In part 1 of a 3-part series, we interview Dan Wotherspoon (Editor of Sunstone Magazine) and Tom Kimball (head of sales and marketing for Signature Books), as they discuss James Fowler’s work entitled, “Stages of faith: The psychology of human development.” In episode 1, Dan Wotherspoon outlines the basics of Fowler’s “Stages of Faith.”
To listen directly to this episode, click here.
[…] To comment on this episode, please click here. […]
Very interesting and perhaps importance. I don’t think enough study and commentary has been made on the issue of what is common to all religions. It’s especially significant to how we do missionary work as well as apologetics.
I’m still listening, so I’ll hold off making too many comments.
BTW - some might find this list of the stages useful.
While I’m listening I’ve done a bit of web searching. I think the last two categories are most problematic. What Fowler seems to promote is a kind of contentless faith. Notice how the scientific worldview is not-so subtly put down towards a more new-agey view where facts don’t matter. (See this page for example)
Needless to say I find that a deeply problematic view of the faith. That is, Stage 5, seems problematic. Obvious example, does the law of gravity provide one right way? How do I treat this?
It is one thing to allow competing ideas to remain unresolved. It is quite an other to simply say it doesn’t matter and that there aren’t some things we can’t resolve.
Perhaps this is just the way that particular page engages with the issue.
I should add that I don’t find all the statements attributed to Stage 5 as bad. (i.e. the ability to entertain competing views without getting upset or needing my view to prevail) Yet there are lots of issues here that seem like they need further clarification.
I’ve seen several people criticize Fowler’s Stages of Faith after reading only a one-page summary that they disagree with. I think you’re on the right track, Clark, when you ask whether the web site in question is taking stage theory in a different direction. I highly recommend reading the book itself, as I’ve seen a few summaries out there that seemed to completely miss the mark.
I guess my problem Abner was that I didn’t see the podcast clarifying things. It’ll be interesting to see if the second half clarifies these issues.
Clark and Abner
I’ll try and make this as simple as I can but I’m not sure I can say this without offending. But my intent is not to offend. Fowler’s stage theory is really for those who doubt or are in transition about their beliefs. Those who aren’t in this transition or who don’t doubt, won’t really understand. For example: I tried explaining stages of faith to my brother who is a bishop and very clearly a stage three person. His comment, after I described stages three-through-five was that he was in stage five because I described myself as stage four and I must be behind him due to my crisis of faith.
To put this as simply as I can. If you believe that Mormonism provides all or most of the answers for you and that in the end it’s the only true church, your probably in stage three and thus will not be able to grasp much of this conversation and probably should stay out of it because your only going to muddy it and cause more pain for those in stage four. On the other hand, if your finding yourself in a crisis of faith and that our tradition isn’t providing the answers that you feel that you need. Fowler’s book may provide a discussion that helps one stay Mormon or at least maintain your community while in transit to the more healthy stage five.
Obviously this may not work for everyone but I find it of value and most people that I talk to who are in a crisis of faith find at least some of this discussion helpful if not outright hopeful. But so far, my discussions about stage theory with true believers has been a disaster.
Tom Kimball
Clark, I’m not clear on what point exactly you have beef with on stage 5. Here’s the quote from the page you cited:
In an overall sense, and ignoring semantic issues, I’d say that describes my faith as it is now. But if you break down a couple lines on semantics I could see problems.
For example if the line “even though I value the logic and rationality of science, I know there are things that cannot be explained” is saying that there are some things that have *no answer at all*, that is problematic. I’m not convinced that should be implied, though.
Another statement ” Coming to this understanding means that I do not have to make others wrong in order for my ideas to be right.” has a greater chance of implying a problematic concept. I find it hard to accept that paradox is a natural and eternal thing. I lean towards the idea that paradox is not a true perception of the issue, but rather just a reflection of our incomplete understanding of all its elements. So if stage 5 is truly about maturing to a point of accepting that paradox exists, its a no sale. In my stage of faith I do accept that there are things which my understanding can’t resolve, but I still believe that there is some kind of absolute resolution to it somewhere.
Tom, my concern isn’t with regards to religion but as a principle in general. The stages ostensibly come from a discussion of psychological development and thus deal presumably with innate structures in the human psyche. If, as you seem to suggest, they just deal with religious doubt, then that seriously throws into question their very reality. At a bear minimum the very sense that they are stages in a natural progression seems inappropriate.
Ultimately the question is whether these stages are something real or not. If it is merely bad pseudo-science. . .
I found this interview with Fowler and I have to say it was enlightening. He is definitely very compelling and I think his ideas deserve consideration.
Tom, it seems you just did the same thing your bishop brother did to you. Essentially: “I believe my mind is superior, thus someone who does not reach the same conclusions must be inferior.” Attaching that judgement to a person’s position in a journey, rather than the potential of their intellect, is really just a way to soften the blow. It was unfair when your brother did it to you, and I think it was unfair of you here.
BTW, what does true believer even mean? It seems that the way its used (often seen as TBM) by mormons during/after faith crisis it represents a wholesale acceptance of the most orthodox McKonkie-esue version of the LDS church, and in some more derisive situations, including a lack of critical thought altogether. I would suggest this question (really, for anyone to ask of themselves):
Would you be willing to accept that a person of equal intellect and reason as yourself could follow the same course of inquiry and end up disagreeing with you?
Clay, I’d actually read that interview too, while doing Google searches. My concern is that his stage 5 and stage 6 seem to be little more than a particular religious belief that he feels is correct. In other words his stage 5 and 6 are really manifestations of stage 3 thinking. That’s fine. I don’t mind that. I’m not particularly troubled, like some, by more universalist religious thinking. But let’s at least call a spade a spade and not pretend this is some innate psychological development or structure. It’s just an other religious claim dressed up in apologetics. As such it’s not that much different than what religious thinkers often do.
