This is a long opening post, but it seemed best to cover all six of Fowler's stages.

Thanks to everyone who has been participating in the Readers" Group, and taking the time to comment chapter by chapter.

I will post a section at a time from chapter 6 for your input and observations.

Gretta tells us that many adults stay in stage 3 all of their lives, and that the institiutional church reinforces this.

From what I have seen of young people today, I would say that many of them reach stage 4 in their teenage years. And maybe many of the church alumni remain in this phase, having rejected an "earlier paradigm" upbringing.

Does Gretta consider herself a stage 6 individual? I suspect as much, although this is not specified in WWG. It was interesting to read in this chapter that metaphors can be reclaimed again in stage 6.

This chapter resonated deeply with me and, in my humble opinion, could have been the foundation of the book and could have provided the "jumping off point" to the other elements discussed. I will definitely do more exploration on this theory/concept.

Your post made me think, MoF.....I wonder what the church's role could potentially be in encouraging people to move beyond stage 3, in supporting them thorugh stage 4, and then giving them the means to grow into stage 5?

I know more than a few people, very involved in their church communities, who could be described as repressed stage 4's.....secretly they have questions and doubts, but don't feel that it is ok to express or explore them, so pretend to be content at stage 3.

I think stage 6 is only for the Jesus, MLK, Gandhi, Buddha-types of this world.

Vosper's treatment of Fowler helps clarify where she falls short. First, when Borg calls this "post-critical naivete" he is drawing on Ricoeur's delineation of i) first naivete ii) critical distanciation iii) second naivete (presented in Symbolism of Evil, and developed in his later language philsophy). It is specifically Ricoeur that Fowler references in his descriptions of stage 5 (conjunctive) faith development.

Vosper seems to assume that Fowler's stage 6 moves beyond or out of this second naivete. This is a misunderstanding. Fowler's stage 6 describes a person applying the symbolic vision of stage 5 faith development towards transformation of the world of lived experience.

Vosper seems to assume some kind of "post-post-critical naivete". To suggest that Fowler goes further than Borg by suggesting this phase is to misunderstand the stage's connection to the prior stage.

Add to this that the stage was seen by Fowler to be exceedingly rare, and most people "aspiring" to this stage are usually presumptive. To suggest the church can live out of this stage is to ignore the reality that church includes many.

But now to the more revealing aspect of her misunderstanding of Fowler. Setting aside the question of whether Vosper can claim having achieved (let alone mastered) stage 5 conjunctive faith development (she seems to struggle with the tensions at play in this stage), her approach sounds more like the regression.

This is where the Ricoeurian substructure of Fowler's stage theory helps to clarify. Vosper's treatment of the symbolic/mythic/ritualistic of stage 5 sounds more like someone who has retreated back from post-critical naivete to critical distanciation.

The proposed trajectory of her book and its argument, right from the title's emphasis on doing trumping believing, has all the good intentions of moving into Fowler's stage 6 of unitive and transformational faith. However, her proposed road map is better understood as a U-turn back to Fowler's stage 4 (Individuative-Reflective), which Fowler suggested can emerge when someone is in their forties.

Is it fair that I analyze Vosper using Fowler's stage theory? She "opened the door" to cross examination.

Hi Paradox3

You have done an excellent job of distilling and organizing these 6 stages into an easy to read summary. The actual book of course fleshes out and expands these ideas and provides some specific examples. These few pages are very much worth reading, and contrary to much of the earlier part of the book, will probably not be as polarizing and will resonate with many people.

I do not have the expertise to know if Fowler provides the definitive model for faith development, but I do know that it feels like a plausible model. For me it is plausible because it is a good fit to my personal journey and to the journey of many liberal/progressive folks with whom I am acquainted.

Stages 1 to 4 are probably familiar to many Wonder Café folks, particularly those of liberal/progressive leanings. I find stage 5, as Gretta describes it, particularly fascinating, because of the way she treats myth and metaphor.

In our chapter 5 study we had a lively discussion of the way in which she differs with Marcus Borg on his use of traditional church language, including myth and metaphor. Surprisingly enough, Gretta suggests an ultimate return to metaphor and myth, but with a small, but important twist. She says that we need to find a way "to access the wells of spiritually nurturing material in the Bible and present it as myth or metaphor, identifying it as such in the same breath."

She gives several examples of what this means for Sunday morning worship. One example deals with the reading of Scripture: It is common to preface or follow the reading of scripture with the words like "This is Word of God". This may be meaningless to a newcomer to the church for whom the scripture passage may be very puzzling in its relevance to their situation or to their problems. It might be more meaningful to them if prior to the reading of the passage we substitute words like "We read this passage that in it, we might find wisdom for our journey."

We can then preface the reading with what might be called a sort of "disclaimer", identifying why the author wrote it, what flourishes may have been added to it, and that it may not be a factual story, but simply a metaphor or legend written to make a point. This would just take a minute or so, but might enable the listener to hear the message without getting hung up on the story's literalness or factuality.

Paradox3,

Hi,

You shared:

"Perhaps the characteristic that is most indicative of them is the absence of a desire for self-preservation. The awareness of the unity of all things destroys the self's need for survival. Caught without a requisite context by which it recognizes itself, it can expand beyond any borders previously identifying it." (Page 275)

This appears to contradict what you have previously shared with in regards to the Reverend Vosper's transformational strategy.

