First, Wilber lays out the case that there are two basic functions of religion:
- Translation – A way of creating meaning for the self that is viewed as horizontal. These are usually new ways to think or feel about reality, a new idea, belief, language or paradigm.
- Transformation – Radical transformation at the deepest seat of consciousness. Viewed as vertical. The very process of translation itself is challenged, and the self is inquired into, ultimately ending in the “death of the self”.
If I was my old “Institutionalized Church Self”, I would pick apart the definitions and toss this stuff casually on the trash heap. But, it just explains too much of my experience. I’ve experienced transformation. And I guess I continue to experience it. I beat my head against the wall trying to help others experience it in an organized setting. I’ve been pissed off, outraged, angry, hurt, disillusioned, sad etc. because I just couldn’t understand why the typical church (leaders and members) wanted nothing to do with transformation. So, I left organized religion and continued transforming (and I'm no longer pissed off, outraged, angry, hurt, disillusioned, sad etc) .
Generally, institutional church leadership doesn’t want to deal with transformation. It is often times an ugly, uncertain, messy process when one dies to one’s self. It may entail deep soul searching similar to psychoanalysis to peal away the layers of the onion that is the ego, not to mention being open to eastern spiritual disciplines. Additionally, in my experience, I’ve found transformation to be realized by individuals and not usually by large groups (unless those who are experiencing transformation decide to meet together). Could it be that church leadership is scared of authentic transformation? Not only can it be messy, but transformation by necessity challenges the status quo because it challenges translation itself.
Quite honestly, most of the church leaders I’ve worked with simply didn’t have time to deal with it even if they wanted to, and because the church leaders appear content with translation, so do the masses. Wilber says, transformation “does not render the self content, it renders it undone.”
Wilber lays out the case that very few people undergo any type of radical transformation and that leaves the masses involved in “at best, various types of horizontal, translative, merely legitimate religion: they were involved in magical practices, mythical beliefs, egoic petitionary prayer, magical rituals, and so on.” I’d add that translation is far easier to deal with on a corporate level. It can be preached from the pulpit or taught in Sunday school and requires very little personal interaction. Further, it is fairly easy to control because it is primarily informational. Unfortunately, by itself, it does nothing more than shore up the ego.
Wilber’s solution to this problem? It’s integral. Surprised? Offer authentic and radical transformation with “an approach that honors and incorporates many lesser transformative and translative practices--covering the physical, emotional, mental, cultural, and communal aspects of the human being--in preparation for, and as an expression of, the ultimate transformation into the always already present state.” Religion, in its best forms, can provide the social framework for people to experience transformation. Transformation is eros/upward/expansive, the church is agape/horizontal/caring. Instead of churches full of people with ideas in their minds, we would have pews filled with people consciously experiencing God in their ever day life.
“Thus, the authentic spiritual camps have the heart and soul of the great transformative traditions, and yet they will always do two things at once: appreciate and engage the lesser and translative practices (upon which their own successes usually depend), but also issue a thundering shout from the heart that translation alone is not enough.” I think this points to what I’ve done in my institutional church experience, and what I continue to do here. Sometimes with more or less tact, grace and loving-kindness.
There are some more interesting insights in this article. Maybe I will touch on those later. . .
31 comments:
I wonder, did you ever come across the term "kenosis" in your experience with Christianity? To me, it sounds a lot like what you are talking about in describing transformation as kenosis describes Christ's emptying of self and the call of believers to model this emptying, or dying, of self.
I would say that the concept of "kenosis" is certainly heading in the right direction. But, no, in my fundamentalist circles it didn't come up.
In the fundamentalist view "dying to self" meant going to church when you didn't feel like it, "evangalizing" your neighbor even if it wasn't comforatable, sacrificially giving your money and talent etc. What it never meant was using various disciplines to experience different levels of consciousness so that one might be free of the "self"/ego (although that is an oversimplified explanation...).
Here's an article on kenosis as it applies to Christ. I think it defines it a little differently than a "dying to self" that Christ did that we subsequently are to imitate.
I'm not sure what Christology supports that definition.
But as far as what you have here, Roger. I agree that church leaders generally don't have time for transformation. Likewise, most believers don't have time for transformation either. Nor do most have the stomach for it.
When you said: "I’ve found transformation to be realized by individuals and not usually by large groups (unless those who are experiencing transformation decide to meet together)", do you think that transformation occurs best when the individual goes through the process apart from community--like ascetic hermits? Or are you just saying that communities that foster an environment of transformation are rare to non-existent in our Western world so you are forced to go it alone?
