James W. Fowler

Faith Development Theory and the Postmodern Challenges

Faith development theory (FDT) stands at the convergence of developmental psychologies and a tradition of liberal theology deriving from Christian origins. It took form through empirical research based on in-depth interviews with children and adults, initially conducted primarily in North America. This brief article undertakes to do the following: first, review the elements that have converged to shape FDT; second, clarify the ways in which the theory is an account of the development of the self; third, sketch and respond to the pressures to relinquish some features and claims of the theory in the light of postmodern critiques; and fourth, discuss what is at stake in the proposal to reconceive this theory as a system of types, in contrast to a sequence of stages.

FAITH DEVELOPMENT AT 30: NAMING THE CHALLENGES OF FAITH IN A NEW MILLENNIUM

Abstract Thirty years ago this summer Religious Education published its first article on faith development theory, entitled, “Agenda Toward a Developmental Perspective on Faith,” published in Religious Education in volume LXIX, March–April 1974, pp. 209–219. At the request of the editors of this journal, it is a privilege to offer an account of some of the authors present reflections on faith development research and theory.

Practical Theology and Theological Education: Some Models and Questions

“Somewhere Herbert Finagarette once wrote, ‘One day I saw, in a way that mattered, that the task is not to write the program, but to execute it.’… The way forward in practical theology involves placing more radical trust in Gods self-disclosure and promises found in our traditions of revelation; more radical investment in concrete, existential-social-historical action in anticipation of the in-breaking Commonwealth of Love; and a more radical engagement, through present action and prayer, to make us partners in Gods work of creation, governance, and liberation/redemption.”

STAGE SIX AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD 1

1 This article, based on an address prepared for delivery at the REA International Convention in Toronto, represents part of the concluding chapter of the authors forthcoming book, Meaning and Trust: The Developmental Dynamics of Faith (New York: Harper and Row, 1981). It is presented here by gracious permission of the publisher

The Enlightenment and Faith Development Theory

The thesis of this essay is that the hard-won structures of rational autonomous consciousness, shaped in the Enlightenment, must be constructed by all persons in modern society. Structural and functional characteristics are described between the Enlightenment and the transition to the Individuative-Reflective Stage of faith development. The author concludes that faith development research itself is an outgrowth of Enlightenment impulses; that there are also parallels between the transition to the Conjunctive stage of faith and a culture-wide struggle toward post-Enlightenment modes of consiousness; and that faith development theory can provide an insight into contemporary regression to Pre-Enlightenment and pre-Individuative modes of faith and consciousness.

Pluralism, Particularity, and Paideia

‘And now,’ Socrates begins the famous parable, ‘compare our nature, from the point of view of paideia and lack of paideia, to an experience like this.’ He tells of men in an underground cave, which has a broad entrance open to the light. They have been chained down there since childhood, by their legs and neck, so that they cannot move, and cannot turn round and look behind. They have their backs to the entrance. Above and behind them, some distance off, a fire is burning. Its rays fall above the heads of the prisoners on the back wall of the cave, towards which they are looking. Between them and the fire there is a road, along which runs a low wall, like the stage of a marionette-theatre, upon which conjurors show their puppets. Behind the wall there are people carrying along all sorts of objects and figures made of wood and stone, some talking and others silent. The objects show above the wall, and the fire throws their shadows onto the back wall. The prisoners cannot turn round, so that they have never seen anything all their lives except the shadows. They naturally take the shadows for reality, and the echoes of the voices for the speech of the shadow figures.