Thom, Clay’s quote also seems somewhat problematic to me. I’ll not address his claims directly, beyond simply suggesting that I certainly don’t think Mormonism provides all answers for me. Indeed overall I think Mormonism only provides very few answers. Perhaps ones that we think are important, but they certainly make up a tiny fragment of the things I think I know. I believe science provides overall far more answers, although once again perhaps not answers that are as important overall.
This is ultimately my point though. If we apply the scheme to most of our thinking, then science and objective knowledge claims are denegrated to a “Stage 3″ which I find problematic. Not from a religious basis but more from a broader sense of science as something through which we can arrive at answers.
Sorry for the thread-peppering, but my interest has been piqued.
I found this comment from Fowler quite important and noteworthy:
Especially in light of the spirit of Mormon Stories podcasts, as well as LDSLF’s What Next, I think Fowler is dead on the money there. In the context of mormonism, this recapitulation would actually be more similar to Catholic healing than we might think.
The Catholic church is well known for its doctrinal diversity all over the world. You could be taught a totally different gospel from one region to another. Our organization is often praised in church meeting discussions for avoiding that problem so well. Yet, right from the beginning of this church there was a lot of diversity in the theologies of the early apostles. From that time forward, we have numerous conflicts between teachings of those who were apostles or even prophets. If we revered every apostle in church history the way we do modern apostles, and then compare their teachings on similar subjects, we’d find we have similar problems to Catholics after all.
Perhaps even a majority of LDS can go their whole lives without actually digging deep enough to notice the conflicts let alone deal with them. However, there are still a significant number who will deal with it eventually. Where Fowler has wisdom is that we as a community will better serve our members by at least providing a way for them to experience that recapitulation in an environment of support and faith. It is exactly in line with John Dehlin’s proclaimed purpose of the Mormon Stories podcasts. If there is no opportunity within a context of worship and support, they will have to turn to the many opportunities in the context of faith-abandonment.
Is the theological diversity of the Catholic church really larger than the LDS church? There really is a huge amount of diversity in LDS theology, even if you only stick to the writings of GAs and ignore the attempts to work out our theology. It seems that LDS theology isn’t quite as burdened by commitments to creeds. This opens up quite a few avenues. Also we don’t have figures like Augustine and Aquinas in our history of theology. Thus I think there is more room for theological innovation.
Consider at a minimum the following topics: what is a spirit? what is spirit birth? what is the nature of God the Father? While there is definitely a mainstream view on each, one needn’t read much LDS thought to see that there is a huge amount of diversity on those questions. Far more than I think one can find within Catholic circles.
Clay
It’s unfortunate that you feel that way but it’s been my sad experience that stage theory isn’t for believers. I’ve had hundreds of discussions about Fowler with people and each time I discuss it with someone who is dealing with issues of doubt, the discussion usually leads to hope and understanding. Without exception when I’ve had this discussion with stage three believers and it’s ended with me being viewed as an apostate or one delving into new-age pseudo-science.
I knew my comment would come across as stage four being superior to stage three and I don’t feel this way at all. This seems to be a major problem with stage theory as it often comes across as who’s better than whom. When It’s really a discussion of describing people’s reactions when they are at different stages of development. For example: In my experience those in stage three often judge those in stage four as a heretic or believe that somehow if they pray, read the scriptures ext. they will become true believers like the person in stage three. Because I’m really entrenched in stage four, I often find myself feeling like those in stage five are sell-outs who have too much of a toe hold in stage three. Of course none of this is true, it’s just the nature of the beast.
In stage theory, no stage can be skipped and each is heathy for a period of time. The stages are only unhealthy when people stop progressing and get stuck in any of the earlier stages. For example it’s very healthy for a 19-21 year-old Mormon to be entrenched in conformity of the orthodoxy. It’s unhealthy for a fifty year old to be at that same stage thirty years later. I moved into stage four in my thirty’s and this is probably late. (A clear reflection of my immaturity)
To answer your question about what I view as a True Believer is essentially stage three. One who is in the conformist, orthodoxy of their tradition and one who looks to their tradition for most answers.
Tom
Clark
Yea, I really don’t think we can have this conversation until you read Fowler or better yet Ken Wilber. And even then I’m not sure. But I have hope that there is something in stage theory that is useful for you. Stage theory is really simple when it needs to be and it’s either helpful or it isn’t. You seem to find it problematic so I wouldn’t bother with it right now. But maybe one day it might be helpful. Who knows? But if there is someone out there who wants someone to talk to about this away from an open forum, they are welcome to write me or even call me and I would be happy to chat.
Tom
Tom
Hi Tom,
Thanks a lot for your responses to the comments posted here. I have been in the so called “stage four” for a couple of years now pretty much ready to abandon my belief. I found your conversation with John Dehlin to be very helpful for me. I feel like I have been spinning my wheels in this stage and I don’t want to be bitter and critical for the rest of my life. Stage five would be a nice place to be as I always enoyed being Mormon but lost my faith due to the typical reasons,,,in depth study and discovery of things as they really took place. My question to you is; Do you really thing that one can be stage 5 in the Mormon Church? How does one truly participate ie. callings, temple, bishop interviews, expressing ones views in priesthood or Sunday School, testimony meetings, etc, without being a hypocrite? Lately I feel like I would still like to be spiritual and nurture that part of me and my “tradition” happens to be the Mormon Church. Can I really have my cake and eat it too? Or, to paraphrase Jeff Holland, am to believe that the church is not a “buffet”,,,the lukewarm shall be spit out?
Thanks again,
Cheers!
Thank you for this podcast. Me and my wife read Stages of Faith about 3 years ago and we are still having conversations on a weekly basis about his theory. The comments here have also been fascinating to hear. Most of them are obviously made be people who have NOT read the book. In fact Fowler describes himself as a Stage 4 person. He none the less finds great value in Stage 5. He however emphatically states that he knows 6 when he sees it, but REALLY explaining it is VERY difficult.
