Process theology part IV – pastoral ministry

I wouldn’t call myself a process theist, though there is nothing about process that I have a problem or disagree with. I would say that I have been deeply influenced by process theology and that it makes sense to both my intellect and my experience in this world, but I’m not 100% sold that this is the way it is. I am open to parts of process being wrong, incomplete, or ways others may experience the world. Below I will list several of the major ways I see that process theology can have a positive influence on pastoral ministry.

  1. Creates more openness

Yes, it can open the pastor up to see the many ways God may be working in different situations and people. Also, there may not be one right and one wrong choice, but there may be many choices, sometimes with varying degrees of good or bad. Instead of having a great deal of pressure to find the “one way” or “one correct choice,” the pastor is free to explore multiple choices and to allow a lot more “wiggle room” for others to do so as well. This will automatically allow the pastor to be less rigid, as each person is given more freedom to create their future. The idea that there may be several good options and God may not care which one (or God only cares that we don’t choose certain ones) brings a sense of freedom and creativity that I think our worlds needs more of. This lack of freedom and creativity is also a major reason why many are distancing themselves from organized religion.

  1. Invitation to partner with God

Process theology invites people into a co creative act with God in a way that more traditional theologies do not. Since the future is open and yet to be created (the future is not predetermined), there is a lot of work that can be done. Of course with this can come some pressure as there is also a lot of responsibility, but I think most would see this as a wonderful opportunity – we get to create a future with God and our actions really matter! In this regard, the decisions we make may be varying degrees of participation with God as we open ourselves up to God’s leading in each situation.

  1. Everything is interconnected

When a pastor believes that all things are relational and thus interconnected, his or her vision is much larger. It’s not just about saving souls from going to hell, or about convincing everyone who is not a Christian that they are wrong, but it is a way to see that every life matters, every creature matters, and our earth matters. Some theologies are very short sighted and even destructive as they are merely “evacuation plans.” In process theology everyone is invited to see with new lenses the ways that all our choices affect others for better or worse. Our diet, our transportation, our clothing, our lifestyle are all-important because they have affects on others. When all things are relational we see all things with greater value. This leads to a much more expansive view of the world that includes not just human souls, but all creation!

  1. God is for the flourishing of all things.

This is related to the others, but is a wonderful way to see the world. In process theology, God is not an angry, judgmental tyrant. Nor does God require blind obedience. God will not punish you just because you didn’t obey. Clearly there are consequences to not following the lure or initial aim of God, but this is greatly different than receiving punishment for not obeying. If God is working for all things to flourish, then God is working for each individual to flourish. It becomes more about opening yourself up to God’s aim than it does about obeying a directive. A pastor can help others understand that God is not waiting for them to mess up or carrying a list of the people who are naughty and nice, but is always working on their behalf. For so many people this will be absolutely freeing! This also means that God is not only working for my flourishing, but for yours, and for all creation. This brings a larger perspective than the common and narrow anthropocentric view of many theologies. God wants all creation to flourish and when we participate in the flourishing of other things we are participating with God. There are numerous ways one can do this, so a pastor can encourage others that they are doing sacred work even in the ordinary things.

  1. God is not a “being out there,” but is personal and near.

Many picture God as somewhere a long ways away sitting on a throne. Process informs us that God is here and very active in the world. A pastor who has a panetheistic view of the world can encourage others to see all the ways God may be working in the world, or to at least be open to see that perhaps God is working in ways they cannot see. When “all things are in God” then all things become sacred. Pastors can help others see that teaching, office work, running a business, cleaning, laundry, organizing, creating art, music, poetry, non profit work, are all sacred tasks and God is working through all of it. It also brings God a lot closer. God is not a distant deity that sometimes acts in extreme circumstance, but is present in every thing and working in all.

Obviously these are just a few ways, and many of them are related. A process informed pastor can meet the real needs of people when they are hurting and broken because they understand that that a persons loss or pain was not caused by God. A pastor can walk through these difficult times, even if they cannot give absolute reasons why they were caused, and help bring healing and wholeness to the lives of those around them.

