Stage 5: Conjunctive Faith

In Brief:

A movement beyond the dichotomizing logic of Stage 4, into a more dialogical or dialectical mode of thinking; develops a "second naiveté" in which symbolic power is reunited with conceptual meanings; greater openness to one's "deeper self," and recognition of the ways in which one's socialisation influences one's unconscious.

In Detail: This stage is normally attained, if it's attained at all, in early mid-life, though some will reach it earlier than that.¹

"The name of this stage," Fowler explains, "implies a rejoining or a union of that which previously has been separated."² Whereas those at the previous stage are prone to a dichotomizing logic (i.e., a tendency to think in terms of "either/or"), a more dialogical or dialectical way of thinking is characteristic of those in Stage 5.³ The name of this stage was inspired by Nicolas of Cusa's notion of the coincidentia oppositorum, "the 'coincidence of opposites' in our apprehensions of truth."⁴

Someone at this stage grasps the interrelatedness or interconnectedness of things. "In dialogical knowing," Fowler writes, "the known is invited to speak its own language… The knower seeks to accommodate her or his knowledge to the structure of that which is known before imposing her or his own categories upon it."⁵ This requires a certain amount of confidence on the part of the individual: "What the mystics call 'detachment' characterizes Stage 5's willingness to let reality speak its word, regardless of the impact of that word on the security or self-esteem of the knower."⁶

Fowler notes that the methods of reading the scriptures he learned in seminary—source criticism, form criticism, text criticism, etc.—were very Stage 4. It was only when he underwent spiritual direction in the Ignatian tradition (i.e., the Spiritual Exercises) that he learned "a method of working with scripture that breathed more of the spirit of Stage 5."⁷

His explanation of this is worth quoting at length:

The Ignatian approach did not require me to give up or negate my critical skills, but it did teach me to supplement them with a method in which I learned to relinquish initiative to the text. Instead of my reading, analyzing and extracting the meaning of a Biblical text, in Ignatian contemplative prayer I began to learn how to let the text read me and to let it bring my needs and the Spirit's movements within me to consciousness.⁸

He is describing, as he notes elsewhere, a movement beyond a merely critical way of reading into a post-critical mode. This applies not only to the reading of scripture, but to one's relationship with symbols in general.

We can best appreciate this by contrasting it with the previous two stages. Stage 3 (Synthetic-Conventional) does not separate symbols from their meaning. Not surprisingly, Stage 3 regards the "demythologization" strategy of Stage 4 as threatening.⁹ Those at Stage 4 (Individuative-Reflective) tend to see symbols as "media for meanings that can be expressed in other ways." "Conjunctive faith," Fowler writes, "cannot live with the demythologizing strategy of Stage 4 as regards the interpretation of story or myth or the understanding of symbol and liturgy":

Stage 4 is concerned to question symbolic representations and enactments and to force them to yield their meaning for translation into conceptual or propositional statements. As such, Individuative-Reflective faith wants to bring the symbolic representations into its (Stage 4's) circle of light and to operate on it, extracting its meanings. This leaves the person or group in Stage 4 clearly in control. The meaning so grasped may be illuminating, confronting, harshly judgmental or gently reassuring. But whatever its potential impact, its authentication and weight will be assigned in accordance with the assumptions and commitments that already shape the circle of light in which it is being question. It will not be granted the initiative.¹⁰

Conjunctive faith moves beyond the critical approach, not by retreating into the pre-critical mode of Stage 3, but by moving further into a post-critical mode. The critical skills are maintained, but the individual understands that they will not be transformed by that which is under their control. The critical tools of Stage 4 are trusted only "as tools to avoid self-deception and to order truths encountered in other ways."¹¹ An individual at Stage 4 is content to equate "self" with their own conscious awareness of self, but at Stage 5 they will come to terms with their unconscious—"the unconscious personal, social and species or archetypal elements that are partly determinative of our actions and responses.. Stage 5 comes to terms with the fact that the conscious ego is not master in its own house."¹² Finally, Stage 5 recognises that the symbols, doctrines, myths, etc., of their tradition are incomplete and partial. They are inevitable conditioned by the circumstances out of which they emerged. Therefore, many individuals at this stage will look beyond their own tradition:

Conjunctive faith…is ready for significant encounters with other traditions than its own, expecting that truth has disclosed and will disclose itself in those traditions in ways that may complement or correct its own.¹³

Notes
1. James W. Fowler, Stages of Faith, 198. The age distribution chart in Stages, 318 shows that 14.6% of Fowler's subjects aged 31-40 were solidly at Stage 5, and 3.3% of those were in Stages 4-5. This reflects research done in the 1970s; I suspect the number might be higher today.
2. Fowler, Faithful Change, 64.
3. Fowler, Stages, 185.
4. Fowler, Faithful, 64.
5. Fowler, Stages, 185.
6. Fowler, Stages, 185.
7. Fowler, Stages, 185-186. See Walter Wink, The Bible in Human Transformation, for a pretty good explanation of the difference between Stage 4 and Stage 5 ways of reading scripture. Unfortunately, Wink does not seem to appreciate that the ability to read scripture in the way he advocates requires a higher level of spiritual development than many historical critics have attained.
8. Fowler, Stages, 186.
9. Fowler, Stages, 163. Fundamentalism was largely a Stage 3 reaction to critical, Stage 4 methods of reading scripture. The fearful reaction against "modernism" in the Catholic Church, which is still ongoing, is similar, though not limited to ways of reading scripture.
10. Fowler, Stages, 187.
11. Fowler, Stages, 188.
12. Fowler, Stages, 186.

