New Age is the new religion. But is there any grounding for the rejection of it by the major religions or is this prejudice of the highest religious order?
The idea of New Age religions is something which became popular towards the end of the twentieth century, but it’s unclear exactly what this New Age movement incorporates. However, what is fairly certain is the refusal of mainstream religions to accept this alternative belief system in place of their own
So, what is New Age? Surveys in America shed some light on what fits into this category:
8% believe in astrology as a method of foretelling the future
7% believe that crystals are a source of healing or energizing power
9% believe that Tarot Cards are a reliable base for life decisions
About 1 in 4 believe in a non-traditional concept of the nature of God which are often associated with New Age thinking:
11% believe that God is "a state of higher consciousness that a person may reach"
8% define God as "the total realization of personal, human potential"
3% believe that each person is God Yet as a religion, they don’t generally have things like Holy Books and some don’t even have a God, let alone a place of worship or a set of traditions which is deeply embedded within their culture. There is often no central organisation to lead the religion or a formal clergy, prayers or festivals.
Formed out of some disaffection with traditional religion and secularisation, New Age beliefs have taken what they feel is important from both sides and created something which sits somewhere, uneasily for some, between the two.
The problem for them is when it comes to recognition. Without many formal boundaries, these religions contain many diverse teachings and practices, from believing in a single spiritual power to be tapped into through feeling that there is a God in everything.
With a general emphasis on reincarnation, they are a challenge for the Western religious “heaven and hell” view on life after death. They also typically construct their own spiritual journey and, with shamanism, rely on another spirit taking over the body, whether good or evil. This goes directly against traditional religions who look to the authority of a benevolent God (or Gods) from whom to seek help and guidance. The spiritual journey is therefore assured, in faith at least, towards a positive reuniting with God.
But looking at the Sunni-Shi’ah split in Islam, the Catholic-Protestant split in Christianity and the various disagreements in all major religions, don’t these traditional followers of God show some sort of intolerance towards their newer relatives? Some of the New Age ideas of religion, like the spirituality of some sort, is surely compatible with other religions, as is the idea that the environment and world we live in should be respected.
If religion is about expression the surely New Age fits this as well as any other form of religion. Yet if religion is about a personal relationship with God, the formal recognition of God’s power and interaction with the world, about miracles and a history of God’s love, then maybe New Age is still not quite there yet.
The copyright of the article New Age in Religious Freedom is owned by Ben Hughes. Permission to republish New Age in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.
Comments
Apr 28, 2007 7:54 AM
Ben Hughes :
Is religion being the most hypocrital thing in the modern world, or is it merely remaining unchanging as part of a society in which we expect everything to be uniform? Have your say.
May 13, 2007 9:15 AM
Smorg :
Hiya Ben, I wouldn't really call it hypocritical, really. Some religious folks are... and some non-religious folks.
If anything, I think we who live in the moder world are having it much better than the folks who came before us in term of having religion forced down our throat. In most places now you can refuse to accept the religion of the majority without getting burned at stake or harassed for it.
I think religion is fine as a frame-work or an ideal for one's personal life. When one set own standard of conducts to satisfy one's own religious conviction. The problem is when one, out of over-sized ego or overblown good will, tries to impose one's own religion on others as well ... like trying to pass religion-based laws or aggressively trying to convert others (even when that is driven by the religion's mission statement).
