THE AQUARIAN AGE AND APOLOGETICS
Philip Johnson
Presbyterian Theological Centre, Sydney
[This is the manuscript of the essay that was published in the Lutheran Theological Journal, Volume 34, number 2, August 2000, pp. 51-60.]
Since the 1980s new age - or Aquarian Age - spirituality has emerged as a major mainstream option for many seekers in the West. Elsewhere I have drawn attention to the popular cultural indicators of new age religiosity. [1] Mainstream scholars in religious studies and sociology are now paying close attention to new age. [2] Amongst Christian apologists there is a consensus that this spirituality constitutes a major challenge in the twenty-first century.
Evangelical Timidity
Although evangelicals have been prolific in publishing polemics against new age, they have rarely reflected on the cogency and quality of their output. [3] Some critical reflection reveals that evangelicals are only really talking amongst themselves about new age, but have made few serious forays into reaching new age seekers for the kingdom of God. This inertia over evangelism and mission is probably explained by several factors.
First, as Noll and Hexham have pointed out, evangelicals have generally been quite timid in engaging and confronting their contemporaries in sophisticated dialogue. [4] It is far easier to describe contemporary rivals from within the safety of the evangelical sub-culture rather than venture forth to challenge and reach another group with the gospel. This is reflected in the fearful tenor that one finds in evangelical texts when the pervasive influence of new age is described. Rhetoric about 'Christian America' becoming pagan and claims of satanic influences in new age reinforce a siege mentality. With new age cast in the role of a deadly enemy, the focus is assuredly not on mission. Furthermore, many evangelicals seem to thrive on having identifiable enemies, whether it is humanism, Darwinian evolution, Marxism, feminism or other faiths. With the collapse of communism in Europe, new age has filled up this vacuum in its wake. It is a pitiable fact that some evangelicals need to define themselves in the context of such enemies.
Another factor concerns the reluctance amongst evangelicals to come to grips with the diversity of belief in society. Although evangelicals such as Muck and Netland have been grappling with the issue of pluralism, evangelicals are poorly prepared to wrestle with this and adjust to living alongside spiritual competitors.[5] Hexham asserts that 'evangelical writers seem unable to recognize and adapt to the reality of cultural and religious pluralism in modern society … this failure to understand modern culture reflects the narrowness of contemporary theological education, which, in general, leaves ordinands totally unprepared for meeting people of other faiths.' [6]
The failure of evangelicals to enter the arena of sophisticated dialogue with new age seekers has of course meant that their apologias have fallen on deaf ears. Melton has observed, 'The New Age Movement has paid little attention to Evangelical Christian criticism … New Age leaders generally see the Evangelical attack as a product of old age thinking which will pass away as the New Age emerges.'[7] All of this then warrants a fresh assessment of evangelical apologetic styles employed in the response to new age.
Apologetic Stances
Certain apologetic styles have predominated in the evangelical response to new age: heresy-rationalist apologetics, end-times prophecy, spiritual warfare, personal testimonies and cultural apologetics. Of these, the first four originate with the evangelical counter-cult movement, which began, in the earlier part of the twentieth century.
- Heresy-Rationalist Apologetics
American counter-cult apologists like J. K. van Baalen and Walter Martin first drew attention to some of the forerunners of new age such as Theosophy, Spiritualism, Rosicrucianism, Christian Science and Unity School of Christianity. [8] Their basic approach entailed demonstrating how the beliefs and practices of these groups deviate from Biblical and creedal affirmations of faith, particularly with respect to Christology. This approach, which I have dubbed heresy-rationalist apologetics, mirrors the early Church Fathers who dealt with Arianism and Gnosticism.
Even though new age has no central organizing body or creed, apologists have frequently applied this model. The principal focus has been highlighting differences between Christian and new age belief. Much attention therefore has been devoted to contrasting theistic and pantheistic concepts of God, refuting monism and reincarnation, exposing self-deification in the human potential movement, and demonstrating the occult nature of practices like astrology, channelling spirits, tarot cards and holistic medicine. An underlying thread is that Christian belief is rational, whereas new age is irrational. [9]
Apologists who work from this perspective point to the many Biblical injunctions about false teaching (Deut. 13:1-5; Matt. 7:15ff; Acts 20:26-32; Eph. 4:11-16; 1 Tim. 6:3ff; 2 Pet. 2:1-3; 1 John 4:1-3). This has been the foremost model used by evangelical, Reformed and Roman Catholic apologists with the new age. [10] On the positive side, this model excels in assisting Christians to see the differences in belief. By clarifying both what we believe and why we believe it, heresy-rationalist apologetics enables the individual Christians to grow in confidence about fundamental teachings. The individual is equipped with skills to discern heterodox belief.
