Traditional church: “faithful and fitting in”
From stages of consciousness to spring poems and now back again. Let’s recap!
Ken Wilber and others have suggested that consciousness evolves through various stages. One way of visualizing this journey is Steve McIntosh’s “spiral of development”:
Applying Wilber’s integral model to Christianity, Paul Smith argued that we can observe a different form of Christian consciousness and ‘church’ at each stage. He begins with “tribal church,” on the second level of McIntosh’s spiral. In an earlier post, I tried sketching out “primal” or “archaic consciousness” as applied to Christianity. In subsequent posts, I looked at “tribal consciousness” and “tribal church”, and “warrior consciousness and church”, the latter most recently exemplified by “Secretary of War” Pete Hegseth’s ridiculous/disturbing speech to US generals.
In contrast to warrior and tribal consciousness, Jesus announces a very different “kingdom” – a universal communion with God that is here and now, “at hand”, and that extends beyond all ethnic and national boundaries; and a galactic shift, morally, spiritually and psychologically, from “love your neighbour and hate your enemies” to “love your enemies and pray for those you persecute you” (see Matthew 5: 43-48).
But can we really expect warriors to beat their swords into ploughshares?
1.
Meanwhile Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any who belonged to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. Now as he was going along and approaching Damascus, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?’ (Acts 9:1-4).
2.
In 1894, Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God is Within You inspired the soldier Arthur St. John to become a pacifist. It also had a great effect upon James Bevel, a major 1960s strategist of the civil rights movement. After reading the book while serving in the U.S. Navy, Bevel came to the conclusion that he would be unable to kill another person. He thereafter sought and was granted an honorable discharge, and entered a seminary for religious training. (1)
3.
His captain came down with yellow fever, which causes jaundice, liver and kidney damage, internal bleeding and (very frequently) death. It was so dreaded that no one would care for him. Rufus King nursed his captain devotedly, and escorted the body to the family home at Durham because no one else dared to approach it.
He believed that God had intervened to spare him from catching yellow fever, and was converted at a Methodist revival service. He also became deeply convinced that war was wrong, and fasted and prayed for many weeks from Thursday through Saturday. Unable to read, he memorized the Sermon on the Mount. (2)
In the language of integral theory, these extraordinary “conversions” and “convincements” (Rufus King eventually became a Quaker, and even visited New Zealand with his message) involve extraordinary states of consciousness (divine-human encounters, altered states, peak experiences etc.) that propel the individual into an entirely new stage of consciousness. The warrior becomes a healer. The hound of the church becomes its friend, saint, and apostle.
For Paul, who spent his previous life persecuting and murdering the people he now identifies with and cares for, this transformation centres around a relentlessly moral concept of sin:
We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin. (Romans 6:6).
And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. (Galatians 5:24).
Jesus’s sense of transformation, though certainly involving the moral dimension, was above all an inward, spiritual ‘re-birth’:
“Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be astonished that I said to you, ‘You must be born from above.’ The wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” (John 3:5-8).
This completely confounds Nicodemus, a distinguished religious teacher of the Pharisee group, and “a leader of the Jews”:
Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” Jesus answered him, “Are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand these things? (John 3: 9-10)
For the sake of our exploration here, Nicodemus might be said to represent “traditional consciousness”:
The traditional worldview emerged about 5,000 years ago as people longed for law and order in the chaotic world of the warrior. External rules and guilt produced a more controlled society… The individual’s ultimate concern begins to move away from ego-centric self-gratification and toward the meaning found in role and identity… The individual is willing to control current impulses for alter fulfilment in a way that recognizes the good of structure and order. (3)
The law comes to Israel. Rabbinic Judaism is centred around interpreting and applying the law. Christianity becomes the religion of the Roman Empire. Christianity becomes organised - coercively or otherwise - into a hierarchical structure of laity, priests, bishops, and bishop-kings (popes, holy Roman Emperors, and monarchs whose legitimacy is based on “divine right” and who serve as “head” and “defender” of “the Church”). The Nicene Creed - and not, say, the Sermon on the Mount - becomes the central ‘text’ and summary of Christian truth.
Out of World War, the international order develops. The United Nations. International Law. A sense that nations can’t do anything, that even war must be conducted in a certain way, that might isn’t right…
…And breaks down. Our present age - Trump, Putin, Xi, Netanyahu - witnesses the return of strong men repudiating international law and ethics, carving up various ‘zones of influence’ for themselves. We witness a regressive return to the ‘warrior code’.
In terms of Christianity, ‘traditional consciousness’ is marked by monolithic truth, group conformity, and “fitting in” with the rules:
The world is controlled by a God that punishes evil and rewards righteousness. There is only one right way to that God. Those at this stage tend to not question their traditional mode of thinking. It must be true if the Bible or their group says that it is true. Individuals can now think logically but do not do much logical thinking about whether their own beliefs are reasonable or not. (4)
A clear example of this, for me, is the widespread, almost universal habit for Christians to refer to God as ‘he’ or ‘him’. Logically, it makes no sense - the creator of the universe is beyond all finite forms, and certainly not to be identified with just one half of the human and animal gender binary. That would be ludicrous, right? And yet it persists - because Jesus (in first-century Palestine) used that form of address in the Gospels (written by men), because that’s what the Church has always taught, numerous etc. This isn’t a minor linguistic point but has extremely significant implications in terms of power and religious violence.