I have not listened to part 2 & 3 of the broadcast so I am unsure if this will be covered, but I will bring it up here because it is illuminating in light of several comments above. Fowler notes that Stage 3 people think that Stage 4 people are apostates and there is usually a strong feeling by Stage 3 people for Stage 4 people who hate it when Stage 4 people insist on deconstructing the belief systems of Stage 3 people.
On the other hand Stage 4 people seem to think that Stage 3 people are not critical thinkers and are afraid to really find out what they believe. In addition Stage 4 people tend to think that Stage 5 people ARE in fact stage 3 person who has just given up on the quest for truth.
In the above comments as well as in many others conversations that I have participated in, these misunderstandings between Stage 3/4/ and 5 people have been enourmously evident.
Finally I want to point out that according to Fowler level 5 IS NOT just gaining a tolerance for ambiquity in ones life nor is it a retreat from fact into pseudo fact as many have suggested here. It is as described in Part 1 as a “reintegration” of old and new schema into a new schema which leaves out neither faith nor reason.
Tom, if I may, I think the point you are making is that Stage Theory becomes meaningful to a person in the midst of or having experienced a crisis of faith. Prior to that it is an interesting concept, but perhaps little more than that.
I read Fowler in the early nineties after seeing a reference to his book. It was interesting but not impactful, and quite frankly not very memorable.
After my own crisis of faith I read it again. It was like reading an entirely different book. Rather than an academic dicsussion of stages it gave me context for - and a sense of direction in - my faith.
I’m glad to see this topic being discussed.
If I’m not mistaken, the four stages of faith really are:
1. Stupid ignorant believer.
2. Intelligent learning doubter.
3. Brilliant omniscient disbeliever.
4. Editor at Sunstone, Dialogue, or Signature Books.
Clark wrote: The stages ostensibly come from a discussion of psychological development and thus deal presumably with innate structures in the human psyche. If, as you seem to suggest, they just deal with religious doubt, then that seriously throws into question their very reality. At a bear minimum the very sense that they are stages in a natural progression seems inappropriate.
Ultimately the question is whether these stages are something real or not. If it is merely bad pseudo-science. . .
Dan replies: The distinction I’d make here is that Fowler is working with real data (he and his group performed hundreds of interviews of people of all ages and walks of life), whereas the decision to organize that data into “stages” in general, and the six stages they came up with, in particular, was Fowler and gang’s theoretical work. Many other developmental thinkers come up with a different number of stages, etc. But though obviously convinced that there is “something to” developmental theory (Fowler’s mentor was Erik Erikson, a famous developmental thinker), I would not think Fowler’s work in any way approaches “pseudo-science.” His book has appendices showing the study’s methodology and quantification of the data. And having interacted with him twice in person, I can attest that he’s very careful, indeed quite humble, in presenting these materials.
As far as your saying that the stages presumably deal with “innate structures in the human psyche,” I’d not hang your understanding or thoughts about Fowler on that assumption. Certainly Fowler and other developmental theorists recognize that certain types of mental functions can’t be achieved until the brain reaches full development, but my sense of the stages as he presents them is that they are more related to a person’s experiences than innate psychological structures.
I’m enjoying the discussion here. Hope to see it continue!
Dust
About Stage five and the Mormon Church. I do think it’s possible to be in stage five and to find your self within the context of the Mormon church, but the first thing is to realize and forgive the rhetoric of the leaders. That’s something I struggle with everyday. But the rest of it is still a work in progress for me. But I have hope. (I know I didn’t really answer your question but I’m asking the same question myself)
Clinton
Yep!
Wag
Ahhh, well, …. read the book… ha!
I would like to think it’s more like.
1. The world is safe (or not)
2. The world is us and them.
3. Our complex myth among many complex myths is the only one that’s true and dang it, it’s complex.
4. Our myth probably isn’t true and in the end, all of it is just crap.
5. All myth has value (Including my original myth)
6. Jesus, Gandhi, Thomas Merton, Martin Luther King Jr.
But it’s much more complicated. Read the book and come to Sunstone. We can chat there.
Tom
I just posted a photo of my “stage four” family on John Dehlin’s website.
http://www.frappr.com/mormonstoriespodcast/photo/1147249
Enjoy.
Tom
I think this framework is probably quite helpful for a lot of people, and I’m glad this discussion is here. Almost any idea that helps people in doubt find peace and value within the LDS framework is something that I’ll support.
I’ve had the chance to develop a close professional familiarity with two families of stage theories. First, there was a collection of theories from the 1960s about the stages of economic and/or political development. Probably the most famous of these is Rostow’s. Second is the set of psychological stage theories related to the development of political identity.
These quite different stage theories share a set of weaknesses that may well apply to all stage theories. First, each stage is a complex set of attributes that are not necessarily simultaneously developed. Second, the proposed sequence of stages almost always has a substantial number of exceptions — people or countries who “skip” stages, who “revert” to earlier stages, or who develop via combinations of attributes that don’t show up in any of the stages at all. Third, stage theories are unhelpfully teleological, implicitly carrying the assumption that life (national existence, etc.) is fundamentally about reaching the final stage in the theory. But in actual fact, life choices or whatever are almost always made because of current pressures and perceptions — not because of the ultimate outcomes they will produce.
As far as I can tell, Fowler’s stages share these generic limitations of stage theories. As such, I wonder if it might be better to think of his model in therapeutic rather than causal-scientific terms.
Dust,
You’ve definitely hit on what is likely for most the closest-to-the-heart issue of Stage Four-folk who are still hoping to stay connected to their religious tradition and feel comfortable in their families and various parenting roles, etc.
