Christianity and New Age Spirituality (5)

Aquarian Eschatology

Eschatology in the usual sense refers to final events in the history of the world, and as such is a problematic term for Aquarian notions of the ultimate destiny of humanity. Again, there is little doctrinal consensus, since New Age probably should be seen more as a phenomenon than a movement or a stable ideological unity.¹ However, there is a lingua franca with regard to the shape of the future of human history.²

Two aspects should be noted. Firstly, it is assumed that reality is both ‘an unbroken, unified whole,’ (the holistic assumption) and that it is ‘engaged in a process of evolution,’ (the evolutionistic assumption).³ The evolutionary nature of reality is usually pictured in a cyclical (or spiral) manner as, for example, with the cycle of astrological ages.⁴ This cyclical dynamic frequently includes cycles of life through reincarnation.⁵ However, little is said of the assumed eventual transition from Aquarius to Capricorn, revealing a tension between cyclical and linear conceptions of history and a potential problem with New Age philosophy.⁶ Belief in ultimate meaning is a common New Age trait, and frequently, though not exclusively, a teleological dynamic is included.⁷

Secondly, the Aquarian vision as expressed is, generally speaking, utopian – the transition to the Age of Aquarius will be a brighter dawn for humanity, an era of justice, peace and harmony. This vision is, somewhat, a manifestation of human potential philosophies: ‘positive thinking about reality is necessary in order to create a more positive reality.’⁸
This vision is dependent on the general acceptance of New Age perspectives, such as transpersonal spirituality, monism, perennialism and so forth. However, this presents an ambiguity that repeats what New Age criticises in exoteric religion, that of universality (there is one fundamental reality) versus individuality (each individual’s experience is irreducible and must be honoured and respected). Thus, the New Age vision cannot tolerate religious intolerance; but it also self-excludes exclusivism.⁹ Authors tend towards one side of the paradox or the other, but the conflict remains.

In contrast, the eschatological dynamic of Jesus’ announcement of the Kingdom of God is being re-examined in contemporary Jesus study. Specifically, both Church and academy have long held to the assumption that Jesus expected the ‘supernatural coming of the Kingdom of God as a world-ending event in his own generation,’ but this has become somewhat anachronistic in modern scholarship.¹⁰ The idea of the end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it would have been close to anathema to second-Temple Jews, and what we moderns have habitually read as world-ending language would rather have been understood as talk of the apocalyptic climax of their own history.¹¹ Similarly, the experience of the resurrection (however that might be understood) would have been read ‘eschatologically’ but not cataclysmically: ‘the “age to come” had begun, precisely with the Messiah’s resurrection.’¹² Thus the eschatology of the Kingdom of God should be read as a climatic moment in Israel’s history, encapsulated in the life, message, death and resurrection of Jesus.¹³

Whilst historically Christianity has had the same battle as New Age over a universal message with individual application, Jesus seemed to operate in a different manner. He and his followers carried a message of invitation. Thus Jesus was, in part, a movement founder who ‘brought into being a Jewish renewal or revitalization movement that challenged and shattered the social barriers of his day, a movement that eventually became the Christian church.’¹⁴

Footnotes