Stage 4: Individuative-Reflective Faith

In Brief:

The tacit system of the previous stage comes under critical scrutiny. Responsibility for making decisions about one’s goals and values, previously invested in others, is now taken into oneself. A demythologizing stage; symbols are translated into conceptual meanings.

In Detail: People tend to reach this stage in young adulthood, but Fowler notes that many people do not reach it at all, and a substantial number will reach it only in their mid-thirties or forties.¹

The individual at the previous stage tends to identify their inherited belief-system with "the way things really are," and does not submit it to serious critical scrutiny. When such an individual leaves home—literally or figuratively—this state of affairs is often disrupted. Many people who go off to university or college, for example, encounter for the first time people with very different beliefs and values, and this often drives them to critically examine, for the first time, the assumptive system of values inherited from their family, church, etc.²

In so doing, it becomes possible to see how individuals—including oneself—are shaped by the communities of which they are apart. Beliefs and values that were previously held tacitly—that is, held implicitly, not subjected to critical scrutiny—now become explicit.

Personal identity in the previous stage is derived from membership in the various groups one belongs to, where face-to-face contact takes place—family, school, church, neighbourhood, etc. When we are removed from these various contexts we can gain a critical distance from the conventional beliefs these communities reinforce and explore other possibilities. (This is not to say that this has to happen, only that it is more likely to happen. Sometimes people will fall in with ideologically-composed groups that share the conventional beliefs of the communities they left behind, and this makes it harder for people to individuate with regard to their identity and outlook.)³

Fowler writes,

Many religious groups similarly reinforce a conventionally held and maintained faith system, sanctifying one's remaining in the dependence on external authority and derivative group identity of Stage 3. Marriage, for many young men and women, can serve to create a new Synthetic-Conventional ethos and because the couple are playing adult roles they are able, at least for a time, to evade the challenges of the individuative transition.⁴

This distancing from, and critical evaluation of, one's conventional belief system is the first of two movements that must take place. The other involves an interruption of one's reliance on external authority. Authority must be relocated within the self. This is not to say that external authorities cease to play a role in the lives of those who attain this stage, however:

While others and their judgments will remain important to the Individuative-Reflective person, their expectations, advice and counsel will be submitted to an internal panel of experts who reserve the right to choose and who are prepared to take responsibility for their choices.⁵

Sometimes, Fowler notes, people make one of these movements, but not the other. In leaving home—literally or figuratively—people may "undergo the relativization of their inherited world views and value systems," but their reliance on external authority is not interrupted, and may even be strengthened in order to cope with this relativization.⁶ On the other hand, some people break their reliance on external authority, but do not critically evaluate their inherited belief system. So in between Stage 3 and 4 are two transitional positions in which people might find a "potentially longlasting equilibrium."⁷

Those who do make the transition completely develop a greater awareness of their own ideology, as well as the external factors that have nurtured it, and they can understand the ideologies of other people in the same way. They also understand symbols and rituals in a very different way than before. In the past, these were "taken as mediating the sacred in direct ways" and were therefore seen as "sacred in themselves."⁸ In other words, people at Stage 3 tend not to distinguish between the symbol and what the symbol represents. At Stage 4, the meaning of a symbol can be distinguished and expressed without reference to the symbol. Fowler writes,

This demythologizing strategy, which seems natural to Stage 4, brings both gains and losses. Paul Tillich, writing about religious symbols and their powers, says that when a symbol is recognized to be a symbol by those who relate to the transcendent through it, it becomes a "broken symbol." A certain naive reliance upon and trust in the sacred power, efficacy and inherent truth of the symbol as representation is interrupted.⁹

For many people, this transition brings "a sense of loss, dislocation, grief and even guilt."¹⁰

"This transition," Fowler writes, "represents an upheaval in one's life at any point and can be protracted in its process for five to seven years or longer."¹¹ This is less of a problem for younger people, as it can be "a natural accompaniment of leaving home and of the construction of a first, provisional adult life structure" (182). For those who are more established in this structure—those in their 30s or 40s—it can be more disruptive and difficult.

