James W. Fowler "Stages of Faith"

[Akita Suggagaki]

Published way back in 1981, this book is a classis.

He makes an important point that "faith" is something deeper and broader than "belief".

Faith is a life orientation, a commitment of the heart while belief is simply an assent of the intellect. "Credo" that we usually translate in terms of belief actually more literally means "giving of heart".

He also then speaks of three major types of faith identity relations:
Polytheism - commitment to many gods or centers of value and power
Henotheism - Recognition of many gods but commitment to one among many.
Radical Monotheism - commitment to to a transcendent center of of value and power.

I mention this because he also states than any of us are actually more polytheistic than we might think. What gives our life meaning and purpose? Where do we spend ourselves? To what are we committed?

That was just in the first 23 pages.

So let me ask here. Do you see a distinction between what you believe and what you give your heart to? I believe that trans fat, saturated fat and sugar are not healthy, yet I still eat muffins.

 

[Brother-Mike]

Akita, as your post has me pondering the topic the more I come to see the inadequacy of the word "faith" to meaningfully differentiate between "belief".

Imagine a flimsy rope-bridge across a deep gorge. If I asked "Do you believe that it's safe to use this bridge?" vs. "Do you have faith that this bridge is safe to cross?" in this case both questions seem synonymous. And regardless of your answer it's still conceivable that you'd back down from crossing.

Or when considering the safety of driving their car to work, even the staunchest of atheists could say "I believe it's safe to drive to work" or "I have faith in the safety of driving to work" and neither seem to have a bearing on whether they've taken the position to heart.

In your muffin example, unstated are a few other beliefs:

1. You believe that eating the muffin will not immediately kill you.
2. You believe that there may well be long-term effects of eating the muffin (especially if you eat muffins regularly) but you've done some sort of rapid cost/benefit analysis that favors muffin-joy over the long-term effects.

If you believed that today's muffin may well have been poisoned by anti-muffin fanatics then that one additional belief would presumably steer you away from today's muffin. So by tweaking your belief set we can produce changes in actual behavior. If nothing else, what you believed in, and your ultimate behavior, was driven by your belief set, no "faith" needed.

Ambiguity with the term "faith" may well play into the hands of atheists, giving them the term "faith" to lump believers into, with the added sense that "faith" has some sort of negative connotation associated with it (i.e. "leap of faith" vs. the solid, scientifically-derived facts and beliefs).

In the end we all just have our set of beliefs - some solid, some based on the best current information but open to revision, some functional, some guesses or based on preference. But all beliefs in my opinion need to be held with open-minded, honest humility - today's absolute certainty may well be tomorrow's quaint and charming archaic misunderstanding. I believe that this humility is as necessary for the religious as it is for the scientific, and dogmatism on either side of the fence is a mistake.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Imagine a flimsy rope-bridge across a deep gorge. If I asked "Do you believe that it's safe to use this bridge?" vs. "Do you have faith that this bridge is safe to cross?" in this case both questions seem synonymous.

Thanks, Brother Mike. But I think Fowler would disagree as he goes on to say, belief is "the holding of certain ideas." And faith "involves an alignment of the heart and will, a commitment of loyalty and trust."

Of course I am condensing his 5 chapters into a few lines.

So I might believe that the bridge is stable enough to support my weight. And that belief is closely related to my decision to walk out on it. And that may be a connotation of the word "faith". But Fowler, drawing from Paul Tillich, H Richard Niebuhr, and Wilfred Cantwell Smith, stretches the concept to include "an orientation of the total person, giving purpose and goal to one's hopes and strivings, thought and actions."

Many beliefs might support a faith.

At least that is how I am reading him. And the thing about reading a book is that it always helps to talk about it with others.

 

[Brother-Mike]

I believe then that you should keep reading. I have faith that you will finish

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I am in the part where he is creating a fictional conversation between Jean Piaget, Erik Erikson and Lawrence Kohlberg.

I hope I stay with it. 50/50 chance right now.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

He also then speaks of three major types of faith identity relations:
Polytheism - commitment to many gods or centers of value and power
Henotheism - Recognition of many gods but commitment to one among many.
Radical Monotheism - commitment to to a transcendent center of of value and power.

If your talking about the Judeo Christian tradition, I think this book's view of things is kind of dated and obsolete. Especially if you are interested in notions like the Development of Doctrine of the Trinity from Judaism.

