“How did this all happen?” I asked myself. There I was in front of an auditorium filled with angry community members, trying to explain that my thinking skills program, Tactics for Thinking, was not designed to woo their children away from Christianity to a religion called “New Age.” Based on straightforward principles of cognitive psychology, the program had nothing to do with an anti-Christian religion, especially one I had never heard of. “All this will be cleared up,” I told myself, “once I explain the research and theory on which the program is based. Besides, I'm a Christian myself; I even spent four years of my life in a monastery.”
Only in retrospect can I see how naive I was.
I came to two important conclusions that night: (1) nothing I could do or say would convince these people that I and my program were not part of this New Age religion, and (2) something was going on beneath the surface. This second conclusion bothered me the most. Their questions all seemed to address a conspiracy that I was supposed to be a part of.
After the meeting, one person who seemed sympathetic to my situation gave me a flyer that had been circulated within the district. Sure enough, the flyer stated that a conspiracy was afoot to enlist American children into an anti-Christian, New Age religion, and my program was one of the tools in this odious effort. The flyer cited a few books on the topic, and I decided to investigate. Who was trying to convince people of such a thing?
What I found shook me to the core. I discovered a massive literature base that used a similar line of reasoning and sometimes identical tone and content. Virtually all of the books and pamphlets I read could be found in the various Christian bookstores in my community, and many of the books could be found in my local supermarket in the “family reading” section. A few names were prominent both as authors and leaders: Jerry Falwell, Robert Simonds, Pat Robertson, Mel and Norma Gabler, Texe Marrs, Constance Cumbey. Taken as a group, they sketched a picture of America both past and present that I had never before encountered.
The Great Conspiracy Theory
I had always believed that the United States was founded on the principle that church-related issues should be kept separate from governmental issues to ensure that no religion was favored or discriminated against. Many of the authors I read, however, presented a different view. For example, the Reverend Jerry Falwell, founder of the now-defunct Moral Majority, reports: America was founded by Godly men who had in mind establishing a republic not only Christian in nature, but a republic designed to propagate the Gospel worldwide (cited in Saperstein 1990).
According to the literature, the United States is a “Christian nation” (Gabler and Gabler 1985), and the present lack of understanding of the true interpretation of the doctrine of separation of Church and State is no accident. Indeed, a concerted effort has been made to lead people astray. Joseph Kennedy, an author who specializes in mailers about religious liberty, explains that: We have a dominant view in this country which is supported by 99 percent of the people of the relationship between Church and State that is almost diametrically opposed to what was taught by the Founding Fathers.... Does the First Amendment teach the separation of Church and State? Probably 99 percent of the people in America today have been brainwashed into saying “Yes.” But it does not (1987).
According to Mel and Norma Gabler, a couple who work to ensure that school textbooks do not violate Christian values, the secular humanists are responsible for seducing America away from its Christian heritage. Although the roots of secular humanism can be traced back to the Renaissance, the liberal intellectuals of the early 1900s established its foothold in America: Liberal theologians, for example, used the methods of German “higher criticism” to attack the authority and authenticity of the Bible. American universities advocated Darwin's theory of evolution. Within so-called intellectual circles, it became fashionable to reject theism and the Bible for the “natural belief” that man must be his own savior (1985).
What is particularly dangerous about humanists, the Gablers continue, is that Humanists are aggressive and evangelistic. They are adept at tearing down traditional faith, even if it means permitting the occult to enter the classroom. They are skilled at pouring their anti-God dogmas into the void (1985).
I also found that educational philosopher John Dewey was considered a central figure in the spread of secular humanism: A declared atheist who sometimes used religious terminology, Dewey was a Hegelian, holding that truth is in process; it never is eternally fixed. Morals change, he believed, as society changed. Students should, therefore, be taught to adjust socially and ethically to change as it occurs (Gabler and Gabler 1985).
