REVIEW OF "STAGES OF FAITH" BY JAMES W. FOWLER

September 22, 2003

James T Marsh

My overall impression of Fowler's book is quite positive. There are a great many good insights and much I agree with in the book, as well as what I consider a couple of missed opportunities. Perhaps the best way of explaining it is that Fowler appears to me to be a very good developmental psychologist with many useful insights who has developed a model based on sound scientific evidence for the development of faith. Then Fowler extends this model to promote a very specific vision of the content and practice of faith. I wonder what great project might have been possible if Fowler had not been so ambitious this vision. So I have divided my review into three parts: (1) where Fowler and I disagree, (2) what Fowler had right, and (3) where the discussion might fruitfully go.

WHERE FOWLER AND I DISAGREE

It should be recognized that Fowler's book is an exposition of a particular religious ideology, a revealed, pacifist, ascetic, martyrdom-oriented brand of Judeo-Christian belief meant for every human being on the planet, and looking forward to the "Kingdom of God". This caused him to stretch his stages to levels that I do not believe the reasoning and evidence would support, narrowing the cultural applicability of his work and distorting his underlying insights by making them precursors to ephemeral higher stages. If this seems unfair to Fowler, first consider that the "study" involves a sample group that is entirely American, 97.8% white, and 96.4% Jewish/Christian (p. 316). Other than a reference to Gandhi, there is no significant discussion on non-Christian belief systems. At the end of the chapter describing the highest stage, Fowler concludes with:

God has disclosed the divine intention to redeem, restore, and fulfill all being. Seen in the light of this vision the human vocation—and it must be understood as a universal human vocation—is to live in anticipation of the coming reign of God…we [Jews and Christians] bear special responsibility for testifying to the depths of the human capacity for distorting our apprehensions of and our efforts to respond to the coming Kingdom. The reality of sin as personal, corporate and cosmic in character comes clear to us from moments of disclosure in our histories of revelation."(italics in original, p. 210)

Note the use of the words "divine intention", "redeem, restore, and fulfill", "reign of God", "reality of sin", and "revelation" in the above, the language of fundamentalist Christianity. A few pages earlier, the Stage 6 personality is described in the following way: the stage 6 individual has attained

"a moral and ascetic actualization of the universalizing apprehensions…[is] heedless to self-preservation…[such that] Many persons in this stage die at the hands of those whom they hope to change…[T]hey create zones of liberation from the social, political, economic and ideological shackles we place and endure on human futurity…their leadership initiatives, often involving strategies of nonviolent suffering and ultimate respect for being, constitute affronts to our usual notions relevance." (pp. 200—1)

Primary examples given are Gandhi, Mother Theresa, and Martin Luther King, Jr. At the end, Fowler acknowledges that "Faith, at stages 5 or 6, will take essentially religious forms." (p. 293). The apocalyptic theology of the "coming Kingdom" is combined with martyr worship. Clearly, this was not exactly what I was looking for. But this bias was not limited to mere study. Significantly, on pp. 285—6 Fowler refers to a Hindu student (one of only 12 in the study who was neither Christian nor Jew) who as a result of self-examination precipitated by the study, converted to Christian theology! Now I wonder how that happened!

Finally, and most frightening to me, is the discussion that Fowler makes on the origin of his work. It is intended as an extension of that of Lawrence Kohlberg, intended to provide a curriculum for moral education in public schools. "Passionate about the need for an approach to moral education in public schools that would not abridge the constitutional separation of church and state, Kohlberg aggressively undertook to provide the psychological, philosophical and educational foundations for such an approach." (p. 270) While there is no direct reference to Fowler's intent in this regard, I find the idea that stage 5 and 6 theology would be presented as mandatory moral instruction in public schools to be chilling. So far Fowler (as of the writing of the book on 1980) had only established a Center for Faith Development in "recognition of our need for models and methods for such [faith sponsoring] communities." (p. 287)

WHAT FOWLER HAS RIGHT

With that said, Fowler, in addition to being a rather fervent believer in a particular doctrine which his book unabashedly promotes, is a good developmental psychologist and his comments in that area are quite insightful and useful. So, what value does the book have if one does not accept the author's religious agenda?

First, the primary three stages closely parallel theories of cognitive development, are scientifically based, and work quite well. Stage four and the Stage 3.5 phenomena could round out a good general thesis if Fowler had stopped there. The reasoning is cogent and insightful, especially to one not familiar with developmental psychology such as me. For this reason, I would recommend pages 119—183 very highly. It is the meat of what is good in the book.

Second, the discussion of covenantal patterns of relationship on pp. 16—20 may be of considerable interest, especially as it bears on philo's observations of Mormon ritual. Third, there is a discussion of content of faith and conversion in Chapter 24 (pp. 269—291) that is insightful.

