On the Pulling of Heads Out of Sand Chris Selmys Originally published in Issue X of Vulgata, March 2003.

One of the largest, and perhaps least well understood phenomena that appears in the modern religious and philosophical landscape is the New Age. Most people have little idea, beyond a general sense that it is profoundly cheesy, of what it really is, and less idea of what should be done to try to combat its influence. It appears as an indistinct threat whose dimensions cannot be mapped, but which assails both individual souls and all of those institutions which stand opposed to it. To some it appears as a great apocalyptic pit ready, at any second, to disgorge the anti-Christ and bring down a rain of sulfur on the Earth. To others it seems irrelevant by virtue of its seeming commitment to utter nonsense. The truth, of course, is that, like any false ideology or practice, it is a threat to souls, but is not really as frightening, or as incomprehensible as it may seem at first glance.

To make some sense of this phenomenon we turn (as we always should) to the Vatican for a little guidance and illumination. Here we find that they have produced a profoundly helpful document called "Jesus Christ the Bearer of the Water of Life: A Christian reflection of the New Age," however, as it is quite lengthy, actually reading through it can be a daunting task. With this in mind, we will try to look at some of the information that it presents, and then to draw upon the experience of Christian apologists in order to arrive at some strategies for dialoguing with New Agers, and for preventing the unwary from falling into its snares.

In order to begin to understand the New Age, we need to understand the context in which it arose, and the reasons why it has been so successful. Most of its ideas are not new -- many of them have appeared before, especially in movements arising during periods of decadence nearing the collapse of previous empires. Most of them have also been around to some degree for just about as long as history has existed. The question is why have they suddenly jumped from the profile of fringe heresy to mainstream trend?

One of the most important driving forces behind the New Age is a desire to reconnect with the spiritual in the wake of atheistic scientific materialism. In the last century, especially, there was a great belief that science and technology would provide a means of overcoming human suffering if only they were given enough time to do so. Sin and injustice were caused, not by a fallen nature or by personal irresponsibility, but rather by external factors such as poverty and lack of education. Thus, we could expect that, since science was going to provide the means of feeding, sheltering and educating all of mankind, the impetus for evil would be eliminated, and with it the ravages caused by human sin. Of course, the premises of this belief contain certain fundamental flaws, and it has recently become all too clear the science and technology, far from offering salvation, have simply made it easier for us to kill larger numbers of people, to create a greater gap between the rich and the poor, and to create economic institutions that tend to dehumanize and objectify human beings. Furthermore, we are able to clearly perceive that those who are most gifted by technology are not, on the whole, happier or more moral than those who are still living in the conditions that supposedly produce sinfulness.

Naturally, the failure of science to produce the hoped-for salvation of the world via materialism has led to a renewed interest in spirituality. This is promising in itself, but the problem is that those following the New Age seem to want to have their cake and eat it too -- they want to retain the extreme humanism, the belief in progress, and the expectation of salvation without interior penance that scientific materialism promised, but at the same time they want the comfort and reassurance offered by spiritual faith. Moreover, they feel that exterior sources of strength and meaning have fundamentally failed -- they still desire the earthly, immanent utopia promised by science, and, since it does not, exist, they conclude that not only science but all previous institutions have failed to provide genuine solutions. In response to this, there is a turning inward in order to find meaning and consolation. As the Vatican tells us in "Jesus the Bearer of the Water of Life", because of its subjective orientation, there is necessarily a certain fragmentation in its beliefs,

"…there is no single articulation of anything like the doctrines of mainstream religions. Despite this, and despite the immense variety within New Age, there are some common points:
       – the cosmos is seen as an organic whole [this whole is understood to be uncreated, self-sufficient and eternal]
       – it is animated by an Energy, which is also identified as the divine Soul or  Spirit
       – much credence is given to the mediation of various spiritual entities
       – humans are capable of ascending to invisible higher spheres, and of controlling their own lives beyond death
      – there is held to be a “perennial knowledge” which pre-dates and is superior to all religions and cultures
       – people follow enlightened masters..."