In one of the other installments of the podcast Tom and I did, we talked about Fowler’s notion that churches have “centers of gravity” faith-development wise. (Actually, “center of gravity” is a Ken Wilber term that he applies to societies and cultures. Fowler’s term, borrowed from Kenneth Keniston, is “modal developmental level.”)
For Fowler, a church’s modal development level is “the average expectable level of development for adults in a given community. In faith terms, it refers to the conscious or unconscious image of adult faith toward which the educational practices, religious celebrations and patterns of governance in a community all aim. The modal level operates as a kind of magnet in religious communities. Patterns of nurture prepare children and youth to grow up to the modal level—but not beyond it. . . . The operation of the modal level in a community sets an effective limit on the ongoing process of growth in faith.”
Fowler believes that although Jesus’s highest teachings calls people to a Stage Six-type spirituality, most Christian traditions have a modal developmental level at Stage Three or just barely above. And that makes sense. Any organization will run more smoothly if those who are part of it are pre-persuaded that its values and principles are the end-all of all wisdom, etc. In the case of churches, that their teachings are quite literally true and their way of doing things is the way God has set things up to go. Having a bunch of Stage Four-types who are busy deconstructing and trying to figure out the world fresh and relying upon their own gut and judgment does not make for always great commitment (and jobs/callings being performed), etc.
The trick, then, is to find hope even as you go through Stage Four-type developmental processes that things will get clearer and more peaceful if you keep pushing ahead (and to feel this hope even as the gravity of the collective is trying to pull you to stay with the group and talk Stage Three language, etc). As Tom talks about, the key is to try to trust that there actually are Stage Five putting-things-back-together excitement ahead if you’ll keep open to that possibility and continue to move through the “dark night of the soul” kind of thing that Stage Four feels like.
I can only offer my own experience with these processes and say that things can and do get easier when we trust that we’re on a journey and stay open to insight and wisdom from fellow travelers on the spiritual path. One of the neat Fowler-things that has become more and more exciting for me to explore and re-read as I’ve felt it happening in my own life, is the notion of coming to feel one’s spiritual “vocation,” a felt “calling” of sorts that one is in his or her spiritual home. It’s a bit like Joseph Campbell’s “finding one’s bliss,” but quite a bit more than that.
What I’ve found, and I can only speak for myself (though I’ve read this in accounts of other LDS journeyers), is that a new testimony slowly emerges that one “knows the Church is home,” or “knows that this is where one is called to work and serve and grow.” It’s a kind of peace that it is indeed right (in Carol Lynn Pearson’s words) to “bloom where you are planted.” I play with this stuff a bit in the podcast but mostly under the terms of pushing past the “scandal of the particular” (which I won’t go into here but can later, if you’re interested). If I could do the podcast over again, I’d definitely spend a bit of time on this notion of “vocation” and the sort of coming to an understanding between you and God that you’re exactly where God wants you and where your talents can best serve the divine will (and you can know the joy of full flourishing that such a sense and doing those activities brings).
And key to your query is that when fed by this sense of vocation and a strong remembrance of the spiritual battles that you’ve fought to come to that spot, it really does become easier to negotiate the SS lessons and other “church” stuff you mention in your post.
Anyway, that’s my two cents. Glad you’re enjoying the podcasts.
Dust said: “Do you really thing that one can be stage 5 in the Mormon Church?… Lately I feel like I would still like to be spiritual and nurture that part of me and my “tradition” happens to be the Mormon Church. Can I really have my cake and eat it too?”
Tom said: “I do think it’s possible to be in stage five and to find your self within the context of the Mormon church, but the first thing is to realize and forgive the rhetoric of the leaders.”
I say:
Great discussion. Like Dust, I’m struggling with the question of whether the church has a place for non-stage 3 people (or in my case, people who don’t believe in most of the literal, exclusive truth claims of the church, but who still have deep ties to the community and find some value in familiar LDS myths).
I agree with Tom that existing as a stage 5 in the context of the Mormon church does indeed involve “forgiving the rhetoric of the leaders.” In my experience, it also involves forgiving (or ignoring) the attitudes of many members, keeping your mouth tightly shut, and relegating yourself to the fringes of the community.
So the key question for me is this: Does it ultimately make more sense to try to endure the discomfort of participating in a religious community that struggles to accept people outside stage 3—or move to a different community that embraces, supports, and accepts people who prefer a more universal and non-literalist approach to religion and spirituality?
Right now, I’m leaning toward the latter option, but I’m definitely open to other alternatives. If I could find a way to make the LDS church work for me, it would be much, much easier for my family and me.
P.S.: As others have mentioned, I’m not totally comfortable speaking in terms of “stages,” because it sort of implies that higher stages are somehow superior or more evolved than lower ones, which I don’t believe is the case. There are many different approaches to religion and spirituality. Different approaches work for different people. And people should be free to pursue the approach that works best for them. In my case, I’m just not sure that freedom exists inside the LDS church—as much as I would like to convince myself otherwise.
Sorry, one more quick question…
Does moving from Stage 4 to Stage 5 always necessarily involve coming to terms with and finding peace inside your own religious tradition–or can it involve finding peace in a new or different religious tradition?
In other words, is converting to a different religion ever part of the tearing apart and putting back together process of moving from Stage 4 to Stage 5, or does Fowler only talk about moving from stage to stage in the context of a single religious tradition?
Sorry for my ignorance. I’m one of those people who have read a lot about Fowler–without ever actually having read Fowler.
I plan to remedy that soon…
Third, stage theories are unhelpfully teleological, implicitly carrying the assumption that life (national existence, etc.) is fundamentally about reaching the final stage in the theory.
This is fundamentally my concern, along with some skepticism regarding the cognitive nature of the theory.
Square said: Does moving from Stage 4 to Stage 5 always necessarily involve coming to terms with and finding peace inside your own religious tradition–or can it involve finding peace in a new or different religious tradition?