Likewise sexuality. I firmly believe that those who oppose same-sex relationships have never truly encountered the reality of a loving, committed same-sex relationship between real people. Instead, most of the time, in my view, they are speaking out of their heads, out of some traditional ideas and ‘laws’ that they have learned: they are not encountering the spirit in the here and now. True love is obvious and self-justifying - it doesn’t need technical and legal vindications from scripture or moral law. Nothing converts us to an inclusive position on same-sex relationships as witnessing our son or daughter or best friend or beloved fellow parishioner struggle with coming to terms with being gay and being Christian (or having to struggle with this, ourselves).
In present-day Christianity, as Paul Smith notes, the centre of “traditional consciousness” is shifting from the post-modern “North” to the “global south”. This can be clearly seen in terms of the various responses to the designation of Sarah Mullally as the next Archbishop of Canterbury within the UK and the Anglican Communion.
The Prime Minister and Monarch of the United Kingdom both welcomed the news in a warm, straightforward way:
“The Church of England is of profound importance to this country. Its churches, cathedrals, schools, and charities are part of the fabric of our communities. The Archbishop of Canterbury will play a key role in our national life. I wish her every success and look forward to working together.” (Sir Keir Starmer, PM).
“The King approved the prime minister’s recommendation on 29 September. His Majesty congratulates Bishop Sarah on her appointment as archbishop-designate, a role which is of such importance in the UK and across the global Anglican Communion.” (5)
The Anglican Primates of Aotearoa, New Zealand, and Polynesia, welcomed the news in the following manner:
The Archbishops said this morning that as the first woman to be appointed to the position as the spiritual head of the Anglican Communion, Bishop Sarah’s appointment marks a turning point in the history of the Church as it continues to evolve with a focus on unity and the future.
“Women’s leadership is central to who we are, found in scripture, in indigenous societies, and embodied in examples like the new Māori Queen, Te Arikinui Nga wai hono i te po,” said Archbishop Don Tamihere.
“The call of God upon women has always been present and powerful, and to ignore it is to misrepresent the truth of our faith.” (6)
The response from “GAFCON”, a “global family” of conservative Anglicans, was entirely different:
…is with sorrow that Gafcon receives the announcement today of the appointment of Dame Sarah Mullally as the next Archbishop of Canterbury…. We had hoped that the Church of England would…choose someone who could bring unity to a divided Anglican Communion. Sadly, they have not done so.
Though there are some who will welcome the decision to appoint Bishop Mullally as the first female Archbishop of Canterbury, the majority of the Anglican Communion still believes that the Bible requires a male-only episcopacy. Therefore, her appointment will make it impossible for the Archbishop of Canterbury to serve as a focus of unity within the Communion. (7)
Is Sarah Mullally (as the new Archbishop of Canterbury) a symbol of the breaking apart of traditional church, its persistence in new guises and forms (for some, Mullally is a very traditional-looking-and-acting Anglican), or the slow and painful evolution of the church, as it inches its way forward while holding as many together (in various stages of consciousness) as it can?
═══✿═══
Traditional church and consciousness deserve our respect and gratitude, Paul Smith writes:
The traditional church is a faithful church… Most of us on the Christian path today got there via this stage. Those who live at the tribal, warrior, and traditional level can often only respond to the gospel when it is presented by the traditional level of church. We need traditional churches that minister to those firmly rooted in traditional consciousness and invite people to move up from the tribal and warrior stages. (8)
After that, however, it can become stultifying. It doesn’t allow space for our intellect to expand and question, for our difference to be treated as fact rather than a threat, and for our deeper selves to encounter God directly and in whatever way the Spirit actually attracts and calls us. It doesn’t allow much space for what the Quaker tradition calls “continuing revelation”, for the ‘Spirit of Truth’ going on teaching and guiding us in new paths. (John 16:12-13).
The oldest thing you can say about God is that God is always doing something new. (9)
…this Oneness manifests itself, or we come across it, in any infinite number of ways. While it always remains in a sense the same, it is always a different oneness. Perhaps this is because God is always happening. (10)
God calls us to an ever more vast horizon. At its best, traditional church introduces us to the collective memory of God. At its worst, it gets in the way of the encounter and call.
Feeling angry for what Smith calls “the oppressive elements” of traditional church is a very good thing - so long as we can use this energy to break our entanglements and move on. (11) I think I have stayed in an angry place with traditional church for far too long, hoping to reform it (!), or that it might reform itself, or simply scared and unwilling to leave. The internet is full of some very angry Christians - mostly men - who are warring with this or that other faction within the church, fighting for the true church, the true body of Christ, like soldiers casting lots for Jesus’ clothing.
Another possibility to feeling angry is to feel dead - to feel deadened and desensitized to traditional church’s “oppressive elements”, both inwardly and in the church and world around us.
References:
(1) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kingdom_of_God_Is_Within_You
(2) https://springfieldfriends.org/2023/05/28/rufus-king-confederate-soldier-turned-quaker-minister/
(3) Paul R. Smith, Integral Christianity: The Spirit’s Call to Evolve (2011), p.37.
(4) Smith, p.37.
(5) See https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2025/10-october/news/uk/bishop-mullally-s-nomination-to-canterbury-welcomed-by-church-and-charity-leaders
(6) https://www.anglicantaonga.org.nz/news/common_life/primateswelcome_sarahabc
(7) https://gafcon.org/communique-updates/canterbury-appointment-abandons-anglicans/
(8) Smith (2011), p.44.
(9) Smith, p.47.
(10) Thomas Keating, “Oneness and the Heart of the World”, retrieved from https://youtu.be/88UukqH3kDQ?si=R7r2D0mnJTdXZgR0.
(11) See Smith, p.45.
