|
Defining the New Age, its roots and usage as a cultural term, and the practices and beliefs it attempts to describe.
The term New Age describes a set of practices and beliefs; what follows is a brief history of new age, as well as a description of new age practices and beliefs.
The History of New Age
New Age grew out of the treatment revolutions of Emanuel Swedenborg, whose spiritualism became popular in the 1850s. Swedenborg claimed to communicate with spirits, and to travel through the spirit world. However, the language of New Age itself was more fully developed through the Theosophical Society, founded in 1875 by Madame Blavatsky. Much of this was borrowed from Eastern traditions, in particular Hinduism and Buddhism, but also Kabbalah. The Theosophical Society was founded to study spiritual phenomenon. From the techniques of Mesmer, Swedenbourg, G.I. Gurdjieff, and the more experiential teachings of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, the New Age developed its practices.
There were a number of factors at play to account for the increasing popularity of New Age. Darwinism, as well as the increasing acceptability of atheism and secularity, saw some in the west turning away from Christianity. With a literacy rate exponentially increasing each year, the sudden distribution of alternative ideas about mind, body, spirit and cosmos through pamphlets and books, enabled a sudden influx of alternatives to the Judeo-Christian paradigm.
More recently, Aleister Crowley and Alice Bailey developed their own theories and practices, influencing subsequent generations of spiritual seekers. Alice Bailey, in fact, coined the term New Age in the sense we tend to use it, in her book Discipleship in the New Age, written in the 1950's. With Aleister Crowley we can credit the term "Do What Thou Wilt Shall be the Whole of the Law", a battle-cry for freedom and liberty that wrung through two world wars, the 1960's counter-culture and can still be heard rallied out during Summer Solstice at Stonehenge.
New Age Practices
Sometimes repackaged with gleaming labels and obstreperous titles that even the most hardened semanticist would have difficulty penetrating, and sometimes manifest as sincere and integral expressions of religiosity without a buck or pound sign in sight, the vast majority of the practices and beliefs that make up the New Age are modern, largely Western, re-interpretations of ancient teachings and practices. Chakras, Shamanism, Meditation, Aromatherapy, Energy Healing and Visualisation are all staple parts of New Age belief and praxis whose roots expand into antiquity.
Who is "New Age"? Neo-Gnostics, Neo-Pagans, the practical Occultists, Environmentalists, Reiki practitioners and Urban Shamans, often appear under the New Age umbrella, yet would never refer to themselves as such. "New Age" has become an outsider term, used to group wide and varied practices under one simple heading.
The signs and symbols which make up the New Age are largely public; yet the meaning, interpretation and active understanding of these terms and the knowledge, and the practical experience of the techniques embodied within it, are the territory of the insider who may or may not (probably the latter) refer to themselves as New Age. In our pop culture, "New Age" has become an easy way to define a diverse range of practices and symbols without adequately making sense of their nuances and shared elements.
Encoded with indications of time and change, this term New Age, and its associated concepts -- the age of Aquarius, the Aeon of Horus or the Kali-Yuga -- seem to describe well the fierce and sudden changes incumbent upon our species, our consciousness and our environment. Whatever criticisms remain from a deeper analysis of the New Age 'movement', a fair assessment of its manifestations can reveal a body of doctrine and belief that is an expansive and coherent alternative to dominant paradigms and modern cultural narratives about the mind, the body, the spirit and the wider universe. This requires an open mind and sometimes an open heart. But through thinking for yourself, and questioning all authority, one can arrive at a strong sense that the dominant discourses describing the world are missing vital details that the New Age, and some of its more secret and subtle faces, can provide.
The copyright of the article New Age Definitions in New Age is owned by Tristram Burden. Permission to republish New Age Definitions in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.
Comments
Sep 11, 2006 11:32 AM
Tristram Burden :
As a term, does New Age effectively describe a group of practices and
beliefs of use to insiders, or is it just a marketing tool? What
distinguishes New Age from modern esotericism?
Oct 5, 2006 7:28 AM
Judy M Merrill :
Someone who acknowledges themselves as 'new age' accepts any and all random
theories that pass along the path of literature and/or belief. There is no
grounding base that says this is too far out or in. It just accepts.
