Books pictured: Reiki for Beginners by Victor Archuleta, Linda Goodman's Star Signs, Meditations on the Tarot, A Journey into Christian Hermeticism by Anonymous, The Golden Bough by James Frazer, and The Tibetan Book of the Dead, with commentary by C.G. Jung; also a set of Mythic Tarot Cards, a set of Chi balls, a sheathed dagger, and a sitting Buddha candle holder with candle
This is part one of a 7-part series. You can read the Introduction here.
The word “occult” comes with a lot of baggage. In popular
Christian usage, “occult” is often treated as synonymous with evil, demonic,
forbidden, or spiritually dangerous. As a result, once the word is applied to
something, the discussion may effectively be over. The label itself becomes the
judgment.
Historically, however, the word has had a broader, more
neutral meaning. Derived from the Latin occultus, it refers to that
which is hidden, concealed, or not immediately visible. In the history of
spirituality and esoteric thought, “the occult” has generally concerned hidden
dimensions of reality, unseen forces, and forms of knowledge not readily
accessible through ordinary perception. This is the understanding of the term that
I am most comfortable with.
Because of my varied spiritual background, I am familiar
with “occult” in this older, more traditional sense. I do not automatically
hear the word as a synonym for evil. That does not mean I regard every practice
described as occult as wise, harmless, or spiritually beneficial. It means only
that the word itself does not settle the question.
This matters because several different meanings are often
collapsed into one. Something may be occult in the historical sense because it
concerns hidden or esoteric knowledge. Something may be considered forbidden
within a particular theological tradition. Something may be judged harmful,
manipulative, or destructive. These categories can overlap, but they are not
identical.
Esoteric does not automatically mean forbidden.
Forbidden does not automatically mean evil. Unfamiliar does not automatically
mean dangerous.
If we fail to make these distinctions, “occult” becomes less
a useful description than a container for religious anxiety. This is
particularly important when discussing something as broad as “New Age
spirituality.” New Age is not a single religion with a single creed, authority,
or set of practices. It draws from Western esotericism, Eastern religious
traditions, alternative healing, psychology, metaphysics, mysticism, indigenous
traditions (sometimes respectfully and sometimes problematically), and modern
self-development culture.
Some New Age practices have clear historical connections to
traditions commonly described as occult. Astrology, divination, channeling,
energy work, and various forms of esoteric teaching may reasonably be placed
within that history.
Saying that something has an occult or esoteric history
tells us what kind of tradition we are discussing. It does not yet tell
us whether that tradition is true, false, wise, foolish, liberating,
exploitative, spiritually nourishing, or harmful. Those are different
questions.
The question “Is New Age occult?” might be too broad to be
particularly useful. We might instead ask: What particular belief or practice
are we discussing? What does it claim about reality? What kind of spiritual
authority does it claim? What is the practitioner required to do? What are its
fruits?
That last might be one of the more important questions. Before
we can answer those questions, however, we must be willing to examine Christianity
itself. If “occult” simply means hidden, mysterious, or concerned with
realities beyond ordinary perception, then Christianity itself presents us with
an interesting complication.
The Bible is filled with dreams, visions, angels, prophecy,
healing, symbolic actions, and encounters with divine mystery. Christianity has
its own long tradition of mystics, contemplatives, visionaries, and sacramental
practices.
So where, exactly, is the boundary?
Next in the series
If Christianity itself makes room for mystery, unseen
realities, ritual, and direct encounters with the Divine, then perhaps the
dividing line is not simply between the “Christian” and the “occult.”
In Part Two, I will explore Christianity and the hidden
and ask whether the more useful distinction may be not between mysticism and
the occult, but between mystery and danger, contemplation and control,
spiritual encounter, and spiritual manipulation.