It sounds like a commonsensical statement, but when it comes to religion... people tend to take it personally, I think, and then they lose sight of the commonsense. I remember well how alarmed I was when I went to church one Sunday and the normally mild mannered preacher was sermonizing about how we should go out and try to convert all the politicians to evangelical Christianity since they could shape the community rules to be Christian-friendly because that's the god-given ideal for <b>everyone</b>. That was one of the sparks that led to my not being religious anymore. ;oP
May 17, 2007 10:47 AM
Ben Hughes :
Maybe it's just because hypocritical religious people are more in the spotlight (or more in my experience). People love to shoot down the abusive priest or the adulterous bishop almost as much as the cheating politician, but sometimes there seems to be an extra satisfaction with finding a hypocritical religious person. I take what you say about rejecting religion being more acceptable now than in the past though. But at the same time it's easier to be more overtly critical to a wider audience thanks to the internet and mass media. I suppose in the end it's all down to personal choices. It's the sort of person we are rather than the life we say we are leading. We can be pushy and atheist or understanding and religious. I think it's about us understanding religious motivations as well. If we find a way of life we enjoy and think is right, isn't it normal to try to encourage everyone to live that way? The difference is between telling someone about it and pushing someone into it. But how subtle is this difference? (A bit of a ramble I know, but it's just the way I think sometimes.)
May 23, 2007 6:45 PM
Smorg :
Hiya Ben, Your <i>rambling</i> is cool by me, mate. I like reading your thought process, and they really help me understand your positions better. I like it a lot more than short answers. :o)
Yup, there seems to be an extra satisfaction with finding a hypocritical religious person indeed... That's to be expected, I think. People don't like being told what to do/think, and then the folks who go around telling others how they should live are themselves found to be ...not walking the walk. The burden of proof/upholding a standard... always fall on the persons making positive claim, I'm afraid.
Now this might be a bit provocative, but one of the main objection I have with Christianity is the concept of '<i>salvation by grace alone</i>.' I don't know how universal this concept is in Europe and elsewhere, but it is the main theme of the Christians in America. I'd think god much more fair if people actually earn their 'salvation' by their own actions and the choices they make in life.
I can understand that one would expect people who truly <i>converted</i> to Christianity would then try very hard to 'walk the walk'... make choices that reflect the good teaching of that religion, and then if they fall, they can try harder while believing that the attempt counts in their god's eyes.
However, when Christian fundies, for example, go and apply their religious concept to everyone else as well (a lot of fundies here go around saying that even the Buddhists and the Muslims and the Hindus, etc... will all have to answer to the Christian god in the end), that makes god out to be very beastly, in my opinion. Even in this age of the Internet and globalisms, there are plenty of people who live and die without ever hearing of the <i>gospel</i>. And according to that doctrine, they are lumped in with the non-believers (like me, who made the informed choice to not believe after having heard). And when it comes to that, Matthew is the only gospel that lump the undecided with those who are 'against'. Both Luke and Mark lump them with the 'for'.
Anyhow... I think 'live and let live' is a good concept to live by. Most people of different belief can co-exist well, as long as one doesn't try to subject others to their own definition of god, I think. The darn thing is, the monotheistic religions do that, and some even compounds it by adding the evangelical requirement clause. As long as that doesn't change, I don't see the end of religious conflicts.
May 24, 2007 2:17 PM
Ben Hughes :
Thanks for your comments. Your posts on here also make me think, which is something I miss a lot in my job. At my church last Sunday, the speaker (or preacher - although I'm not sure whether I like that term) spoke of Christians in the workplace. He said that if someone stands up in front of a church and says something that we couldn't take away and tell an atheist in the workplace then it's a pretty useless thing to say - and I agree. I suppose all religions are about conversion to some degree but they also be about understanding and communicating the message of the religion to others. It's not about imposing views or condemning others and this is probably where religion shoots itself in the foot most of the time. That's why it's so great to hear of someone falling from grace, so to speak. In Europe, religion, especially Christianity, is fairly marginalised. In Britain, the general media don't like Christianity - see my recent article on Christian bands and discrimination. People like to be judged on their actions and I think that's the way it should be - for us mere mortals at least. As it says in the Bible (paraphrased and adapted of course), if you tell someone to remove the speck of dust from their eye when you have a plank in your own eye, there must be something wrong. i.e. if you tell someone to put a small thing right in their life when you're doing something hugely wrong in your own, you need to be pulled up on it.