There is no platform to promelgate their message, but are not shy
to use another group's resources for this purpose.
God bless, J
Oct 16, 2006 10:32 AM
Pink :
.
I've never been quite able to figure it out; but, I remember when
its use first came into vogue.
.
It's one of those code words
that are used by the recalcitrant conservatives--who want society to turn
back to the past--as labels to throw a blanket of silence over anyone and
everyone who won't get into line with them. Liberal and postmodern are two
other terms that are employed in the same way.
Oct 16, 2006 2:20 PM
Tristram Burden :
Works well. There are a variety of terms which fall into this category.
Another favourite of mine is 'conspiracy'. As a cultural code-word, it
denotes a paranoid theory based on uncredible sources, whereas in proper
english uses, it indicates the coming together of minds in order to change
a situation, whether political, institutional or what have you. Which
includes every activity in the human sphere as we area nd always have been
an interdependant species.
'Conspiracy': it's relegation to a
term denoting paranoia and unsubstantiated fact results in the very
discussion of any 'consipracy' to be something not taken seriously, while
the history of the world can easily be interpreted as the history of secret
societies. Words like 'alternative', 'insane' and even 'nice' fall into the
same category. Short-cuts to an ontological decision which on close
inspection reveal nothing about the actual state of existence of a
thing.
New Age is another term which blankets anyone labeled
such as an uncredible source of existential information, thereby culturally
blackballing all they have to say to everyone except the insiders. Another
cheap trick from the High Priests of Language Barriers.
Oct 18, 2006 10:17 AM
Tristram Burden :
Sorry, spiritalk, didn't respond to this message!
To say New Age
practitioners accept all and any random beleif they come across is a
exageration, but there is a propensity for this style of spiritual practice
to encompass many beliefs and materials. To also say it just accepts... I
would say the grounding philosophies that birthed the new age were rooted
in quite the opposite of blind acceptance, but rather relentless
questioning at the accepted truths in consensus culture and society.
To also say there is no platform for 'their' message...
As demonstrated, close analysis of the New Age reveals no 'they' and
perhaps even no central message specific to a group or movement, except
maybe the inherent plurality of human experience and the consequent need to
rely upon personal experience as authority over the accepted dogmas of
other individuals. Not to say that different movements within the New Age
aren't susceptable to the same schisms, egocentricity and hypocrisy that
all religious movements, nay human endeavours, are susceptable to. But the
grounding philosophies of New Age are pluralistic, indicating more the
acceptance of others beliefs, while not necessarily feeling an automatic
need to accomodate them within a personal religiosity.
This
brings us back to the original question, whether New Age is a valid
description of contemporary spiritualities, one answer being perhaps that
it is a valid description for a 'collective' of contemporary
spiritualities, but not a valid description for a cohesive and consitent
pattern of ideology and practice. Regarding New Age as the latter remains
misleading, as it is only descriptive as an umbrella term, encompassing
many different spiritualities within the same rubric of authority - ie,
personal experience, but sometimes different practices, techniques,
different views of history and culture and varying degrees of confidence in
varying messages of prophecy! So real cohesion within New Age could be, if
you will, a marketability glamour, and only truly evident within its roots.
E.g. Theosophy, New Thought or the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn.
Oct 19, 2006 11:08 AM
Judy M Merrill :
I function in what is considered a peripheral religion, philosophy,
practice and to say that new age is not focused and/or intent upon
disrupting the already organized would be to dismiss my personal
experience.
New Age is not organized. There is no religion,
philosophy, science, etc. that would actually have followers, as such. Of
that I could agree (using Theosophy and New Thought as the base for some of
the beliefs in New Age is to understand the position of these actualy
groups and organizations).
Along with the open minded approach
to every item that appeared for investigation stemming from the Aquarian
Age movement to Shirley MacLaine's journey, there is a definite move to
remove people from orthodox followings. People are just not joiners in this
current wave of 'me generation' thinkers.
Everything is about
what can be given to them with absolutely NO regard to giving back. In the
past human beings understood the importance of the law of abundance...what
we put out we will get back. Also, what we take, we must return.
Without an organization of thought to go to for definition and/or
explanations a lot of random ideas tend to enter society under the title of
New Age. And a lot of truly organized and evolving organizations (some of
which referenced in your historical matter) have had to deal with this fall
out of misinformation and/or misdirection.
