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. . .
