A Christian response to New Age
1. The New Age Jesus
Several Christian authors have already provided a detailed rebuttal of the New Age interpretation of Jesus Christ, from the story of "Jesus Goes East," to the sophisticated esoteric elaboration of Steiner, or to the absurd fantasies of Creme.(75) Here I will not critique all those theories: not only would it take up too much space, but it also seems quite unnecessary. What I consider illogical is the general "theological" approach to Christ, the disregard of the New Testament, and the unmotivated rejection of Christian tradition. One is also puzzled by the lack of concern for history, objectivity, rationality, science, the critical method and verifiability. In the esoteric interpretation of Christ nothing is stated by reasoning; therefore, it is impossible to apply basic concepts as right or wrong, because evidence presupposes rationality and objectivity. It is impossible to accept an esoteric system of interpreting the Bible, which seeks hidden, inner meanings in Bible verses, that ignores historicity and rejects standard hermeneutics. The Jesus of historical records is abandoned in favour of the Jesus of the Gnostic Gospels, or even of the esoteric Akashic Records and other quixotic, mystic documents. But the Gospels are still the only documents on Jesus able to stand up to critical and scientific analysis. The very same appropriation by New Age authors and their precursors, of the term Christ, while ignoring its original and specific biblical meaning, cannot be justified.
We have seen how New Age, though it has developed outside the mainstream of Christian theology, has often employed Christian terminology and concepts in a confused and confusing fashion. The overlapping of terminology and concepts between New Age and Christian theology occurs over and over again in the field of theological environmentalism, feminism, religious pluralism and inter-religious dialogue. Christian theologians should continue to employ concepts such as Mother Earth, the feminine in God, the spiritual treasures of religions, the Cosmic Christ etc., without being classified as New Age adherents. But they should be aware that there is contamination of the terminologies of the two camps, and consequently it might not be too difficult to pass from Christian to New Age interpretation.
¡@
2. The Jesus Avatar
In the history of mission in China, learned friends used to ask the missionaries questions which seem to anticipate the difficulties about the acceptance of the singularity of Jesus Christ. In Late Ming China, a friend of Jesuit Giulio Aleni (1582-1649), Zhou Xiaolian, made the following proposal: to unite the religion of the Lord of Heaven with the teaching of Buddha and Laozi.(76)
Another of Aleni's learned friends, Ye Xianggao, affirmed that Jesus might well be "only a great saint born in the world, the same as Kong of Confucianism, Lao of Taoism, and Sakyamuni of Buddhism, etc... and he might not be the true Lord of Heaven."(77) On another occasion, the same Ye Xianggao wrote: "The King of the upper region did incarnate several times here in the East in the person of Yao, Xun, Confucius, and many others... Therefore, he might just as well have incarnated in Europe, as the Fathers of the Society say he did in the person of Jesus. From this it is quite clearly that to the Chinese, Christ in Europe is no more than Confucius, or any other wise man in China."(78)
The syncretistic interpretating proposed by Zhou Xiaolin and Ye Xianggao of Jesus as one of the many possible avatars, anticipates the contemporary debate on religious pluralism and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ.
¡@
3. Religious pluralism in accordance with the New Age
The theology of Matthew Fox(79) has a marked mystical orientation, which leads him to overlook the historical Jesus and refocus attention on a quest for the cosmic Christ, "the pattern that connects."(80) Fox calls for a "deep ecumenism," by which he means a genuine coming together of all persons of all religions at a mystical level, following the Cosmic Christ, the forerunner. While Fox affirms that he does not belong to New Age, which he considers something for rich people, his description of the Cosmic Christ overlaps with New Age's Cosmic Christ.
