Letters

Dear CHRISTIS,

Could Anne Lewis’ article ‘New Age-Truth or Deception?’ have possibly been intended as an honest assessment of the New Age movement? Aside from making several serious errors, the author presented a deeply opinionated case against the movement which served only to highlight why many see the set ideas of Christianity as ‘outdated, inflexible and restrictive’.

Errors…

Firstly, as regards errors, the claim that all believers in Karma see financially unfortunate members of society as ‘getting their just reward’ is akin to claiming that all Christians perform a pseudo-cannibalistic ritual in which they claim to drink the blood of their saviour.

Secondly, the concept of pantheism cannot be described by any stretch of the imagination as eastern. Has Anne Lewis no knowledge of the ancient Roman, Greek and even (Gods forbid) Pre-Christian British faiths?

Thirdly, can it truly be said that ‘modern jargon’ terms such as ‘personality’, ‘mind’ and ‘inner potential’ are used as a direct consequence of the New Age?

Similarly, whilst it is true that ‘yoga is essentially part of Hindu worship’, in its context the statement implied that yoga and its practise is an attempt to find new converts for Hinduism.

A doctrine of intolerance?

If implications such as this (in which the article was submerged) seem to embrace a doctrine of intolerance, many comments amounted to nothing more than scaremongery. Whilst Ms. Lewis admits the umbrella term ‘New Age’ encompasses a vast range of beliefs which frequently conflict, she still sees fit to ask the ridiculous question ‘Is there then a conspiracy to take over the world?’

The most damaging aspect of the article, however, was undoubtedly its consistent narrow-mindedness-does the author really believe that tolerance of other faiths must necessarily mean a compromise of one’s own faith? Such a viewpoint can only lead to the out-dated self-important mission to convert everything in sight which certain religious groups still insist on. Why must no impression be given that all religions are equally true? Is it essential that we prove to ourselves that our (supposedly) personal experience of God is true by mentally outlawing all other beliefs? Given Christianity’s appalling track record as an organisation which respects human life, the statement ‘the Bible teaches what no other religion gives-forgiveness’ can only be described as ludicrous.

Bingo!

If Anne Lewis’ standpoint is correct, is man’s yearning for religious experience to be reduced to a cosmic lottery in which only Christians can succeed? I can reach no other conclusion from the statement ‘Anything which is contrary to the teaching of the Bible is obviously not from God.’ If this is indeed the case, I applaud anyone who goes in search of ‘spiritual substitutes’ for such a faith.

Ouch!!

In the editor’s note, CHRISTIS was said to be aimed at everyone, but this article seemed only to act as a self-assuring exercise for Christians irrationally worried by what is, in general, a positive movement.

Dominic Connell, Langwith.