and perseverance to become competent in meditation and trance states, but anyone who puts the effort in can gain from these.

The essential element in Christian faith, however, is God's descent towards his creatures, particularly towards the humblest, those who are weakest and least gifted according to the values of the “world”. There are spiritual techniques which it is useful to learn, but God is able to by-pass them or do without them. A Christian's “method of getting closer to God is not based on any technique in the strict sense of the word. That would contradict the spirit of childhood called for by the Gospel. The heart of genuine Christian mysticism is not technique: it is always a gift of God; and the one who benefits from it knows himself to be unworthy”.(60)

For Christians, conversion is turning back to the Father, through the Son, in docility to the power of the Holy Spirit. The more people progress in their relationship with God – which is always and in every way a free gift – the more acute is the need to be converted from sin, spiritual myopia and self-infatuation, all of which obstruct a trusting self-abandonment to God and openness to other men and women.

All meditation techniques need to be purged of presumption and pretentiousness. Christian prayer is not an exercise in self-contemplation, stillness and self-emptying, but a dialogue of love, one which “implies an attitude of conversion, a flight from 'self' to the 'You' of God”.(61) It leads to an increasingly complete surrender to God's will, whereby we are invited to a deep, genuine solidarity with our brothers and sisters.(62)

obviously this bit is talking about the Christian perspective, and it is certainly different to the New Age.

[Mike182]

reserved post for continuing the OP

Edit:

Originally Posted by Victor

The “god within“ and “theosis”

Here is a key point of contrast between New Age and Christianity. So much New Age literature is shot through with the conviction that there is no divine being “out there”, or in any real way distinct from the rest of reality. From Jung's time onwards there has been a stream of people professing belief in “the god within”. Our problem, in a New Age perspective, is our inability to recognise our own divinity, an inability which can be overcome with the help of guidance and the use of a whole variety of techniques for unlocking our hidden (divine) potential. The fundamental idea is that 'God' is deep within ourselves. We are gods, and we discover the unlimited power within us by peeling off layers of inauthenticity.(63) The more this potential is recognised, the more it is realised, and in this sense the New Age has its own idea of theosis, becoming divine or, more precisely, recognising and accepting that we are divine. We are said by some to be living in “an age in which our understanding of God has to be interiorised: from the Almighty God out there to God the dynamic, creative power within the very centre of all being: God as Spirit”.(64)

ok, so here we are talking about the God Within. it's certainly not that i disagree with what this article is saying, it's just that i don't think this article goes far enough in explaining what is meant by "The God Within", and leaves the reader with the impression that New Agers believe they can become an omnipotent, creative force. this is certainly not true, New Agers do not believe that humans can become God in the traditional sense.

to give the New Age some historical context, the New Age traces it's roots back in many directions, to use the analogy of a river, there are lots of streams flowing together which become a river, the river is the New Age Movement, and the streams include the theosophical society, the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, the OTO, Alister Crowley, Hinduism, Buddhism, indigenous religions, Shamanism and Romanticism. these are the main ones anyway. it's worth noting that unless you count the Christian influences of the Golden Dawn, the OTO and Crowley, Christianity was not one of the streams that contributed to or influenced the New Age movement - although Christianity did play a big role.

While Hinduism, Buddhism, Indigenous religions and Shamanism contributed to the meditative techniques and the ideals of living that are used by the New Age Movement, it was mostly the Golden Dawn, OTO, Crowley and theosophy that contributed to the 'theology' of the New Age. i use the word theology loosely because i'm not sure if that's the right word to use, but it will suffice to get my meaning across.

obviously if you have no knowledge of any of the four which contributed to the theology of the New Age Movement, then you are no further towards understanding the God Within than you were before. it would take a long time to go into the finer details of all of these groups, but as a general overview, it will suffice to say that the individual should live within the realms of what their own will dictates, as discovered by spiritual exploration of the self.

going back to the history of the New Age Movement, the counter-cultural phenomenon of the 1960's saw a massive surge of interest in alternative ways of living, thinking and experiencing, and there was a mass interest in the New Age - predominantly by students. when looking at Christianity, authority lies in the Bible and in God, these things relayed to us through various mediums tell us the ideal way of living and conducting ourselves, submitting to the will of God. as a reaction to religious and spiritual authority being found on the outside, in an objective God, the taking of the self and one's own will as the religious and spiritual authority was termed the "God Within" to show the counter-culture of the New Age. this is how the term was meant to be used, in reference to the differences between the source of authority of Christianity and the New Age - it was not meant to be used in reference to human potential.

so, finally circaling round to my original point, the article doesn't go far enough to explain what is meant by the God Within, the casual reader could easily misunderstand the New Age belief, and walk away with the false belief that New Agers seek to become Gods in the traditional sense of the word God. just as Buddhist Monks strive for enlightenment, strive to remove and detach themselves from the world, they are not trying to raise themselves up to being an omnipotent human.


i would like to address another comment in that thread made by athanasius:

Originally Posted by athanasius

Great points! A Great book to read on the dangers of the new age movement and how it tries to pass itself of as christian would be;
"Catholics and the New age" by Fr Mitch Pacwa

given the counter-cultural nature of the New Age Movement, and that the influences of the New Age are Eastern religions, Indigenous religions, and Western systems of Magic, the New Age has never tried to pass itself off as Christian. quite the opposite, the New Age Movement sees Christianity as being part of the mainstream which alienates people. there are people who say that the New Age Movement can be used in conjunction with Christianity, however i think those people are in the minority.

[Mike182]

i should say that my sources of information on this are mostly from lectures at uni. i did a 10 week class of 2 hour lectures and 1 hour seminars per week under the tuition of Paul Heelas, Britain's (possibly the world's) leading accademic and researcher on the New Age Movement. up until then i had done a bit of reading on the subject, as it is related to Paganism in a sense, but not much.

Paul Heelas wrote a book called "The New Age Movement", and co-wrote a book called "The New Spiritual Revolution" showing the growth and popularity of the New Age Movement compared to tradition, congregation religions. i am by no means an authority on the subject, but competent enough to answer questions and talk about the issues involved.

[Enigmata]

Very well written response to this article Mike. I 100% agree with your take on this.