Over at the blog Dave’s Mormon Inquiry, the eponymous Dave Banack examines the “Stages of Faith” that has become something of a fad among those who reject the literal nature of the Restoration.
According to developmental psychologist James Fowler, individuals develop in their religious faith from a basic understanding centered on safety of one’s environment (Stage 0) to a universal enlightenment (Stage 6). Conformity to an organized religion is rooted in Stages 2 and 3, where myth, cosmic justice, and conformity lay (along with notions of an anthropomorphic god). According to Fowler, those on their way to enlightenment will leave these simplistic beliefs behind on the way to “universalizing” faith.
This model has been embraced by some cultural Mormons, including Tom Kimball and John Hatch.
Dave nails the problem on the head:
The problem with the stages of faith model (or at least how it is used) is that it takes one generic personal narrative — “I used to be part of an organized religion, but after I achieved personal enlightenment I became disenchanted with the compromises and juvenile teachings so prevalent in organized religious institutions” — and elevates it to a prescriptive model, which it then applies judgmentally to all persons.
However, there are a variety of other generic personal narratives that are as valid as the Fowler narrative. Some start with self-centered spirituality, then move toward active membership in a religious community. Some start with self-centered hedonism, then move toward a more community-oriented perspective, whether religious or secular. Some start with self-centered hedonism, then move toward self-centered spirituality. Some people just piss their whole life away as self-centered hedonists. There’s nothing in the Fowler approach that justifies using the Fowler narrative (rather than any other) as the basis for prescriptive classifictions and judgments, or that defends the method of constructing a One True Narrative in the face of the obvious fact that individuals display a variety of diverse human personalities that approach spiritual and religious questions quite differently.
Sadly, Fowler’s Stages of Faith is yet another avenue for those who have rejected the gospel of Jesus Christ to rationalize that decision. By claiming to have moved on to a higher, truer, purer form of spirituality, they subtly insult the large numbers of intelligent, thinking, and yet still-believing Saints who have chosen to remain active and faithful.
“Sadly, Fowler’s Stages of Faith is yet another avenue for those who have rejected the gospel of Jesus Christ to rationalize that decision.:
Wow, your ability of oversimplify complex ideas is impressive.
How does Fowler’s model of stage 5 differ from Bushman’s description of the recovery of shaken Mormon faith (which describes the faith journey of many of us) as follows:
“Other shaken individuals recover their belief in the basic principles and events but are never quite the same as before. Their knowledge, although no longer toxic, gives them a new perspective. They tend to be more philosophic and less dogmatic about all the stories they once enjoyed. Here are some of the characteristics of people who have passed through this ordeal but managed to revive most of their old beliefs.
“1. They often say they learned the Prophet was human. They don’t expect him to be a model of perfect deportment as they once thought. He may have taken a glass of wine from time to time, or scolded his associates, or even have made business errors. They see his virtues and believe in his revelations but don’t expect perfection.
“2. They also don’t believe he was led by revelation in every detail. They see him as learning gradually to be a prophet and having to feel his way at times like most Church members. In between the revelations, he was left to himself to work out the methods of complying with the Lord’s commandments. Sometimes he had to experiment until he found the right way.
“3. These newly revived Latter-day Saints also develop a more philosophical attitude toward history. They come to see (like professional historians) that facts can have many interpretations. Negative facts are not necessarily as damning as they appear at first sight. Put in another context along side other facts, they do not necessarily destroy Joseph Smith’s reputation.
“4. Revived Latter-day Saints focus on the good things they derive from their faith–the community of believers, the comforts of the Holy Spirit, the orientation toward the large questions of life, contact with God, moral discipline, and many others. They don’t want to abandon these good things. Starting from that point of desired belief, they are willing to give Joseph Smith and the doctrine a favorable hearing. They may not be absolutely certain about every item, but they are inclined to see the good and the true in the Church.”
Chris,
Just because Fowler’s model is complex (and I readily admit it is) doesn’t mean that it cannot be used as a rationalization to reject the LDS faith.
There are, in fact, many justifications for leaving the faith that are complex. And many complex reasons for following them.
It doesn’t mean that the LDS faith is for children, the simple-minded, and the spiritually immature only, which is the upshot of how some cultural Mormons are using Fowler.