In order to understand the source of these ideas, which the Vatican has identified as common to most New Agers, we need to understand the ideas and assumptions upon which it is founded. Relativism, lack of a personal God, intermediaries, occult or hidden forces, Darwinism and post-modernism are amongst the most important factors which inform New Age belief. Each of these has important implications, and they therefore need to be dealt with in a little more detail.
Relativism in the New Age has a slightly different spin on it than the purer philosophical formulations of the doctrine. It is believed that there is, to a certain degree, right and wrong within morality, and that a person can make an incorrect moral decision, but the morality of any decision is to be judged based on subjective, as opposed to objective criteria. According to the Vatican, "New Age truth is about good vibrations, cosmic correspondences, harmony and ecstasy, in general pleasant experiences. It is a matter of finding one's own truth in accordance with the feel- good factor." Thus, a "good" moral decision is one which ultimately leads to a positive outcome, or good feelings, for oneself, a "bad" one is one which is ultimately self-destructive. There is a general assumption that the principle of enlightened self-interest is true -- that acts of violence and injustice against others are ultimately self-destructive -- however, there is no belief in any objective obligation to make correct moral decisions. In fact, poor moral decisions are assumed to be nothing more than the product either of ignorance, addiction or "spiritual immaturity" leading, of course, to a denial of real personal responsibility for one's moral actions.

Under the influence of this extreme moral subjectivism, there is a strong (though not universal) tendency to neglect social responsibility. Many of those involved in the movement do feel the need to positively impact the world as a whole, however, the New Age is able to pacify the instinct to help others by claiming that we are ultimately able to heal the world by securing our own success and happiness. The theory is that by eliminating negativity in your own life (ironically, often by simply removing any "negative" people from your sphere or influence) you will become a happier and more positive person, and will thus have the effect of making people around you happier and more positive. This energy, when "activated" on a global scale by the spread of a new age "awakening" will bring about a new age of peace, justice, prosperity, and so forth. Thus, you are only really required to focus upon yourself -- and not even upon the sort of difficult self-perfection demanded of a cloistered monk or nun -- but only upon making yourself happy and therefore more positive. Or of having the appearance of being happy and therefore more ridiculous.

Belief in moral relativism requires that God be essentially morally neutral, and the New Age belief in a sort of impersonal spiritual force follows naturally from the first doctrine. Their conception of God is not of a benevolent and loving creator (much less a father), but of an essentially neutral "energy" or spiritual force which pervades a self-sufficient, uncreated and eternal universe. This force can be harnessed and manipulated by those who know the right techniques, allowing the New Ager to create his or her own reality and ensure the success of all of their ventures. However, since such a force is necessarily impersonal and disinterested, it is necessary to provide other spiritual beings who are actually concerned and involved in the lives of human beings. These beings are usually conceived of as powerful allies or helpful elder siblings who don't demand anything of us, who suggest only what is best for us but won't be particularly disappointed or "judgmental" if we disagree with their advice, and who are able to pull the right spiritual strings to make our lives harmonious and pain-free.

Darwinism may seem a strange foundation for a set of practices that grow out of the rejection of scientific materialism, but it is none the less an important idea behind the new age. New Agers share with their scientific predecessors a deeply rooted faith in the myth of progress -- we are on a journey of growth and evolution that leads, inevitably, to better things. They take the most palatable of Darwinism's principles and apply them to the spiritual realm, leading to a belief that humanity as a whole is evolving towards a higher plane of spiritual development. This development is usually conceived of as inevitable -- there may be actions that we can freely take in order to spur it along, but in the end it is only a matter of time before we all become enlightened super-beings functioning on a higher level of consciousness and a higher plane of reality. They take the idea of reincarnation from the Eastern religions, but instead of conceiving of an endless wheel of ultimately undesirable incarnations, they apply the theory of evolution to the spiritual progress of the individual soul -- thus there is no possibility of accruing bad karma and moving backwards into an undesirable state of life, there is only the possibility of moving forwards into ever greater vistas of spiritual achievement and personal development. Bad choices are conceived of as "learning opportunities" which, although they should obviously not be sought out, are ultimately oriented towards the development of the individual soul.

The most concrete form of this sort of spiritual Darwinism is the idea of the "Age of Aquarius." This is the New Age notion that we are really on the edge of the dawning of a new era of human existence, that we are on the threshold of a radical spiritual transformation or evolution. This notion is really far more a vision than it is a theory -- it is an expression of a desire for immanent change, in the physical world, but more importantly, in our culture. The "Age of Pisces" (i.e. the Christian era) is coming to its close, a great spiritual awakening is taking place all around the world and people are about to realize that we don't need to turn outward (to God) for meaning and spiritual help, but that we are entirely self-sufficient. This self-knowledge will bring with it an end to ignorance, intolerance and bigotry (the capital sins of relativistic morality) and thus an end to all human social ills. Most New Agers conceive of the dawning of the new age as something fixed in the stars. Thus, it is as inevitable as the Revolution is to a die-hard Communist, and, although individual effort may be required in order to help to bring it about, such individual effort will necessarily be provided.

