Conclusion from Peru and Mexico

email from Randall Easter | 25 January 2008 | Randall Easter

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for sharing your insights, dear Forest Keeper!

As to conflict, we learn early in the NT that a personal conflict led greatly to the further spreading of the Good News. That isn't automatically a bad thing.

So very true. When Barnabas and Paul split, the Gospel spread further and faster.

To God be the glory!

[Alamo-Girl]

The new age movement blended into Christianity “IS” the protestant reformation.

To the contrary, dear stfassisi, the reformers sought to return to pure unfiltered Christian faith. Hence the Scriptures were elevated and the traditions and doctrines added by the Catholic Church were largely dismissed.

The new age movement, on the other hand, is a type of Eastern mysticism. The enlightenment it seeks does not recognize Jesus Christ as God or value the words of God. Rather, it sees man as a "god" like co-creator of the universe and participant in the cosmic consciousness.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for sharing your insights and thank you for the interesting excerpt!

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed. Thank you so very much for your encouragements, dear brother in Christ!

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOL! Thank you for your post!

[kosta50]

Kosta, may we never forget your post. It is Eastern Orthodoxy in a nutshell.

I am not that smart.

The great contradiction, of course, is that you toss out the charge of "gnosticism" with every post, while it's the Eastern church that encouraged gnosticism and entombed it within its doctrines and liturgy

LOL! I have seen a lot of nonsense written about Orthodoxy but this one really takes the lead. I can assure I won't forget this post!

Here's an excellent synopsis by Douglas Wilson regarding our different starting points...

Who is Douglas Wilson? Am I supposed to know this person for some reason? If you want me to conceder your posts as credible or at least respectable, I think some credits as to various authors you use, preferably a link, would be in order.

But, as it is, I am very much tempted to simply toss the whole thing out as worthless because for all I know Douglas Wilson could be your next door neighbor, or not even exist!

If he is someone really well known in the Protestant world, then he is very likely unknown in mine.

But if this man is who I think it is, having made a cursory search, this man is a racist. Although I usually don't believe everything I read in Wikipedia, this short paragraph about Douglas Wilson is not only telling but well referenced.

Wilson's most controversial work is probably his pamphlet Southern Slavery, As It Was (ISBN 1-885767-17-X), which he co-wrote with Steve Wilkins. While critics argue that it is an inaccurate account of American slavery motivated by a racist ideology,[5][6] Wilson has repeatedly denied any racist leanings. A few racists have reviled and criticized him for his open and vehement opposition to racialist movements such as Kinism (which Wilson has labeled as "Skinism" for its adherents' unapologetic and, Wilson argues, anti-biblical racism).[7] Canon Press ceased publication of Southern Slavery, As It Was when it became aware of serious citation errors in several passages authored by Wilkins.[8] Robert McKenzie, the history professor who first noticed the citation problems, describes the authors as being "sloppy" rather than "malevolent."[9] Wilson reworked and redacted the arguments in the tract, and published (without Wilkins) a new set of essays under the name Black & Tan (ISBN 1-59128-032-X) after consulting with historian Eugene Genovese.[10]

Anyway, it's an eye opener that you would use such a man just to smear the Orthodox Church but, see, we Orthodox really do not get insulted easily because our egos are not as large as those of our Protestant friends.

Mr. Wilson actually open up with a true statement:

Those differences [between Eastern and western Churches] are not merely "doctrinal," but reveal two completely different mindsets, two different paradigms.

Right on target. The mindset affects perception and perception affects reaction. Excellent!

Then he slips into a simple opinion, namely:

The Eastern Orthodox do not really know how to argue

We Orthodox could say the same thing about the Protestants. It's all relative. If you compare a man to a dog, using dog's abilities as standard, man is a failure (he can't run, jump, smell, hear, see at night or chew as well as any dog). But, in reverse, if we subject a dog to human standards, then the dog will be an innocent failure, but a failure nonetheless.

