Taken to Task! : Or, Blast from the Past..........?
Remarkably, or so it seems to me after writing this column for over a year now, all the comment I have received to date has been uniformly favourable. Now I don't flatter myself here, I know very well that there are many more out there who may think I'm an opinionated and long-winded old fart but who can't be bothered to summon up the energy to write in and tell me so (Oh! Say it ain't So!).
My intention in writing as I do is to entertain, inform and perhaps provoke some new train of thought. It is not to upset or gratuitously insult people. While I recognise for the most part that people are themselves responsible for what upsets them, I did wonder if some of my sterner observations on 'New Agieness' might not provoke a response. To my surprise the reaction comes from an altogether different quarter, which I think worth sharing along with my response:
To ParacelsusAsia:
" Your column has consistently been one of the best ones in a paper that is going increasingly 'ashram'. I've learned a lot of good stuff.
So I was very disappointed to read your denigration of the Christian faith in the last issue. It was everything that you encourage people not to be: narrow-minded and prejudiced. You obviously have a mind set about churches, and speak little more than propaganda in that regard. It seems to be fashionable - or perhaps merely knee-jerk - to bash the Christian church. In doing so, and contrary to your own espoused belief of tolerance, you insult many people all over the world, and especially in Europe and Australia, based on my own encounters with Christians from these areas - who find affirmation, healing, and genuine selfless growth in traditional Christian faith and traditional church structures. I encourage you to be more open-minded and less susceptible to stereotyped thinking in this regard."
Sincerely.
To which ParacelsusAsia replies:
Dear Reader,
Thank you for the compliment - and the brickbats. I must say I anticipated some flack from the 'Aquarianauts' out there but I was surprised to get it in the neck from this quarter. All the same, whatever the source, feedback is always welcome.
But feedback is not really what I'm getting, is it?
You accuse me of many things but nowhere do you say where I am in error or how and why you disagree with what I say?
That is invective not argument.
While it seems OK in your book for me to criticise aspects of the New Age I must not make any comment in this respect, true or not, with which you disagree. Are you not possibly confusing the church with the Christian faith or do you see no distinction? Is it that you dispute my figures about church attendance or that, even if true, I should not have said it? From what you write I cannot tell.
While I totally respect sincerely held views I feel it reasonable to expect a little more substance to the argument before investing someone else with the negative qualities you now apparently see in me. In one short paragraph you assert I am:
- denigrating the Christian faith (I do not)
- insulting people of faith (I don't think so)
- bashing the Christian church (which one, or do you speak for them all?)
and that I am :
- narrow-minded & prejudiced
- spouting propaganda (for whom?)
- fashionable & kneejerk in approach
- lacking in tolerance
- closed-minded and stereotyped in my thinking.
Of course I don't quite see it this way and while I am entirely open (honest!) to being shown to be all of the above, nowhere do you advance any argument to counter what I wrote or substantiate your low opinion of me.
No, all I hear is that you don't like what I say and I should not say it. With respect, that is not an argument.
In the light of the above it is fair to ask; is it I who am lacking in tolerance or you? Could it be that you may be projecting some of these qualities you are so quick to ascribe to me?
What I can see is, that what I have written has upset you and to that extent I am sorry. I take no pleasure in upsetting people in matters of this kind, but nor do I take any responsibility for their being upset, unless there is some attempt on their part to show me where I am in error. Unless you do this I can make no apology for writing as I did. If you wish, I would be very willing to address any of these issues with you, so long as we do stick to the issues and can avoid communicating ad hominem.
I rather suspect, if we were to look into these things a bit more, we may have more in common than you may suppose. (Haven't you ever noticed how many people fight bitterly with each other when, if they actually listened to each other, they would see they were in fact agreeing with each other?). Reading between the lines it seems to me that, whatever denomination you may be, you are a traditionalist and prefer the 'old ways'. If that is so, it is something with which I resonate. I was brought up with the Authorised Version and the Book of Common Prayer. It is language that fills my soul and I am distinctly uncomfy with the New Modern or other versions. When attending a Roman service it is a source of sorrow to me that the language used is no longer Latin. Sung masses and other religious music make my spirit soar. The ancient places of worship of our tradition, particularly the great cathedrals and abbeys, are a source of inspiration to me. And most of all I recognise the value of ritual.
That being said, I also know that ritual anywhere is meaningless if it is mere form without substance. And, that wisdom is not restricted solely to those media I happen to find aesthetically pleasing.
In the piece you complain of, I specifically mention that the various Christian churches contain many approaches to the Divine and they are right to be concerned about the manifest dangers to the individual soul of a profligate and undisciplined spirituality. The wisdom and spiritual mentorship provided by the best of the Christian church is still available to all who genuinely seek it. But these days it is a matter of taste and individual choice. Did you take any of this aboard before you wrote me? Again, I cannot tell.
We don't burn heretics today any more than we burn witches.
And that, I think you will agree, is progress.
Had I the space in my last article I would have liked to have developed these thoughts further. I find it quite funny, and a little sad, to see all these Western boys and girls, grown men and women, running around in saris or dhotis, sporting 3rd eyes and naming themselves after Hindu gods. Many of them have, it seems to me, thrown out the baby with the bathwater. The funniest thing is they actually believe they can turn their back on 6,000 years of their own spiritual tradition. There is nothing wrong with any of this but what they often do not see is that what they are looking for, or whatever they feel is lacking in their lives, is much nearer to hand than ever they would suppose; that there is nothing 'out there' that is not already included in the Western canon and has not always been available to them.
In fairness many of them know this and it is only a matter of time before this is 're-discovered' more generally. Indeed it is already happening. Whether or not this fills the churches again depends very much on how the churches themselves respond to an opportunity they appear to have not addressed earlier and which I would call the "democratisation of spirit".
The point is that people nowadays have the right, in most places of the world at any rate, to choose their own spiritual path and who are we to say they are wrong? That the path is a long and winding one - that we do know.
The question I put to you is: "Why? Why have so many sought answers outside their own spiritual tradition?"
Dear Reader, rather than shooting the messenger would you not be better employed in contemplation of that?
Respectfully, ParacelsusAsia.
In postscript
I think it worth adding that in writing as I do about the 'New Age' I am not so much addressing myself to those happy possessors of faith like my communicant, but to those many people for whom the light has gone out, the mystery faded and, for whatever reason, the religious structures of their childhood have been found wanting. They have been looking elsewhere for answers. One way to fill this void is to consider mythology, religion and the sacred scriptures of all kinds from the standpoint of the psyche and depth psychology. For, as C.G. Jung remarks,
" The statements made in the Holy Scriptures are also utterances of the soul..... they point to realities that transcend consciousness. Our psychology, whole lives, our language and imagery are built upon the Bible."
It is no easy transition from the metaphysical standpoint of religious faith to the empirical standpoint of the psyche. Between these two mountain ridges lies a dark valley, the valley of lost faith, alienation, meaninglessness and despair. For those who are perched safely on the ridge of religious faith, the psychological approach can be seen as an interesting addition to the more secure viewpoint they already possess. However for those who, consciously or unconsciously, have already slipped off the ridge of faith and are in the dark valley, the discovery of the psychological approach may just possibly be life-saving.
My correspondent is one of the fortunate ones, and might spare a compassionate thought for the rest of us in our all-too human striving along the way. For me at any rate, wherever men and women, jointly or severally, enter a sacred space to contemplate the Divine Mystery and the metaphors by which we may live, that is a holy place - be it ashram, church or sacred grove.