Bob,
I am talking in generalities here. Integral Theory is pretty complex and is going to attempt to "transcend and include" many spiritual traditions, so what I'm talking about here should apply to other religions as well. So, to get into a detailed discussion about kenosis really misses the point. But if kenosis is about the deity of Christ with no import for the individual to transcend the ego then I would not find it helpful. Bill maybe able to give you a different view of kenosis though.
I think transformation is individual and corporate. It is not either/or. It is "I", "we" and "it" depending on the perspective from which you look at it. From the "it" perspective though (looking at church from the outside) I would say that transformation is rare to non-existent, and most communities are doing little that will help foster it. That is definitely part of the reason we decided to travel a "different path".
No one needs to go spiritual transformation alone. There are lots of traditions that are very helpful, and the internet provides a great place to get information and connect, and hopefully find others on a similar journey. I think it is helpful for those who take transformation seriously because in most institutions they are fairly rare.
I hope that made sense....I transformed a little bit of Evan Williams last night at our neighborhood bash...
Have to admit I only skimmed the Integral Theory stuff. 15 minutes of perusal won't give me enough background to even ask intelligent questions. But I guess that's never stopped me before... ;-)
If the point of Integral Theory is this transformation rather than translation and it "transcends and includes many spiritual traditions", what exactly are its adherents being transformed into?
The point to Integral Theory is a way to bridge the supposed differences between various streams of knowledge and science that is now easily available to us. Each religion/discipline/science thought they had sole posession of "truth" and therefore could not see the "truth" of the other. So it is a worldview that respects the best of all the available knowledge we have at our disposal. It is quite well thought out and worth looking into.
That being said, transformation is a 1st-person, inner, individual experience. So, we are dealing with thoughts, feelings and sensations. I suppose the purpose is deeper states and stages of consciousness and deeper understanding and experience of the self, leading to growth, development, evolution of the inner person.
I am thinking through this stuff, so I'll be posting more. It's hard to know where to start. The link in the previous post "Introduction to Integral Theory and Practice" is worth reading and gives a good overview. If you don't learn something interesting I'll give you your money back... ;-)
@ Bob
In reflecting on Kenosis, I think more in the context of the ressourcement theologians: de Lubac, Ratzinger, et al. I am not sure the concept is tied to any particular Christology as it is more of a soteriological concept. In that sense, it has some relation to Christology. In contemporary times, we often hear of Anselm's theory on the Atonement that Christ in effect paid a debt we could not pay by substituting himself for humanity in making reparation for sin. In such a view, there is little room for the concept of atonement. I hold more to the view that the Crucifixion be looked at more in the context of being the ultimate act of love and self denial rather than a payment of debt, a sacrifice all of humanity is called to emulate. A core concept of Christianity, as I understand it, is the idea of moving out beyond oneself in order to experience the Other. The theory of atonement which I tend to favor is that forwarded by Peter Abelard any many Eastern Christian traditions.
Bill, I see. Roger wasn't interested in a conversation on kenosis here so I'll just say I understand your statements now based on the context with which you approach it. I am probably approaching it with a recapitulation view of the Atonement. Not that one is "right" and the other "wrong"...
Roger,
Thanks for the clarification. Self actualization solving the problem one may have of needing to defend one's "truth" and seeing others' truth claims as threats by creating a "best of" version of the truth which embraces the best elements of all truth claims.
No, I don't think that gets it either. It reduces it Integral Theory to merely a form of pluralism. It is pluralistic, but it is more. The article I mentioned above will clear up some of the questions you have though.
But, "self-actualization" is not a solution to anything. It is how our inner selves grow, change, evolve...
It is not so much about how we "see" each other's truth than it is about seeing that the truth may appear as multiple parts simultaneously. For instance we could reduce you to just a bunch of cells by viewing you from a 3-rd person perspective (modernity). That obviously doesn't adequately describe you. Then we could choose to view you from a 2nd-person point of view and only see you in view of your culture (kinda heading toward postmondernism), but that wouldn't be complete either. Or, we could view you from a 1st-person point of view and view you from your thoughts, emotions, views etc. The only way we get to the truth is to see all three "truths" together.
So we still need to "defend truth", but realize that that "truth" may only be viewing an from a particular perspective.
I guess I got the "best of" assessment from this bit from the Introduction: What if we took literally everything that all the various cultures have to tell us
about human potential—about spiritual growth, psychological growth, social growth—and put it all on the table? What if we attempted to find the critically essential keys to human growth, based on the sum total of human knowledge now open to us? What if we attempted, based on extensive cross-cultural study, to use all of the world’s great traditions to create a composite map, a comprehensive map, an all-inclusive or integral map that included the best elements from all of them?
Sound complicated, complex, daunting? In a sense, it is. But in another sense, the results turn out to be surprisingly simple and elegant.
But as you speak of "truth" I will say that the two truths from Buddhism which Wilber seems to jump off of is instructive to developing what, in the Christian world, is called humility.