With the transition to Individuative-Reflective, Fowler explains, the individual begins "to take seriously the burden of responsibility for his or her own commitments, lifestyle, beliefs and attitudes."¹² Previously, the individual's faith was in large measure chosen for them. They were Catholic or Protestant or Jewish or Muslim because they were raised that way. Authority is located externally to the self. Beginning with Stage 4, one's faith is self-chosen, and while external authorities may be consulted, the final authority resides in the individual's own judgment.¹³ Fowler writes in his summary,

Stage 4's ascendant strength has to do with its capacity for critical reflection on identity (self) and outlook (ideology). Its dangers inhere in its strengths: an excessive confidence in the conscious mind and in critical thought and a kind of second narcissism in which the now clearly bounded, reflective self overassimilates "reality" and the perspectives of others into its world view.¹⁴

Click here to read about Stage 5: Conjunctive Faith.

Notes
1. Fowler, Stages of Faith, 182.
2. Fowler, Stages, 177.
3. Fowler, Stages, 178.
4. Fowler, Stages, 178
5. Fowler, Stages, 179.
6. Fowler, Stages, 179.
7. Fowler, Stages, 179.
8. Fowler, Stages, 180.
9. Fowler, Stages, 180.
10. Fowler, Stages, 180.
11. Fowler, Stages, 181.
12. Fowler, Stages, 182.
13. See Fowler, Stages, 243.
14. Fowler, Stages, 182-183. Original in italics.

Stage 3: Synthetic-Conventional Faith

In Brief:

A "conformist" stage, very sensitive to other people's expectations; authority is located externally; beliefs and values may be strongly held, but are not subjected to critical scrutiny; symbols are not separable from what they symbolise.

In Detail: People generally reach this stage at around 12 or 13 years of age. It's around this age that we begin to think abstractly and hypothetically. Often this newfound ability enables the emergence of mutual interpersonal perspective taking. This means that we can construct a hypothetical image of how others see us, and we also understand that others can envision how we see them. One consequence of this is that we become very sensitive to other people’s expectations. This helps us, Fowler says, to "focus ourselves and assemble our commitments to values."¹ On the other hand, it often happens that people become overly concerned with others' expectations:

One decisive limit of the Synthetic-Conventional stage is its lack of third-person perspective taking. This means that in its dependence upon significant others for confirmation and clarity about its identity and meaning to them, the self does not yet have a transcendental perspective from which it can see and evaluate self-other relations. In the Synthetic-Conventional stage the young person or adult can remain trapped in the "Tyranny of the They."²

For individuals at this stage, "authority is located externally to the self. It resides in the interpersonally available ‘they’ or in the certified incumbents of leadership roles in institutions."³ This does not mean that people at this stage do not make choices or develop strong personal commitments to their values and beliefs. However, Fowler says,

despite their genuine feeling of having made choices and commitments, a truer reading is that their values and self-images, mediated by the significant others in their lives, have largely chosen them. And in their [i.e., the people at this stage] choosing they have, in the main, clarified and ratified those images and values which have chosen them.⁴

For individuals at this stage, "the system of informing images and values through which they are committed remains principally a tacit system."⁵ That is to say, they are largely unexamined. A person at this stage, Fowler says, "is aware of having values and normative images. He or she articulates them, defends them and feels deep emotional investments in them, but typically has not made the value system, as a system, the object of reflection."⁶ Their "ideology or worldview is lived and asserted," he says, but "it is not yet a matter of critical and reflective articulation."⁷

Another important characteristic of people at this stage, particularly in contrast to people at higher stages, is their relationship with the symbols of their faith. For people at this stage, Fowler says, "with its largely tacit system of meaning and value, the symbols and ritual representations expressive of their faith are organically and irreplaceably tied to the full realities of their meaning systems. Said another way, the symbols expressive of their deepest meanings and loyalties are not separable from…what they symbolize."⁸

A lot of religious people remain at this stage throughout their adulthood. "Much of church and synagogue life in [the U.S.A.]," Fowler notes, "can be accurately described as dominantly Synthetic-Conventional." Critics of religion, he says, often mistakenly assume "that to be religious in an institution necessarily means to be Synthetic-Conventional."⁹

A number of factors can contribute to the breakdown of this stage and prepare the individual for transition to the next. The credibility of their preferred external authorities might be undermined. A fundamentalist might find that they can no longer ignore the evidence in favour of evolution, for example, or the behaviour of a human leader will cast doubt on their credibility as a moral authority. Sometimes drastic changes to what one thought to be an unchangeable tradition can bring about this change, as happened with many Catholics after Vatican II.¹⁰ (Of course, the person might also reject the changes and hold on to the old faith, as traditionalist Catholics have done). "Frequently," Fowler writes, "the experience of 'leaving home'—emotionally or physically, or both—precipitates the kind of examination of self, background, and life-guiding values that gives rise to stage transition at this point."¹¹

Click here to read about Stage 4: Individuative-Reflective Faith.

Notes
1. Fowler, Stages of Faith, 154.
2. Fowler, Faithful Change, 62. Italics in original.
3. Fowler, Stages, 154.
4. Fowler, Stages, 154.
5. Fowler, Stages, 161.
6. Fowler, Stages, 162.
7. Fowler, Faithful, 61.
8. Fowler, Stages, 162-163.
9. Fowler, Stages, 164.
10. Fowler, Stages, 173.
11. Fowler, Stages, 173.