I think many people are in need of a different way of seeing God and a different way of understanding how God interacts in the world. The more traditional ways of seeing God are not working and process theology gives us a great way of understanding a God that not only makes intellectual sense to many, but can also be helpful and healing to those who have struggled or are struggling with more traditional ways of understanding God. A pastor does not need to mention the word process or go into the ins and outs of the specifics of process theology. Being pastoral is providing care and guidance to people, especially in difficult times. Process theology can have a very positive influence upon those providing this care as it provides a way to engage in the world that makes sense to many modern people.

 

 

Process theology part 3 – Omnipotence and the problem of evil

Evil is a major problem in our world today. With the increasing number of mass shootings, the threat of terrorism, and the growing environmental crisis, evil is on the forefront of our minds. Many Christians have explained evil in such a way that it ends up blaming God as the cause. Perhaps no question is as pertinent as the question: How can both a good God and evil exist? In this post, I will first explore two of the more common ways Christians have traditionally answered the problem of evil. Then, I will explain how process theology answers this problem. Lastly, I will argue that a process theodicy is indeed a better way to understand how both a good God and evil can exist.

Many people throughout history have asked why there is evil if there is a good God who is in control of everything.[1] Christianity has answered this question in several different ways and the theological name for this has often been referred to as theodicy. Theodicy stems from the combination of two Greek words for “God” and “justice,” and is the way a person explains how there can be a good God in light of the evils of this world.[2] In other words, theodicy is the attempt to give a reason how God and evil are compatible.[3] In his book God, Power, & Evil, David Ray Griffin gives a straightforward summary of the problem of evil by using eight simple propositions:

  1. God is a perfect reality. (Definition)
  2. A perfect reality is an omnipotent being. (By definition)
  3. An omnipotent being could unilaterally bring about an actual world without any genuine evil.
  4. A perfect reality is a morally perfect being.
  5. A morally perfect being would want to bring about an actual world without any genuine evil.
  6. If there is genuine evil in the world, then there is no God. (Logical conclusion from 1 through 5)
  7. There is genuine evil in the world. (Factual statement)
  8. Therefore, there is no God. (Logical conclusion from 6 and 7).[4]

The above argument has been used by many to provide evidence that God does not exist (proposition eight).

a2-the-problem-of-evil300-thumbnail-4

Though Christian theodicy has taken on more than two forms, I will explain what I believe are the two primary ways that Christians have answered the problem of evil. One of the dominant ways that Christians have answered the problem of evil is by arguing that genuine evil does not exist. While no one outright denies evil, those who have found this answer compelling will argue that the evil we see is only “apparent evil.”[5] In other words, the evil that humanity calls evil is only apparently evil from our limited, finite perspectives.[6] Those who argue for this theodicy believe that God is all controlling – meaning everything that happens is controlled and willed by God.[7] The evil we see around us is not genuine evil but rather only apparent evil because it contributes to the overall good.[8] This theodicy is most popular in Calvinism where God is viewed as an all-determining deity. Many very popular and influential Christian theologians including Augustine, Luther, Aquinas, and Calvin have argued some variation of this theodicy.[9]

The second answer to the problem of evil that many Christians have given is what I will call the “free-will theodicy.” This theodicy argues that God and evil exist because God self-limited Godself in order to allow humans to have freedom.[10] One theologian explains this theodicy by writing:

God could have prevented Auswitch, Hiroshima, Wounded Knee, and the current mass starvation in the world. But to have done this to avoid momentary pain and suffering would actually have hindered the realization of the long-term purpose, the development of moral and spiritual qualities through free decisions.[11]

In other words, the “free-will theodicy” argues that evil exists because it is a necessary byproduct of human free will.[12] While the all-determining theodicy believes God directly controls everything that happens, a free-will theodicy does not believe that evil is caused directly by God but is rather the necessary result of allowing free choice to humans. Some traditional theists would even go so far as to declare that suffering exists because it is a needed part of our spiritual journey and suffering brings necessary growth.[13]

Process theologians believe that God’s power is always persuasive and never unilateral power. In this view, evil exists because God cannot stop all evil. One critique that process theology raises against more traditional Christian theodicies is that if God could act unilaterally to prevent evil, than God should. Process theologians argue that traditional theodicies leave God culpable because God does not act to prevent evil even though God could prevent evil. If a parent decided to allow a car to hit and kill their child even though they could have prevented this, we would believe that parent to be culpable.[14]

Omnipotence:

If God’s power is omnipotent power then “it must be the power to determine every detail of what happens in the world.”[15] An omnipotent deity is a deity who has all the power.[16] This is the crux of the problem of evil because an omnibenevolent (all-good) God would not want evil to exist, and an omnipotent (all-powerful) God would be able to create such a world.[17] As mentioned above this has led an unknown number of people to believe that God cannot exist (proposition eight).

