Christ In The New Age
CHRIST IN THE NEW AGE
L. Russ Bush
“Age” usually refers to the years of someone's life or to an era in history. What is the distinctive meaning, then, of the term “New Age”? It would not be enlightening to speak of every moment or day or year as a “new” moment, day, or year, though of course it is. New Age has come to refer to a supposed new consciousness about time, our place in the universe, and the nature of reality. The claim is that we humans have just recently begun to realize that things are not what they have seemed to be over the centuries. We the people of the world are supposedly gaining a new consciousness, a deep spiritual awareness, and a divine identity that rivals that possessed by Christ Himself.
That is a big leap intellectually; so we need to go back and review a little history so as to make this leap meaningful. New Age implies an old age, does it not? So what and when was the “old age”?
The Old Age
This can be misleading, but for the sake of discussion, let's characterize the ancient world (superficial though my characterization may be) as a world of two groups—those who were materialists and those who were spiritualists. That is, some believed that ultimate reality was matter alone. Life was a natural phenomenon. It had no source other than the constant interaction of earth, air, fire, and water. These same four “elements” also produced animals and spirits in addition to people. Animals were controlled by people, and people were controlled by spirits, but everything was a continuum of life forms.
Thales was the first, but there were also other pre-Socratic Greeks who proposed a scientific materialism to explain the movements of the stars and planets (including the sun and moon). The sun was no god, just a large, hot object without awareness or intelligence. The moon was cold and also stood without intelligence.
Many in the pre-Christian world worshipped idols, but they did so by believing in a universal life force that supposedly permeated all things to different degrees. Most people, however, saw this universal life force in all other things, but they did not identify themselves as merely being a manifestation of the same inner life as that of the animals. Some idols looked like people, but most looked like animals or monsters. People were unique and distinct. Animals do not have human consciousness or intelligence.
The Greeks developed idealistic and materialistic philosophies. Jews believed in creation—that God had made real things, including people, but that these real things were not to be worshipped. The idea that a person should carve from wood or stone an image and then worship it was considered to be ludicrous. Such an idol cannot speak or hear or act in any way. If it could, it would have no more knowledge or power than its manufacturer; but of course it would not really have any such power since we have no ability to transfer our knowledge to anything that has no consciousness or intelligence.
The Middle Age
Greek thinking continued to influence the Roman world throughout the years from around AD 500 to 1500. But the rise of Islam, the growth of Christianity, and the increasing intellectual sophistication of European society led most in the old Roman Empire to abandon the notion of idolatry as a viable option for cultural advance. Those who remained superstitious and involved in astrology announced that European culture had recently come through the age of Aries (the “age of the Father” [c. 2000-0 BC]). From the birth of Christ until recent times, we supposedly experienced the age of Pisces (the “age of the Son”). Then in the late twentieth century, from the 1960s onward, the terms changed again, and the new age was announced in the popular culture as the “age of Aquarius,” a time of transformation characterized as the “age of the Spirit.”
These titles are essentially meaningless, but most of us realize that something unusual is happening in culture. The war culture of the twentieth century, and the explosion in the real world of that bomb that melted the elements with a fervent heat, was overwhelming in its impact. The countercultural youth who went to college in the 1960s sought a new kind of spirituality. Hallucinogenic drugs quickly became a part of that culture. The church seemingly did not address their needs in any significant way. The church was seen as the bastion of tradition, and yet everything seemed to demand a new level of emotion, a new kind of music, a new openness to alternative traditions (based on a new awareness of Eastern religious styles) and a new openness to alternative lifestyles (previously unimaginable within the spiritual lifestyles of Christian faith).
Notice that this is not tied to an intellectual, philosophical teaching spread through postmodern philosopher Jacques Derrida's classroom. The change is a product of human experience, and it is widespread. People were and are attempting to explain their experiences in ordinary life. No one can deny that the world they live in today is not much like the world they grew up in, and certainly it is vastly different from the world and life experiences of their parents: biotechnological and medical advances (yet horrible new diseases); technological tools and developments, such as telecommunication satellites; instant information flow; computers and industrial automation; the Internet itself; mass media; the deception of naturalism; globalization; climate change; and a hundred more.