God bless, J
Oct 23, 2006 12:54 PM
Tristram Burden :
Regarding general selfishness and vagueness of some practitioner's
experienced within a segment of society people term New Age, I think it's
possible here to begin talking about legitimate and non-legitimate
spiritualities. Legitimacy being the succes of a particular practice, or
practiotioner, at actually achieving the desired refiniement of
consciousness, behaviour and intimate knowing of self which most
spiritualities, in distinction to religions, purport to do. Within many of
the 'borrowed' practices and theories, these are core attainments, for
example Buddhism, contributing towards empowerment of the self, gnosis,
enlightentment or whatever other words are used to describe its particular
'axe'. Very often, jealousy, selfishness and egotism negate success in
achieving expansion of consiousness, and the wisdom innately 'advertised'
if you will, by certain spiritualities relative to the New Age. In the
absence of these positive effects, a total ground zero of the self being
another desirous outcome, it is possible to say that the particular
practitioner is just not having much success with their spirituality,
perhaps?
Or that their spiritualiy is lacking a certain depth
to be effective?
Oct 23, 2006 1:19 PM
Tristram Burden :
Something else I forgot to respond to within the message, about the me
generation and the not paying back. This is almost a cutural trend, evident
in a white-washing of contact with the ancestors, relegating them at best
to either an item of archeaological curiosity, or as a re-inforcement of
self-importance in the now. There certainly seems to be a lack of
veneration, respect and acknowledgement of gifts (as well as the curses) of
those that came before us, and a reluctance to take responsibility for what
they did. This is perhaps the primary weakness in taking beliefs from here
and there, pan-globally, without having nurturing and indiginous roots
within one's own 'clan' that can be carried forward along with it. But as
for organisation and authority, I feel this is something relatively new on
such a wide scale as held by Islam, certain streams of Christianity and
perhaps Theravada Buddishm. Not even two thousand years old, in most cases.
Belief and spirtuality have usually depended upon the authority of
experience, religion however, has usually been dependent upon the authority
of the Priest. In an age where few were literate, and where few had the
luxury or leisure (or money or breeding?!?!?) to learn the secrets of
priestcraft, this is understandable. But as we are now in an age where many
more are literate, information is widely diseminated about a great many
different things, the authority has returned to the self, and people have a
right to choice, and have a right to question. The primary problem with
Orthodoxy in the modern era, and perhaps noticeable with people over the
last hundred or so years, is its instant flavour of being retrogressive,
while experiencing so many different changes within modern culture, a
spirituality perhaps needs to look as far forward as the mind is want-to in
the face of the uncertainty of the times. It is perhaps also true that this
very uncertainty is turning people back onto fundamentalism - either way,
as things shake, so inevitably will people superficially appear more
polarised, and movements seem very categorised between the orthodox and the
heterodox, the personal and the communal, and the Priest led and the Guru
manifest. As times change, messages which may have been spoken for
millenia, will need to change their medium, but I remain convinced that in
the moern era, personal experience and sound judgement and independent
thought are the only real trustable authorities available.
Oct 24, 2006 7:41 AM
Judy M Merrill :
While thinking for oneself is the most valid of growth potentials, we might
consider the grounding in spirituality that thought has attained. Just to
be kind to one another seems to be a lost art.
In a 'me'
generation, only self gratification is key and selfishness has never had
the potential for growth.
God bless, J
Nov 2, 2006 12:10 PM
Richard Kent Matthews :
Selfishness is the natural way of things. It is only out of selfishness
that anything can grow. Selfishness is a direct result of the survival
instinct. Each individual is the Center of the Universe, as it were, and
everything else spokes out from the individual center. In order to grow
spiritually, one must elect to do so; even that is a selfish process:
what's in it for me? Why should I make the effort? Is considering others in
my own best interest? If I see that it is, if I am made to understand that
serving the community is ultimately beneficial, I am more apt to go in that
direction. But if I do not believe that, I will remain in-turned, greedy,
and useless to the culture. But first and foremost, I am selfish. It is a
grand quality, not something to be eliminated. It is the ground of all
altruism.
No?
