I think Fowler’s theory makes a lot of sense. However, something I’ve learned about stage theories is that they sort of fall apart when you look too closely at the transitions between stages and when you try to generalize the stages too far. I don’t mean to discredit these theories at all, but wanted to bring up this caveat. Stage theories attempt to describe certain behaviors or processes that change over the course of ones development or aging, and are assumed to be relatively “metamorphic” from one stage to the next, and also pretty universal. But, evidence shows that development is often more continuous and changes are more gradual, fluid, and unique to particular situations or environments. Someone may, for instance, seem squarely in Stage 5 in regards to one aspect of faith, but be in Stage 3 in other aspects. Similarly, one can appear to jump back and forth between stages of development and still be progressing, growing, and developing in a “normal” and healthy manner. Again, this is not meant to criticize Fowler’s stage theory of faith or spiritual development (though it doesn’t seem to be a heck of a whole lot different that Kohlberg’s stages of moral development), but to warn us not to view this stage theory from glasses we picked up on stage three, heh.