By the 1960s young people in particular were aware that the weapons in the hands of the U.S. military (and other less trustworthy nations) had the potential of destroying Earth's ecosystem. Governments seemed reckless and untrustworthy. After all, they were being run by the older folks who did not support peace movements and who wanted to send the young people into wars that were not “their” wars. The emotions sought by the moderns could be produced by rock music and drugs. Aldous Huxley suggested that drugs should be given to healthy people in order to find the reality that was inside their own heads.
Rock music (primarily through the Beatles and Elvis Presley) swept the world. Drug usage soared. Law enforcement was overwhelmed in trying to deal with the existing laws, much less the new laws fearful politicians were passing in efforts to resist and restrict the loss of order that seemed inevitable. For many 9/11 is simply the latest example of the kind of world that technology without boundaries will inevitably bring. Most of us are afraid of the growing AIDS crisis (no longer just sub-Saharan Africa), the return of malaria, and our growing dependence on oil at the very time, for good reason, Western politicians have an increasing distrust of Islam and its impact on the Arab states of the oil-rich Middle East.
With insight, J. W. Drane comments:
The influence of a dualistic world-view, which validated all this by distinguishing spirit from matter, body from soul, people from nature, men from women, and Westerners from the rest of the world, guaranteed that any discussion of these matters would have an overtly spiritual dimension. This is where the holistic approach of the New Spirituality comes in, by highlighting what look like valuable insights from other cultures and reinstating aspects of Western spirituality that have either been marginalized or forgotten.1
David Clark and Norman Geisler simply identify New Age thought as Pantheism.2 They then proceed to examine the work of Suzuki, Shankara, Radhakrishnan, Plotinus, and Spinoza. On the other hand, Russell Chandler, religion writer for the Los Angeles Times, provides one of the best descriptions of the nature and impact of New Age thinking without reference to any of these philosophers.
New Age is a hybrid mix of spiritual, social, and political forces, and it encompasses sociology, theology, the physical sciences, medicine, anthropology, history, the human potential movement, sports, and science fiction.
New Age is not a sect or a cult, per se. There is no organization one must join, no creed one must confess. … The New Age influence touches virtually every area of life, and thousands of New Age activists seek to transform society through New Age precepts. Millions more have adopted the movement's view of reality, though they may simply think of it as a pragmatic, humanistic philosophy of life. …
The insidious danger of the New Age is its view of the nature of reality, which admits to no absolutes. History provides evidence that relative standards of morality breed chaos and—ultimately—the downfall of society.3
Supposedly the old, limited, and finite order is giving way; and the glorious new order of peace, prosperity, and perfection is on its way. The New Age is full of mixes. We have the health and wealth gospel proclaimed under the banner of a suffering Savior. New Age healing ministries are almost always conducted at some distance from medical facilities. The wages of sin is death, but eat right and remain healthy. Live long to prove how faithful to God you have been!
Try “Christian yoga” since the use of two religions should increase the value. Worry not that the word yoga has no precedent in Christian vocabulary. It feels good to stretch those muscles, and it opens the mind to avoid the “mental suppression” required when we think only on those things above and not on earthly things. Are not all the passionate things earthly things? Have you been baptized? They say it is a refreshing experience. (You did notice tongue planted firmly in cheek, did you not?)
The New Age
One can see certain common elements in most instances of New Age thinking. First is the claim of the ultimate unity of all things. Reality is said to be fundamentally one. By whatever name, “God” is ultimately that one reality. This means that nature is a manifestation of this one reality, for there are not and cannot be two ultimate realities. God is all there is, and everything else that makes things appear to be separate realities must therefore be an illusion. This is the essence of New Age thinking.
One can see the parallel here between New Age pantheism and naturalism. The philosophical naturalist believes there is only the natural order, that everything is matter and energy (two sides of the same coin). Nature is all that exists. A pantheist may deny that nature is real and claim that it is all a manifestation of the divine mind, but in either case, both naturalist and New Age pantheist believe in only one kind of reality. The New Ager sees ultimate reality as divine. Thus human beings have the divine essence within them, sustaining them. All people have a divine consciousness. In fact, God is the All. Nothing exists that is not divine, nothing that is not a part of God. So whatever is real is a part of God.