Catholic priest Diarmuid 
author of Quantum Theology, invites his readers to do theology in the following fashion: "Bring all the reserves you can of imagination, intuition, creativity, and your capacity to marvel. And please bring along your wild (wo)man, your deep feminine part, your hurt child, your wounded parent, and, above all, your flamboyant artist."(81)
theology startlingly overlaps the New Age religious programme. In book God and the divine (terms used indifferently and sparingly because these are just human constructs) are described as creative energy. Each religion is a particular crystallization of divine revelation. Revelation is an ongoing process that cannot be subsumed under any religion. The doctrine of the Trinity is a human attempt to describe God's fundamental relational nature. Sin is a destructive collusion between people and systems. The greatest sin is the assumption that humans are the ultimate form of life under God and entitled to lord it over the rest of creation. We live in a world without beginning and end. Our dead ones are all around us, living within a different plane of existence. Resurrection and reincarnation are not facts, but mental/spiritual constructs.(82) description of the Cosmic Christ could wholeheartedly be endorsed by New Age's propagators. "Christian theologians tend to argue that the Cosmic Christ makes no sense apart from the particular, historical Jesus.... This is where quantum theology differs radically. It considers the Cosmic Christ ... to be the originating mystery from which we devise all our divine personages and images. All the god-figures of the different religions, including Christianity, emanate from this cosmic originating source."(83)
A clear cut distinction between the historical Jesus and the Cosmic Christ has been proposed by Raimundo Panikkar. After holding an inclusive approach to religious pluralism, in line with Karl Rahner's theory of the "anonymous Christians,"(84) Panikkar has progressively affirmed the non-correspondence between Jesus and Christ. "Christ" becomes a super-name, which includes many names, including the one of Jesus. The Christian can rightly continue to affirm that Jesus is the Christ, but not that the Christ is Jesus, or that only Jesus is the Christ. Panikkar affirms that, with such an interpretation, he wants to go beyond the Western way of understanding the Christ.(85)
¡@
4. The Cosmic Christ
The depersonalisation of Jesus Christ through expressions such as "Christ Consciousness" or an impersonal Cosmic Christ is the most serious problem I encounter in New Age Christology. Rather then being the Son of God incarnate, "the only name under heaven given" (Act 4:12), as Christians profess, Jesus is one of the many possible Avatars, one of many other Christs.
As mentioned above, the theology of religious pluralism also adopts the category of Cosmic Christ. Exponents of the theology of religious pluralism affirm the need of replacing traditional Christ-centred theology with God-centred or Salvation-centred theology, proposing a clear-cut distinction between the Jesus of History and the Cosmic Christ. The first is the founder of Christianity and, insofar as he was a historic personage, is just one of the many religious prophets, while the second is the ultimate fulfilment of religions, of humanity and of the cosmos. Inter-religious dialogue requires, according to some, that all religions give up the claim of being the only true religion. In particular Christianity should give up the presumption that Jesus is the only incarnation of God.
But such an interpretation of religious pluralism might lead to contamination, assimilation, relativism, lack of differentiation and syncretism. In this way there is "no respect for a genuine pluralism of co-existence between different religions."(86)
Such an interpretation of the Cosmic Christ appears to me to be a dramatic departure from the Christology of the New Testament. The Cosmic Christ is a legitimate and necessary theological category. However, this category cannot be isolated from the whole of the mystery of Christ and given meanings which depart from the content of the New Testament and the Christian faith.
My understanding is that the universality of Christian revelation must be seen within a salvation-history perspective. The doctrine of creation reveals that the creative act is God's self-communication, i.e. revelation. Since the creative act constitutes history, the events of human history reflect such a revelation. All nations, therefore, somehow, have received from God. Moreover through his Incarnation, Jesus Christ has united himself to the world and to every person in the world (John Paul II, Redemptoris Hominis, n. 37); therefore, human history is indeed the place of God's revelation. The events of Incarnation, Passion and Resurrection express the irreducible historical and concrete character of Christianity. The meaning of these events is also universal. It transcends cultures and nations in order to embrace them all. As we exist only as persons in history, our experience of God is historical. The same universal revelation can only exist as told in a specific and singular historical event, which must necessarily have a meaning which is definitive and universal. This event is Jesus Christ, an event that cannot be overlooked or cancelled. God, the invisible One, is known only through what is visible, historical, and concrete. The "concreteness" of Christian revelation cannot be done away with.
Furthermore, the personal character of God as believed by Christians disappears in New Age thought. The Trinitarian nature of the Christian God fades with the cancellation of distinction and otherness. The affirmation that God exists only within humanity self is the denial of the possibility of communication and dialogue between God and humanity. The consequences for Christian faith are quite serious: New Age, somewhat quietly but effectively abolishes not only the concept of history and relationship with God, but also the doctrines of Creation, of Providence and of Redemption.(87)