Finally, Part II is a concise and fascinating review of three principal theories of development, which the author does not think is central but gives as background. I found this the most useful part of the book for me and recommend it highly. The interplay of cognitive development theory (Piaget), moral development theory (Kohlberg), and psychosocial development (Erickson) and the table on page 52 corolating the three is indespensible for anyone like myself who does not have a background in development theories. The discussion of Levinson on pages 110 and 111 is an excellent description of stages and transitions in development. In fact, I would recommend reading this section before the rest of the book, as it gives great depth and context to Fowler's study.

In short, I recommend the book, warts and all, very highly. It is worthy of a close reading and extended contemplation. I feel that I will learn more on a third reading, and that the book has great depth. It's not quite as rich as "Les Miserables" or "War and Peace" (what is?) but has the virtues of brevity and compactness.

FOWLER'S SCHEME OF THINGS

Before going to Fowler's stages of faith, I would like to review some key concepts Fowler makes in developing his scheme of things.

1. Faith vs. belief. Fowler follows H. Richard Niebuhr and Paul Tillich in making a distinction between faith and belief. "Faith" in these terms means "the shared visions and values that hold human groups together." "It involves how we make our life wagers." (p. 5). At one time belief had a similar meaning, but has come to mean a cognitive state, a "belief in a creed or a set of doctrinal statements" (p. 4). Faith is more fundamental and richer and harder to define than belief. It involves commitment and relationship more than ideas.

2. "Shared centers of value and power". At the start, Fowler lumps these two concepts together and only later differentiates them. Centers of value refer to the principles we look to that give our lives meaning. Centers of power refer to the places we look to for support and comfort. Taken together, they represent what we depend upon.

3. Relationship of faith to cognitive, moral, & psychosocial development. Fowler takes great efforts to interrelate the work of Piaget, Kohlberg, and Erikson, and others so that faith development is firmly grounded in and tied to other aspects of development.

4. Form vs content of faith. Fowler studies the form and development of faith, realizing that it may not be entirely independent of content, but trying not to let normative judgments of content obscure common features. Fowler describes the content of faith as consisting of three things: the "centers of value" we cherish, the "images of power" we hold, and the "master stories" we tell which explain our place in the universe. (pp. 276—7)

5. Modal level of development. This concept attributed to Kenneth Keniston offers great insight into faith development on a societal level, for it defines the level which social institutions such as religious organizations support progress to, but not beyond.

FOWLER'S STAGES OF FAITH

The stages were arrived at before the study was done and the study was primarily intended to identify the distribution of people by age and gender across the stages and to provide anecdotal material to explain the meaning of each stage.

The stages are:

INFANCY & UNDIFERENTIATED FAITH

Before the actual stages, Fowler discusses a "pre-stage" of undifferentiated faith. In this state, the infant has "pre-images" since this state contains things that "are largely formed prior to language, prior to concepts and coincident with the emergence of consciousness." (p. 121) Much of this relates to the trust and love that develop between child and caregivers. Fowler acknowledges that this period is hard to study in terms of faith development (especially with his questionnaires!) and posits two possible "failures of mutuality". The first is "excessive narcissism" which I assume is a reaction to neglect and the second is isolation. Given the frightening consequences of Reactive Attachment Disorder, this problem is deserving of much further attention.

STAGE I. INTUITIVE—PROJECTIVE FAITH

Most common between ages two and seven, this stage is marked by images that are powerful, unrestrained by logical thought, and disjointed. These perceptions parallel development in cognitive processes. Faith and God are comprised of a series of images drawn from perceptions that are usually not consistent, are highly egocentric (as this corresponds to the first stages of "self-awareness") and may deal with powerful taboos and awareness of death and sex. The primary danger of this stage is the possibility of fixation on unrestrained images of terror and destructiveness, and its exploitation of imagination for moral or doctrinal expectations ("Fire and brimstone" theology). Transition to the next stage is contingent on the development of operational thinking, the desire to differentiate the real from the imaginary, and the resolution of Oedipal issues.

I think that Fowler's presentation here is very good, especially the dangers of using vivid threatening imagery on very young minds, creating fears and terrors which can become free-floating and attach to guilt for the rest of a lifetime. While such tactics might be good for creating short-term obedience, the long-term cost of crippling fear is clearly not worth it. On page 286, Fowler refers to Philip Helfaer's "precocious identity formation" where fear of hell causes a child of 7 to 10 years to prematurely mimic adult beliefs. "In such cases the growing boy or girl goes through no adolescent identity crisis. And short of an enormously disruptive young adult 'breaking out' of these cast-iron images of identity and faith formed in childhood, the person remains in that stage for life."

