Page 69 - EMCAPP-Journal No. 7

Foundational Discussions in Christian Psychology

the embarrassing reality that those teaching on In the study of psychology, empirical research
the stages of faith generally see themselves as is preferred over intuition – even intuition that
operating largely in stage 5, conjunctive faith” “can be understood within complex systems as
(Thiessen, this volume). Pastorally, it would be one way in which new possibilities emerge from
of great concern to learn about spiritual maturi- the multiplicity of previous understandings …
ty from someone who assumes themselves to be [or] be understood as a way in which one learns
more mature. It is not wholly unlike the parab- in conjunction with transcendent experience
le of the Pharisee and the tax collector in Luke (Thiessen, this volume)” – because that intuiti-
18:9-14, where Jesus warns us “for all those who on is the product of one individual’s experience.
exalt themselves will be humbled, and those As Cozby and Bates (2013) note, “a problem
who humbles themselves will be exalted” (Luke with intuition is that numerous cognitive and
18:14, NIV). Unfortunately, we are not provided motivational biases affect our perceptions” (p.
with any evidence to support Thiessen’s con- 4), increasing the probability of inaccurate or
cern. As one of the two concerns Thiessen raises flawed conclusions.
about Fowler’s model, this declarative assertion
without any evidence signals the shift in rheto- The rhetoric of intuition-as-evidence highlights
ric from an empirical framework to the author’s a further problem. There are terms and phrases
own intuition. used throughout the narrative that are not ope-
rationalized. It is highly probable that terms like
The lack of evidential support for elitism, a valid “spirituality,” “transcendence,” or “complexity
concern in itself, highlights my overall concern. with integrity” will be understood differently
As an introduction, he offers that the model re- by readers bringing different assumptions to
sults from “an intuitive response to a long career the narrative. Familiar psychological phrases
in Christian education and counselling” (Thies- are integrated with abstract spiritual language
sen, this volume). This introduction makes ex- that is sometimes inspirational and sometimes
plicit what was implicit in his elitism concern. inscrutable. While the mosaic model is osten-
While we are asked to consider the weaknesses sibly an alternative to Fowler’s stage theory of
of Fowler’s model using the traditional frame- faith development, it is impossible to critique it
work of empirical psychology, we are then as- using the principles of empirical psychology. It
ked to consider Thiessen’s own model using is a work fitting for the humanities, where judg-
his intuition as an explanatory framework, al- ments are not rendered on the basis of evidence
beit an intuition the author suggests is more but on such abstractions as elegance, creativity,
than simply his subjective personal judgment. or the synthesis of complementary ideas.
While Thiessen does allow that his model “has
occasionally been inspired by and affirmed by It is certainly true that there are multiple ways
readings about complex and dynamic systems” of knowing, many of which do not require evi-
(Thiessen, this volume) from other authors and dence. Moreover, I in no way am disparaging
sources, these authors and sources are not cited Professor Thiessen’s narration of his own expe-
in the presentation of the specifics of his model. rience and how his descriptive model helps him
The reader has no way of knowing which theo- to make sense of how he and others have ma-
retical constructs come from which authors and tured spiritually. However, Thiessen’s critique
whether those authors have empirical studies to of Fowler is founded on objections using empi-
support their arguments. Fowler augmented his rical science. To abandon that explanatory fra-
model with interviews that provided qualitative mework and ask the reader to embrace a better
support for his arguments. No such evidence is model of faith development using an explanato-
provided to support the mosaic model. We are ry framework based exclusively on the author’s
asked to believe the author’s claims simply be- intuition is to ask the reader to compromise his
cause he makes them. Would it not be intellec- or her own intellectual integrity. I am confident
tually honest to give Fowler’s model the same this was not the author’s intent, but it would be
courtesy? the consequence nonetheless.

68