by Arthur Paul Patterson   Most of my adult life I have asked, " How can I know this is true?" concerning who or what I put my trust in. It's a broad, maybe naive, sort of question, applicable to any discipline from science to history, up through hard - to -fathom philosophical doubts and down to our need for assurance in our friendship and ethics. Ken Wilber's integral philosophy spans every conceivable discipline but the way he applies his own unique "testing" method to spirituality is particularly important to me. I am a part of a group, formerly a part of a mainline denomination, that has evolved into what some scholars call a "New Religious Movement". Leaving behind "orthodoxy" has its own particular hurdles to spiritual authenticity and legitimacy. Since our group, called Watershed, seeks to provide a broad-based education in personal formation, it is essential that we ask why we should be considered spirituality credible to those participating in our online courses and tutorials. Many years ago, I asked my question from a stance that assumed truth was absolute and verifiable. I believed, at that time, that Christian Scriptures revealed the Creator's intention for spirituality in direct, unambiguous terms. Several courses in comparative religion, dialogue with sincere believers and nonbelievers in other faiths, and a growing suspicion about the limits of language to impart truth has changed all that for me. The question "How can I know this is true?" shifted from arguing about who was right and who was wrong to the important question concerning how to determine a good spiritual fit for individuals. Jettisoning the absolute truth question while allowing me to adopt a much needed humility did not answer my need for spiritual evaluation. "Which traditions, practices, and contexts meet my particular needs?" and "Are there any principles upon which to guide others toward their own authentic spirituality?" became my new questions. Observing my own and others' spiritual choice-making has lead me to the view that the truth question needs to be addressed in many different cadences and tones. What is legitimate and authentic for one person is bogus to another. Exploring the dynamics of why this is so has been a challenge. I have been surprised by the reality that what is harmful for one person engenders health in another. On the other hand, there are certain situations where spirituality seems to shrivel and corrode more easily than others. What makes for a good fit between an individual and the spiritual context they place themselves in? Are there any situations that are dangerous spiritually for all people? Religion can equally harm or heal. Chapter eight of Wilber's book Eye to Eye: The Quest for a New Paradigm provides helpful criteria to evaluate an individual's fit within a spiritual group (or practice) and a general guide for determining toxic spiritual situations. Rather than applying this paradigm to the extreme groups that are clearly either harmful or helpful, I want to test my own experience in light of Wilber's suggestions. Using a "developmental structuralist" approach, Wilber asks the seeker to correlate their stage of development with the claims for legitimacy that the group makes. Legitimacy claims relate to the way that the group justifies how well it meets the felt needs of its participants. It is thoroughly legitimate to be part of a group that touches on your pressing concerns. The concerns you have will be related to whatever stage of development you are in at this particular time. Wilber speaks of the ability of the group to translate its spirituality in a meaningful manner to its adherents. There are many schemes that attempt to chalk out what these stage appropriate concerns will be. Wilber's scheme attempts to be integrative of both the psychological and perennial traditions. All schemes can degenerate to labeling but with the proper approach to typology - a type that more or less applies - we can determine if the group we are part of relates to us. Simplified, Wilber understands groups as addressing concerns in pre-rational, rational, and trans-rational ways. Legitimacy, that is, the way spirituality translates in these modes of consciousness, is distinctly different in each stage. For instance, if an individual is at a pre-rational stage where the spiritual need for conformity to the group and a sense of belonging and acceptance is urgent, then a mythically oriented group which stresses agreement with a set of propositions is legitimate for that person. A less developed pre-rational stage may provide an individual with basic safety needs through ritual protection. For instance, if a person participates in a ritual or makes a declaration to ensure their salvation then the magico pre-rational needs are met. In the rational stage, an individual is attempting to rely on their own individual ability to spiritually discern what is healthy or harmful. Situations which provide the opportunity to make informed decisions about spiritual conceptions and ideas and to test these for applicability in your own life are ideal for these sort of seekers. What comes to mind as a legitimizing context for those in this stage are discussion groups, debates, and values clarification and content-intensive courses. Of course, the freedom of the will and the non-coercive nature of the teaching is a given. The trans-rational stage requirements tend toward a mystical existential union with the psychic, subtle and the causal dimensions of spirit. Techniques of meditation, contemplative disciplines and altered states of consciousness meet this demand regardless of the actual belief content being suggested. Silence, solitude and discipline are legitimizing activities in this stage. Surveying these stages and imagining the legitimating context in which these drives of the spirit can be met has taken me back through the evolution of our group. Being together (as a group) for over fifteen years I have seen all these legitimating situations. When we first started we were a counseling centre that provided for people in deep psychological distress; many of the people were post-psychiatric patients and those from extremely broken and abusive homes. The name of the group then was "Burden Bearers". It resourced people on a physiological and social basis by providing a twelve hour a day drop-in context which included providing lunches and opportunities for board game playing. Although pre-rational in stage, those who needed to be part of a group felt legitimated. There were house rules that needed to be set since behaviors varied in tolerability; a very simple literal explanation of spirituality was