The second element concerns the blurring of goodness and evil. Most of us experience and thus believe in suffering, and we believe some things are evil (like brutal torture and murder). Thus, the pantheist, the committed New Ager, is faced with an acute problem regarding the goodness of God. The New Age usually pushes this aside and says that God is so great that we must think of “It” as transcending these earthly opposites (good and evil). In the same way the New Age often says that God is both personal and impersonal, finite and infinite. In other words, no one can say anything definitive about God. God is everything, and as bearing the God consciousness, the New Age follower is also slowly getting in touch with himself by growing in his own divine nature.
Third, the New Age view of creation is different from theism's creation out of nothing. Christians and other theists believe in creation ex nihilo (out of nothing). The pantheist speaks more of creation “out of God.” Mystical consciousness is the necessary means of knowing. This is how Yoda teaches the young Jedi to learn and know the world around him: “You must reach out with your feelings, Master Luke.” The “Force” is, of course, that all-pervading divine reality that gives power to those who seek it and depend mystically upon it. Star Wars is the most perfect expression in modern cinema of New Age beliefs (though the New Age does not require belief in ancient empires and prehistoric wars between opposing ideological forces).
Fourth, the New Age movement emphasizes the human problem as ignorance, with salvation coming through enlightenment and self-effort. In New Age philosophy, knowledge is salvation; ignorance and/or the grasp for power is a source of evil; and salvation comes by human effort. Many church leaders have so moved away from confessionalism that they cannot see that this New Age perspective is not a view within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy.4
Fifth, the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth (reincarnation) is commonly held by New Agers. The New Age movement typically emphasizes that we were in touch with our divine nature in the past (perhaps in a former life, from which this one is a reincarnation—though not everyone accepts traditional reincarnation beliefs). Supposedly we have fallen from that previous understanding, and we cannot get back to it. We need to restore our lost knowledge of our own divine nature, and thus we need to reclimb the ladder, so to speak. This can supposedly be done through various programs, retreats, training sessions, conferences, and contact with powerful occult forces or psychic teachers.
The Way of the World
Strangely, the twenty-first century has not been so good for the optimism of New Age thinking. The crises have been too great, the battles too vicious, the stress too intense. But behind the scenes in business and in the corporate world, seminars in Transcendental Meditation continue to be conducted regularly; the yoga classes are filled; the search for just the right nonthreatening (so-called “seeker”) churches goes on. Virtually every church either is or has gone through a debate over music and worship styles. Biblical content for many preachers seems trivial, boring, or irrelevant; and it is mostly ignored in modern sermons. It is a confusing time for the church. New Age spiritualism and pop psychology are often substituted because they are popular, easy to work with, and seemingly helpful at first for many. But such content leads nowhere, helps no one, and utterly fails to communicate the teachings of Christ to believers, much less to the unsaved world.
The television has shows about UFOs and aliens almost every day (a typical New Age theme). Any number of communes and groups meet to promote New Age ideas. Bookstores, such as Barnes & Noble and Borders, have entire sections labeled “New Age Spirituality.” Channeling (i.e., letting a departed guru or “spirit guide” speak through a mystical medium using occult techniques) is still popular with some. One seldom hears of “harmonic convergence” anymore, but the term remains in the literature. Crystal consciousness and pyramid power still have their followers. Today we have seen a return to goddess worship and neopaganism.
Holistic health continues right alongside pop psychology as health consciousness rises, especially among the upper middle class. In science the New Age catchphrase is “mind over matter.” Science fiction has its own cable TV channel; and, other than the news channels, it is one of the most popular. We have to admit that the stories are more varied, the dialogue is more interesting, and the special effects demonstrate the almost unlimited human imagination. Most people eventually get tired of the murder and mayhem that characterizes the typical detective or law enforcement show today. We grow dull to it all, and the producers simply move to more graphic images and even more horrible plots.
By contrast, New Age thinking has given us the following:
It is a fantasy world, but it all seems so real. The characters all play their roles with seriousness. Many of us love it if it is well-done, even if we are fully aware of the illusion that is being constructed. The moral context of these stories is not in the gutter; the language is clean; and right is ultimately victorious; but clearly these are not stories portraying an explicitly Christian worldview. They are essentially setting forth New Age ideas.