However, there are limitations with this model. First, heresy presupposes orthodoxy. New age does not purport to be a Christian movement, and many of its thinkers see the Church as part of a fading paradigm. Thus analyzing new age beliefs solely along the traditional lines of doctrinal comparisons can create blindspots for the apologist. For instance, most apologists see new age as monistic. Hexham notes that there are many nuances to monism, including some varieties of it expressed within orthodox Christianity. [11] This lack of precision with terminology sometimes leads to misinterpretations of new age and thereby weakens the criticisms proffered by the apologist. Moreover, as I have shown elsewhere, new age has presently taken form in four strands: monist-pantheist, neo-gnostic, neo-pagan/Wiccan and Hermetic. [12] Depth analysis of these various strands is sadly wanting amongst most apologists.
Another limitation concerns the rationalist assumptions of the apologists. Some, whether presuppositional or evidentialist, convey the impression that if new age ideas are refuted then rationality will prevail and the seeker will want to explore the gospel. The first crippling problem with this is the failure to reflect on the postmodern critique of modern thought. Wouter Hanegraaff has pointed out that 'there is a persistent pattern of New Age culture criticism, directed against what are perceived as the dominant values of western culture in general, and of modern western society in particular'. [13] Although new age seekers accept the benefits of technological advance, scientific rationalism is rejected on the grounds that it reduces spirit to mere matter. John Drane argues that tackling new age solely on rational, analytical grounds is fundamentally flawed:
It is not that the New Age ought not to be subjected to such criticism, and in the face of an increasingly irrational intellectual Establishment, one of the things that Christians need to bear witness to today is the fact that we are creatures of reason, and that, notwithstanding all the mistakes that our forebears have undoubtedly made, the capacity for rational understanding is one of the fundamental marks of being fully human. But to engage with the New Age at this level only is a serious mistake, for to most New Agers, this methodology is one of the key contributory factors to the crisis in Western culture. Using the tools of modernity to address the New Age will get nowhere, for it is by definition immune to rational criticism … The simple fact is that, while many aspects of the New Age prescription for the ailments of today's world may be nonsensical and meaningless, its diagnosis of the disease is too accurate for comfort … Christian beliefs, spirituality and lifestyles have become almost exclusively focused on rational systems of thinking, with a consequent marginalization of the intuitional, the emotional, the relational and the spiritual.' [14]
The rational deconstruction or debunking of new age is in effect like water off a duck's back. Thus Norman Geisler's neo-Thomist apologetic, although offering some incisive criticisms, makes no impression on a seeker. [15] The same fate befalls the rationalist, modernity stance taken by Carson in The Gagging of God. Apologists must be mindful of the fact that the critical dissection of a competing worldview does not automatically establish the veracity of Christianity to the seeker.
Perhaps the major drawback with heresy-rationalist apologetics is that it fails to take into account the reasons why people are exploring this spirituality rather than Christianity. The new age seeker is attracted to spiritual technologies that will enable the overcoming of one's hurts and to find wisdom or power to live in the nine-to-five world. The impulses of new age are driven by themes of healing and transformation. As this quest is of an intuitive, mystical nature the philosophical and theological categories apologists speak in are, sadly, incomprehensible to the seeker.
Lastly, those Biblical passages that are foundational to this model, in context, treat the problem of false teaching within the Church. They make more sense to the believer where correct doctrine is being considered. When Paul addressed the Athenian philosophers he did not commence his oration by branding them as either heretics or demonic emissaries. Rather in the context of mission he sought to contextualize the Gospel by sharing from the symbols and ideas within their own culture. He did not deconstruct their world, but rather offered Christ as the fulfilment of their religious quest. Furnishing proof of false doctrine enables the believer to be discerning, but the impact of such an argument is unlikely to persuade a seeker to repent. In effect, this apologia speaks more to the Christian than it does to the seeker.