The literature asserts that within the last decade or so, the efforts of the secular humanists have taken on a new form, that of a religion called the New Age. In addition to being well-organized, the New Age movement has the distinction of including many members who do not realize that they belong. For example, Dave Hunt explains: Many New Agers are scarcely aware of the full implication of their involvement in the movement. And because the movement is more an organism than an organization, many people would vehemently deny that they are involved at all (1983). This quality renders the New Age movement an insidious and expanding force that cuts across all strata of society. Figure 1 lists a few of the individuals, organizations, movies, and publications that various authors allege to be involved with the New Age movement. Similarly, Figure 2 lists some practices they associate with the New Age.
Figure 1. Among Those Labeled New Agers...
American Civil Liberties Union
Alcoholics Anonymous
Amway Corporation
Atari Computer Corporation
Blue Cross/Blue Shield
Buffalo (New York) Public Schools
Campbells Soup Company
Catholic Church
Chrysler Corporation
Cocoon
Cousins, Norman
Freemasons
Gorbachev, Mikhail
The Grapes of Wrath
The Hunger Project
Huxley, Aldous
Jehovah's Witnesses
Life Magazine
Lions International
Lockheed Corporation
Minneapolis City Government
Mobil Oil Corporation
Monsanto Corporation
Mormon Church
Mother Teresa
The Muppets
NAACP
Nader, Ralph
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Organization for Women
NBC Television
Newsweek Magazine
New York City Government
Planned Parenthood
Polaroid Corporation
Pope John XXIII
Prince Phillip
Princeton University
Procter & Gamble
Reader's Digest
Rockefeller Foundation
Social Security Administration
Tutu, Desmond
U.S. Navy
UNESCO
United Nations
University of Michigan
University of Texas
Welesa, Lech
Westinghouse
Yale University
Yeltsin, Boris
Cited from the following sources: Marrs 1990 (nos. 1–4, 6–7, 12–13, 18–25, 27–34, 37–38, 40–45, 47–49, 51–52); Cumbey 1983 (nos. 5, 8–9, 11, 15–16, 36); Robertson 1990 (nos. 10, 14, 17, 35, 39, 50); Groothuis 1988 (nos. 26, 46); Gabler and Gabler 1985 (no. 34).
Figure 2. Practices Labeled New Age
Acupressure
Acupuncture
Aerobics at the YMCA
Biofeedback
Catholic Communion
Creative visualization
Ending world hunger
Environmental movement
Globalism
Guided imagery for success and prosperity
Health food
Holistic health
Hypnosis
Information revolution
Jewish Kabbala
Native American religious ceremonies
Networking
Pluralism
Positive thinking
Rock and roll
Rosaries
Save the Whales movement
Self-realization
Stress management
Transcendental Meditation
Vegetarian diets
World Peace efforts
Cited from the following sources: Cumbey 1983 (no. 1); Baer 1989 (nos. 2–3, 10, 12, 24); Hunt 1983 (nos. 4, 6, 11, 19); Brown 1987 (nos. 5, 11, 20–21, 25–26); Marrs 1990 (nos. 7–9, 13, 15–16, 22, 27); Groothuis 1988 (nos. 14, 17–18, 23).
Perhaps the most frightening aspect of the New Age movement to these authors is its direct link to the Antichrist. As Pat Robertson notes: “The humanism that is being taught in our schools, media, and intellectual circles will ultimately lead people to the Antichrist, because he will be the consummate figure of humanism” (1989). Texe Marrs asserts that: The New Age appears to be the instrument that Satan will use to catapult his Antichrist to power.... When Christians refuse to be initiated into this Satanic religious system, they will be dealt with very harshly.... The New Age is working hard today to set up an environment of hatred against Christians... so the public mood will be ready when the Antichrist begins his brutal anti-Christian programs (1987).
