{I RE-POST} “BREAKING THROUGH THE ‘RELATIVITY BARRIER’” by Elliot Miller
“Breaking Through the ‘Relativity Barrier’: How to Make Points
Effectively With New Agers” (an article from the Witnessing Tips
column of the Christian Research Journal, winter/spring 1988,
v10, #3, page 7)
Ever wonder what trying to communicate with someone from a
different planet would be like? Christians who try to share their
faith with New Agers may have some idea. This communication gap
runs deeper than mere terminology: it involves outlooks on the
world that are themselves worlds apart.
One major reason for this is what I have termed the “relativity
barrier.” Underlying much New Age thinking is a relativistic
assumption that anything can be true for the individual, but
nothing can be true for everyone.
To many New Agers, truth is intensely personal and entirely
subjective. In their view, it is the height of presumption to think
that one knows the key truth for all people. On the other hand,
it is the apex of love to “allow” others to have their own “truth.”
“Thou shalt not interfere with another’s reality” might be called
the First Commandment of New Age revelation. Thus, the New Ager
views him or herself as open-minded, tolerant, and progressive,
while viewing the Christian evangelist as narrow-minded, intoler-
ant, and repressive.
The “relativity barrier” is therefore a great obstacle to
Christian evangelism. No matter how carefully the Christian
directs his or her testimony, it is deflected with the reply,
“That’s your truth.”
It is important first of all to demonstrate that the difference
between Christians and New Agers is not a question of tolerance. A
conversation between the channeled spirit “Ramtha” and one of his
“masters” (disciples) will help the reader see what I mean:
RAMTHA: Now, if one believes in the devil and
another doesn’t, who is right, who is true?
MASTER: Both of them are.
RAMTHA: Why?
MASTER: Because each one of them has their own truth.
RAMTHA: Correct. Correct.
Up to this point we are witnessing classic New Age relativism.
But in the comments which immediately follow Ramtha gives away the
larger metaphysical context behind this seemingly impeccable
tolerance:
RAMTHA: Now, the devil was a masterful ploy by a
conquering institution to put the fear of God, most
literally, unto [sic] the hearts of little ones –
that God had created a monster that would get them
lest [sic] they be good to Him. The devil was used to
control the world most effectively and even today it
is still feared and believed. Someone conjured it up
– a God – and thus it became, but only to those who
believed. That is how it is. (emphasis added)
(“Ramtha” with Douglas James Mahr, Voyage to the New
World [Friday Harbor, WA: Masterworks, 1985,] 246.)
Ramtha’s explanation illustrates what is generally the case in
New Age thinking: it really isn’t a matter of each person’s “truth”
being equally true. At a deeper level, we are all gods creating
our own realities. Some, blind to this truth, have created some
rather unfortunate “realities.” When they become “enlightened” they
will drop these creations and see things as New Agers do.
By bringing this larger picture to the New Ager’s attention we
can demonstrate that the New Age world view is based on an absolute
“truth” after all – pantheism (i.e., God is all). This just allows
them to acknowledge multitudinous private “truths” at lower levels.
It turns out that it’s impossible to make everything
relative. Some ultimate view of reality must be assumed, and
whichever we choose (including pantheism) will necessarily exclude
all others. Therefore, the real question New Agers and Christians
should be addressing is not whether there is a universal truth,
but rather which “universal truth” is true, pantheism or theism?
One good approach to determining this is to ask ourselves if
either one is compatible with life and the world as we find them.
Can they be consistently lived out?
After securing the New Ager’s approval of this approach, the
Christian can proceed to demonstrate that 1) we all inescapably
live by a belief that certain things are right and wrong, and 2)
New Age pantheism cannot supply sufficient basis for this belief,
while Christian theism can.
Since New Agers often avoid critical thinking in favor of an
intuitive approach to truth, the Christian should not expect cold
logic to suffice. To make a point, it is important to impact their
emotions as well as their minds. This explains the rather shocking
and disturbing approach of the following demonstration.
CHRISTIAN: Do you mean that there are no moral principles that
are absolutely true and right for everyone?
NEW AGER: We each create our own reality and have our own truth.
CHRISTIAN: OK, let’s pretend I’m a pedophile – it’s part of my
reality to “love” children in every way possible, including
sexually. So, while you’re at work I’m going to invite your
children into my home to play a “game” that I’ve made up. Is that
all right with you?
NEW AGER: It most certainly is not! It would be part of my
reality to report you to the police.
CHRISTIAN: Why? After all, it’s the reality I’ve sovereignly
chosen to create for myself. What gives you the right to interfere
in the reality of another god?
NEW AGER: Simple. Your reality is infringing on my children’s reality.
CHRISTIAN: But according to your belief, before they incarnated
they chose you as their parent and they also chose whatever
happens to them, including my act, and you’ve no right to
interfere.
NEW AGER: I do, too, in this case.
CHRISTIAN: Can you see my point now? Something within
you knows that such an act is wrong in and of itself.
NEW AGER: You’re right.
CHRISTIAN: But that can only be so if there are absolute rights
and wrongs independent of our personal realities. Yet, try as you
may, you will not find a ground for such moral absolutes in your
world view. Your God is impersonal, “beyond good and evil.” And,
since in your view we are all equally gods, my truth about any
subject is as good as your truth. So, New Age beliefs fail the test
of human experience. But Jesus said in John 14:6 “I am the
truth.” As the unique, infinite, and holy God incarnate, He provides
a sufficient basis for saying that certain acts such as child
molestation are absolutely wrong.
NEW AGER: Hmmm. I see your point.
A less consistent relativist might invoke a universal law of love or karma.
To this, the Christian could reply: “First of all, if there are such universal laws which are absolutely true for everyone, why should you take offense when I say the gospel is not just my truth but the truth? But second, if everything is God, then karma is as much an illusion to be transcended as the world, and there is ultimately no one for my Self (which is God) to love. So why should I take such illusory ‘absolutes’ seriously?”
{copyright 1993 by the “Christian Research Institute”}
The preceeding is the property of the Christian Research Institute. It may
be reproduced for circulation as “freeware” and without charge. All reproductions must contain a copyright notice. This data may not be
used without the permission of the CRI for resale or the enhancement
of any other product sold.
*Okay, so I have only put this here not-because it really
had me thinking about psychiatry flaws, but since it was
an “ancient” text that I happened to find among old
documents that I had from a 1990s hard-drive and, since
it was free to use, I found it interesting and wanted to.
Plus, as I see, I can apologize for that overly-long
and semi-confusing sentence! Really, I am decent
with writing and that was just what happened. {HAHA}