Page 59 - EMCAPP-Journal No. 7

Foundational Discussions in Christian Psychology

riant, and hierarchical” stages has only proven it has occasionally been inspired by and affir-
to be true to the extent that they have mirrored med by readings about complex and dynamic
Piaget’s stages of cognitive development. systems (cf. Siegel, 2001; Howe & Lewis, 2005;
This is not to suggest that the more psychoso- van Geert, 2009, 2011; Kaplan, Crockett & Tiv-
cial, affective or relational aspects of Fowler’s lan, 2014).
theory have not proven to be quite helpful in
rounding out his theory and making it useful to Dimension One – Maturity: a continuum of
countless (primarily Christian) educators and increasing complexity with integrity
counsellors. Yet, in spite of these years of broad There are two primary elements to this model
appreciation, there are very practical concerns of understanding faith development or, as I
that do not go away. Two concerns that I would would prefer, spiritual development, that can
2
draw attention to are 1) the limitation of the be seen as operating on two different dimensi-
theory in explaining real-life complexity (espe- ons. One dimension is our pathway toward in-
cially for adults) which quite often does not ap- creasing complexity. This is a tendency that we
pear to be “sequential, invariant and hierarchi- see in virtually all organic systems; psychologi-
cal” and 2) the tendency of the theory to appear cally, for example, we might point to an increase
elitist or even condescending when taught. in neural connections or the broadening of our
Regarding the first concern, I would suggest behavioural repertoire.
that there are many ways in which we have all In order to equate complexity with spiritual
encountered developmental pathways that have maturity, however, we have to qualify it in this
not seemed to match Fowler’s sequence (such as way: maturity is an increase of complexity that
the regression toward fundamentalism noted by is held together by integrity. Complexity per se
Streib, 2001) or situations in which we have no- can overwhelm, and this is why our brains go
ticed even in ourselves the simultaneous pres- through seasons where “pruning” is as impor-
ence of more than one stage at work (a situation tant as the creation of new synaptic connec-
which was demonstrated empirically by Kaplan, tions. Integrity has two components that are
Crockett & Tivlan, 2014, in regard to Kohlberg’s somewhat held in tension: the integrity of tho-
moral development stages). se “wholes” (Gestalts) that are taken in and the
Regarding the second concern, we face the em- overall integrity of the person. The latter refers
barrassing reality that those teaching on the sta- to our ability to hold together and make sense
ges of faith generally see themselves as operating out of all that we are, all we have been and even
largely in stage 5, conjunctive faith, teaching an what we begin to see ourselves becoming.
audience of those primarily ranging from stage A mosaic, then, is an ideal metaphor for the
3 to stage 4. The presenter, hence, appears to be nature of maturity. A good mosaic is made up
urging the audience to grow more into his or of individual pieces which each have their own
her own likeness. integrity (including, for example, a trace of its
In recent years, new theories have been gaining history and origin), and all together they form
a footing in developmental circles which may a new pattern or whole which has an entirely
support other ways to frame a model. Some of different level of integrity.
these theories are naturally oriented to seeking Our journey down this road to maturity – to-
explanations which avoid the oversimplificati- ward increasing complexity held together with
on of sequential, invariant and hierarchical sta- integrity – is highly idiosyncratic. Our cogniti-
ges. The model which I would like to propose ve abilities are one component of this develop-
is largely an intuitive response to a long care- mental journey, but there are many other factors
1
er in Christian education and counselling, but
2 I appreciate Benson, Roehlkepartain, & Rude’s (2003)
definition of spiritual development as „the process of
1 Intuitive responses can be understood within complex growing the intrinsic human capacity for self-transcen-
systems as one way in which new possibilities emerge dence. It is the developmental ‚engine‘ that propels the
from the multiplicity of previous understandings. They search for connectedness, meaning, purpose and contri-
can also, of course, be understood as a way in which one bution. It is shaped both within and outside of religious
learns in conjunction with transcendent experience. [contexts]“ (pp. 205-206).
58