Chinese herbs, acupuncture, Korean massage, UFOs entering our space with impunity to deliver warnings about nuclear weapons (or to colonize Earth), and the ubiquity of life (a belief that results from our uncritical acceptance of evolutionary theory): these are a few of our “favorite” things. If we can imagine it, we can tell a story about it or at least incorporate our more interesting fantasies into our entertainment world. New Age thinkers, however, do not see all these things as imaginary or fantasy items. What we see on science fiction shows may not be real today in the way that football is real, but the Star Trek idea of a life-filled universe of intelligence and advanced technology simply has its attraction to many. Most people know that sci-fi is fiction and fantasy, but they accept the premise (after all, with a universe this large, there must be others like ourselves somewhere out there), and they believe we will always be smart enough or powerful enough or lucky enough to survive any hostile attacks from these “others.”
If God is within us, God is in other life forms as well, and thus in our stories we are encountering other “divine sparks” throughout the universe. Their weapons are almost invincible. The human victory usually comes from good fortune, courage, and intelligence. (Interestingly, the human hero in the story is often laid back; and his luck and skills, which are necessary for victory, do not show up until they are required at the end.) Universal peace is assumed to be a universal goal—except for the really bad guys, of which there are plenty, whose goal is domination through cruelty and power. Consider the inevitable and irresistible advance of the Borg and the horrible practices of the Wraith; but remember also the Vulcans (Spock and Topal), the Klingons (Warf and Balana), and 7-of-9. The common element is the divine nature that dwells in each life-form from the nanoprobes to the Force.
Not everyone would agree, but it seems to many that the superheroes of the comics/movies fit well in the world of the New Age. They have “divine” powers; they defend the right; and they live in a world of the supernatural. But the best way really to conceptionalize the New Age is not through popular culture icons but through following the loss of absolutes. New Age thought in its purest form is relativism. Secularism has led the way to a loss of significance. New Age thought is postmodern in it essence. It has roots in the ancient world, in the occult, and in the paganism of the ancients. It draws its power from the passion its ideas generate.
Identifying the New Age
Woulter J. Hanegraaff has produced perhaps the most scholarly analysis of New Age religion to date.5 According to Hanegraaff, five basic elements constitute New Age religion:
Things simply are not what or how they used to be. World population is exploding. Technology is changing our lives before our very eyes. In a fifteen-year time span the Internet literally changed the way we do business, entertainment, shopping, and socializing. What will be next? Even youth (under twenty) hardly recognize the world in which we live today compared to the world in which they lived as a child. Today is in a literal sense a new world in which we have to worry about oil, globalization, nuclear fallout, global warming, pollution, environmental disasters, and ethnic wars. Put a “no absolutes” message into a framework of “self-centered relativism,” add a “seek happiness” slogan, avoid parental discipline, find pleasure in mystical hypotheses, and you too can have a personal New Age religion, ministry, or secular view that draws fellow travelers. Study the ancient Egyptians (a popular avocation for New Agers), and compare their pyramid architecture with that of the Mexican and South American Indian architectures. Did these ancient people predict the end of the world in our lifetime? How likely would it be that they could do that? Even with all of our modern computer processing power, can we predict events that will occur in France in the year 2437? Have we in the past been visited by extraterrestrials? (Are you aware that for many this is not a silly question at all but one that could just as easily be answered by yes as by no? But, of course, in reality it remains a silly question.)
Clearly there is no standard creed that defines the banner of New Age beliefs. Yet we get the clear impression of unity within New Age circles. How could that be the case? Hanegraaff suggests that it is because almost all of the New Age emphases are intended as alternatives to current, dominant, cultural trends in the West.6 Unity, as opposed to dualism, characterizes the central emphasis of the New Age. Thus, new is an appropriate term because the New Age is in every way a rejection and a cultural criticism of the old way that has characterized the West in previous decades and centuries. Some of the traditional dualisms rejected by New Age thought are Creator/creation, man/nature, and spirit/matter. New Age rhetoric also strongly opposes reductionism (aiming in this case primarily at scientific rationalism). The New Age opposes all dualisms in favor of holism.
In the final analysis the New Age is a rejection of Christian faith. To resist it and overcome the negative effects it imposes, there must be a defense of the faith that is heard and examined by church people first and by the religious culture second and the secular culture third. We probably have the capability to get people to hear, but can we get them to listen and consider?