The idea of God having unilateral power stems from Greek philosophy.[18] Christianity became a religion of the Gentiles and was heavily influenced by the Greeks – so much so that the New Testament was written in Greek. Process theologians critique the idea of an omnipotent God in many different ways. First, some process theologians such as David Ray Griffin in his book God, Power, & Evil, argue that one can believe that God is indeed omnipotent, but then reinterprets the definition of omnipotence to mean perfect power or greatest conceivable power – though not unilateral power.[19] Another way process theologians understand the idea of omnipotence is that it is not and cannot be an accurate description of God.[20] Thus we should reject this word completely (including proposition two). Process theologians would echo the popular statement by Alfred North Whitehead, one of the founders of process philosophy, by declaring:

“They [classical theist] gave unto God the properties that belonged unto Caesar.”[21]

Process theology stems from the philosophical work of Alfred North Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne who taught that perfect power is always persuasive and never coercive.[22] That is not to say that God chooses to use persuasive power, as some might argue, but rather God cannot use coercive, unilateral power – it is not a choice.[23] Of course some would argue that this places false limitations upon God, but process theologians disagree. Process theologians believe that God’s power is not and cannot be unilateral power, but is rather the greatest conceivable power – the greatest power any one being can possibly have.[24] Process theologians deny the idea that “It is possible for one actual being’s condition to be completely determined by a being or beings other than itself.”[25] Basically, the idea of actual beings having at least some self-determining power while one actual being has all self-determining power is a metaphysical impossibility.[26] As actualities, humans have the power to make choices and thus shape the present and future. If humans have at least some self-determining power, than no single being can have all the power to control them.[27] Griffin argues that if any single actuality or being can be totally determined by another, than that actuality has no power.[28] This metaphysical impossibility has led process theologians to believe that God cannot have unilateral, coercive power, but only the highest conceivable power. The highest conceivable power, which in relationship to all actual beings, must always be persuasive power.

What about evil?

Process theologians suggest that evil is not necessary.[29] God’s aim and lure in the world is always for good, beauty, complexity, and is never for evil.[30] Evil exists because other actualities have self-determining power and have freely chosen not to follow God’s initial aim. Process theologians believe that in order for God to stimulate more complex creatures, the possibility of evil must always be equal to the possibility of good.[31] In other words, God took huge risks by creating more complex creatures. The more complex a creature, the more possibility they have for good or evil. Griffin explains this by writing:

Only in those forms of life to which we attribute a significant capacity for suffering do we suppose there to occur a significant level of enjoyment. Only those creatures that have the capacity for enjoying the higher forms of value sometimes find their experience so miserable that they commit suicide.[32]

Process theologians suggest that “evil is not necessary” but “the possibility of evil is necessary.”[33] In process thought evil does not exist because God wills it or because it is a part of God’s plan. Evil does not exist because it will be used for good, though that can be true at times. Nor does evil exist because God self-limited Godself. God chose to create knowing that in stimulating creation to greater complexity God would risk the possibility of evil. Yet God is not culpable in that God does not stand by and allow evil while being able to prevent it rather God is always working to prevent evil.

 

[1] John B. Cobb, Jr. and David Ray Griffin, Process Theology: An Introductory Exposition (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976), 69.

[2] David Ray Griffin, Evil Revisited (New York: State University, 1991), 198.

[3] Ibid, 211.

[4] David Ray Griffin, God, Power, & Evil (Louisville: Westminster Press, 2004), 19.

[5] Griffin, Evil, 197.

[6] Ibid, 197.

[7] Ibid., 197.

[8] Ibid., 79.

[9] Ibid., 197.

[10] Cobb and Griffin, Process, 74.

[11] Griffin, Evil, 15.

[12] C. Robert Mesle, Process Theology: A Basic Introduction (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 1993), 74.

[13] Ibid., 73.