However, Mr. Wilson is close to the truth but not close enough on this. The culture of monasticism is the backbone of Orthodoxy and the Orthodox mindset and doctrine is not based on western scholastic standards. That was essentially set in stone by the 14th century thorough the consolidation of the works of the Desert Fathers, the Cappadocian Fathers, and the Hesychastic Fathers by St. Gregory Palamas (late 13th century).

The problem is that Wilson, as so many westerns, have nothing but disdain for anything that is not western or "scholastic" in the western (somewhat pagan) sense.

Then he says:

Given the profound differences between East and West, I am not even sure they would take this as a slighting comment

And he is right. An Orthodox Christian may be amazed at such audacity or arrogance and pride, but will not be offended by it. If anything, an Orthodox person would only feel pity for him.

He continues:

I would not be surprised if they took the western zeal for argumentation as a central part of our problem.

Correct! He must be getting this from the Orthodox side, since by his own admission he "had occasion to criticize various aspects of the Eastern Orthodox Church in print," and probably received replies to that effect.

Wilson then draws a parallel between the Protestants and Roman Catholics as

both heirs of the western mind; they both share a common approach to argument.

Here, of course, is where Wilson is simply showing his incredible ignorance despite all the religious degrees he has piled up.

What he calls Catholic western mind is the Catholic western mind shaped by Franks in the Gaul, and Visigoths in Iberia, who were neither western nor eastern, but simply barbarian in every way, like their Nordic cousins, the Vikings.

It is this barbarian mindset that took over the Catholic Church little by little(Frankish priests, for example, would take off their habits and put on armor and go a killin' some heretics before resuming their priestly duties) and estranged it form its patristic orthodox roots.

Until that slow but certain hijacking of the Latin Church, and turning it into a Church with a Germanic mindset, the Latin Church was distinctly patristic and Latin (do not forget that literary Latin was derived from Greek and that the Latins became hellenized and not the other way around).

It was, after all, the Visigoth mindset that introduced the Filioque into the Creed at the time when the linguistic apartheid of the Church was practically complete. What made sense in the patristic mind, was an "omission" in the Gothic minds.

After this rather amusing lack of historical perspective on behalf of Mr. Wilson, he begins to sink deeper and deeper in his confusion (rather unbelievable given all the degrees he claims).

He says:

In the historic Protestant view, the ultimate and greatest distinction that must be maintained at all times is the distinction between the Creator and the creature

So far so good, actually. It this, even we simpe Orthodox would agree with that wholeheartedly. The problem is, he is implying that the Orthodox do not!

The Eastern Church blurs the ultimate distinction between Creator and creature with their doctrine of theosis, or deification...it should be sufficient here simply to point out that when the Eastern Orthodox argue for an ontological union between man and God's energies, they are confusing the one thing that must not be confused. We maintain, in contrast, that our union with Christ is a covenantal union, not a union of natures.

I am not sure what he means by "convenantal union." But from the other half of his sentence I understand that he means something other than the union of human and divine natures.

In a nutshell, and for the record, Eastern Orthodoxy does not teach union of natures. In the life-long process of theosis, we do not become "gods" by nature, but by grace.

Then Mr. Wilson really begins to say what can best be described as complete foolishness:

Blurring distinctions between Creator and creature leads necessarily to blurring distinctions within the Godhead

The implication is of course that the Orthodox are disturbing the whole Trinitarian dogma. Hmmmm.

The doctrine of the Trinity is foundational to all coherent and sustained thought -- and this doctrine of theosis has to threaten the doctrine of the Trinity in its implications

This is nothing short of ridiculous. Trinity is beyond out logic, understanding or imagination. How do you assign "coherent thought" to the invisible, incomprehensible, immeasurable, inconceivable, eternal, simple inidivisible, yet triple?

It is even more ridiculous that this man, with so many degrees, could confuse theosis as "threatening" the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Nothing could be farther form the truth! This is so ridiculous it's not even worth an argument.