Nov 3, 2006 8:12 AM
Judy M Merrill :
The law of cause and effect is about what we send out will return to us in
measure. Perhaps then there is no true unselfishness, merely a degree of
return for our efforts of service?
God bless, J
Nov 3, 2006 3:30 PM
Richard Kent Matthews :
Actually the law of cause and effect says that for every action there is an
equal and, get this, opposite reaction. I think the law of which you speak
is the Law of Attraction. What you put forth returns to you, as St. Paul
says, full measure, pressed down, and running over.
It's
important to remember that the Law of Attraction is a natural law, not
supernatural. Selfishness is inherent in all creatures seeking survival. It
is not a negative characteristic. That's where a lot of spiritual-type
folks have gone awry. When you seek to overcome your own nature, the battle
can be intense. And even if you win, you, the selfish self, are the
beneficiary. The most selfless person in Western history said, when faced
with his own death, "If it be Your Will, take this cup from me."
And, "Why have You forsaken me?" That's the natural survival
instinct seeking its own. But he also said "Not my will, but Your will
be done." He chose to continue the calling. He had to consciously
override the natural inclination. According to the writings, he ultimately
received much gain and glory for that heroic act. He came out on top. But
he was still caught in his own selfishness for a time. And in my eyes,
that's perfectly OK.
Recognizing your inherent selfishness,
accepting it, and then choosing to be of service anyway is a powerful
decision, and a powerful path, indeed.
Nov 4, 2006 6:49 AM
Judy M Merrill :
If we put a cause out there, is it always the opposite effect that happens?
Perhaps I had that wrong?
Anyway the law of attraction also
works!
God bless, J
Nov 4, 2006 9:24 AM
Richard Kent Matthews :
Sometimes we place a metaphysical meaning on a simple physical law. Cause
and effect has been one of those laws. In physics, it's this: if you run
your car into a wall, the car will probably crunch, depending on the speed
you're going. If you smoke, you will probably do damage to your health. If
you practice unsafe sex, chances are good you will contract an STD. On the
other hand, if you practice good nutrition, good health is a good
possibility. If you control your car, you'll mostlikely avoid a crash. If
you control urges, use protection, you may avoid STDs. One practice creates
the probable other. That's the law of cause and effect. Gravity,
thermodynamics, all are part of it.
The Law of Attraction,
however, is different. You become like a magnet. You attract to you what is
dominant in your thoughts, your beliefs, your actions. And often, what you
resist, persists. Resistance can be a form of magnetism.
To
simplify the whole thing, give and you'll receive. On all levels. Mentally,
emotionally, physically, financially. It always works. No exceptions. It's
the Law.
Nov 8, 2006 7:42 PM
Catherine MacDonald :
Interesting way of looking at it and I must say I share your view in this
post. I am a Spiritualist although disaffiliated at the moment because of
church politics and so-called spiritual leaders who are control freaks and
insist on telling others what their connection to Spirit should be.
While I believe in the principles of Spiritualism, I can fully
understand why those termed as "New Age" have left religion
behind and even find Spiritualism to be suspect perpetuating the same old
hierarchal structure in a church-like setting. The same schisms exist in
Spiritualism also so I do not see why some folks think it is a better path
than others or why they put their noses up when it comes to discussing the
notion of New Age concepts.
Spiritualism is just one of many
spiritual paths. Those who cling too tightly to one path even if it is as
open minded as Spiritualism can be tend to be as bad as the standard
religious fanatics they rail against. Many of them have not seriously
studied outside of the Spiritualist tradition and so speak from a place
that may be deemed as lacking rounded knowledge. I love the ones who claim
to have Native Guides and yet know little to nothing about Native/
Shamanistic traditions and put these traditions down as lesser than
Spiritualist ideas even while professing to have Native Spirit Guides! That
makes no sense to me but it happens a lot in the Spiritualist churches.
New Age seems to be a generic term and people who identify with it
are still trying to figure out what they believe. Nothing wrong with that I
think! At least they have not become complacent and closed minded to new
ideas as seems to happen to folks who have invested too heavily one belief
system because they derive some sort of title or self perceived power from
it.
Spiritualism is organized but is falling prey to the vary
foibles that people see as divisive to the other mainstream religions. The
New Age and those who identify with it are just a bit more free thinking
and less willing to be told what to think than some folks would like
IMO.