[14] Ibid, 59.

[15] Charles Hartshorne, Omnipotence and other Theological Mistakes (New York: State University, 1984), 11.

[16] Mesle, Process, 28.

[17] Griffin, God, 262.

[18] Mesle, Process, 28.

[19] Ibid., 252.

[20] Cobb and Griffin, Process, 53.

[21] Hartshorne, Omnipotence, 14.

[22] Mesle, Process, 8.

[23] Ibid., 8.

[24] Griffin, God, 261.

[25] Ibid., 264.

[26] Ibid., 265.

[27] Ibid., 268.

[28] Ibid., 268.

[29] Ibid., 69.

[30] Ibid., 69.

[31] Griffin, Evil, 28.

[32] Ibid., 27.

[33] Cobb and Griffin, Process, 69.

Process theology part 2 – attributes of God

God has been given many different attributes as humans wrestle with ways to understand and explain who God is. Several of the most common attributes have been:

  • Impassibility – cannot experience emotions such as pain, suffering etc.
  • Immutability – changeless
  • Omnipresence -present everywhere
  • Omniscience – all-knowing
  • Omnipotence – all-powerful

god

Process theologians argue that these attributes have been falsely given or at least wrongly defined, and that this has led to a grave misunderstanding about God’s interaction with the world and why evil exists. In this post I will explore each of these attributes very briefly from a process theological perspective. (Since omnipotence is the most difficult attribute to see differently, and the attribute that most informs how one answers the problem of evil, I will attempt to explain why process theologians argue that omnipotence is a false attribute while dealing with the problem of evil in the next post.)

Impassibility:

In classical theology God “is not subject to suffering, pain, or the ebb and flow of involuntary passions.”[1] As I shared in the last post (part 1), at the very foundation of process philosophy is the belief that all of reality is relational, and because all reality is relational, God must also be relational. By definition a relational entity must be able to affect and be affected by others.[2] Central to Christian theology is the idea that God has incarnated Godself in Jesus who suffered and was crucified on a cross. In other words, God suffers in Jesus who hangs upon a cross. How could one suffer and not be changed? It is impossible. Process theologians deny the impassibility of God and instead see God as one who not only affects, but is also affected by others.

Immutability:

Immutability is the belief that God cannot change.[3] Early Christian theologians – influenced heavily by Greek philosophy – believed that God’s perfection must mean that God cannot change. Process theologians argue that God does indeed change because God, like everything else in the cosmos, is relational (see previous post on more concerning this). In essence, God is not the “unmoved mover,” but the “most moved mover.”

Omnipresence:

Omnipresence is an attribute that both process theologians and traditional theologians agree upon. Process theology may differ slightly in that process theology often leads to panentheism. Panentheism is not to be confused with pantheism, and is not exclusive to process theologians as some non-process theologians would also consider themselves panentheists. Pantheists believe that “all things together are God” while Panentheists believe that “all things are in God.”[4] Process theologians tend to view the entire cosmos as part of God, though God is not limited to any one part of the cosmos. In a process perspective the interconnectedness of all things is central, and this includes God’s interconnectedness to all of creation.[5]

Omniscience:

Omniscience, or all knowing, has been traditionally interpreted to mean that God knows everything past, present, and future.[6] Omniscience is an attribute that process theologians tend to keep, but they redefine this (similar to open theists, but with slight variations). Many have understood God to be outside of time. One way to understand this is to think of God as viewing time like we read a book. God can turn the pages from past, present, or future as God looks on from beyond. Process theologians agree with traditional theology in that God knows the past completely and the present perfectly as it unfolds, but differs in that they believe even God cannot yet know the future.[7] Since actualities (e.g., humans) have some self-determining power and are partially self-creative, the future is not yet determined and thus cannot be known as determined.[8] In this regard, process theologians believe that God’s knowledge is omniscient in that it is perfect knowledge – full knowledge of all that can be known including complete knowledge of the past and present, and full knowledge of all future possibilities. One process thinker explains this by writing, “if God has perfect knowledge of the world and of me, God will know exactly what all of the possibilities are and how probable they are. But even with perfect knowledge God could not know what I will choose in the future because that choice has not yet been made and it is a real choice.”[9] Process theologians argue that if God knows the future as determined than real freedom would be impossible.[10] Hartshorne summarizes this by writing, “future events, events that have not yet happened, are not there to be known.”[11]

Next post I will explore the attribute of omnipotence and the problem of evil from a process perspective.