STAGE II. MYTHIC—LITERAL FAITH

Generally this stage encompasses the period roughly between ages seven and twelve when cognitive development allow for logical thought process and emphasizes a world based on reciprocal fairness. God is anthropomorphic and beliefs and narratives are construed literally. Again, there is a strong rooting of this stage in cognitive development theory. Dangers of this stage are either a stilted perfectionism or a loss of sense of self-worth due to a sense of failure in achieving expectations. Transition to stage three hinges on the recognition and resolution of conflicts among these literal beliefs.

STAGE III. SYNTHETIC—CONVENTIONAL FAITH

Stage three accounts for about half of all people between the ages of twelve and twenty, and most people are at or beyond stage three by age forty. This stage begins with an intimate "chum" relationship that is the person's first experience with viewing themselves as another views them. The conflicts of stage two are resolved by accepting authority outside the self. This stage is about conformity, and its excesses are the excess of conformity, as the individual sees values as what binds them to the group. Transition is usually an accompaniment of "leaving home" either physically or emotionally.

This section contains the most quoted line from the book, but the persons quoting it seem to miss the message later in the page: "In many ways religious institutions 'work best' if they [sic] are people with a majority of committed folk best described by Stage 3…They constitute a parody of authentic Christianity and an abomination against biblical faith." (p. 164), a curious remark at this point but one that presages the author's ultimate agenda and outlook.

STAGE III.V

Fowler discerns that growth from stage 3 to stage 4 requires two separate changes: an "interruption of reliance on external sources of authority" and the emergence of an "executive ego" that replaces that authority, internalizing the value debate and seating responsibility with the individual. Sometimes one event happens without the other, creating a "potentially longlasting equilibrium in a transitional position between Stages 3 and 4." (p. 179) I have taken the liberty of calling this state Stage 3.5 in the Fowler hierarchy.

STAGE IV. INDIVIDUATIVE—REFLECTIVE FAITH

Stage four is the most common stage after twenty and through adulthood until about age 60. It arises from questioning the authority represented in stage 3 and a realization that "the insight that ideologies have particular histories and that persons and groups have world views that grow out of their particular experiences and the conditions with which they have had to deal." (p. 177). Stage 4 is able to regard meaning as separate from the symbols that contain them. No danger is attributed to this stage and progress to stage 5 is described as "Disillusionment with one's compromises and recognition that life is more complex than Stage 4's logic…can comprehend." (p. 183)

At this point it will be useful for me to acknowledge that I am in general agreement with Fowler and find his analysis through stage four to be well-rooted in research and consistent with universal theories of cognitive and emotional growth. It is in stages 5 and 6 where I disagree with Fowler. I believe he has taken one possible path of expression and made it into his last two general stages.

STAGE V. CONJUNCTIVE FAITH

Fowler begins the discussion of Stage 5 with, "I have not found or fabricated a simple way to describe Conjunctive faith…The truth, I believe, is that Stage 5, as a style of faith-knowing, does exist and is complex." (italics original, p. 184). Stage 5 has moved beyond the logical into the metaphysical. "It sees both (or the many) sides of an issue simultaneously. Conjunctive faith suspects that things are organically related to each other." Fowler also speaks of Stage 5 as embodying a form of moral courage, a "willingness to let reality speak its word, regardless of the impact of that word on the security or self-esteem of the knower." (p.185). Only a small percentage of people reach this stage according to Fowler, and only after age 30. Stage 5 seems concentrated in the over 50 age group and comprises 7% of his total sample and never more than a quarter of any age group.

Difficult experiences seem a prerequisite for stage 5 (Fowler speaks of a "sacrament of defeat and the reality of irrevocable commitments and acts." (p. 198) and the resolution of these experiences leads to "finding fulfillment in service to others." (p. 194). Like stage 4, stage 5 has no downside. Note again that Fowler states that stages 5 & 6 are expressed in religious terms, applicable to "Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Taoists, Confucianists, or Christians" (p. 293).

STAGE VI. UNIVERSALIZING FAITH

Stage six appears to be an extension of stage five into sainthood. It arises from "moral and ascetic actualization" that is "heedless to self-preservation", is "exceedingly rare", and "contagious in the sense that they create zones of liberation from the social, political, economic, and ideological shackles we place and endure on human futurity." "Many persons in this stage die at the hands of those whom they hope to change."(pp. 200-1). Examples given are Mother Theresa, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr. Thus stage six seems reserved for martyrs who change the world and proclaim the non-violent aspect of the author's vision of God (the last part being necessary to rule out Jim Jones of Guyana fame and Ayatollah Khomeini). The discussion of this stage ends with the quotes given at the start of the review and the following: "Their trust in the power of that future [the Kingdom of God] and their trans-narcisistic love of human futurity account for their readiness to spend and be spent in making the Kingdom actual." No one in the sample was at this stage.