That’s a really good question. (Remember I consider myself still in stage four) But part of stage five is finding value in all traditions (and problems in all traditions) The reason I’m trying to stay in my tradition is it’s the tradition I know and love. Trading traditions may just be sliding from one stage three tradition to another stage three tradition. I see a lot of converts to Mormonism from other traditions who are essentially still stage three type people. So It’s a tricky question and really an individual thing.
One thing also to remember. When Dan first explained Fowlers stages to me, I instantly thought I was stage five. (and I think most people do this) It wasn’t until I really wrapped my mind around the subject that I realized that I was really between three and four. I feel that I’m currently fully entrenched in four and it’s very possible that I may never find five. But five gives me hope because that’s where metaphysics returns.
If you get Fowlers book It might help to skip all the introduction stuff and go right to the stages. The interviews Fowler published really do a better job explaining the stages in my opinion.
Good luck
Tom
Tom,
Just wanted to say I appreciated your story. I’m glad your bishop let you do it. I’ve always felt a little uncomfortable, even when I was more orthodox, about the idea that God would allow the weak faith or even unworthiness (to a of one person to diminish the blessings that would be conveyed on another.
As I’ve continued to give Stage Theory more thought, here is what I’m feeling currently (rather than saying I’ve decided anything):
I find the subject fascinating and a good track for discussion, but [quasi]ultimately I don’t feel like its a healthy thing for me to use for myself. I understand that thousands of interviews were conducted and these stages reflect highly repeating trends in psychological behavior, but… trying to evaluate myself based on the data from thousands, even millions, of others is still too limiting of my own potential.
To this point, my life has been somewhat characterized by breaking trends like that. I came from a cycle of poverty, a father with no ambition or responsibility who also physically abused my mother, a mother who was emotionally abusive and neglecting, a complete lack of developmental guidance. According to behavioral research which was also derived from thousands of subjects, I should be quite a horrible mess. But I am none of those things. My wife talks about the contrast of who I am and where I came from as if its something extremely remarkable. It just feels normal to me. I don’t feel like I am exerting any unusual amount of energy to rise above. I just wanted to be something better and I chose a different path. I think it takes more energy to ignore the assumption that history should determine my course than it actually took to follow a different one.
Stage theory offers a possible self-analysis in the context of all these other people. Yet, none of those people have lived my life. None of them felt my exact pain and the exact kind of empowerment I now feel from understanding my place in the world and in relationship to God. (That understanding is distinctly characterized by the theology taught by Joseph Smith in particular. Regardless of Joseph’s problems and weaknesses, I am indebted to him nonetheless.)
Roasted Tomatoes writes: “Stage theories are unhelpfully teleological, implicitly carrying the assumption that life (national existence, etc.) is fundamentally about reaching the final stage in the theory. But in actual fact, life choices or whatever are almost always made because of current pressures and perceptions — not because of the ultimate outcomes they will produce.
As far as I can tell, Fowler’s stages share these generic limitations of stage theories. As such, I wonder if it might be better to think of his model in therapeutic rather than causal-scientific terms.”
Dan responds: I think these are valid concerns, and certainly the podcast discussions initiated by Tom were motivated by the therapeutic use he and many of us have made of Fowler’s model. But as I responded to Clark earlier, it’s important not to forget that the descriptions Fowler and gang created were not pulled out of thin air but were based on a body of evidence that said “x number of people shared this basic orientation to life and faith; x number, this one; x number, this; etc.” Now, if the data was merely a snapshot, it would certainly be eyebrow-raising to call them “stages” rather than “groupings,” or something similar. But the fact is that within the data itself are accounts of the interviewees own journeying to that point, that they “used to see things one way, but now see them another.” And if one is to take that aspect of the data seriously, it certainly suggests that when dealing with faith, we’re dealing with movement. And if that movement shows that one orientation transcends yet still includes in a healthy way another, it’s fair, I believe, to declare that there’s at least reasonable validity to overlaying the data with the notion that we may be viewing “development” of some sort.
I recognize that because of the potential for misuse, it’s right to be cautious in talking about “final causes” or natural “entelechy” (in Aristotle’s terms), but I don’t think that nervousness should become so overriding that we give up that we ever have a right to speak about hierarchies. (Wilber is very helpful in articulating why it’s impossible. Happy to share more if anyone bites on this.)
In short, cautions and nervousness noted. The podcasts have played up the therapeutic usefulness of stage theory. My hope is that just because stage theory implies that there is a telos to faith (Stage Six-type of radical identification with God’s will and purposes–or, if one isn’t a theist, the will and purposes of the universe), and though it’s good to be cautious about anything that smacks of ranking or better-than/worse-than, etc., no one will disregard the value of the descriptive elements of these studies.
As RT says, “in actual fact, life choices or whatever are almost always made because of current pressures and perceptions — not because of the ultimate outcomes they will produce.” Fowler and gang captured exactly this kind of data. No one talking with the researchers spoke with the idea that they were going to be categorized in a developmental schema. When we act, final cause/telos is just one of many factors that influence us. But we can’t ignore that it IS still a factor, and if Fowler’s model speaks well to human experiences and provides hope and motivation toward what seems to be a healthy, mature, soul-making telos, it’s worth exploring some more, I think.
Tom, thanks for the picture of your family. It was pretty frightening, confirming my impression of you as an angry man who is leading his precious posterity in the paths of hostility. (wink)
You offer stage theory as a hopeful thing for doubters. As someone in stage 4 trying to drag myself into stage 5 (but scared of stage 6, because most of those folks seem to die untimely deaths!) I appreciate stage theory because it does offer hope that things will start to calm down and make more sense again. To be clear on who I am, I have moved outside the Mormon tradition, but am actively trying to make peace with my Mormon past as well.