A New and Enduring Way
As you are going throughout the world, make disciples. With God's help, make people into students of the teachings of Christ. When you tell them who Jesus really is, and as initial responses come, we must ask them for commitments to the truth, at which time we should seal these commitments through the act of water baptism in the name of the triune God. Then the task is to teach them all the things Christ has taught us (Matt 28:18-20).
What is that specifically? For starters, there is a metaphysical or real distinction between God as the Creator and the world as the creation. Naturalistic evolution has no creator other than the reality that is supposedly evolving by blind chance; it attempts to explain everything as a result of time plus chance plus matter (which is not designed for any purpose). Without creation, however, there is nothing of value in existence. Naturalistic evolution is an illusion, however. Something capable of great diversity must already be there in order for there to be anything that could evolve. Evolution cannot bring into being something that is not already there in prototype. Out of the void nothing comes. But a personal God can bring something absolutely new into being, and from that initial reality He can shape and mold His creation in any way He wishes. And He has the right to tell us exactly how He did it, and we have the obligation to listen and believe what He tells us and learn from that by rational and experimental extensions that apply the truth to other areas of thought. But we do not have the right to take revealed truth and then develop irrational and impossible extensions that conflict with that which God has clearly revealed to us about creation.
Apparently God considered a creation (that is, He thought about it), and then He spoke it into being according to His own plan. Christ, the Word of God, was the agent of creation, the One by whom all things were made that were made (John 1:3). This Word, by which all things were created, became flesh (i.e., took on a human body and persona, and was born of a virgin to live as one of us, yet without sin). The phrase “yet without sin” is crucial. Only a sinless man could hope to deal with sin with integrity. All of us have sinned. All are worthy of death except Jesus. Thus only Jesus has the credentials to stand before God to offer Himself as a substitute, a final sacrifice for sin.
Buddhists are not immediately convinced of their sinfulness, so our witness must focus on what it means to sin. Muslims know about sin but usually do not admit it openly, for Allah is not as tolerant as we might have hoped.
This man Jesus is not well-known among the Buddhists, so in some ways there is more work to be done with a Buddhist. Muslims generally know Jesus as a prophet, usually thought to be second in greatness only to Muhammad. So we can talk about Jesus, but we will be told that the New Testament has been corrupted and cannot be trusted. The evidence for such corruption is virtually nonexistent. The textual variants are not the point at issue here, generally speaking. We can simply compare the thousands of independent manuscripts that we have access to from ancient times to show that it is relatively easy to recognize such variants and determine the authentic readings.
Textual criticism reveals that we have an authentic text, and archeological research and comparative historical studies will demonstrate that the text we have is historically reliable. The level of reliability is exceedingly high compared to other ancient and comparable manuscripts. This is (or should be) acknowledged even by those scholars who are not believers.
What do these manuscripts say? First, we learn that the claim is made that Jesus had a unique and symbolic birth that revealed His divine nature. By contrast, Muhammad did not have a symbolic birth. Jesus also lived a sinless life. Muhammad did not claim that for himself, nor did his followers claim it for him.
Second, we learn that Jesus taught a message of righteous living. Allah also gave some similar messages and warned of hell, but those messages seldom had elements of forgiveness and grace. The nonviolent, healing messages of Jesus were proclaimed as the divine will for mankind. In Islam, only after standing before the judgment is someone's eternal destiny to be sealed. Jesus claimed to do only what His Father did, taught only what His Father taught, and in every way was the servant of the faithful. Thus it becomes more and more difficult to understand how God could speak so clearly through Jesus against violence (turning the other cheek) and then (supposedly the same God speaking through a later prophet) set up Sharia law, call for death for converts from Islam to any other religion (but especially to Christianity), or call for ritual death for anyone who might criticize or in any way portray an image of the prophet Muhammad.
Third, Jesus lived out His teachings, going so far as to offer Himself as a sacrifice on the cross, fulfilling the requirements of Scripture for the forgiveness of sin. God raised Him from the dead to indicate His acceptance of that sacrifice. Muslims know that there is a theological problem with the horrible form of the death of this good man, but they do not realize that God's plan is bigger than they have yet understood, and they have not yet understood that grace rather than works is the basis for salvation.
Fourth, Muslims extend this misunderstanding to make the claim that there was a substitute for Jesus on the cross, that God would not allow His great prophet to die such a death. It is speculative to decide what God would and would not allow, but clearly God did not prevent the death of Muhammad (though, admittedly, it was not a crucifixion).