I've scanned the other threads on previous chapters but I cannot find the quote specifically. If memory serves it is a quote which suggests that people not really be allowed to choose for themselves but that the progressivization of a congregation must be done against their wishes.

I would appreciate a little help in finding the specfic quote again.

You wrote:

Gretta believes this is where the church should be as an institution. Values that enhance and sanctify life will become the focus.

And yet she has also suggested that God is feeling over and opposed to being. Why is the Church then stuck with having to be when it would apparently be more Godly just to feel?

Grace and peace to you.

John

Motheroffive:

You wrote:

{ This chapter resonated deeply with me and, in my humble opinion, could have been the foundation of the book and could have provided the "jumping off point" to the other elements discussed. I will definitely do more exploration on this theory/concept. }

Before reading WWG, I had never heard of Fowler or his stages. Like yourself, I have done a little exploration of this theory/ concept. Whether we agree with Rev Vosper's ideas or not, her use of Fowler's framework gives us a way to understand her perspective more completely.

Thanks for your post. I am glad you have rejoined the discussion.

Diana:

You wrote:

{ Your post made me think, MoF.....I wonder what the church's role could potentially be in encouraging people to move beyond stage 3, in supporting them thorugh stage 4, and then giving them the means to grow into stage 5? }

I have been thinking about the same thing, Diana. In writing WWG, I think that one of Gretta's goals is to push some folks from Stage 3 into Stage 4. This might be fine for the author of a book, but I would think the role of a church is to meet people where they are at, and to invite them to move along as they are ready.

It may not even be necessary for everyone to go to stages 4 and 5.

You wrote:

{ I know more than a few people, very involved in their church communities, who could be described as repressed stage 4's.....secretly they have questions and doubts, but don't feel that it is ok to express or explore them, so pretend to be content at stage 3. }

It is tragic if people feel unsafe to question things in church communities, I agree.

You wrote:

{ I think stage 6 is only for the Jesus, MLK, Gandhi, Buddha-types of this world. }

From the research I did this weekend about Fowler, I would say that you are correct. I don't think it is feasible (or even desireable) for the institutional church to function at this level. My vision of the Christian church would have it be inclusive of folks at all the levels Fowler describes.

GUC: Thank you for your clarification about Fowler's stages. I think it is completely fair for you to respond to Gretta's presentation about his theory.

IWonder: Thank you for your comments about Fowler's stage 5. I think it is crucial to remember that Gretta is presenting it as an interim step. You are right, it may resonate very deeply with many of us, but Rev Vosper's goal is to get us to stage 6 (as she understands it, which may not be what Fowler intended.)

I would concur with GUC's use of Ricouer , since his theory is behind all this, and with the analysis that Vosper comes short as a result. Her critique of Borg in this area is unjustified and unsubstantiated. Only the rare person makes it to the mountaintop, and even Jesus didn't stay there, and it took Peter and the others years to comprehend what it all meant.

RevJohn,

I believe you are referring to the chapter 4 thread. I have copied my post from that thread:

{ On pages 155 - 188, Gretta discusses moving forward. She emphasizes doing it one step at a time, and she outlines the elements necessary to spawn progressive thought. They are:

[ an open mind; passion; creativity; intellectual rigor; honesty; courage; respect; and balance ]

Balance refers to patience, perseverance and pace. All are necessary for an individual or group to introduce progressive thought into a group of people. "Remember," she advises, "for the most part, they are not willingly along for the walk." (pg 184) The progressive perspective must anticipate the challenges it will present, and act to mitigate negative effects.

"But finding ways to lessen the burden of change, to make the new terrain more habitable, to honour what has gone before even while pointing out its inadequacies, is a responsibility that progressive thinkers hold." (pg 186) }

RevJamesMurray: Thanks for your comments. How reassuring to ponder that even Jesus did not stay on the mountaintop!!

When I was searching yesterday for some information about Fowler's stages, I came across some comments from Unitarian Universalists about his concept. They were considering whether UU fellowships should strive to be at stage 4 or stage 5. I found that interesting.

Pages 276 "“ 282 are summarized below for your consideration:

In the final pages of Chapter 6, Gretta notes that the church of today is about discerning God's will and acting accordingly. (Not about the meaning of life!!!)

The church, as we know it, provides nurture and sustenance along the spiritual journey. Struggling with existential questions is its forte. "If it is able to accomplish a quick, albeit costly upgrade, it may yet still prove to be one of the best places to undertake such a journey." (Page 279)

But, it will need to cope with the "dis-integration" of the concept of god altogether.

Gretta quotes T.R. Young, who presents a concept of god that acknowledges its human conception and construction. Our responsibility is to lift up the holiness of life. "To identify that as our work is to create god." (Page 279)

Gretta recommends we stop using the word god, at least in the short term, as the term continues, "to be laden with anthropomorphic features and the powerful agency of an otherworldly being". (Page 281)

God is presented to us as "the humanly constructed set of life enhancing values we strive to uphold." (Page 282)

Yet if there is no concept of God, or divinity, how can anything be called holy? She is replacing one set of privileged ideas with another set of her own creation.

It was Ludwig Feuerbach in his 1853 book "The essence of Christianity" that articulated the 'religion is nothing more than a human projection' theory which he calls a chimaera. That book was translated into English by the novelist George Eliot , and this philosophy is evident in her novels.
TR Young, who died in 2004, was a developmental psychologist. His 1972 book New Sources of Self deals with symbolism in human development. (It is out of print)