I’m starting to exhibit at least a few signs of moving to Stage 5…more of an acceptance of myths and rituals, including Mormon ones to some extent. But I wonder whether I will ever get over my allergy to all things Stage-3. (Symptoms: eye-rolling, tongue-biting, frequent urges to stand up and leave.) It seems like even people who got to Stage 6…Jesus, Gandhi, MLK Jr….at least occasionally expressed frustration and even disdain over how people act at Stage 3. I’m probably projecting, but I’d guess they felt that frustration more often than what they expressed publicly or what got recorded. Do you see hope, in stage theory or anything related, for me to start feeling less frustrated with family members who seem pretty determined to ride out the rest of their lives at Stage 3?
I fell off the stage at ?????? and the Lord sent me to … Well that is a long story and I won’t go into it here, but I tend to agree with Fowler’s stage theory having seen it from the inside out. Oh, but who would believe? Maybe there is a stage 6.5 where a person hides what he knows until his time is at hand. Or a stage 7 where you become like one of the three Nephies and get tried of the stage 3 people and go underground. Riddles, shadows, types, symbols and patterns all speak in the language of those who have seen, but don’t want to get run out of town by the low staging religious neophytes. I also think stage 5 people are just as dangerous to stage 6 people as are stage 3 people, but for different reasons. Think about!
I thought I would mention a few of my thoughts. I read Fowler’s book about 2 years ago. Unfortunately, I have heard none of the podcasts as they are offline now. I will rectify this on the 1st.
After reading Fowler, I shared it with a former theology (and/or cultural studies) professor and at the time former protestant minister friend of mine (he is presently one of two folks acting as ministers for a local congregation who are without a full time pastor). I was first interested in his ideas when he expressed his Buddhist/Christian worldview. As I read Stages of Faith I knew it was for him. Next time I see him I might ask if I can post a couple of articles he wrote for his church newsletter. He is in my opinion surely a post stage 4 fellow.
I am a LDS. I would consider it presumptuous to say that I am beyond Stage 4, but I know that I have significantly less pain than I did 4-5 years ago. I know that I place great emphasis upon “a fair and just opportunity” to accept the gospel. I know that I see other churches as differing paths that may be optimal for certain individuals in their progression towards a salvific relationship with God. I know that I believe Mother Teresa was far closer to God and a salvific relationship at her death than I was then or now.
That being said, I believe that God is as God is. I respect that an Augustinian Trinity formation might be an optimal focus on God for one person and a Social Trinity formation might be an optimal focus on God for a different person. But God is closer to either the Social or Augustinian formation. I respect that creation ex nihilo has some wonderful power as illustrated by Thomistic thought. I respect that a non creation ex nihilo view has some wonderful power as illustrated by Joseph Smith and elaborated in Thomistic like thought by Paulsen and Ostler. But God’s creation is better described as either ex nihilo or not ex nihilo. There is underlying truth.
I believe paradoxes are wonderful and diversity of paths are a reality, but I do believe there are absolute truths that are mutually exclusive (gravity is gravity even if you think it is chicken soup).
As a LDS I recognize orthopraxy as the path to unity (one true church), and personal communion with God as the ultimate soteriological solution. From this position I believe that orthodoxy is less important. One may enter into an indwelling loving relationship with God even though they are farther from the underlying reality of God and His universe than another who is closer in understanding to the underlying reality of God but has not fully realized their ability to give and receive love to and from God. This does not mean that orthodoxic concerns may hinder ones ability to KNOW God. I personally find the logical development of creation ex nihilo to be problematic. Others have told me that a non-creation ex nihilo God would be less in their mind and hard to worship. God loves us both and wants both of us to unite with Him. One of us is closer to reality than the other, but communion with God is far more important.
Questions of orthodoxy or absolute truth are much less important than questions of ones relational ties to God (and ones ties to God’s other children).
I really do not feel comfortable declaring that I have left behind all of stage 4 or …, but these ideas are my ideas and I have little pain associated with cognitive dissonance (the CD as defined by psychologist not the popular anti-Mormon manifestation).
2+2 is always 4 (gravity is always gravity) even if you believe it is 5(or chicken soup), but if believing it is 5 is something that allows you to move closer to God then I celebrate your belief. I have no doubt that some of my ideas are 2+2=5. I cannot even say that there is no chance that the CoJCoLDS has less 2+2=5 as our binding doctrine than any other structure. But I can say that my intellect and my spiritual witness point me towards the CoJCoLDS as the paradigm containing the most truth and/or freedom to embrace truth. This is the one true church view.
Did I move from 3 to 4 and then back to 3? Perhaps. Did I move from 3 to 4 and then beyond 4? Perhaps.
I do however reject the thought that one cannot be a LDS and be stage 5 or stage 6. I would suggest such dogmatism evidence that one is not actually beyond stage 4 thinking. The CoJCoLDS in my opinion creates a tremendous amount of freedom in that strict orthodoxy is defined in so few places. This is as it was in the early church from my study too.
I am uncomfortable with some of the ways that stage 3 folks in the church are treated by non-LDS and post stage 3 LDS (I am also uncomfortable with some of the ways stage 4 folks in the church are treated by stage 3 LDS). As Fowler suggests, stage 3 folks are very important to a church. I am unconvinced it is necessary or beneficial to try to propel folks beyond their stage 3 paradigms by exposing them to information that could lead to stage 4 pain. This means it may in fact be right for leaders in the church (who are potentially beyond their own crisis of faith) to dissuade stage 4 folks from introducing problems to stage 3 members.
At the same time I have actually pondered the possibility that critics of the church (inside and out) are actually quite important to the growth of stage 4 folks AND mature members who understand stage 4 problems (but are much more faithful to the concept of “one true church” than it seems the folks on this thread), are then critical to the movement beyond stage 4 without loss of faith.
Concerning my concept of different paradigms here is a post I put together with much initial momentum coming from a discussion I had with fellow brother in Christ who is a Catholic friend of mine.
http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=8450&hl=paradigm
Charity, TOm
Hi again,
this is a critic of stage theory speaking.
