1. While theological virtue is accessible to many Christians through ordinary virtue rather than mystical experience alone, Christian traditions still uphold pluralism in spiritual disciplines and levels of consciousness. 2. Developmental lines like reason and will play a role, but there is flexibility in how these are engaged depending on individual promptings of the Spirit. 3. KW's integral vision may advocate too strongly for a single developmental approach, whereas Christian, Buddhist, and Advaitan traditions allow for more pluralism and flexibility in spiritual paths.

1. I cannot speak authoritatively to KW's soteriology but maybe the simpler
way to put this is that, for Christians, the unitive way is always marked by
heroic virtue but many, maybe even most, of the virtuous are neither
mystics nor contemplatives. For us, theological virtue is, in a word,
democratized. Thus our hagiography includes doctors like both Teresa and
Therese, with her little way.
The norms of our formative spirituality are pluralistic and, while our
Lonerganian conversions do transvalue each other, not all bands of our
epistemological spectrum have to be fully lit for our little lights to shine!
In terms of developmental lines, which might include sensations, desires,
feelings, reason, intuition and the will, the will enjoys a certain primacy.
There is otherwise what I like to call an enoughness in play, related to the
Jewish concept of dayenu.
Christian perfection is defined as the will to love and sin is our refusal to
cooperate not our failure to cooperate (derived from our ineradicable
finitude). We don't all need to morph into renaissance wo/men or
necessarily engage an ethical imperative to develop higher consciousness
as more broadly conceived beyond the surrender of our wills, unless so
called by the Spirit. Worship forms, beyond general norms, are also
pluralistic and Spiritual promptings to one vs another are often highly
individualistic.
I don't get the sense that KW engages such flexibility normatively in his
particular integral vision but suggest that Christian, Advaitan and Buddhist
traditions are more flexible and pluralistic, normatively, than his approach,
which he advocates a tad too stridently and polemically? I'm not certain
though, so accept this in the spirit of inquiry as an interrogatory.
Finally, put one more way, I have no significant problems with the
descriptive aspects of KW's quadrants, states, levels, stages, lines and
such but I am still trying to understand their normative aspects. I mostly
know what is necessary and sufficient for theosis; does KW consider a lot
more "development" (both manifold and multiform) to be necessary before
one's actions and aspirations are considered sufficient vis a vis one's
spiritual journey? How individualistic and flexible is he in defining the
approach to such human value-realizations (over against a robust
polydoxy, for example)?
1