Catherine
Nov 9, 2006 4:26 PM
Catherine MacDonald :
Also it seems that the mainstream religions are weary of New Age concepts
and that is to be expected as New Age presents a chance to think freely and
says you can do spirituality your own way and that is a threat to the
established churches etc.
What I do find interesting is that
Spiritualists (especially Ministers) want freedom to practice their beliefs
and justify coming down hard on the mainstream religious believers for not
accepting them and yet they perpetuate the same lack of acceptance of the
New Age folks because they also see it as a threat to their own positions
as Reverends... and so history repeats itself! Where is the Spiritual
Progression in this kind of system?
Cat
Nov 11, 2006 6:25 AM
Judy M Merrill :
And how frequently it often plays out as the law of opposites. The strong
draw the weak on all levels...mentally, emotionally, physicaslly,
financially. Again, no exceptions...it is the law.
There is
justice in the law. The selfishness of the soul tends to take that to the
level of too much me. When we learn to also serve, we have gained some
measure of spirit.
God bless, J
Nov 11, 2006 7:31 AM
Catherine MacDonald :
A lot of vague talk about Law of Opposites etc. but what does it really
mean to the individual seeker? Some people would like to think they are
better than others because they profess to serve others but is this not a
self-serving attitude in itself? New Age tends to look at this aspect very
practically, we all have needs let's be honest about them and not dress
them up in the cloak of some sort of religion where we give control of
ourselves over to the church or the particular minister. From what I can
gather they ask what is it that the Minster is getting out of that
so-called service-- a sense of recognition, power, and control. Hopefully
Ministers really are there because they care about their fellow humans? But
who knows for sure? "New Agers" have their doubts about the
motives of people in positions of power be it self perceived or bestowed by
others. New Age is about self discovery of spirituality and sharing that
amongst a small community of friends and family EVERY day not just on
Sundays or at mid week service... It strives to get outside the limitations
of someone else's spiritual box. I don't think I blame them for trying...
Nov 11, 2006 8:10 PM
Migisi :
.
<i>Some people would like to think they are better than others
because they profess to serve others but is this not a self-serving
attitude in itself?</i>
.
I believe it is, Cat. And I see
this as entirely natural, and not necessarily a bad thing. I can say that I
serve others because it makes ME feel good. The 'others' benefit from my
service, and so does my ME. It's win-win. However, if I'm using my service
to intentionally manipulate someone, then neither they nor my ME benefits.
Just my take on it.
Nov 11, 2006 8:28 PM
Catherine MacDonald :
I can understand that but it depends on your motives for service... I know
most ministers are well meaning but I have met some real phonies in
Spiritualism whose lives are totally consumed by their need to control
others through church activities and their so-called service to others is
only good as long as it fits with their prescribed agendas. As soon as they
are expected to extend themselves out side of their little prefabricated
box of spirituality and their efforts towards service and examples of
spirituality goes out the window...
Like those who offer to do
something and then are asked to follow through and make a big deal about
how inconvenient the chore was. The other one that drives me nuts are those
who drag up the short comings of others and gossip about members who are
part of their congregations and yet expect to be treated with respect just
because they are the reverends and profess to serve others.
I am
all for community service and getting satisfaction out of it but, I
seriously question why some folks (in Spiritualism anyway) become ministers
given the way they conduct their lives. It seems they are there for totally
selfish egotistical reasons and that service to others is only a secondary
purpose to stroking their own damaged egos. More than you would expect seem
to be caught up in the title and prestige that they assume comes from the
position of reverend and really don't give a damn about the needs of their
congregations.
Nov 13, 2006 5:10 PM
Catherine MacDonald :
Pardon me I guess I must say that I have discovered that the motivation
comes down to power and money LOL silly me not to clue in sooner...
Nov 13, 2006 9:53 PM
Migisi :
.
Not to make light of your serious posts, Cat, but you must've
belonged to my old family parish RC church.
.
We can put a
new-aged name on religion, but the nature of people hasn't changed since
the first stood upright.