I don't disagree with the "best of" assessment, but I don't think that IT allows one an escape from defending one's truth, just the opposite.
The thing I question about the "best of" form of truth is: who determines "best" and what is the likelihood that such a truth would be one that forces transformation of individuals, communities, and the world? If the truth has, as its foundation, a generous treatment of all points of view, I wonder how pliable it would be. And if pliable, how defensible. Maybe that means it is constantly evolving, growing, adapting. Or maybe it is philosophy masquerading as truth.
I have a Baha'i neighbor who prides herself on the inclusiveness of her religion and one of it's basic tenets that says "the one who disagrees (argues) is the one in the wrong" (because a truly loving, accepting person always hold the other in higher regard and therefore would not argue).
I say all that to say (maybe this should be on the "I" "We" "It" post) that each of us have equal rights to the "I" and "we" forms of the truth but, to me, only someone "outside" the framework can determine the "it" view of the truth. It seems Integral Theory places science in that role--assuming that science is purely objective and is free from a framework; which we know to be untrue.
Maybe science just provides a balancing element (rather than the deciding vote) to the more subjective/personal elements of the truth.
But one of my "litmus tests" of truth is that it should cause *all* parties discomfort--the righteous and the wicked alike.
Let me understand what you are saying here:
1. Integral Theory is comparable to the Bahai religion because it is inclusive. A theory that is inclusive must be wrong because the understanding of what is true evolves, and therefore is a "philosophy masquerading as truth".
If that is an adequate summary I would have to say that our perception of what is true is always changing as we get more information about how the subject or object works. For instance we didn't know about quarks and leptons until we smashed particles. Our "truth" about the fundamental building blocks of our universe changed and is now more complete (but surely not totally complete). It didn't change the fact that quarks and leptons existed, we just now know they exist.
Second, Integral Theory is just a framework. It is not "truth", just a helpful map that escapes the known critiques of Modernity and Postmodernity.
2. It seems you are uncomfortable with the role that science has in an Integral philosophy. Integral Theory forces science to take into consideration the "I, We and It" so should lead to more accurate science. Your critique about science not being purely objective is the same as postmodernity's. Namely, that science is influenced by culture and language to such an extent that it is not reliable. So, there is no "truth". If you are consistent and apply that critique to spirituality and religion too, you have to throw it all out the window. Hence, a need for a new philosophy.
3. I'm not sure what you mean by having "equal rights" to the I and We. Only you can say what is going on within you from a 1st-person perspective. But from a 3rd person perspective I can ask you questions, get the answers and observe what happens over time and make some conclusions. That's what Spiral Dynamics, Loevinger's Stages of Ego, and Gilligan's Theory of Moral Development are doing.
4. Not sure about that litmus test. Are talking solely about "spiritual and religious" truth?
#1 Didn't say Integral Theory or the Baha'i faith were "wrong". The context was defensibility.
#2 No problem with the role of science.
#3 Since we cannot live outside of ourselves, we cannot truly take an "it" point of view. Only the "I" and "we" are accessible.
#4 All truths. Any encounter with a "new" truth will unsettle the status quo.
#1 Wilber has gone to great lengths to defend his positions. Dealing with critics from many different disciplines. It's there to read.
#3 - So, are you saying we are trapped within ourselves and our culture with no way to accurately access the "outside world"?
#3 As "creation", we cannot place ourselves in the place of "creator". Of the things in our world where we are "creator" we can.
I can understand the structural elements of a chair that I built along with the exact reasons for their existence/form with absolute accuracy (truth) but I can only observe the properties of the wood from which is constructed--never being able to state the reasons why those properties are as they are. Those observed properties may be consistent enough that we take them as fact (perceived truth) but it is a different level of certainty than what the creator would state.
I'm not sure I totally get where you are going here, so help me out...this is what I think...
We may never have the knowledge of "why", but I might say that is the realm of religion and not science. I don't know why wood was created, but it doesn't stop me from using it, interacting with it, and having useful knowledge about it with a good level of certainty. Another culture may use wood differently, or have a different understanding of the properties, but that just makes wood more complex than I thought, not inaccessible.
But, I might think differently once I've had some sleep....
Recall the context of #3: our ability to know absolute truth. In the "I" and "we" we can know this because we are in ultimate control of the motivations and outcomes (word logos and deed). In the "it" we can only have perceived truth.
I guess I'm suggesting that no matter what framework is used to establish our perceptions of the world we need to remember that ultimately we need the humility to know that only "god" (or whatever concept you want to use for the source of all things) can know all absolutely.
Certainly you can use and interact with created things--heck, you can even worship it if you want. You can even have fruitful interactions and others can have completely different and equally fruitful interactions.