I think that the theory presented is not very helpful to solve the real problem, which is, that beside a few brave minds, the mainstream of a church, including the church hierarchy, sticks in level three and wants all its members to stay there.
About my critique of the LDS being a bad place to bring up your children, I wanna state the following link to an official church site:
http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/2002.htm/ensign%20august%202002.htm/my%20battle%20with%20samesex%20attraction.htm
talking about how to deal with the homosexual youth within the church. The article describes the story of a young lady who deals with same-sex attraction and who cannot bear the conflicts between her religious beliefs taught by the church and her emotions towards women.
As a consequence, together with her bishop, a “medicine” of constant praying, fasting and daily scripture reading is applied, leading to, well not a heterosexual woman, (though she will probably one day marry because of social pressure), but a well functioning robot, withdrawn from normal life, but reading scripture, compensating her needs in church activities and by praying as much as possible.
What a great method to raise your children.
A visitor from Japan will probably recognize the similarity between your daughter and their newest TOSHIBA robot model. Though the robots cannot yet quote LDS scripture so well…
Anyways, just one aspect of how the LDS church is a bad place to raise your children,
for the other 95% of the children who are lucky to be heterosexual, you’ll find similar problematic educational principles.
So, maybe you should pray about that…
Yours,
Anti Stage-theorist
TOm,
You are my kin. I feel exactly the same way, from start to finish of your post.
Good words, TOm! This comment:
“One may enter into an indwelling loving relationship with God even though they are farther from the underlying reality of God and His universe than another who is closer in understanding to the underlying reality of God but has not fully realized their ability to give and receive love to and from God.”
reminded me of one of my favorite things from Karen Armstrong’s _History of God_:
He [Rumi] tells the humorous tale of Moses and the Shepherd to illustrate the respect we must show to other people’s conceptions of the divine. One day Moses overheard a shepherd talking familiarly to God: he wanted to help God, wherever he was–to wash his clothes, pick the lice off, kiss his hands and feet at bedtime. “All I can say, remembering You,” the prayer concluded, “is ayyyy and ahhhhhhhh.” Moses was horrified. Who on earth did the shepherd imagine he was talking to? The creator of heaven and earth? It sounded as though he were talking to his uncle! The shepherd repented and wandered disconsolately off into the desert, but God rebuked Moses. He did not want orthodox words but burning love and humility. There were no correct ways of talking about God….Any speech about God was as absurd as the shepherd’s, but when a believer looked through the veils to how things really were, he would find that it belied all his human preconceptions.
Peggy
Ok, now I have listened to all three podcasts and I think I should comment a little further. Thanks to Clay and Peggy T for the kind words. I have already repeated the tale about Moses and the Shepard.
Anti-Stage theorist, your comments seem to be far more anti-LDS than anti-stage theory. I suspect your point is that stage 3 Mormonism could not be a positive thing so therefore there is no value in a stage 3 church or in a theory that says such stage 3 thinking is acceptable. I think this misses the point of stage theory all together. Whether as an atheist who KNOWS there is no God or a non-LDS Christian, there are good evidence for the progression through stages. Fowler worked to define “faith” so it could be partially removed from religious connotation (not completely removed as his book focuses much more on religious stage progression).
While specifics are impossible and these are my somewhat distant perceptions (as I have not conducted Fowler like interviews), I would suggest that my sister was never a stage 3 Catholic. She became a stage 3 atheist and today she has stage 4 positions where some things are not answered to her satisfaction within here atheist/agnostic framework.
Contrary to my limited perception on the scanning of this discussion it certainly seems that nobody on the podcast would suggest that one cannot be a post stage 4 LDS. I guess this means that I agree with them
I do not think anything about being post stage 4 entails the denial that truth actually exists. The recognition of our inability to box in said truth seems to be a post stage 4 thing. I would think that the podcast participant would agree contra what some on this thread said about “gravity.”
I agree that most of the messages delivered within our church point towards a stage 3 type understanding, but this seems to be an almost necessary message of any institution with any kind of unity (be it Orthodoxic or Orthopraxic).
Anyway, I really enjoyed the podcast. Thanks to John for all he does.
Charity, TOm
TOm
Good post! I think it wouldn’t be hard to describe Atheism within the context of stage theory.
Ken Wilber has an interesting discussion of “truth” in his book The Marriage of Sense and Soul: Integrating Science and Religion. But I sense from your writing that you may have a better grasp already than I do.
Tom K
Thank you, TOm.
John
Rehi Tom,
no I am not particular against the LDS church. I think that most constitutional religions try to keep people at level three to stay in control over them. If persons recognize that the world is more complex than your 18yo missionary worldview framework and that maybe there is even some truth in other religions than one’s own, the popes and presidents and bishops and priests fear to loose their power, and so they fight against it.
Therefore, all big religions have a dogma of exclusivity like “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” which is just a marketing strategy to keep folks in their pews.
I am not yet sure, but I start to suspect that these negative connotations toward other religions do not originate to Jesus, but were added later on. One example:
Jesus is supposed to have said to “the Jews who believed in him”(John 8,31):
“Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.” (8,44)
So it was not a speech against the “evil Pharisees”, but against the everyday jews which even believed Jesus. Why would he show such a negative attitude against them?
But when you consider the time when the Gospels were written, the first century, following Jesus’ death, the christians were persecuted by the Jews, and because of the longer Jewish tradition, the burden of proof was on the christians to justify their claims.
So they needed a story which points out the corruption of the older, jewish tradition to justify their own, newer tradition.
You can find the exact same story in the book of Mormon, with relation to the christian tradition. Again, the older, christian tradition has to be shown to be corrupt and wrong to justify the new, Mormon religion.
1. Neph 13,26-27 does this perfectly.
The bible is supposed to be corrupt, so the most true book on earth, the BoM had to be brought forth.