We in the Church cannot be deified without creating an imbalance in the relations or processions of the divine Persons, and without creating troubling questions about the Church as an aspiring fourth Person in the Quaternity

It is actually beyond my comprehension that this man is actually quoted as authority. There is never any even hit of such a stupidity. This man is nothing short of pathetic.

The implications of this line of thought place the Eastern Church at variance, not only with Scripture, but also with the early ecumenical creeds

By now he is a freefall. And his statements are simply uneducated, ignorant blather.

I am very sorry, Dr. E that this is someone you hold in high regard. He is pathetic. If you really want to know the Orthodox teaching read the Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith written by St. John of Damascus. It's all there. I can tell that Mr. Wilson never read it.

In fact, Mr. Wilson is perhaps good at arguing because that's probably what he has done all his life. What he seems to understand by "argument" is a sledgehammer approach to things you don't like.

These churches prefer [monasticism] and thus venerate the asexual, monastic life to the life of the family. Which is actually a pretty scary point of view. Why are you speaking so disparagingly and judging other people's way of life? Monastics spend their whole life in unceasing prayer, as the scriptures urge us to do. Christianity was never an exercise in scholasticism, but a way of life. In fact, as Mark reminds us in previous post, it eas actually called "The Way."

None of us will ever fully comprehend and understand and "know" the true extent of God and his word, so untilately all our academic degrees and ability to argue fall short. Rather, we choose to follow Christ and imitate Him in His mercy and in His love.

If the Orthodox are in errors, then the whole Church has been in error including that Church that gave you the Bible. But, you are free to believe whatever you want. Apparently you believe someone of such a low caliber and intolerance as Mr. Wilson.

It is the love of an icon over and above the love of that which the icon stands for

How do you know that? We do not love the icon, the paint, the frame, etc. That never enters our minds. Icons remind us of those who in our belief are alive and in heaven, and an icon is an image of a human being in all cases.

It is believing in the "human choice" and not in God's choice

Human choice is God's choice. God decided to give us choices.

It is being "turned off" to the words of God.

It is is being turned of to those who pretend to be the mouth of God.

"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." -- John 6:63

I think you are reading way too much into it. The word "spirit" simply means "breath" (pneuma). So long as you are breathing you are alive. The ancients believed that "life" was in the breath. Those who breathe are "quickened"; those who don't are dead. We simply say breathing and not breathing.

[Forest Keeper]

FK: ***So, as you can see, since we claim to be Bible-believing Christians, we could not possibly hold to the view that you project onto us. The old self, which might do those horrible things you listed earlier, was CRUCIFIED with Christ and he no longer lives, but Christ lives within us. The death Christ died, He died to sin once and for all, and the elect along with Him.***

But even the self-described elect does do these things. It is admitted even by the most die hard Calvinist. Your personal old self was not crucified with Christ. It wasn’t even around for nearly 2000 years. Everyone sins. With that fact in mind, how can you rationalize your statement? (emphasis added)

I'm sure you know that I was paraphrasing from these (and others):

Gal 2:20 : I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Rom 6:8-10 : 8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10 The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.

So, with all due modesty I think my paraphrase was pretty faithful. :) Of course the elect still sin, but that is the remnant, the old nature itself is "gone" since we have been changed by God. The new believer is a changed person, no longer with the proclivity to sin as he had before. As Paul says, we are no longer slaves to sin, but slaves to righteousness.

[Forest Keeper]

FK: ***I may not be following you, but it’s based on the fact that we know that Gentiles are saved.***

Point the 1st: We have faith, not knowledge. Indwelling knowledge is Gnosticism; Jesus taught faith.

We have both, and faith is not blind. Is your position that you know nothing of God? Or, is your position that you do not know God personally? BTW, how can Jesus or anyone else teach anything without knowledge being involved?