Another frightening aspect of the New Age is that it has infiltrated public education, say these critics. As Pat Robertson explains: You can't put the Ten Commandments on the classroom wall, but apparently there's nothing wrong with having gurus come in to lecture or having seances and meditations. These practices are going on right now in many schools.......many of these same occult practices...have been used in public schools to “retrain” our sons and daughters and to indoctrinate children into the New Age (1990).
The infiltration of the New Age into public education is so great a threat that Christian parents have but one alternative—to fight, says Robert Simonds, president and founder of Citizens for Excellence in Education. He warns: “Get organized for battle. This is a spiritual battle” (1983). Eric Buehrer, once executive vice president of Citizens for Excellence in Education, explains that the battle must be fought in the schools even by those very children who are so threatened: “Christian parents need to teach their children to arm themselves against the presence of demons on school campuses” (1990).
The major tactic in this battle within public education seems to be to infiltrate school boards, because school boards can most powerfully influence the direction of American education. The Public School Awareness Committee kit published by Citizens for Excellence in Education states that: “Yes, every public school is actually teaching the doctrines of an atheist ideology.... This is illegal and must be stopped. Here is how” (1990). The kit goes on to describe techniques that can be used to elect right-minded Christians onto school boards. Such an important position, asserts Simonds, should be held by those who understand the nature of the battle that is raging (1983).
Simonds's organization appears to be meeting with great success. For example, in his January 1992 President's Report, Simonds notes that: Our CEE chapters are finding outstanding school board candidates and teaching them how to get elected to office.... Every day we are still hearing of great school board election victories in CEE chapter districts. Just yesterday another Pennsylvania Chapter reported a four-person sweep for a seven-person board. Hallelujah! That makes over 1,250 NEW school board members in November 1991 elections. Our goal for November 1992 was 2,000—now we're going for 3,000 Christians NEWLY elected on school boards.
Reading Simonds report, I could not help but wonder whether the dream of Jerry Falwell would become a reality: I hope I will see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be (cited in Saperstein 1990).
With my research completed, the reaction of the parents in that school auditorium finally made some sense to me. Given that they had read the same literature I had, it is no wonder they reacted the way they did. To them I was part of a movement that would eventually lead to the coming of the Antichrist, even if I was unaware of it. Yet I was still amazed as to how anyone could accept such a line of reasoning. Ironically, my own domain of interest and study—cognitive psychology—provided me with an answer.
A Matter of Worldviews
One of the most powerful findings in psychology in the last few decades is that human beings interpret the information they receive from the senses via sets of beliefs they have about the world at large. As Frank Smith notes: What we have in our heads is a theory of what the world is like, a theory that is the basis of all our perceptions and understanding of the world, the root of all learning, the source of all hopes and fears, motives and expectancies, reasoning and creativity.... If we make sense of the world at all, it is by interpreting our interactions with the world in light of our theory. The theory is our shield against bewilderment (1982).
These theories of the world are sometimes referred to as paradigms or worldviews. One of the paradoxical features of paradigms and worldviews is that their interpretive power creates unavoidable “blind spots” in one's perceptions. That is, paradigms both enable and inhibit perception. On one hand, they provide frameworks with which to organize information received from the senses; on the other hand, they limit what can be perceived because of the inherent assumptions that underpin them. They tell us what to do and what to expect in every situation without the need for deep philosophical consideration.
With the realization that paradigms or worldviews are the filter through which human beings interpret information, my understanding of the reaction of those community members in the auditorium became much clearer. Even though they and I both profess to be Christians, perhaps they interpreted the world from a totally different paradigm or worldview. Additionally, perhaps I and other educators hold a worldview that contradicts theirs. If so, these two groups would be incapable of seeing the logic of one another's actions. A little investigation seemed to validate this hypothesis.
Many of the authors alluded to a worldview that might be described as a unique form of Christian fundamentalism, or Ultra-Fundamentalism. Briefly (and with the inevitability of oversimplifying a complex issue), whereas Fundamentalist Christians hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible, Ultra-Fundamentalists additionally believe that their worldview should be the dominant one in American culture (Gaddy 1992). The Ultra-Fundamentalist is intent on stopping the spread of other, contrary worldviews.