Nov 14, 2006 7:33 AM
Catherine MacDonald :
You go a head and make light Migsi! :) I agree with you totally! It is the
only way to deal with the mockery some make out of the spiritual need of
others. Yes I am a psychic reader but, people know exactly up front what
they are getting and there is no BS about it. I tell them what I see and
they can take reading for what they think it is worth... I do not prey on
there need for community and spirituality by setting up a store front
church and pilfering from their time, effort and wallets. I offer a fee for
use service. I advertise and pay my way like every other business. They
choose whether or not to call.
My experience has been that more
people trust that then the guise of religion be it Spiritualism or
whatever. That says volumes as to what some Ministers have done to people
and how our society sees them in general.
Cat
Nov 14, 2006 8:45 AM
Migisi :
.
What I've learned over the years is that people don't value a
product or service unless it costs them something. That's a fact in this
commercial world. For most, the words 'free' and 'no charge' imply no
value, cheapness, or a 'come on' to lure one to something else.
.
My wildlife rehab org used to give free programs - serving education. We
didn't want to seen as exploitive or commercial. Oh, we were so pure and
altruistic in those early days - that is, until we couldn't pay the
veterinarian bill! We'd travel a hundred miles only to find four people in
the auditorium. The donation jar was pitifully light or empty. But when we
began charging competitive speaker fees (out of necessity), the auditoriums
were packed - in many cases, standing room only. And the donation jar was
smashed full. Go figure.
.
If you're charging fees for your
service, and people are willing and able to pay, good for you. Altruism
doesn't pay the bills. Doing things for people 'out of the kindness of your
heart' should be reserved for special people who deserve it. Not everybody
does, IMO.
Nov 14, 2006 10:06 AM
Catherine MacDonald :
Yes Migisi, it seems you are right. I gave a lot of my money, time and
effort to various Spiritualist churches and you can see by the posts in
this thread and the other one in Alternative Faiths how much it was truly
unappreciated in the end. All I can say is that my fees are far and below
the standard psychic rate and that I give folks the best I have when they
come to me looking for guidance. If they are really dissatisfied with the
reading and express that I will stop right then and not take their money. I
will instead try to help them understand what happened and why I might not
be the reader for them. I also try to connect them to services in the
community other than psychics that might be useful to them. I am not
perfect but then I never said I was perfect but I do the best I can with
what I have available to me.
As far as your wildlife rehab org.
I am glad you are paid for your services. That money then goes to help the
animals and goodness knows that people will spend the money somewhere else
any way. We each do our part as best we can IMO and we are all entitled to
be paid for our time, effort and skills. Our customers or the lack thereof
well indicate if what we are doing is serving the needs of those in our
community or not.
Cat
Nov 14, 2006 11:33 AM
Migisi :
.
<i> I gave a lot of my money, time and effort to various
Spiritualist churches and you can see by the posts in this thread and the
other one in Alternative Faiths how much it was truly unappreciated in the
end.</i>
.
"No good deed goes unpunished."
Ever heard that one? I spent 14 years in the service of a state org. I wore
a variety of administrative hats, and dedicated 110% of my time (and a lot
of money) to it. Everthing I accomplished was criticized by one faction or
another. I understand, Cat.
.
This experience drove me to leave
that org and start my own some 20+ years ago. Since then, I've been
criticized, maligned, and insulted relentlessly by that old org. I've even
been accused of destroying/splitting the old org - just by my leaving it!!
I'm okay with all the bad mouthing, Cat. Shows me I'm doing things right.
When their org is no longer because of all the back-biting, I'll still be
here happily doing my own thing.
Nov 14, 2006 1:15 PM
Catherine MacDonald :
<i>"No good deed goes unpunished." Ever heard that
one?</i>
LOL yep and "the best revenge is
success..." I am just keeping on keeping on but you know there comes a
point where you have to call things as you see them. A hypocrite is a
hypocrite and eventually he or she will expose themselves.
I am
happy since I made the change in my life and I don't really regret the
time, effort and money I gave to the churches. Most of the friends I still
connect with today are from the different churches I attended over the
years. Some I see on a regular basis and others I hear from on occasion in
the email or by phone. All in all I have great friends and so my leaving
the church although a shock and painful at the time was necessary for me to
grow. I might go back to another church at some point but I doubt it. If I
do I tell you I will not be used and abused like I was this last time! Let
me sit and be one of the members of the congregation and let the others do
all the work!