 

 

[1] “Impassibility of God,” Theopedia, accessed June 9, 2016. http://www.theopedia.com/Impassibility_of_God

[2] Ibid., 30.

[3] “Immutability of God,” Theopedia, accessed June 9, 2014. http://www.theopedia.com/Immutability_of_God

[4] C. Robert Mesle, Process Theology: A Basic Introduction (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 1993), 137.

[5] John B. Cobb, Jr. and David Ray Griffin, Process Theology: An Introductory Exposition (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976), 52.

[6] “Omniscience of God,” Theopedia, accessed June 9, 2014. http://www.theopedia.com/Omniscience_of_God

[7] Cobb, Jr. and Griffin, Process Theology, 52.

[8] Ibid., 52.

[9] Mesle, Process Theology, 37.

[10] Ibid., 37.

[11] Charles Hartshorne, Omnipotence and other Theological Mistakes (New York: State University, 1984), 39.

Process theology part I

Process thought begins with the understanding that everything in the world is relational and changes – nothing stays the same. Eastern wisdom traditions tend to focus much more upon the impermanence of all things, and perhaps there is something there we in the west, can learn from.

Since everything is relational (which I take to also mean interconnected) then everything that happens is influenced by something and the results affect everything else. Every choice we make affects others, some choices, e.g. decided to strap a bomb on our back and detonate it, have a greater affect upon others.

If we start our discussion on process theology (sometimes referred to as process-relational theology) here, where it makes sense to most people, then it is easier to understand how process theology builds upon this at it seeks to understand God. God is affected by others choices and thus God changes. Many religious people may be quick to reject this idea because the idea of the changlessness of God has been such a huge part of our embedded theology.

Biblically, we can find many places where God changes. Probably the clearest example is when God is discussing with Abraham the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18. But there are others places. For example, after Moses came down from the mountain with the Ten Commandments, the people had build a golden calf and God became so angry that he said he would consume them. After Moses stood up for the people, we read, “the Lord changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring on his people” (Ex 32v14). We read of a similar time where Moses influenced God to change God’s mind toward the people in Numbers 14. Clearly, God does in fact change and perhaps we have more influenced upon this than we realize.

intro-to-process-theology-evil-14-728

What I find to be the most compelling part of all this is the idea that everything is relational and influenced by each other. Our environment is influenced by the decisions of ourselves and others. Our families are shaped by the decisions of those within and those outside. Once we begin to understand the relatedness (or interconnectedness) of all things, then we begin to see Reality in a whole new way!

 

 

 

 

The God of Jesus

Who is the God of Jesus?

Unfortunately many view God as a monarchical ruler, but Jesus understood God as Abba – the Aramaic word for father. When a person explores what Jesus meant by Abba, it becomes apparent that it is a vastly different picture of God than many have today.

Theologian John Cobb writes, “But a very important difference between Jesus and the Hebrew Scriptures of his time was the shift from monarchical language to family relations.”[1]

Let us try to understand what Jesus had in mind when he used the word Abba. While the Christian Scriptures were primarily written in Greek, many believe that Jesus spoke primarily Aramaic and Abba was most likely the word that Jesus himself used when he referred to God. Cobb suggests that Abba is baby talk.[2] It is difficult to be certain of this, but if correct, a more accurate translation may be that of “daddy.” What is most important in understanding Jesus’ use of the word Abba, is that “The normal relation of the father to the infant is one of tenderness and unconditional love. It was unconditional love rather than controlling power that dominated Jesus’ understanding of God.”[3] Jesus did not understand God as ruler or king and in fact never spoke of God in this way, yet it has come to dominate the consciousness of many religious people today.[4]

iStock_000002218181Small

A person’s view of God greatly shapes how they understand the central teaching of Jesus which was that the “kingdom of God” has come. If a person views God as ruler or king then this message will be understood a certain way. If a person understands God as a loving and caring parent, then this message will be understood very differently. The phrase “kingdom of God” has been translated from the Greek phrase basileia theou.[5] Since basileia is best defined as “a politically defined region,”[6] it can be interpreted differently. For example, if a person views God as a monarchical ruler or judge, then basileia would surely mean the region or area where the king ruled. In a similar way it could be seen as God’s empire. This is certainly how many interpret the phrase “kingdom of God” today. If, however, a person looks at the phrase “kingdom of God” with a view of God as a loving parent, then they will arrive at a very different understand. Cobb suggests that if God is seen as a father, then “We might describe a father’s basileia better as the family estate.”[7] Of course, this is still open to different ways of understanding depending on the type of parent who owns the estate.