Such missionary zeal was evident in much of the literature I read. For example, CEE President Simonds characterized the charge of his followers in the following way: History will record either one of two things about this generation and this present national emergency: “A handful of socialist manipulators stole the American dream of a Biblically based form of government, without firing a shot, while the church slept,” or“At just the precise `point of no return,' the American republic's form of Constitutional government was saved from total annihilation by a small band of courageous Bible-believing Christians who raised up 'God's standards' before the American church and the nation's people” (1983). An Ultra-Fundamentalist worldview, then, would lead one to take whatever measures necessary to eradicate or at least retard the spread of any principle that contradicted it.
Conflicting Worldviews
Although I am not qualified to articulate Ultra-Fundamentalist principles, one example may help to illustrate how an Ultra-Fundamentalist worldview might clash with that of an educator.
Many Christians would assert that the sinful nature of humankind is a basic Christian belief, and indeed, the Citizens for Excellence in Education Public School Awareness Committee kit also cites this principle: “Man is a sinner by nature, needing redemption” (1990).
As an educator I am committed to the principle that educational practice should enhance the self-esteem of all students. Although most educators would probably say that education is not based on any given worldview, those who study paradigms would disagree. Paradigms are passed on through culture, a “set of important understandings (oftentimes unstated) that members of a community share in common” (Sathe 1983). Although education has no written credo, it does have a strong culture that is transmitted in the courses one takes for certification and in the professional journals and books one reads. This culture of education implicitly passes on certain assumptions and operating principles that, as a group, constitute the paradigm of education.
Many educational practices are built on the assumption that cultivating a healthy self-concept in students is a useful and perhaps necessary educational practice. This practice, however, appears to be in direct contradiction to the Ultra-Fundamentalist worldview.
To illustrate, consider the book The Biblical View of Self-Esteem, Self-Love, and Self-Image, marketed by Citizens for Excellence in Education. In it, author Jay Adams notes: “Man was not created to become someone in his own right...no, man was created to glorify God” (1986). For Adams, and apparently many others, any attempt to enhance self-esteem directly contradicts the Ultra-Fundamentalist Christian worldview. Adams explains: One wonders how many years people will be led astray, led away from discipleship for Christ, which requires losing their “selves,” because they were told “Feel good about yourself” rather than being told that there is a criminal inside who needs to be put to death daily (1986).
Thus, an instructional practice almost universally accepted within the worldview of educators—enhancing the self-esteem of students—is seen by Ultra-Fundamentalists to be in direct opposition to their worldview. Given the defining characteristics of Ultra-Fundamentalism, those so inclined have no recourse but to eradicate this practice.
No Answers—Only Dialogue
Unfortunately, my investigation, begun over five years ago, has left me with no answers, only questions. As a Roman Catholic, I, too, had learned that human nature was sinful. What I had not realized is that I had translated that belief into a far different operating principle from that used by Ultra-Fundamentalists. Was my belief in the utility of a healthy self-concept a contradiction to my professed Christian orientation? Had I unknowingly taken on a secular worldview propagated by my training in education and psychology?
My investigation quickly demolished the easy answer I had first constructed when my thinking skills program was challenged; namely, that those attacking my program (THEY) were the “bad guys” who must be stopped. I now see them as fundamentally different from me in some of the basic assumptions that underlie their worldview. The assumptions on which their worldview is based are as unprovable as the assumptions on which my worldview (and that of most educators) is based.
What do we do when groups with different worldviews collide? It appears that we either fight (as has happened in places like Bosnia) or we communicate with the intent of reaching compromises. I, for one, reject the first alternative. Instead, I hope that as intelligent people we can begin a dialogue toward the ultimate goal of an educational system that works for all.
