Stages of spiritual growth - agree or disagree

McGinty

In his book 'The different drum' (pps 187 - 200) M. Scott Peck argues that there are four stages of spiritual growth. I decided to put it here in the christianity board because he Peck comes from a christian perspective. Basically he lists the four stages as:
Stage 1: Chaotic, antisocial
Stage 2: Formal, Institutional
Stage 3: Skeptic, Individual
Stage 4: Mystic, Communal

He based these findings on his own understanding and the work of James Fowler 'Stages of Faith' (which I am not acquainted with), but basically each stage is attributed to the following:-
Stage one people tend to be antisocial, that is they are only interested in their own desires, are highly narcissitic and lack any or very little awareness of their actions, often these people have social problems be it criminality, or extreme relationship problems, but also they can hide their chaotic sides and have risen to positions of extreme power (Peck puts people of the lie , aka evil people in this category). Stage two people tend to focus on the formal aspect of religion/spirituality, that is they see God as a cop in the sky, they need the boundaries and strictures of religion to guide them, they also tend to be fundamentalist in their thinking, needing black and white solutions and rules to their life and religion. Stage three people are comprised mainly of atheists and agnostics, these people question the validity of a God, in other words they are the doubters and often material based and grounded in empirical thinking. Stage four people tend to see the interconnectedness of everything, they are aware of the mystery of God, they become aware of the mystery of life, God but seek to gain a greater understanding, they are also communal based as in it is hard to judge others because they see aspects of themselves in the person they may initally reject.

Peck goes onto state that this not a form of elitism but a means of progression, some people stay stuck in one stage, others move from one then slide back to the former, some people have one toe dipped in stage 1 and a foot in stage four, but basically he has observed through his practise as a therapist, lecturer etc this progression.

Anyhow after that diabtribe, I am interested in what others think? Personally I have experienced this myself, I have moved from a very fundamental christianity where I percieved God hovering on a cloud ready to strike me down if I dare step out of line, then onto a complete rejection of God, I refused to belive in him, but I will be straight and say I have never been a true atheist or agnostic, God has hovered in the background for me. In the last few years I feel I have moved to become a stage four, that is I see the interconnectedness between us, I also see the bible as allegorical rather than literal. I also have discovered the more I learn the less I know, which is incredibly frustrating. Yet I will say I do often have one toe dipped in stage one, I can backslide into narcissm and pettyness in a flash.

What also interests me in this is that in the bible there is the story of doubting thomas, I often feel in this forum that atheists get a hard deal, and I feel we as christians have a lot to learn from atheists, and that the bible recognised and saw the importance of being sceptical, that is to be questioning, because by questioning we as seekers of God and truth we go deeper into the mystery of him, if we blindly believe on a literal level there are elements of God's message that we miss.

I will give an example of this, a couple of years ago I was studying philosophy in 1st year in UCD, we were covering the God question, that is did He exist and also various aspects of determinism. Anyhow as I was studying this for an exam, I had myself nearly convinced that God did not exist, even though I had a mystical experience one year prior, I was doubting, seriously so, and then a quiet voice said, reminding me of the passage in the bible "God is love", well this came into my head. God is love, so then what is love? I could not define love in a material sense, it is not tangible, and I concluded that is love is not tangible but exists, therefore God exists. I believe it was from that point one I became a sincere stage four believer/person. However, if I did not go to the depths of questioning I could not have come to such a deep faith as I hold now.

So after my long speech, I am interested in opinion on any of the topics I raised.

Fallen Seraph

I don't know if you are looking for a solely christian response, but, as an atheist, my opinion is that Peck's theory is bunk.


Offhand I can think of vast hordes of people, historical and acquaintances, that fit into none of the categories, more than one of the categories or, more theory-destroyingly, would be more appropriately classed as a mixture of dissimilar stages.

As an example: hermits. By definition both "mystic" and antisocial.



I really don't think it's possible to pigeonhole the wide spectrum of philosophical outlook and behaviour into four stages. (or any number, for that matter)

PDN

Fallen Seraph wrote:

I don't know if you are looking for a solely christian response, but, as an atheist, my opinion is that Peck's theory is bunk.

I agree with the atheist! :eek:

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

I agree with the atheist! :eek:

Bah. You'd agree with anyone if you thought they were right - why, it's almost as if you have no principles*.

cordially,
Scofflaw

*for an internet-forum-specific meaning of 'having principles'

The Mad Hatter

Scofflaw wrote:

*for an internet-forum-specific meaning of 'having principles'

Not forum-specific - also applies to politics.

Talliesin

Peck's first two books were reasonably interesting. I wouldn't describe myself as a fan by any means, but there were some interesting ideas there.

He has since degenerated into pure Oprah-fodder though.

This definition is purely self-serving for both the author and his audience: "Oh look, people with a religious but independent bent have "grown" more than others! Wow, that's how me and all my readers like to think of ourselves! Aren't we all great!"

McGinty

This definition is purely self-serving for both the author and his audience: "Oh look, people with a religious but independent bent have "grown" more than others! Wow, that's how me and all my readers like to think of ourselves! Aren't we all great!"

I disagree but then I would because for me when I read this it gave expression to my own personal experience. I don't see one stage better than another, I see it as a progression in the same way a person progresses psychologically from childish behaviour and thinking to adult behaviour/thinking.