Point the 2nd: Gentiles CAN be saved; there is no guarantee.

Yes, absolutely true. I meant that we know that SOME are saved.

[Kolokotronis]

"Thanks for reminding me why I'm a Protestant, SFA."

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! :)

[stfassisi]

“”Take your pick of the of the following,””

Your posts is nonsense and twists a few writings to form an opinion.

Here is what your protestant Historian said

J. N. D. Kelly, writes: “Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).

Kelley also says this..
“Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity” (ibid., 197–98).

Here are a few examples of actual writings that cannot be spun by your lying source.

The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. ‘Eat My Flesh,’ He says, ‘and drink My Blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients. He delivers over His Flesh, and pours out His Blood; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery!”,

-Saint Clement”The Instructor of the Children” [1,6,41,3] ante 202 A.D.. ,

“He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200).

“You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ.”

- Augustine “Sermons”, [227, 21]

BTW,Here is what we know about Tation

“Later (c. 172) he apostatized, became a Gnostic of the Encratite sect, and returned to the Orient”

From New Advent
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14464b.htm

Give it up!

[Alex Murphy]

"Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" -- Galatians 4:16

What a great tagline! I'm going to start using it immediately!

[stfassisi]

“the reformers sought to return to pure unfiltered Christian faith.”

The reformers sought to follow their own selves in what they thought was their own self serving version of Christianity that was not bound by rules, but rather their own interpretations of Scripture that the reformers themselves were not even united in.

That lack of unity by itself should cause you reason for concern,Dear Sister. Thus when you fast forward to this day and age we see that there is not a united single source of protestant faith -we can clearly see that its fruits were not grounded in love ,it was grounded in confusion from the start.

“”The new age movement, on the other hand, is a type of Eastern mysticism””

That’s only part of it.

I spent around 2 years being fully devoted to helping others understand the NAM,and I can tell you first hand that it is the protestant communities where this is most filtered into.

In fact ,it was the work that I was doing on the NAM that lead me back to being fully united with the Catholic Church after being in the Methodists Church for over 18 years.

The Catholic Church has already fought against what we call the NAM for thousands of years

I suggest that you read the below document on the NAM if you want to understand it.

There is nothing that even comes close to exposing what the NAM is.

Here is the document..

JESUS CHRIST
THE BEARER OF THE WATER OF LIFE

A Christian reflection
on the “New Age”

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20030203_new-age_en.html

[Mad Dawg]

I keep thinking of Adlai Stevenson’s (sp?) line: We’ll stop telling the truth about Republicans when they stop lying about us.

[Alex Murphy]

or Pat Paulsen's line (I may be misquoting here): "They spread ugly rumors about me. Rumors of the worst kind. True rumors."

[kosta50]

Stfassisi: It was the Church guided by the Holy Spirit that destroyed what God wanted destroyed!

Zero Sum: Wow. OK...Thanks for reminding me why I'm a Protestant, SFA

ZS, what SFA stated is no different than what is all over the Old Testament. Does that offend you too?

[Alamo-Girl]

God: "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." -- John 6:63

Kosta50: I think you [Dr. Eckleburg] are reading way too much into it. The word "spirit" simply means "breath" (pneuma). So long as you are breathing you are alive. The ancients believed that "life" was in the breath. Those who breathe are "quickened"; those who don't are dead. We simply say breathing and not breathing.

To the contrary, the breath is not physical but spiritual. Here from the words of God:

And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. – Genesis 2:7

And again,

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. – John 3:6-8

Nicodemus didn’t get it, he was thinking in physical terms, not spiritual terms.

Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?

Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you [of] heavenly things? – John 3:9-12

And finally

God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth. – John 4:24

Likewise, the Light is not photons and the Living Waters are not H₂O. But that is a discussion for some other time.

To God be the glory!

[kosta50]

FK to Mark: Is your position that you know nothing of God? Or, is your position that you do not know God personally?