We come back once again to the view of God that Jesus held. Jesus’ Abba was not a distant, angry, or demanding father who ruled with an iron fist, but was rather a loving and compassionate father who cared for the well being of all things with a particular focus upon those most vulnerable. Thus, “kingdom of God” or the of basileia theou means “the realm, or community, or commonwealth in which God’s will is done.”[8] The invitation is to become a part of that community or commonwealth right now. Two ideas surrounding this must be addressed.

First, Cobb addresses the belief of basileia theou as an eschatological reality. The “kingdom of God” or community is not something that will happen sometime in the future; rather it is a present reality. Second, if the invitation is a present reality to become a part of a community that cares for the well being of all things with a particular focus upon those most vulnerable, this brings with it a change of attitude, perspective, or way of living. This change – often referred to as repentance – is an essential part of the gospel message. Cobb summarizes the Synoptic Gospels well by stating that the heart of the message was: “reorient yourself radically; the basileia theou is at hand.”[9] The good news demands a shift, a change, or a reorientation of how a person lives so that they see with new eyes, but this shift cannot happen until a person understands God as Abba.

If the good news is an invitation to reorient our lives to enter into Abba’s commonwealth here and now, this inherently has affects on the individual as well as the community. Once a person is able to see God as a loving parent who desire’s to see them flourish (and not an angry dictator), they then cease to defend, hide, or pretend. Salvation is not simply extended by an intolerant God because of a blood sacrifice by His Son, but salvation is an invitation to enter into the healing process or to become more whole. Of course this invitation extends to all, but we must first we must experience this for ourselves.

The good news means that each person is a beloved child of God. If God is Abba, or father, then clearly that means we are His children. Cobb addresses the struggle of non-gendered language when referring to God and chooses to use the male masculine pronoun, though he realizes that this is also limiting because God is also mother. Cobb suggests that not using personal pronouns tends to inhibit an understanding of a personal God. This is something I had not previously thought of, but is beginning to make some sense. I don’t have a problem using the pronoun “she” or the word “mother” when referring to God, but I also understand that it is not common or widely accepted. Thus, perhaps a male masculine pronoun may more accurately reflect an intimate parent, limiting as it may be, than refusing to use any personal pronouns.

Realizing that a person is a beloved child of God and that they cannot and do not need to do anything to “become” this is the first of two steps in the gospel message. The second step is to reorient your life according to this truth. In my opinion, the first step is the hardest and since the second is a natural overflow, I tend to focus more upon the first. Realizing that a person is a beloved child of God is the hardest step because so many religious and non religious people alike understand God as a monarchical king who demands perfection. Because none of us are perfect and we have all “sinned” the idea that God demands a payment of sorts to make up for this “flaw” is prevalent in much of Christianity. Concerning this Cobb writes, “The idea that his mission was to die to appease the wrath of Abba was as remote from Jesus as devil worship, and its effect on the Christian world since Anselm has been poisonous.”[10] Theologically this view is called penal substitutionary atonement, and I agree that it is a poisonous view that has done much harm in our world.

God, according to Jesus, was a loving, caring, and personal parent. God was close, not distant, involved not disengaged, and always works through persuasive love and never through coercive power.

[1] John Cobb, Jesus’ Abba, xx.

[2] Ibid., 5.

[3] Ibid., 5.

[4] Ibid., 1.

[5] Ibid., 2.

[6] Ibid., 2.

[7] Ibid., 2.

[8] Ibid., 16.

[9] Ibid., 16.

[10] Ibid., 23.

Stages of Spiritual Growth

Roughly 5 years ago I began a process that took me into a deep internal struggle. The worldview which was handed down to me no longer worked and as I was pursuing ministry, involved in leadership at my church, and finishing up my undergrad degree in Biblical Studies. It became more and more apparent that the ground beneath me that once seemed so solid was quickly falling.

