Dynamics of Faith and Human Development

CED 521

Psychology of Religious Learning

Timothy W. Brock

Dynamics of Faith and Human Development

Introduction

The information included in this presentation was derived fro Part III, “Dynamics of Faith and Human Development,” in the textbook, Stages of Faith: The Psychology of Human Development and the Quest for Meaning, by James Fowler. The professor will provide additional information as appropriate.

The Dynamic Triad of Faith

In Chapter 12, Fowler explained why he used the term “faith” (as opposed to stages of ego development or some other designation) in his research and theory. On pages 92-93, Fowler proposed the following formal definition of faith.

Faith is:

· People’s evolved and evolving ways of experiencing self, others, and world (as they construct them)

· as related to and affected by the ultimate conditions of existence (as they construct them)

· and of shaping their lives’ purposes and meanings, trusts and loyalties, in light of the character of being, value and power determining the ultimate conditions of existence (as grasped in their operative images—conscious and unconscious—of them).

Fowler does offer a somewhat simplified interpretation of this very formal definition when he wrote (on page 93), “Wherever we properly speak of faith it involves people’s shaping or testing their lives’ defining directions and relationships with others in accordance with coordinates of value and power recognized as ultimate.”

Reflection Questions

· How would you paraphrase (restate in your own words) this definition of faith?

· How is this definition of faith similar to your own definition?

· In what ways is this definition of faith different from your own definition?

Structural-Developmental Theories and Faith

In Chapter 13 of the text, Fowler listed and described some of the contributions and limitations of a structuralist approach to development (as held by both Piaget and Kohlberg).

Significant contributions of this approach included:

· The fact that both Piaget and Kohlberg were very interested in epistemology (or the study of how one knows). In theological terms, the nature of knowledge involves the ways in which we “see” the world (and I would add, how we see God at work in the world).

· The fact that both Piaget and Kohlberg described formal structures that give form to the contents of knowledge (and in Fowler’s work, to the content of faith).

· The fact that both Piaget and Kohlberg described discrete structural stages, or invariant, hierarchical, integrated sets of operations of knowing and valuing.

· The fact that both Piaget and Kohlberg described interactional processes resulting from the interchange between an active, innovative subject and a dynamic, changing environment.

· The fact that both Piaget and Kohlberg believed that more developed structural stages of knowing are, in important ways, more comprehensive and adequate than the less developed ones.

According to Fowler, a number of limitations of a structuralist approach to development should be noted:

· Both approaches focus almost exclusively on cognition, with little emphasis on the effect of emotions or affect on the processes of knowing.

· Both approaches have a very restrictive understanding of the role of imagination in knowing, the role of symbolism in knowing, and the role of the unconscious in knowing.

Both of these limitations have often been highlighted by persons working with development from a feminist perspective.

Reflection Questions

· Each student should be able to explain each of the contributions and limitations listed above in his or her own words.

· Each student should be able to explain why feminist developmentalists might critique the structuralist approaches of Piaget and Kohlberg.

Psychosocial Development and Faith

In Chapter 14, Fowler elaborated on the contributions of Erikson (and others interested in Eriksonian development) to his theory of faith development. A few statements from this chapter are highlighted below.

On page 107, Fowler wrote: “…a twenty-two year old, structurally operating at Stage 3 or Stage 4, will construct, interpret, and respond to the issues of the intimacy crisis in qualitatively different ways than one at Stage 2. In some respects, we might say, it is not even the same crisis for persons at these three different stages.”

Reflection Question

· Based on your knowledge of these theories, explain this statement.

On page 112, Fowler wrote: “Our preliminary research suggests, however, that if the transition from Synthetic-Conventional (Stage 3) to Individuative-Reflective (Stage 4) faith does not occur before or during the mid-life transition, its chances of occurring at all decrease markedly.”

Reflection Question

· Based on your knowledge of these theories, explain this statement.

· Is this statement consistent with your own experience or the experiences of others with who you are related?

On page 114, Fowler wrote: “It appears that at each of the major era transitions the shaping of the new era’s life structure is enhanced if we engage in those tasks bringing new and enriched ways of being in faith. Put negatively, to approach a new era in the adult life cycle while clinging too tightly to the structural style of faith employed during the culminating phase of the previous era is to risk anachronism (or becoming a relic of the past). It means attacking a new agenda of life tasks and a potential new richness in the understanding of life with the limiting pattern of knowing, valuing, and interpreting experiences that served the previous era. Such anachronism virtually assures that one will settle for a narrower and shallower faith than one needs.”

Reflection Question

· Based on your knowledge of these theories, explain this statement.

· What is your reaction to this statement?