- End-times Prophecy & Conspiracies
In 1983 Constance Cumbey and Dave Hunt independently offered interpretations of the new age based around the fulfilment of Biblical prophecies. [16] Others such as Roy Livesey and Texe Marrs have followed suit. [17] In this approach the new age is understood eschatologically to be the fulfilment of Jesus' Olivet discourse concerning the last days. The new age is typecast as the probable vehicle through which the eschatological Antichrist shall emerge. One distinct feature of this model is the linking of the new age to a conspiracy theory involving political cabals working towards the creation of a world government. [18] The conspiracy model is a variation on the 'Illuminati' style plot found in extreme right-wing literature. [19]
About the only positive point to be made is that these apologists are trying to show the Bible is trustworthy because they perceive prophetic events are being fulfilled. Within the history of apologetics fulfilled prophecy has been ably used with respect to Christ's first advent. However, within evangelical circles there has been an appalling tendency to 'cry wolf' with respect to Christ's Second Advent. This fact seems to escape the notice of these apologists. As we simply do not know what proportion of history is left to unfold before the Second Advent, today's scenario can easily become tomorrow's embarrassment. [20]
Another point is that these apologists rarely show any awareness of the diverse schools of eschatological thought. [21] Thus there is no critical self-reflection on their hermeneutic or the contemporary sources they cite. In exploring the Olivet discourse these apologists never entertain the possibility that some of the 'signs' Jesus foretold were fulfilled when Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70. [22]
Perhaps the greatest deficiency in this model lies in the misattribution of sinister political machinations when describing the 'Aquarian Conspiracy'. In new age parlance the term 'conspiracy' does not connote an Illuminati plot but rather refers to the loose notion of networking to co-create a better world. Thus a straw man has been drawn and refuted. [23]
Finally, conspiracy theories are a disguised form of anti-Semitism for all blame is laid on the Illuminati, International Financiers, and so on - these terms are synonyms for the Jews. [24] This stance is extremely ironic when we note that apologists like Dave Hunt are pro-Israel in their eschatology. Similarly, these apologists are defenders of Biblical miracles and yet their end-times scenarios reduce the apocalypse to human plots and technological devices. This apologetic model therefore has little to commend it as a way of understanding and reaching new age seekers. Indeed, it is fair to ask whether these apologists have actually presented the Gospel. Remarkably the most promising apologetic aspect of eschatology which has not been explored, is to interact with the vision of the Aquarian Age and present the new heaven and new earth as its consummation. [25]
- Spiritual Warfare
Spiritual warfare has, in some circles, become a panacea for dealing with the new age. Although not strictly qualifying as an apologia, Frank Peretti's novels This Present Darkness and Piercing The Darkness, typify this outlook. Here the emphasis is placed on identifying demonic influences over cities or people, with prayer and exorcism being the remedy. On the positive side this model draws attention to Biblical passages about spiritual warfare and the demonic. It also stresses the concept of spiritual deception. Acknowledging this theological category is surely a corrective to the Enlightenment-based scepticism of both the modern world and church on the matter.
However, Peretti's novels are fraught with many difficulties. First, exorcism replaces evangelism. Second, a straw man of the new age is drawn. There is no attempt to see any genuine search for meaning. The seeker is simply a dupe of the Devil and the spiritual tools used to find transformation are branded demonic. This is a backhanded dismissal akin to an atheist ridiculing Christianity over the conflict in Northern Ireland. New age seekers generally do not believe in the existence of the devil largely because they eschew any sort of dualism. Hexham notes that Peretti reinforces a stereotype which has 'unwittingly had a very negative effect on the outlook of numerous evangelicals by labeling many contemporary social movements and institutions as either demonic or potentially evil.' [26]
More problematic is that the depiction of spiritual warfare is not Biblical. The metaphysical combat portrayed by Peretti has much more in common with animism, the Greco-Roman mystery religions and Zoroastrianism. [27] Angels can only function as long as Christians pray; people no longer repent from sin but are released into faith by exorcism; prayer closets replace evangelism. Peretti's novels have become handbooks for many lay Christians. It is lamentable that evangelicals can so highly esteem novels with faulty theology, poor characterization, bad grammar and redundant passages. It is surely a sign of the intellectual poverty of evangelicals that makes these novels into best sellers over and above any serious apologetic literature.
Aside from Peretti's novels, there are various manuals and tomes tackling the combat tactics required for expelling demons from cities. [28] These texts are inadequate treatments because the focal point of spiritual warfare is skewed. In Scripture spiritual warfare is not centred in power over demons, but rather in faithfulness. The cross and resurrection secure the victory. Human beings are not puppets in a cosmic conflict, for Scripture discloses that humans are responsible for sin. Passages such as Colossians 2:15, 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 seem to be overlooked in the eagerness to do battle with the demons. Although we have brief case studies on the demonic in Sacred Quest, our priority for mission must not be side tracked by this subject. [29] Finally, it must be stressed that this entire approach distorts what new age is about, and is yet another sad instance where Christians bear false witness about their neighbours.
- Personal Testimonies
The use of personal testimonies in evangelism has a long heritage stretching from Scripture to the present time, and has been frequently used in counter-cult ministry. Various new age seekers who have converted to Christianity have written their testimonies. The advantage of this approach is that today's postmodern seeker values personal stories. It goes from abstract belief to the real life journey of faith which others can identify with.
However, there are also drawbacks. First, a collection of testimonies of former disgruntled devotees can be gathered for any religious movement. For every book of an evangelical who has found faith after abandoning atheism, there is a corresponding book for those ex-evangelicals who are atheists. The 'Gods that failed' approach can be helpful for someone who struggles with their search or commitments. However, it cannot be overlooked that there are many seekers who once participated in the church and did not find it at all helpful. A further sobering point is that some Christians have built up profiles or ministries on the basis of a testimony, which has later been proven false or highly doubtful. [30]