appropriate. Legitimacy had to do with crisis, an us-them dichotomy, an evangelistic certitude and a need for structure. When the spiritual context transformed with the arrival of university students seeking to test the boundaries of their beliefs, and desiring to "establish" social justice in the inner city, the clash of these legitimacy claims became inevitable. The students challenged the simplicity of belief and demanded a greater deal of personal autonomy. Programs that provided discussion, argument and a greater experimentation with worship aesthetics (drama and dance) and other psychological methods were emphasized. Participants who were at the pre-rational stage of consciousness felt de-legitimized and went on to other spiritual groups that legitimated their experience. Participants were legitimated by the group when it encouraged individuality and self confidence in decision making. The name of the group was changed to reflect that legitimating function. It was called "Cornerstone" which suggests that within the Wilber paradigm the basis of a rational faith was being built there. Ironically, at this rational stage the group became de-legitimated by its more mythically oriented sponsors, the mainline denomination. The sponsors, being pre-rational and mythic in stage, emphasized values that legitimated the pre-rational inner city folks but did not cohere with the individualistic students. Expulsion from the parent group over ethics, theology, and interpretations of the primary tradition resulted in a new era and consequently, a new stage. At first there was a regression into a crisis mode of us-them, and a need to redefine general spiritual orientations. Partly rational, partly mythic, although at the height of the crisis the magico stage may have equally applied, the group consolidated its individual and rational perspectives. Slowly there emerged a new legitimacy criterion, that of direct trans-rational experience with the spiritual dimension. The need for programs that emphasized personal training in contemplation or meditation coupled with a direct experience of spirit became the legitimizing centre. This was augmented by a stage specific mentorship that encouraged a disciplined approach to the inner life. At this point, those in the group who still struggled to find their individual approach to spirituality felt as if the group was regressing to a pre-rational stage of mythic fusion. Some in this rational individual stage were going through the house holding and setting up family stage; they felt precluded them from the rigors of the disciplined approach to spirituality. Inevitably, the legitimacy of the group for them became negligible. They too moved on to other contexts for growth, some into more liberal but mainline church settings, others into non-religious practices. In reviewing Wilber's criterion for legitimacy it became apparent to me that the group's ability to incorporate and transcend has been problematic. Portions of the group, ready for the next stage of growth, moved on but many were left feeling abandoned and not legitimated. This growth or movement from one criterion of legitimacy to another is connected to what Wilber calls the group's ability to transform or be authentic. Transformation of the deeper structures of group experience is a positive movement when it is accompanied by the ability to incorporate and transcend previously obtained legitimacy - without complete disassociation from it. In the rational stage, this transition was hard to make given that the individual rational perspective was so strong that the requirement to submit to a brief time of mentorship was necessary. Coupled with this transition problem was the manner in which authority was understood by the group members and leader. As the leader of the group, I experienced a tension of leadership styles within myself. On the one hand, I maintained a benign functional authority as a professional educator and spiritual theologian. The credibility of these functions were related to professional credentials and a number of years of experience. This aspect of my authority style went undisputed and was well accepted by the group who were appreciative of my training and gifts. However, another form of authority was also at work. Wilber calls this the charismatic authority base. Operating and being perceived as operating from charisma infused my opinions and ideas, especially during times of regression to the mythic stage, to be taken as edicts and the sole means of legitimacy. The natural and helpful stage specific training I had offered was becoming viewed as a permanent authority deferred to me because of my personality or special spiritual status as a mentor. This was a dangerous position for myself and the group. Our response to it was to move back to the individual rational approach. (One method we used was an individual journal keeping discipline that centered authority in one's own daimon.) We are slowly reapproaching trans-rational training within the context of individual decision making that appeals to direct experience which is discussed and validated in community within the boundaries of a historic tradition. In summary, Wilber maintains that a healthy versus a harmful group contains these variables: A healthy group moves toward trans-rational consciousness and is not gearing its emphasis toward pre-rational aspects of experience. A healthy group attempts to anchor its practices in the legitimacy and authenticity of a communal experience tested in history. A healthy group affirms the need for authority that is phase specific and functional as opposed to charismatic. It is not a permanent authority given to one individual who legitimates or authenticates the community itself. Wilber puts it well, "Either religious teachers are there to bring you up to their level of understanding - in which case their authority is phase temporary - or they exit to keep you in your place, which is by definition is somewhere below or under them. " The group is not out to save the world but to serve it. Look out for narcissism feigning as altruism and superiority feigning as empowerment. Such obsessive drivenness is always open to problematic occasions, not the least of which is the fact that if you have the way, then that end will justify virtually any means, up to and including holy war. Any group out to save the world is potentially problematic, because it rests on an archaically narcissistic base that looks altruistic or idealistic but in fact is egocentric, very primitive, and very capable of coming to primitive ends by primitive means. You can respond to the author here (responses may be posted) or on our messageboard.