But there is a limit to the access a finite creature has to "it".
I'll have to read back because I don't recall talking about "absolute truth".
Totally agree with the humbleness though. "Truth" is always influenced by our perception, our worldview, our culture, our current level of knowledge etc. That's what the lessons of modernity and postmodernity have taught us. But the truth is the "I", "We" and "It" are in a constant state of change. Your consciousness, emotions, thoughts change from moment to moment. Your culture and language are in a constant state of flux. You just happen to born into "this culture and language" at this particular time. Science is making knew discoveries everyday that give us fuller understanding of the "it". Whether the "it" is you, matter, energy, wood, etc.
So is the truth itself changing or just our perception thereof? Is there a Truth that is the same yesterday, today and forever?
In your pursuit of a more accurate worldview, I wonder why you chase after and Integral Theory that is inherently changing.
The post started with "Spirituality That Transforms" but what we've ended up with here is a framework for establishing a truth that is constantly being transformed. I agree that our perceptions are constantly changing but what is the active agent in this process? If the active agent is us, our knowledge, the interactions with others and the discoveries of science, is there a need for an entity ("god" "absolute truth" whatever) that serves as an unchanging element?
If the world is changing then a more accurate worldview will have to changeable also, don't you think?
"Truth" is what it is. Different perceptions (I, We, It) or the fact that our knowledge becomes more complete when additional facts are uncovered don't change it. I guess I'm not hung up on the concept of truth. It is saying of something that is, "that it is".
Integral Theory is not hostile to the concept of God if that is what you are getting at here. It may however challenge certain perspectives of God (magical, mythical etc.).
Perhaps the "unchanging element" you seek can only be accessed by the "I"?
I agree that our worldview needs to change as we go along. But I do think Integral Theory denies the Christian God. (It isn't "hostile" in that it allows for some concept that is generally called a god but I think it runs counter to the I AM -- of course I could be wrong...just an impression based on exposure to similar schools of thought.)
As far as the unchanging element being accessed by the "I"...how about this: the unchanging element access us rather than us accessing it. This is the only way "translational" practices gain the power to become "transformational".
[On a side note, most of my comments here spring from my year long interaction with some very kind, intelligent atheists who left me with the impression that unless you believe in a god that actively participates in history--revealing Himself with effect--you really don't have a god at all.]
Thanks for the thought-provoking post!
I can't agree that IT necessarily denies a "Christian God" (but it does point out the problems with "earlier worldviews". There are many people who claim to be Christian and claim to be integral. I posted one such conversation in a previous post. So, it might be the case that it challenges your perception of who/what a "Christian God" is (that term is loaded with baggage), which may change...
That said, I do think that IT points out the fact that our understanding of God and how God works progresses through developmental stages, and that might be part of the sticking point here. That's my next post...
I'm curious Bob. Did you come to this theory with preconceived notions and label it "atheism" or did you really try to understand it?
The atheism was a completely separate conversation--one that gave me some clear language that covered spirituality, supernatural belief, superstition, religion, faith, and the distinctives of Christianity when compared to other religions as well as some very compelling information on evolution and scientific methodology.
But with the IT stuff, I listened to the interviews/talks you posted and read the articles (skimming some parts and paying close attention to others). Then I read the Wikipedia articles on Wilber and Father Keating. Followed some of the links to Buddhism (the two truths) and New Age stuff. All that before drawing any notions.
I don't think IT is atheism because it still accepts things that are beyond the physical, measurable world. It grants credibility to "personal revelation" (the interview with Father Keating had a lot of this). Atheist (and Brights) would reject this outright.
There are a lot of people interested in "spirituality" most of which is hogwash (can you say "Oprah" or that guy on PBS who talks about "Source"?) and all of it denies Christ.
Jesus--God made flesh--is always avoided in these conversations. But, to me, if you deny Christ you lose it all.
Fair enough. I think we are definitely looking at these topics from different worldviews and coming to different conclusions. But that's part of the fun of living in a diverse world.
It may be that the reason "Jesus--God made flesh--is always avoided is that it comes from a pre-rational worldview. Most people today are operating from a rational or trans-rational worldview and have by necessity reinterprated what "Jesus--God made flesh" means or simply right it off as myth, legend, story etc. We may not agree with either worldview, but that just helps us locate our own.
Maybe the reason God-made-flesh is avoided is that to admit it requires more of us than we are willing to give.
Agreed. A rational or trans-rational worldview must be given up to take that belief literally, and worldviews cannot just be "given up".
Just wondering...are you saying Jesus Christ is "a worldview"?
No. I'll be posting on consciousness and worldviews next so I don't want to take the time to explain it here. But any interpretation is not only affected by the "we" but also by the particular worldview you hold.
Post a Comment