Just because some people use it to justify themselves leaving, does not mean that Fowlers work itself should be ridiculed. You may not be meaning to do that. It is sort of like when right wing bafoons use Nibley (I have some specifics in mind), it does not make Nibley the problem. Many reject Nibley not on the basis of Nibley but based on how other use it. For what it is worth.
I apologize for not including the link to Bushman’s talk: http://dan-christiansen.blogspot.com/2008_08_01_archive.html
I accept the concept of spiritual maturity and the realization during one’s growth that things are more complex than one was taught as a child.
I reject the concept that spiritual maturity requires one to reject organized religion or an anthropomorphic God. Fowler certainly goes in that direction, either openly or by implication.
My main concern is how Fowler’s model is being used by some as a stick to beat the Church of Jesus Christ.
Yes, this post simplifies the “stages of faith” — but it also addresses how they are most often used and presented.
Not a bad discussion to have.
As long as we are talking about spiritual maturity, how are we to reconcile reflective intellectualism with “except ye become as little children ye can in nowise enter the kingdom of Heaven”?
We can present a complex analysis, but if our spiritual journey leads us to anywhere else than exercising simple, childlike faith in Heavenly Father’s love for all of his children, are we following the words of Jesus or the prophets (ancient or modern)?
Anything can be used in a self-serving or self-justifying manner. But many who quote Fowler come off as smugly implying that being a faithful LDS is infantile.
P.S. Not that Bushman is a subject here, but I find myself described pretty well in his description quoted by DavidH above. My faith just has never been shaken. It could be that I am a convert and had to learn the LDS essentials without community/family support so it never had an element of conformism in it.
The best (and when I say best, I mean worst) think about Fowler’s stages is that those in a higher stage can just shake their head in sadness at us down lower because we just don’t understand how we are trapped. It is a self gratifying spectrum. The better you think you are than anything organized, you higher up you are.
The hypothetical question I can’t get a Fowler pundit to answer is this, “What if God did establish a religion and had it run by humans? How would that work in Fowler’s stages?” Nobody can because they see religion and true faith as mutually exclusive. It seems like they are limiting God…
I have nothing to say about Fowler’s work specifically, but it seems that those who are condemning it are guilty of the same crimes they are accusing him of!
The original post rejects Fowler’s stages of types of belief as implying a hiearchy, but the suggests that it is the “unbeleivers” who “rationalize” who are actually at a lower status of faith.
It seems that a great deal of Mormonism is based on the idea of there being a hierarchy of faith and knowledge, between those inside and outside, as well as among those inside.
It seems to me that what is being rejected is not in fact the idea of a self-indulgent hierarchy, since his critics here are doing the exact same thing, but that it is a hiearchy which is different from the one his critics hold.
DavidH- that copy of the transcript, for what it’s worth, was lifted without attribution from my little blog. I wouldn’t care too much, but the dude stole my opening paragraph.
http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2008/08/bushmans-introduction-to-joseph-smith.html
My beef with Fowler’s stages is that I have seen it used to justify certain beliefs. For example, some would tacitly believe that anyone on a stage higher than 4 would see that there really were no gold plates. But what if there actually were gold plates? What does Fowler’s stages have to do with the historical reality of a set of records translated by the gift and power of God? Fowler’s stages, then, are very restrictive in certain areas. Where do we classify the person who believes in a local flood and evolution, but also believes Moroni visited Joseph Smith?
I think Fowler’s stages can be a useful description of a certain development of faith, but that is the limit, I believe.
Those who criticize Fowler’s descriptions as license for looking down on the more “simple-minded” who still accept literal gold plates, or think they jettison the possibility of “becoming as a little child” don’t have a full perspective. My own experience with the Church has largely mirrored Fowler’s stages through 4 and into 5, and I think I’m a much better, more faithful Latter-day Saint because of it.
I don’t reject literal gold plates or revelation. If people differ on whether there was or wasn’t a global or a local flood, it doesn’t bother me anymore. I am much more tolerant and charitable of everyone else at their various stages of faith. I don’t try to straitjacket everyone else’s faith or testimony or experiences into a correlated “approved” format anymore. It’s not for me to “classify” others into any particular stage. I don’t see into their hearts; I’ll leave that to God.