Anyway, thanks for your thoughts. I do enjoy
reading your posts.
Cat
Nov 14, 2006 5:50 PM
Migisi :
.
<i>"the best revenge is success..."</i>
.
Heh heh... ain't that the truth. While revenge can be a powerful
motivation to succeed, it can't sustain success. Nothing fuels and sustains
success like heartfelt passion for one's 'calling' (for lack of a better
word right now).
.
<i>All in all I have great friends and
so my leaving the church although a shock and painful at the time was
necessary for me to grow.</i>
.
So true for me too. It was
difficult to extract myself after investing SO much ( heart and soul) into
the old org. However, after my years of experience, I'd learned what worked
and what didn't. Knowing that, I was better prepared to start and grow my
own org. Yes, I too have never been happier. My circle of friends came with
me, which did cause quite a problem for the old org. These were the
'doers', not just the 'talkers', if you know what I mean. Their leaving was
why I was accused of destroying/splitting the old org. Mind you, I had
never encouraged anyone to leave the old org. Just the opposite. But they
didn't like the direction the old org was taking any more than I did.
.
<i>I might go back to another church at some point but I
doubt it. If I do I tell you I will not be used and abused like I was this
last time! Let me sit and be one of the members of the congregation and let
the others do all the work!</i>
.
I'll never go back. I've
been asked to rejoin the old org, to resurrect it from the ashes by
chairing a committee, running for a board position, etc. I know myself...
I'd feel compelled to resume a leadership role. I'd rather avoid the
temptation. Yes, I occasionally attend functions as a 'guest', but that's
my limit. When I do attend, I'm always sure to compliment the organizer and
workers and never criticize - because I know first-hand the work involved,
and how few attaboys they get.
Nov 14, 2006 10:22 PM
Catherine MacDonald :
<i>"While revenge can be a powerful motivation to succeed, it
can't sustain success. Nothing fuels and sustains success like heartfelt
passion for one's 'calling'"</i>
No doubt revenge
will get you off your butt but passion keeps you going long after the anger
is gone! :)
<i>"...These were the 'doers', not just
the 'talkers', if you know what I mean. Their leaving was why I was accused
of destroying/splitting the old org. Mind you, I had never encouraged
anyone to leave the old org. Just the opposite. But they didn't like the
direction the old org was taking any more than I did."</i>
Yep I know exactly what you mean... I am sure I am blamed for the
people who left and will leave the church after me... The one who does the
damage never sees herself as the problem and so will need a scapegoat so
she does not have to take personal responsibility for her own crap! No
matter the universe makes those types deal with it eventually whether they
want to or not... LOL
As for going back to church, it won't be
THAT church. There are several other Spiritualist churches in my community
I can choose from when I am ready... I am in no hurry that is for sure! lol
Nov 15, 2006 8:56 AM
Hawknut :
.
I'm a firm believer in 'to each his own' and 'live and let live',
Cat - as long as I or they aren't harming any one or thing.
Nov 15, 2006 11:29 AM
Hawknut :
.
Hmm... I just noticed that Hawknut is back - immediately after Suite
did their 'maintenance' last night. Wonder what happened to Migisi? I'll
have to find her...
.
Alas, she's gone... deleted.
Nov 15, 2006 11:49 AM
Migisi :
.
Hello Migisi. Glad to have me back. :)
Nov 16, 2006 5:02 AM
Catherine MacDonald :
Hi Hawk:
I agree with you but the types I am talking about are
those that make money off the backs of the congregations they profess to
serve. In Spiritualism this is the main motivator for too many of the
so-called ministers... Now I know money makes the world go round... Just I
find some of the so-called Spiritualist Ministers to be complete hypocrites
about why they are in the religion business. They come down on the New Age
about being money grubbing when they are no better and in fact usually much
worse than those with whom they find fault. I am sure the same is true in
all religious followings.
Cat
Dec 1, 2006 1:04 PM
Brian Jackson :
Hey, I liked this article and found it useful. I read it to help research
for a recent blog post I made and linked to it in the post, from my
environmentalism topic. Thanks a lot.
- Brian,
environmentalism.suite101.com
34 Comments
|
Sep 3, 2006
