Confessions V (Naming the New Age)

Dear Friends, Known and Unknown,

In speaking of the New Age movement, I am occasionally questioned as to what I mean by this term. I suspect that some reading these confessions may even question whether it is possible to speak of a New Age movement, as I do, as a unified phenomenon.

All of this is understandable. The New Age culture is absolutely sprawling, appears greatly diversified, diffuse and not easy to capture in words.

However, the fact that a phenomenon is not easily distillable, does not mean that it does not exist. In other words, there may well be a distinctive, unified form, beyond the level that words can easily capture.

Personally, after many years experience with this culture, this is what I believe. I believe that we are witnessing the rise of a spiritual movement that is much more uniform than many commentators accept.

Even if words for that unity are elusive, that unity can be suggested rather than defined. Suggested rather defined … this, at least, is all I know how to manage in these present confessions.

I believe we have witnessed over the last decades, a vast movement toward a spirituality that is either without formal religion, or else, if it is tenuously tied to formal religion, often dismisses or relativises vast amounts of that religion.

For me, a good example of this latter tendency is Matthew Fox, the former Catholic priest, proponent of ‘Creation Spirituality’ - at the expense of a vast amount of the Catholic tradition. And despite his undoubtedly sincere and noble intentions, I now believe that the **cost** of this sort of dismantling of tradition to be very expensive indeed. I will shortly be returning to Fox.

For now, I simply want to stress that although it can be hard to see a unity to the New Age movement, I believe that one way its unity becomes visible, is in its dismantling or rejection of tradition and particularly the Christian tradition.

Despite many variations, the New Age idea often appears something like this … There is a new spirituality arising in the world, free of sectarianism and dogma. This spirituality is destined to be the paradigm for a New Age. It is in fact, often linked to the zodiac sign of Aquarius.

In this idea of the Aquarian paradigm, qualities of the previous paradigm of Pisces – including many Christian notions of sin, evil, devotion and so forth, are now no longer seen as appropriate or so appropriate as they once were, in the ‘previous age of Pisces’.

And very definitely, in the Aquarian ideal, the notions of formal codes and institutions to embody spiritual values are frequently seen as suspect.

The New Age movement tends by its very nature to repudiate **formal** definition – and this only amplifies the image of highly diversified, heterogeneous phenomena.

But I confess to you, all my experience leads me to believe that there is an underlying unity - whether repudiated or not. And it is a unity that needs to be named.

Yet I am well aware that even the name ‘New Age’ has many pitfalls. For although in the early days of this movement- the 1960’s and 1970’s - the term 'New Age' was common parlance for this movement of spirituality at the expense of religion, later in the 1980’s, the term came to be associated with commercialism and a vast array of bizarre phenomena.

And many people who had identified with term, became embarrassed to use it. Not just embarrassed – for these were often noble souls on a sincere quest. They were not seeking to make a quick buck. And they were not necessarily enamoured by strange phenomena. They were sincere seekers, with rich insights and warm hearts …

Thus, I am uncomfortably aware that what I call a New Age movement embodies a vast number of people who do not even identify with a movement by that name! I am aware that other names surface, ‘holistic’, ‘alternative spirituality’, ‘Mind-Body-Spirit’ …

Still I believe my forty two years have led me to see the unity behind these different names, a unity I will attempt to suggest ever more as we proceed.

And for this unity which I see, some sort of name must be chosen and used. And I use the name New Age. It is the name I grew up with and it is still the most recognisable name. However adequate it is or not.

And I use the name New Age in deep respect for many, many people within this movement. Please do not interpret me as adversarial to the New Age culture. I mean what I say about the rich insight and heart, one frequently finds there.

Yes, there is often a depth of love within the New Age movement that would and should put many of us Catholics to shame ...

But with real pain, I confess that I also believe that in divorcing itself from tradition and in dismantling tradition, this rich holistic insight and heart is **less effective** in the world than it might be. Far less effective … while the world suffers and burns.

Yes, I confess I see a unity to the New Age movement, unified among other things, under a suspicion and sometimes even hostility towards the Christian tradition in particular - and that the COST of dispensing with that tradition is far, far greater than is commonly appreciated …