Fifth, it is certain that Jesus was the man on that central cross. Roman soldiers would not have made the mistake of substituting another prisoner in the place of Jesus (as the Muslims claim), when coming directly from that prisoner's encounter with Pilate, the governor. Pilate thought it was Jesus on the cross; thus he made a sign, which he posted on the cross, identifying Jesus; and he later checked the situation to reconfirm that it was Jesus on the cross, expressing surprise that He had died so soon and did not need His legs to be broken. Mary the mother of Jesus was there. Moms can usually recognize their firstborn. The man on the cross is not protesting His punishment. Rather He is speaking words of forgiveness and compassion. He offered hope to one of the criminals also being crucified. He made a great impression on the Roman soldier standing by. He called upon John to take His “mother” into his custody to care for her for the rest of her life (she would have been nearly fifty at this time). Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus would have recognized a substitute. Suggesting that these are examples of the corrupted text is just too much. These are historical references, validly preserved; and it was Jesus who was crucified and Jesus who was raised from the dead.
Sixth, the tomb was observed to be empty all day on the first day of the week and thus into the next weeks; the possibility of historically investigating the first Easter extends to the present day. Anyone could go to see the tomb. We could see the tomb today if we knew the location with confidence. Some look to the garden tomb; some to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher; some a location on the Mount of Olives. Blood stains likely remained on the linen strips of cloth with which Jesus had been wrapped that first day. The blood must have been that of Jesus since the tomb had no other occupants. Mix-ups were simply not possible. The tomb had been guarded by Roman soldiers who were there for the sole purpose of preventing an empty tomb following that first weekend.
Seventh, after Jesus rose to life from the dead, He appeared to His disciples and others who could have exposed the fraud. No efforts were made to expose anything. Jerusalem literally had become the location of the empty tomb of Christ. Though diligently searched for, the corpse was never found because for the next forty days after the purported resurrection, Jerusalem was where one could encounter the living, resurrected Christ. In this resurrected body Christ appeared to many; and soon, from the Mount of Olives, He ascended back into heaven from where He was also seen as He located Himself at the right hand of the Father, one day to return in that same body to receive the faithful unto Himself, conduct the final judgment, and initiate the eternal kingdom.
So What?
The Christian gospel outlined above means everything. But what does the outline of New Age beliefs mean? I hope it will not disappoint the reader to find that the New Age movement has made virtually no substantial impact on Western society. Nothing sticks! Many people dabble in New Age esotericism. Some actually believe in the rise of a “new” consciousness (a relativistic, personal, worldwide transformation of values and relationships). Some claim to have lived before (reincarnation and past lives are favorite tales that, of course, cannot be proved but provide a lot of excitement for the ones who convince themselves that they have lived before and will live again, just as they are living now). Many try the various New Age communal practices for a while. Many are attracted to spirits or to outer space, the so-called final frontier.
Many seek to find meaning in their lives through New Age teachings, but there is nothing there. It is a dead end that deceives many, but what do deceived people do except deceive themselves further regarding the meaninglessness of the false claims of New Age philosophy. In Christ all the wisdom of God dwells bodily. In Him alone we find the way, the truth, and the life.
1 Drane adds: “In the past, people looked to the church as their spiritual guardian, but that is no longer the case in Britain, and northern Europe generally. Although the situation in the USA is different, the same signs of impatience with traditional Christian churches can be documented there too.” J. W. Drane, “New Age” in the New Dictionary of Christian Apologetics, ed. W. C. Campbell-Jack and Gavin McGrath (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2006), 483.
2 See David K. Clark and Norman L. Geisler, Apologetics in the New Age: A Christian Critique of Pantheism (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1990).
3 Russell Chandler, Understanding the New Age (Dallas: Word, 1988), 17-18.
4 Cf. Thomas J. Nettles, Ready for Reformation (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2005). Written to Southern Baptists, this book is relevant to most evangelicals. In a day of anticonfessionalism, such as today, this should be required reading for pastors and church leaders.
5 See Woulter J. Hanegraaff, New Age Religion and Western Culture: Esotericism in the Mirror of Secular Thought (Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1998).
6 Ibid., 515.