Offhand I can think of vast hordes of people, historical and acquaintances, that fit into none of the categories, more than one of the categories or, more theory-destroyingly, would be more appropriately classed as a mixture of dissimilar stages.

As an example: hermits. By definition both "mystic" and antisocial.

Just to ask do you believe that people have a spiritual side? Also I don't believe some hermits are mystics because they may be using the solitary life as a means to escape, having said that it is unlikely they would last long. I also believe that those who lead a contemplative life do serve society in a unique way, as they can often give great wisdom to others.

Maybe it is wrong to pigeonhole, but I would see it more of a classification system in the same way that psychological and physical growth is classified, but you are right in that people may have more than one type or be inbetween.

Talliesin

McGinty wrote:

I don't see one stage better than another, I see it as a progression in the same way a person progresses psychologically from childish behaviour and thinking to adult behaviour/thinking.

This phrase pretty much tries to get all of the positive parts of "I am better than other people" without the negative parts.

Why is moving from stage 2 to stage 4 "progress" and moving from stage 4 to stage 2 not?

McGinty

Hi Tallesin

You raise some very good points, and maybe this a form of coded egoism and this is something I need to look at. Often people think they are being one thing when really it can be a disguised form of I am better than you, and I don't want to be like that so I appreciate your comments, however I would appreciate if you read my post properly in relation to moving between stages:-

some people stay stuck in one stage, others move from one then slide back to the former, some people have one toe dipped in stage 1 and a foot in stage four,

the last few years I feel I have moved to become a stage four, that is I see the interconnectedness between us, I also see the bible as allegorical rather than literal. I also have discovered the more I learn the less I know, which is incredibly frustrating. Yet I will say I do often have one toe dipped in stage one, I can backslide into narcissm and pettyness in a flash.

Maybe I should add that he states people backslide, that is go back to a stage three, or a stage two and then go forward again. In other words it is not completely linear but can shift backwards and forwards. Maybe classifying spiritual growth is not a good thing after all, but I do believe that there is growth whether one backslides or not. Thanks for the pointers though.

Fallen Seraph

McGinty wrote:

Just to ask do you believe that people have a spiritual side?

Yes. Not in a supernatural sense. But I believe that the phrase "spiritual growth" has meaning.

18AD

McGinty wrote:

Stage 1: Chaotic, antisocial
Stage 2: Formal, Institutional
Stage 3: Skeptic, Individual
Stage 4: Mystic, Communal

It could be likened to any sort of growth! For example, we come up against a problem, chaos ensues(antisocial), depending how fast we become aware of it we look for answers in the established society (institutional), then we question the answers we got as they may not seem to be the most natural (individual) and we look for our own answers. Then eventually it dawns on you that this process happens to everyone and that their are no solid answers or whatever your personal conclusion is and you return to the institutional in an effort to better it through what you have learned (communal). Then you come up against new problems and the cycle begins again, but now you know how to cycle!

Also it would seem that there is an interesting parallel between Individual/Antisocial and Communal/Institutional. Some sort of duality in constructive and destructive behaviour inside the personnal and social realms.

It sounds a lot like the I and II circuit grid of the 8-circuit model. This can be found here: http://deoxy.org/raw1.htm
To compare:

Stage 1: Chaotic, Antisocial/Hostile weakness
Stage 2: Formal, Institutional/Hostile strength
Stage 3: Skeptic, Individual/Friendly weakness
Stage 4: Mystic, Communal/Friendly strength

In true mystical nature you'd think M. Scott Peck realises that what he found out for himself has been talked about before.

Good luck.
AD.

McGinty

Yes. Not in a supernatural sense. But I believe that the phrase "spiritual growth" has meaning.

Thank you for that, so in what sense can you see that categoristation of spiritual growth can be flawed?

Fallen Seraph

Well, from a strict philosophical point of view I feel that first of all a goal needs to be defined and justified. I don't feel that being a skepic is trivially better than being chaotic. (trivial in the sense that it can be taken as given).

But that's a relatively pedantic objection and depending on your particular christian viewpoint might be moot.

A more general criticism of the "stages" idea is that it seems entirely redundant. Not having read Peck's elaboration on his idea I can only go on what has been said here, but it would seem that it has been said that:

1. There is no inherent progression from stage to stage.

some people stay stuck in one stage, others move from one then slide back to the former, some people have one toe dipped in stage 1 and a foot in stage four

2. no stage is "better" than any other stage.

I don't see one stage better than another, I see it as a progression in the same way a person progresses psychologically from childish behaviour and thinking to adult behaviour/thinking.

Based on these two observations, I'd ask: 'What, then, defines a stage? And why is the idea of "stages" useful if the "stages" in question don't display any of the characteristics usually associated with stages?'



Furthermore, I still think my original objection is quite reasonable. Whether some hermits are faking it or not is a point that I feel is moot. I think it is possible for a person to be "enlightened" in a christian sense and also solitary in the extreme.

As a further counter-example I would put forward the philosopher Marcus Aurelius. If you're not familiar with the chap, he had an approach to problems that would be similar to what was described as "communal" earlier on in the thread, but was certainly not Christian and extremely unsure/indifferent to metaphysics. He could most certainly not be described as mystic in any manner.

To sum it up, I just think that the system is particularly useful in trying to describe spiritual growth.