This experience lasted for more then several years, and if I’m honest I am probably still journeying through bits of it. It was a faith crises of sorts, and through this struggle I have discovered a deeper, but very different way of being a person of faith and spiritual conviction. Along the way, I learned about the stages of faith. Both James Fowler and Psychiatrist M. Scott Peck have written about this spiritual developmental theory. My only regret is that I did not discover it sooner. M. Scott Peck gives four simple and important stages to spiritual development. These stages are as follows:

stepsSLANTED-copy

Stage I: Chaotic – antisocial.

As an infant we enter into this life thinking the world revolves around us. We all begin in stage I. It is a time of chaos or lawlessness in that we are not sure what is true, good, or right. At stage I we are selfish and seek our own self interests. Some have suggested that prison is a stage I institution in that it places limits on those who don’t or can’t control themselves as part of a larger society.

Stage II: Formal – institutional.

As we grow, we begin to seek stability and a sense of security. This stability is most often given in the form of large institutions and/or a person(s) of authority. We seek to know what should be, what is true, right, and good. We often learn this from religious organizations (or other places such as the military). This stage is helpful and necessary in spiritual development, but unfortunately most religious people and institutions remain at stage II.

Stage III: Skeptical – individual.

While many remain at stage II, some begin to question the institutions, structures, and those in authority. This is often reflected during the teenage years as this person begins to question their parents authority and their rules. Religiously, many who enter into stage III begin to question the doctrines, dogma, and beliefs that have been handed down to them. Many who enter into stage III believe this to be the last and final stage. The college or university are often associated with this stage.

Stage IV: Mystical – communal.

Few people enter into stage IV. One enters into stage IV when they continue to seek out the sacred and walk through the skepticism, questions, and doubts of stage III. People in stage IV may be religious or may not, but they all share some form of deep knowing and appreciation for the divine or sacred as Great Mystery. Instead of clear answers and black and white thinking as seen in stage II, people in stage IV value questions, experience, mystery, and the journey toward discovering more. While often in stage II we are very closed off and dogmatic, in stage IV people are open to experiencing new and different things and working with those who do not see things the same way. They realize that no creed, doctrine, dogma, book, or religion can fully capture the Sacred. Often they are deeply committed to their own particular wisdom tradition, but they are open to learning from others. While stage III people are more individualistic, people in stage IV see the great value of community.

Some thoughts:

Looking back, I can see that five years ago I was pushing back against a stage II environment. I was questioning, wrestling, and struggling – the “institution” (i.e., church) was not giving me answers that worked or made sense to my experience, thoughts, and beliefs. The journey from stage II to stage III often brings a crisis of faith, and many never recover or move past stage III for one of two reasons: either they are sick and tired of the whole “religious” thing and are over it entirely (they chuck it all out or see it as only a crutch), or they have no idea that there is a stage IV and have never encountered anyone who lived at this stage. Often many people at stage III associate religion or spirituality with stage II because often there experiences reflect this.

Some people are at stage I and the traditional forms of religion at stage II are exactly what they need. I believe this is why churches are growing in certain parts of the world – it is a necessary and important step in spiritual growth. But, many in the western world are at stage III and they see much of religion at stage II. In other words, it feels like a step backwards.

What I hope to be growing into (I don’t claim to be there yet) is stage IV. I have struggled with being a pastor because much of what I have known has been stage II religion. I realize that being at stage IV means that you may speak some of the same language as people at stage II, but mean different things. Thus, there is a tension because people at stage II will see you as a threat and people at stage III will often think you are at stage II because of your language.

I believe we are in desperate need of stage IV leaders, pastors, CEOs, business people, parents, counselors, teachers, etc. Our world will grow when those at stage IV have the courage to step out, speak, and lead. These people may be misunderstood, seen as a threat, or even seen by some as naive, but many of the great movements of history have been lead by people who took this risk. Stage IV people are sometimes called the mystics – they see beyond what most can see.

We need people who can see what most cannot. We need people who can help teach others to see beyond stage II or III and into another, more deeper way of being human and brings the heart and the mind together and works toward a more just and generous world.