Now that we know that the BoM is hardly historical (ask at the hill of Cumorah for archaeological findings of bones of the thousands of soldiers, you’ll get no positive answer.), it does not seem to be as true as the bible, which has at least a historical framing history (taking place in an existing culture with existing cities and archeologically proven remnants).
So what you find is that scripture is tampered with by politically motivated authors or redactors, and if you criticize that very fact, you get shunned, excommunicated, cause you’re the apostate.
The infidel, who trusts his own senses more than the word of the living church authority.
(I hardly think they believe the stuff themselves, for both the Vatican and the Mormon Church have too much evidence in their archives to know that it’s all a faked.)
So what is left?
A church which:
- ruins families if not all members are true believers
- fights against mixed-faith marriages
- increases the pressure on homosexuals who have enough to struggle from social intolerance alone
- pushes children into a naive belief system to stay at level three.
- uses church disciplinary methods to keep people at level three or excommunicate them to prevent any contact, for they might “infect” others with the level 4 “influenza”.
If you can accept all of this, you are a truly level-5 believer. If you cannot accept this, you might consider leaving…
Greets,
Still-sceptical anti-stage theorist.
- It doesn’t have to be that way. No official church teaching has ever encouraged me to be anything but loving to people who choose a different path. Humans inject their own emotion into the equation and cause the problems you mention.
- Mixed-faith marriages, regardless of the faiths in question, are generally not healthy. The people who make it work are exceptional and in the minority. People with common long-term goals and common ideas for teaching and raising children getting married is a *good thing* for society.
- The church also puts pressure on me to remain faithful to my wife. The urges to be intimate with every attractive woman who would have me are so innate and intense that I could make a darn good case that I was born that way and I am now fighting against my very nature to suppress them. In fact, I believe that to be the case entirely. I love my wife beyond articulation, and I love God and want to live in a way that will honor the blessings He gives me, and I have a great desire for my mind/spirit/heart to control my biochemical urges. This endeavor provides a lot of guilt for my thoughts, but is that wrong? Of course, this parallel only works if you are willing to accept the politically incorrect point that there is something inherently immoral about pursuing a sexually active homosexual lifestyle. I guess you would also have to accept that there is something inherently moral about pursuing monogamous heterosexual matrimony, which seems increasingly politically incorrect as well.
- Again, it doesn’t have to be that way. Just like public schools don’t have to ruin/raise my children for me.
- I will agree that there is a sad trend in the modern church for the small-minded to use their authority in the church to try to shape everyone else into their own kind of mold. This trend is not a proof of falseness, but a condemnation on those who do it. Throughout the scriptures we have accounts of church leaders corrupting church hierarchy from within. It would make no sense to think we would be immune from it now. I still think people take exceptions to create generalizations, though. For example, I think Tom Kimball’s bishop’s total reaction would be more common than that of Dan Wotherspoon’s.
Bottom line, people do bad things to each other. Take any social group large enough to compare to any church, and you will find the same human frailties manifest in only superficially different ways.
John,
Fantastic. And thanks to Dan and Tom for the insight…it’s the first time I’ve heard anything substantive on Stages of Faith. Don’t ask which rock I’ve been under.
The main thought that I’m left with is:
“I don’t want to change stages!!!!”
I’m sure this must be normal, but as a mid-life facing stage 4, the descriptions of stage 5 and 6 sound like a type of intellectual death.
Am I the only one that feels this way?
Now,having read the comments, I see that I am not alone. But I still don’t want to die!!!
Another thought…a few commenters suggested that stage theory was perhaps defective/undesirable because of its hierachical nature. This thought immediately came to mind: you mean like telestial, terrestial, celestial, degrees of exaltation, and outer darkness?
If such classifications are “stage 3″ literal, then I can see why it would be disturbing. But if you take them as thought tools, or temporary constructs, as a good stage 5er might do, well then…you’re likely to see the limitations and the utility and be just fine with it.
That’s my stage 4 analysis.
Watt: the descriptions of stage 5 and 6 sound like a type of intellectual death.
Tom: Just the apposite, It offers hope for those who embrace their intellect. Nietzsche said something like: “the more we learn the more we kill God.” That’s the audience I think stage theory is the most useful. Those who because of their intellect are losing God.
It’s like the poem by Alexander Pope:
A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring:
There Shallow Draughts intoxicate the Brain,
And Drinking largely sobers us again.
As we begin to un-construct our faith we become intoxicated/disillusioned. It’s only by embracing not only the intellect but also our spirituality that we can being find a sober or adult faith.
(Probably no help, sorry)
I spoke about the three degrees of glory and stage theory in a Sunstone session at Clairmont that Dan and I did a few years back. I think you can down load it from the Sunstone website. but yea, it’s usually stage three people who have problems with the level or stage issue. (normally because they feel that they have the tiger by the tail and how could there possibly be three more stages of development? Interestingly this attribut is the very definition of stage three.) I’m essentially stage four and I don’t find it upsetting to think of others as further along than myself. (well, maybe a little when I see people 15 years younger expressing stage five attributes, but only because I know I should have done this years ago)
Best
Tom
Very helpful, thanks Tom!
In fact…the anger is intoxicating. Nothing a little primal scream won’t help.
I know my wife will be very happy for me to get along with getting sober. But something I think you mentioned in the podcast about going through the process reminds me that it’s okay to remain in a state as long as it is helpful.
I’m in no rush. Rage…RAGE!
Watt
Yea, it’s better not to be in a rush. (it just doesn’t work that way anyway) Ken Wilber says that most people stop moving through the stages durring the ages 25 through 50. Probably because we are too busy working and screwing up our kids.
:)
Tom
order amaryl online…
order amaryl online…
Get Your Complimentary Condom Samples…
Get Your Complimentary Condom Samples…
Really perfect!