Knowing of something is not knowing it. You may have heard of something, and you know that it exists, but you have no clue what it is.

Knowing God personally is a different story. Those who claim they know God personally open up a can of worms with such claims. Have you seen Him? If so, how do you know it was God? Have you heard Him? The same question follows.

Then there is a problem of credibility of such personal experiences. When challenged, the usual answer is "I swear I have" as "proof." Making such extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence or proof is foolish, self-serving and self-cenetered, and most of all not convincing.

[Quix]

To the contrary, dear stfassisi, the reformers sought to return to pure unfiltered Christian faith. Hence the Scriptures were elevated and the traditions and doctrines added by the Catholic Church were largely dismissed.

The new age movement, on the other hand, is a type of Eastern mysticism. The enlightenment it seeks does not recognize Jesus Christ as God or value the words of God. Rather, it sees man as a "god" like co-creator of the universe and participant in the cosmic consciousness.

Absolutely true.

And, the looming Anti-Christ, waiting in the wings, will evidently be blending the latter into his own one world religion . . . probably with the same watcher/ nephilium/ fallen angel sound and light show deceptions they used at Fatima.

[kosta50]

God: "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." -- John 6:63

Not, not God, A-G, St. John (we think). Not even the Church says it's God, but According to John, not according to God.

To the contrary, the breath is not physical but spiritual

In your dreams. You must then believe that bats are birds, because "God" says so. What we breathe in and out of our lungs is not spirit, but gas. It has to do with oxygen exchange so that our cells may live.

You quote Genesis 2:7 and all it says that God gave Adam the first breath. The organism takes over form there because it was built to breathe. That's what happens with newborn babies.

Do you believe the earth is sitting on four pillars and earthquakes happen when God shakes them? You should. "God" says so.

If there is an entity called a spirit, an immaterial existence, then it will not be in a form of anything physical, including breath, but separate from it because its nature (essence) will be different.

And just as we know that dogs are not humans and humans are not dogs and can never mix because their natures are different, for only canines can have canine offspring and only humans can have human offspring, and only divine can beget divine, we then know that if there is a spirit that gives life to our body it is nothing physical, measurable, visible, spacial, or in any way quantifiable.

We believe there is, but we have no proof of it.

If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you [of] heavenly things? – John 3:9-12

I agree. How do you know that what you believe are "heavenly" things when you have difficulty believing earthy ones?

God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth. – John 4:24

How do you worship a Spirit in spirit? I would imagine it should be with spirit. Obviously St. John doesn't think we have can. Rather he uses it as "Love is worshiped in love,"Hope is worshiped or "in hope," or "Truth is worshiped in truth."

It's an unorthodox way of using adjectives, such as "lovingly," "hopefully," "truthfully," etc. So then we can say that we believe God is a Spirit and we worship Him spiritually, not carnally as the pagans do.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the engaging article, stfassisi!

But truly the New Age movement, whereas it draws from ancient beliefs, is nevertheless a very recent phenomenon. It is a malicious misrepresentation to date the New Age Movement to the Reformation or to lay the New Age Movement at the feet of the Reformation. From your source:

Jesus Christ the Bearer of the Water of Life

While much of New Age is a reaction to contemporary culture, there are many ways in which it is that culture's child. The Renaissance and the Reformation have shaped the modern western individual, who is not weighed down by external burdens like merely extrinsic authority and tradition; people feel the need to “belong” to institutions less and less (and yet loneliness is very much a scourge of modern life), and are not inclined to rank “official” judgements above their own. With this cult of humanity, religion is internalised in a way which prepares the ground for a celebration of the sacredness of the self. This is why New Age shares many of the values espoused by enterprise culture and the “prosperity Gospel” (of which more will be said later: section 2.4), and also by the consumer culture, whose influence is clear from the rapidly-growing numbers of people who claim that it is possible to blend Christianity and New Age, by taking what strikes them as the best of both. It is worth remembering that deviations within Christianity have also gone beyond traditional theism in accepting a unilateral turn to self, and this would encourage such a blending of approaches. The important thing to note is that God is reduced in certain New Age practices so as furthering the advancement of the individual….