THE CONCEPT OF MODAL DEVELOPMENT LEVELS

Near the end Fowler introduces an idea that modifies and redeems much of what I found objectionable. He introduces the concept of "modal development level" which he attributes to Kenneth Keniston.

"The modal development level of the average expected 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 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." (p. 294)

Fowler indicates that in the United States this level is level 3 or a bit beyond. This reinforces my impression that Fowler's theory works well through stage 4, for this is the level that our social structures hope the average adult will be able to attain, and emphasizes that stages 5 and 6 are not well supported by society and may never represent an average expected level of attainment. A world full of Gandhi's would be both unusual and difficult to attain!

CRITIQUE OF METHOD

Since I have already expressed my opinions of the book in the review already, and don't want to "pile-on", I'll just make two quick observations. The book hopes to be a universal study of faith but clearly is not. While seeing the principals as universal, the sample is entirely American, 97.8% white, and 96.4% of Judeo-Christian orientation (p. 316). Of the Stage 6 figures mentioned, the only non-Christian is Gandhi, and virtually no critical attention is paid to his beliefs or history. Islam is barely mentioned (only in passing to associate it with the Judeo-Christian tradition and the negative reference to the Ayatollah Khomieni) as is Christian Orthodoxy; and Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Zen, Shinto, Zoroastrianism, Jainism, animism, classical Hellenic, Hellenistic, and Roman religion, as well as traditions such as Manichaeism are totally absent; as is any discussion of non-Deistic systems and atheism. Fowler acknowledges this failing: "When people ask me whether these structural stages apply to persons in Eastern religious traditions or in tribal societies the truthful answer is, 'I don't know.' We have not yet done any serious cross-cultural research on faith development." (p. 296)

Second, the book claims to be scientific, but important parts are clearly not. When stages 5 and 6 are reached, the scientific evidence abruptly stops and the mystical vision begins. There is very little scientific data, observation, or theory involved in the chapters on Stages five and six. The "study" the book purports to be based on does not meet the standards of research in social sciences, as the description of the methodology makes clear that the "study" is based on un-normalized data from different interviewers (one did not even bother to record religious affiliation, so the tables are incomplete!) using lengthy open-ended questions that create only anecdotal information highly influenced by the interviewer. The text of the interviews quoted in the book make clear that the subjects were asked leading questions and clearly influenced in their answers by the interviewers. Fowler acknowledges this limitation: "Interviewers—including of course faith development interviewers—often get only what they look for." (p. 279)

Finally, I think that all of the stage theories I have encountered have given passing mention to pathologies, but have not given this aspect the attention it deserves. It is easy to demonize the evil of the world, to blame horrible behavior on arrested development or mental illness, but I have a lurking suspicion that these do not explain all bad behavior and that much is conscious choice. In fact, I believe that the content of faith can be malevolent. Thus a theory should explain Hitler as well as Gandhi, racists as well as Martin Luther King. To simply dismiss George Wallace as having an inferior value system is not enough; he enunciated a faith with a content based on separation of races for their mutual benefit. This faith formed in his earliest years and underwent growth (and in his last years, conversion!). Albert Speer makes another fascinating study. Any theory should be equally adept at dealing with such cases and the evaluation of content should rest outside the scope of the theory of stages.

IDEAS THE BOOK RAISES FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT

Fowler raises or suggests a number of extremely interesting topics, which make the book a good platform for discussion. I have come to find great value in examining these questions, and intend to do so very briefly in an accompanying essay. The most fundamental reaction I have to Fowler is the frustration of realizing that his background and intellect qualified him to develop these themes, but he chose not to do so.

1. Regression (reverse development) caused by organic illness (senile dementia, acute schizophrenia, chronic severe pain) or severe psychological reaction (such as to death of a child).

2. Malignant (pathological) spiritual development (virulent racism, ethnic cleansing, etc).

3. True cross-cultural comparisons.

4. Transition phases, smoothness or severity of adjustments, and problems that develop in them.

5. Convert "problems" at each early stage into variant lateral stages of arrested development or hinderances (unresolved issues in future stages).

6. Limits of linear stage theories.

7. Multiple lines of development/ alternate strategies to describe methods of expressing faith.

8. Greater attention to the earliest period of sensory and emotional development.

9. An appreciation for faith without the extreme emphasis on non-violence, especially a discussion of faith and military service.