Last year I had a thread on the Eastern Orthodox board concerning the book, Religion of the Apostles, when it first came out.


Anyway the whole concept of "Monotheism" is a more recent term and concept coming from the last 5 or so centuries. Also the notion of "Radical Monotheism" basically the strict monotheism that some refer to as "Hard monotheism" doesn't really exist until the time of the Talmud onward. Earlier Judaism of the Second temple era and earlier did not see it itself as being a Faith in conflict with polytheists, rather than saw itself as the Faith of the One true God, Lord of Heaven and Earth (where that Faith has lots of nuances, paradoxes and mysteries) contrasted against the pagans and their many anthropomorphic super hero like deities.


Religion of the Apostles | with Fr. Stephen De Young

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Especially if you are interested in notions like the Development of Doctrine of the Trinity from Judaism.

I am more interested in the faith development of the individual.

But related to your post Fowler stated that in the early Church a statement "I believe in God" would have been "a strange circumlocution. The being or existence of God was taken for granted and therefore not an issue." What was intended in the "Credo" was much more than an assent to a truth....but a commitment of life.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

I am more interested in the faith development of the individual.

But related to your post Fowler stated that in the early Church a statement "I believe in God" would have been "a strange circumlocution. The being or existence of God was taken for granted and therefore not an issue." What was intended in the "Credo" was much more than an assent to a truth....but a commitment of life.

Probably the most interesting book on this general topic I have heard is the book "Faith of the Fatherless" written by a Catholic researcher and Historian. I find the concept really fascinating, because we our relationship with our Father both pro and con does seem to impact people's theology. By the way, this not just true for atheists but before the rise of modern atheism, the author tracks on the affect of the Father on people of Faith like Mohammed and Martin Luther and finds that tracks with people starting cults, people leading rebellions etc. I learned about the book in this video, who does a great job giving the basic gist even better than the original author in interviews.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Probably the most interesting book on this general topic I have heard is the book "Faith of the Fatherless" written by a Catholic researcher and Historian. I find the concept really fascinating, because we our relationship with our Father both pro and con does seem to impact people's theology. By the way, this not just true for atheists but before the rise of modern atheism, the author tracks on the affect of the Father on people of Faith like Mohammed and Martin Luther and finds that tracks with people starting cults, people leading rebellions etc. I learned about the book in this video, who does a great job giving the basic gist even better than the original author in interviews.

Thank you. I will keep those thoughts in mind as I read more of the developmental aspects of faith. It makes a lot of sense and seems to validate Feuerbach's Projection hypothesis...that is, about God image, not whether or not God exists. And I think I will be finding that the image of God that we work with has a lot to do with our stages of faith.

 

[fide]

Words are important; word studies in Scripture can be very interesting and can lead to precious insights into our personal lives. For example, the two words:
1) Believe - a verb, infin. "to believe" [Greek pisteuein] an action, something we do.
2) Faith - a noun "belief" [Greek pistis] an object, something we possess, we have.

It is interesting to me that John's Gospel uses these two crucial concepts very differently from the others. John's Gospel was the last Gospel written of the Four, perhaps thus was the most "spiritually mature" of the Four Gospels being the last written. He had (or he waited) until after decades of prayer and reflection and time for the Holy Spirit to lead more deeply into the words and acts of Jesus, before he wrote them down. John's witness to Jesus emphasizes what we need to DO (thus the verb, the action word "to believe"), over what we "have" or claim or think we have (the noun, the object, "faith").

John's Gospel uses the verb [Greek] "pisteuein" - "to believe" - 98 times.
John's Gospel uses the noun [Greek] "pistis" - "faith" - 0, zero, times!
(John does use pistis once - 1 time - in his letter 1st Jn, and 4 times in his work, Revelation.)

There is much thought, and prayer, that this information can lead to as we pray his beautiful Gospel testimony! We need to be believing.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I am plugging away even as I read 3 other books. I like to do that and see if they speak to each other. Anyway. I finished stage 4. He states that many transition from state 3 to 4 in early adulthood but many adults may never transition. Stage 3 is does not examine its beliefs, worldview, attitudes and assumptions critically as stage 4 does. I thought it interesting that in stage 3 symbols ARE what they represent. Stage 4 more clearly differentiates symbol from what it symbolizes.

Eager to read stages 5 and 6.