Indeed, like every other structured religious authority, the Catholic Church is not immune to the New Age Movement. It’s everywhere – the New Age backlash is against the age of science and logic which has declared that man is little more than a daffodil on Darwin's tree of life. Man's DNA is something like 1/3 daffodil.

If the Catholic Church wanted to "blame" someone for the New Age Movement - it should have blamed science.

Here is an account of the New Age Movement and its history from a source that has no "dog" in the (theological) fight:

Religious Tolerance: New Age Spirituality

The New Age Movement is in a class by itself. Unlike most formal religions, it has no holy text, central organization, membership, formal clergy, geographic center, dogma, creed, etc. They often use mutually exclusive definitions for some of their terms. The New Age is in fact a free-flowing spiritual movement; a network of believers and practitioners who share somewhat similar beliefs and practices, which they add on to whichever formal religion that they follow. Their book publishers take the place of a central organization; seminars, conventions, books and informal groups replace of sermons and religious services.

Quoting John Naisbitt:

"In turbulent times, in times of great change, people head for the two extremes: fundamentalism and personal, spiritual experience...With no membership lists or even a coherent philosophy or dogma, it is difficult to define or measure the unorganized New Age movement. But in every major U.S. and European city, thousands who seek insight and personal growth cluster around a metaphysical bookstore, a spiritual teacher, or an education center."

The New Age is definitely a heterogeneous movement of individuals; most graft some new age beliefs onto their regular religious affiliation. Recent surveys of US adults indicate that many Americans hold at least some new age beliefs:

8% believe in astrology as a method of foretelling the future
7% believe that crystals are a source of healing or energizing power
9% believe that Tarot Cards are a reliable base for life decisions
about 1 in 4 believe in a non-traditional concept of the nature of God which are often associated with New Age thinking:

11% believe that God is "a state of higher consciousness that a person may reach"
8% define God as "the total realization of personal, human potential"
3% believe that each person is God.

The group of surveys cited above classify religious beliefs into 7 faith groups. Starting with the largest, they are: Cultural (Christmas & Easter) Christianity, Conventional Christianity, New Age Practitioner, Biblical (Fundamentalist, Evangelical) Christianity, Atheist/Agnostic, Other, and Jewish, A longitudinal study from 1991 to 1995 shows that New Agers represent a steady 20% of the population, and are consistently the third largest religious group.

History of the New Age movement:

New Age teachings became popular during the 1970's as a reaction against what some perceived as the failure of Christianity and the failure of Secular Humanism to provide spiritual and ethical guidance for the future. Its roots are traceable to many sources: Astrology, Channeling, Hinduism, Gnostic traditions, , Spiritualism, Taoism, Theosophy, Wicca and other Neo-pagan traditions, etc. The movement started in England in the 1960's where many of these elements were well established. Small groups, such as the Findhorn Community in Inverness and the Wrekin Trust formed. The movement quickly became international. Early New Age mileposts in North America were a "New Age Seminar" run by the Association for Research and Enlightenment, and the establishment of the East-West Journal in 1971. Actress Shirley MacLaine is perhaps their most famous current figure.

During the 1980's and 90's, the movement came under criticism from a variety of groups. Channeling was ridiculed; seminar and group leaders were criticized for the fortunes that they made from New Agers. Their uncritical belief in the "scientific" properties of crystals was exposed as groundless. But the movement has become established and become a stable, major force in North American religion during the past generation. As the millennium comes to a close, the New Age is expected to expand, promoted by the social backlash against logic and science.

BTW, the only "New Ager" I know is a friend who is a faithful, practicing Catholic. To her Catholic beliefs, she adds reincarnation, out of body experiences, etc.