Christianity (and, to a lesser extent, the other major religions) are seen as a sort of stepping stone that was necessary in order to bring humanity out of the relatively barbaric "Age of Aries." They are now altogether obsolete, except in-so-far as they contain some of the "perennial wisdom" (i.e. the knowledge, supposed to have been possessed by all the great mystics and spiritual teachers, that we are called to discover that we are god and thus to move towards the realization of our essential oneness with the universe) and can thus be used in order to move people towards the greater enlightenment of the Aquarian age. Thus, any claims on the part of the new age that it is compatible with Christianity are demonstrably false not to mention patently absurd -- they are only compatible in-so-far as the new age perceives Christianity to be usable in dismantling the Christian notions of God, sin, salvation, Christ, and Church. As the Vatican observes, "The Gnostic nature of this movement calls us to judge it in its entirety. From the point of view of Christian faith, it is not possible to isolate some elements of New Age religiosity as acceptable to Christians, while rejecting others."

Post-modernism within the new age performs the peculiar and rather convenient task of ensuring that new age beliefs and doctrines need not actually make rational sense. A belief that multiple different logics are possible, and that rational thinking is not necessarily superior to any other sort of thinking -- that, indeed, it may in many cases be a barrier to real intuitive spiritual growth -- allows them to believe a set of doctrines which are all individually appealing but  which may not be entirely internally consistent. Any idea put forth may seem to be impossible to the unenlightened rational mind, chained as it is by logical axioms, but to the mind which has transcended the need for cold rationalism, the truth of these propositions can be clearly perceived by the inner eye.

This lack of belief in logic leads to an opposition to what the new age calls "dualism." The distinction between male and female, the distinction between reason and feeling -- indeed, almost any traditional dichotomy -- is understood to be a false perception brought about by rationalistic "black and white" thinking. The most important of these "dualisms" is the distinction between matter and spirit. Driven by a desire to elevate matter, (a desire most often expressed in sentiments such as "the body is holy, sex is holy, earth is sacred, etc.) they say that everything is ultimately spirit. In practice, however, this only elevates matter in a superficial way. Since spirit is no longer defined as transcendent, the new age notion of spirit becomes bound up in the material -- you can elevate a rose by saying that it is a symbol of a transcendent spiritual reality like the passion of Christ, but such elevation relies upon a real difference of kind and degree between the two things being compared. Just as you cannot elevate lust by saying that all sex, no matter how impersonal, is a form of love, you cannot elevate matter by saying that all matter is really spirit. If you say that they are really the same and equal, you ultimately only degrade spirit, and strip the word of its meaning.

Another important characteristic of the new age is a sort of "spiritual narcissism": all of its practices and beliefs are ultimately oriented towards the self. One turns to the self in order to find truth; one prays, not to an external and transcendent God, but to "the god within"; one's ultimate goal is complete "self-realization," specifically the realization that we are all one and all god. "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." As fundamentally divine beings, we are able to define and create our own reality. Drawing upon a questionable understanding of quantum physics, New Agers are able to provide pseudo-scientific explanations of how the individual is able to really recreate reality by simply changing the ways in which she interacts or perceives it. One of the less commonly acknowledged consequences of this belief is the necessary conclusion that, since we are able to create reality, those who are suffering must ultimately be responsible for that suffering -- it must either be "…self-imposed, or as [a result of] bad karma, or at least [because of] a failure to harness one's own resources." This may, in some cases, lead to insensitivity towards the problems of others, in other cases it may lead to a sort of self-satisfied "compassion" in which the New Ager tries to help the suffering by reaching down (out of their, presumably, superior state) and offering to the afflicted the knowledge of their own divinity, by which they will, presumably, be able to eliminate their sufferings. It also ensures that the new age will enjoy particular popularity amongst the comfortable and the affluent -- it allows its followers to take credit for the natural graces and social advantages bestowed upon them by assuring them that these are really the result of good karma in past lives, and that they are a sign of great spiritual development.

The appeal of the new age is obvious: it provides all of the basic benefits of spirituality -- answers to the big questions of meaning, morality and destiny;  comfort and security in the knowledge that there are benevolent forces willing to intervene in your life; a solution to the problem of suffering, and so forth -- but makes none of the demands made by traditional religion. It appeals to human pride, and also to human insecurity. It panders to lust while holding up the ideal of love. It promises utopia, and asks nothing in return. It offers the security and self-assurance of truth, without imposing any sort of doctrines. It is the ultimate "too good to be true" philosophy, offering all of the subjective benefits of spiritual life while eliminating all of the hard work that actually makes it objectively beneficial.