I believe my faith and trust in God my Father has become much more childlike than it was years ago. I love the gospel, try to keep my covenants, and try to follow the Savior’s teachings in dealing with all of God’s children. I have met and talked with many members of the Church who say the same.
No, Fowler was not omniscient. Sure, his stages of faith can be misused or manipulated for less than good ends. But let’s not reject them out of hand for that. I think they’re pretty good.
I’ve also been unimpressed by Fowler’s stages of faith because of the doctrinaire aspects that it describes as maturity.
As an alternative approach, I like the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth, which lacks the self-certified doctrinal overlay, and focuses on attitudes about authority, certainty, epistolomogy, and tolerance. Here is the Perry Scheme:
POSITION 9. Commitments in Relativism further developed.
The person now has a developed sense of irony and can more easily embrace other’s viewpoints. He can accept life as just that “life”, just the way IT is! Now he holds the commitments he makes in a condition of “PROVISIONAL ULTIMACY”, meaning that for him what he chooses to be truth IS his truth, and he acts as if it is ultimate truth, but there is still a “provision” for change. He has no illusions about having “arrived” permanently on top of some heap, he is ready and knows he will have to retrace his journey over and over, but he has hope that he will do it each time more wisely. He is aware that he is developing his IDENTITY through Commitment. He can affirm the inseparable nature of the knower and the known–meaning he knows he as knower contributes to what he calls known. He helps weld a community by sharing realization of aloneness and gains strength and intimacy through this shared vulnerability. He has discarded obedience in favor of his own agency, and he continues to select, judge, and build.
Kevin Christensen
Pittsburgh, PA
Kevin, what is the best source to read Perry’s overall scheme? Is there a book, and is there a more concise article? Thanks.
Blair,
There is a book, which I have not read. Wikipedia has an entry on Perry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_G._Perry
Veda Hale introduced me to the Perry Scheme (10 years ago?) by sending me an Appendix to a paper she had done at a Sunstone. She used it to chart the progress of characters in an LDS novel.
I’ve posted the concise summary that she sent me to MAD Board and ZLMB (back in the day). I could post that here if you like. Or email it to you.
Kevin Christensen
Pittsburgh, PA
An excellent discussion, thanks all for this. I have just picked up the most recent Skeptics Magazine and it has a very good article on Kubler Ross’s stages of dying / grieving. There is very good evidence that the rigidity and “stageness” of her formulation (which is probably the best accepted stage theory and has been used in lots of therapy etc.) came from observational work and may have been heavily influenced by Ross’s own unresolved anger over issues in her youth (therefore she placed a very large emphasis on anger being one of the stages that everyone goes through). What I am trying to get to is that these stages are a far more accepted and at least much more utilized “stage theory”. Fowler may have come up with a nice set of stages but there is no good empirical evidence that says it is the correct set of stages, or even allowing that the stages are at least close to some people’s spiritual journey, others may not follow in the same order.
Kevin, that would be great if you post it to MAD or emailed it. Thanks.
BHodges,
My apologies for not having linked to your original. I could not recall which site first posted it (although I do now that you reminded me). For some reason when I googled the info I knew, it did not bring up your site. Go figure.
Thanks for originally posting it.
I am somewhat bemused, to say the least, by this negative commentary on a theory that I have regularly seen discussed as a positive tool for keeping people in the LDS Church. You practically turn it into a wedge against folks who find solace in it. Pretty disappointing.
And I agree with the comments that see no small irony in the gesture. Let the fight to see who is *really* the uber-Mormon end! Such silliness.
Trevor,
If you read the comments you’ll note that several people, including myself, have noted that the Stages of Faith may be helpful for some people, and that spiritual growth is certainly true.
The problem, as I’ve explained, is that some people use the stages as a stick with which to beat the Church. They attempt to demonstrate that they have moved on to a more mature spirituality that doesn’t include an authoritarian church structure or silly notions like real gold plates. That’s where they’re wrong.
Trevor: I would certainly not argue that the Fowler theory is always a bad thing. I would argue, however, that it is a limited theory, and can be misused. I think it is overly-simplistic. If it helps someone maintain faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ, so be it. But I also believe that faith still ought to be independent of a stage theory. I think something ironic about the stages is that those in the higher stages ought to be the ones pointing out the limitations of it. 😉