These already considerable advantages are further multiplied when you consider the commercial success of the movement, and the means by which it is marketed. "New Age has been seen, in some cultures at least, as the label for a product created by the application of marketing principles to a religious phenomenon." These marketing principles extend not only to the commercialization of spirituality, as in the case of the abundant new age products that promise to heal mind body and soul by filling your bath water with the scent of lilac or your digestive tract with fancy fruit juice blends, but also to the promotion of the spirituality as a whole. Like the age old Serpent, it is able to bend and manipulate itself in order to cater to a multitude of different mentalities, ideals, and levels of commitment. It is popular in the business community, where the glorification of the self and the ability to manipulate the basic forces of the universe are appealing both because the satisfy the go-getter's desire to be able to achieve success solely via his own efforts, and because it allows the practitioner to attempt to ensure the success of his business ventures by employing magical or occult forces. It is also equally popular amongst the radical anti-corporate elements of society because of "its growing global consciousness and increasing awareness of a looming ecological crisis." Naturally, its cafeteria-style offerings, each of which is specially tailored and marketed to a specific audience, can simply be rejected by those who don't find them palatable. Thus, the underlying philosophy of self-deification can be sold to different market niches by the simple expedient of modifying the optional components of the product in accord with the desires of the consumer.

Given its appeal and the marketing savvy with which it is presented, it may sometimes seem as if the new age juggernaut is unconquerable, and the impatient apologist may be inclined to turn crusader and start advocating conversion by the sword. How, after all, do you evangelize someone who sees any challenge to their beliefs as intolerance and negativity (and thus to be eliminated and avoided the way a Christian avoids gay night clubs), and who consciously and actively rejects the validity of appeals to reason?

We need to begin with the same basic strategy that one should adopt in any apologetics work: "become all things to all men." When talking to a Jehovah's Witness, a successful evangelist uses the Witness bible quotes from the Watchtower to refute them and show that Catholicism is true. When Paul spoke in the Areopagus, he used Greek polytheism as the launching pad to preach Christianity. When evangelizing New Agers, we need to use their language, and we need to know what they believe. Begin by finding out what they actually believe (this will vary from person to person, so it's tremendously important to begin by listening to what they have to say. They tend to enjoy preaching into any willing ear so this shouldn't be a problem) and then build upon whatever truth exists within those beliefs. In order to do this, though, it is essential that we behave in a way that is attractive and compelling to them, and not in a way that is offensive or hostile. We need to keep in mind that a major part of the new age mentality is the idea that one should remove oneself from sources of negativity -- and anyone who is hostile, challenging, "intolerant," "judgmental" -- in short anyone who makes them feel uncomfortable -- is likely to be labeled a negative person. It is necessary, therefore, to be unassuming, humble, charitable, compassionate, patient, patient, patient and gentle when trying to lead them back to Christ. Begin by listening -- if they feel that you aren't interested in them or in their experiences, then they won't be interested in talking to you. If you are going to question their beliefs, don't, or if you must do so harmlessly and with extreme humility -- ask questions as if you are really curious and interested in the answer, not as if you are challenging them to answer an objection.

Try to present Catholicism as a more appealing and attractive alternative than the new age, rather than presenting it as an absolutely true standard which they are obligated to accept (obviously you shouldn't water down the doctrines in order to do this -- it's a matter of changing how you present the material, not of changing what the material actually is.) Talk about your own experiences in the faith in a personal and compelling way -- remember that emotion and personal experience are extremely important in much of new age thinking. If you're called upon to defend something difficult, such as Catholic sexual teaching, don't try to prove it, instead try to present it in such a way that it sounds appealing -- talk about the deep reverence for the sacredness of the new life that comes into being within the mother's womb, talk about how natural family planning co-operates with and celebrates the mystery of fertility and procreation. Describe marriage as a sacrament which liberates two people to be themselves in relationship to one another without the fear of ultimate rejection presented by divorce or common-law relationships. Talk about it personally -- how much you have felt your femininity affirmed by the realization that you don't have to be at war with your reproductive system, or how much you've grown in your journey as a father by realizing that children are a sacred gift to be embraced, not an inconvenience to be feared. If their language sounds nauseatingly sappy to you, then use nauseatingly sappy language when talking to them. However aesthetically repugnant you may find this, as many people do, it is just a speech pattern like any other. You can express truth using it just as easily as they use it to convey falsehood and learning how to do this will give a weapon to fight with.

You can also use some of their own weapons against them: new age gurus will tend to use cloudy or obscure language in order to cover up places where their teaching doesn't really make a lot of sense. In some cases, they will also deliberately obscure perfectly clear terminology in order to replace the true definition of a word with one that supports their doctrines. For example, they will begin by taking the term God and stripping it of most of its traditional associations, so that you end up with some sort of vaguely divine, vaguely spiritual something. Then, they will say that a "better way" of speaking about God would be to use some other term instead -- and then they offer a definition of that term which is completely unlike the original definition of God. We can use the same tactic by taking any of the numerous vague and ill-defined terms within the new age vocabulary and defining them in such a way that they refer to something that is both real and true.

It is important, when using any of these tactics, to keep in mind that, with New Agers, patience is of the essence. Catholic apologist Mitch how do you spell his last name? compares a New Ager to a ball of stiff dough -- if you try to stab it sharply, the knife will go in about an inch and then stick; if, on the other hand, you push it in slowly it will go all the way through. If a New Ager suspects that you are really trying to convert them, they will reject you, both because they see evangelization as a fundamentally hostile activity (note that they do not consider their own attempts to bring others into the new age fold in the same way), and because they believe that their belief is the new and superior replacement for your old, obsolete views. You have to take slow, careful, steps, therefore, and you need to expect that progress will be incremental. Don't despair if they start going to a Catholic church for purely aesthetic reasons (remember that their reasons for being a New Ager in the first place were largely aesthetic), and don't worry if, when the initially convert, they do so in the belief that Catholicism is one of many paths, and that it just happens to be the path to which God is calling them. Consider each step in the right direction to be a victory, and make sure that you work one step at a time, at a pace at which they feel comfortable. It may take 20 years for them to become a really orthodox Catholic, but it can be comforting to remember that it took millennia of slow, patient effort for God to get the world to the point where it was ready even to crucify His son.

Another thing to keep in mind is that it is actually extremely difficult to convince yourself that the world really is the way that the new age gurus say it is. It's easy to want it to be that way, but its much more difficult to hold on to that belief when confronted with the radically conflicting data of real life. The reality, of course, is that there is suffering, that you can't avoid it, that reality does not conform itself to your wishes, that people sometimes choose to do the wrong thing even though they know it is wrong, and so forth. Most really devoted New Agers will try to take a head-in-the-sand approach to these facts by insulating themselves from contact with "negative" people, from experiences of suffering and poverty, and from any sort of real news about the state of the world. While it probably isn't a good idea to attempt any sort of full frontal assault on this sort of bubble mentality, it is a good idea to stand by and wait for opportunities when suffering has forced itself into their sphere of influence. In times of vulnerability, such as the death of a family member, personal illness, or the break of up a long-term relationship, the feel-good doctrines of the new age provide about as much stable foundation as a cloud and, although most New Agers will make a valiant attempt to cling to the insubstantial fragments of their dream-world, a good evangelist can, with sympathy and compassion, gently provide a more solid and believable alternative.

We can also take hope in the knowledge that, no matter how palatable it may be on the tongue, the new age is composed entirely of fluff. Like a wad of cotton candy, it looks infinitely more substantial than it actually is, and it is unable to really satisfy man's hunger for God. New age beliefs and practices are characterized by the law of diminishing returns -- the new believer may feel swept up into an awareness of cosmic oneness, but as this is pure emotion, without any real substance, and it is impossible to maintain over long periods. Over time, greater effort will need to be made in order to make the same emotions arise within oneself, until, ultimately, no effort no matter how great can bring back the initial emotional high. For a Christian, the transition from the original emotional glow of conversion to the daily necessity of perseverance without great consolation is easily explicable, and there is a great deal of literature and support for anyone struggling to accept it. For the New Ager, the failure of one's supposed divinity to provide a permanent state of emotional bliss is unexpected, inexplicable and profoundly disappointing. Ultimately, there is only one food that is able to satisfy the human soul, and there is only one God, one Christ, and one Church that is able to provide that food. Most of its practitioners have stumbled into the new age out of spiritual hunger, and it is only a matter of time before that hunger returns -- it is our job, then, to ensure that we are there offering the solid meat of truth when the spun sugar fails to satisfy and sustain.