Snippets of an interesting discussion held last year on the
Enneagram Institute discussion board (the wonderful conversations that sometimes spring up being one of the reasons I like to hang out there).
I wanted to post this to my blog because of my brother's family's recent decision to join a local church, and my experiences of the past six years, leaving one church and joining another. Peck's Four Stages of Spiritual Growth provide an explanation of why some people grow by joining a church (mosque, synagogue, etc.), and why other people grow by leaving:
Ryan: "(This) has led me to recall something that I had read by M. Scott Peck about the four stages of spiritual growth about 15 years ago when I was still living in Toronto.
I googled and found this Web page, which is an excellent summary of Peck's theory. The Web page is:
(NOTE: Please travel the escapefromwatchtower site as you see fit for yourself; it appears to be mostly anti-Watchtower ranting from a disgruntled former Jehovah's Witness; I am only interested in this particular page from that Web site and its summary of Peck's theory.)
Peck's theory of the stages of spiritual growth intuitively makes sense to me, and although I never stopped going to church, I felt that I have been in a spiritual "dry spell" for quite some time (I think I kept up with the church going more for a sense of community and for appearance's sake than for spiritual reasons).
I think, that with my recent work with the Enneagram and with my experiences with healing touch, I am slowly moving from Stage 3 (skeptic) to Stage 4 (mystic). Then again, I might be moving back from Stage 3 to Stage 2 for all I know.
Any comments on this page and Peck's theories? What stage would you say you were at? Your thoughts and feelings, about your own experience/journey? And what would you think is the best way to raise children so that they go through these stages naturally, and not get "stuck" somewhere along the way (like Stage 2 for example, I know quite a few people who are stuck there, either in a fundamentalist religion or cult)."
Person A: "I totally agree with Peck's theory. It falls exactly in line with something I've held for many years -- especially the importance of the Stage III experience. In my opinion, it's impossible to achieve any kind of spiritual maturity unless you have travelled through a questioning, seeking, challenging stage. It's all part of the process of examining, reviewing, and integrating the parts that work.
I'm a lifelong Roman Catholic. According to the pope, I'm a cafeteria catholic. Fine. No problem. I had many years away from the church, and frankly, I am not particularly drawn to the organization at this point in my spiritual development. I do, however, enjoy playing guitar and singing with a group every week. the other reason I continue to attend formal services is to give my daughter a framework from which to jettison. She's 13.
I think that giving children some spiritual experience (Christian, Jewish, Scientologist, Native American, Muslim, Buddist, Sufi, etc...) is an important gift. With any luck at all, they will reach a place in their lives where they challenge and explore the rites, rituals and regulations of their religion, in order to more fully develop their own spiritual life."
Ryan: "I was in Stage 2 for a long time myself (late childhood and teenage years, early twenties) and then I had my first crisis of faith. I think I entered Stage 3 during my mid-twenties although I didn't or couldn't admit it to myself at the time.
As for finding the ladder, one of the problems I have is that (as Peck points out in his excerpt) the process is not something you can plan, organize and schedule... "We cannot get to God under our own steam. We must allow God to do the directing."
The interesting thing is, I can actually see this truth happening in my own life, once I let go and stop trying to grab the baton :-)
... I sent the link to my brother and sister-in-law, hoping to spark a conversation with them about their kids. They're nominally United Church of Canada (like me) but I'm pretty sure they're Stage 3 themselves (at least I'm pretty sure my brother is). I used to joke to him that you'd better take the kids to church to give them something to rebel against when they're teenagers...
Then again, if I hadn't been raised in such a fundamentalist branch of the Lutheran church, maybe I would have dealt with my own sexual orientation a helluva lot sooner. Sigh."
Person B: "I was lucky. My parents (Presbyterian and Anglican) decided that they would bring us up with our roots in the Christian Church, so we had a basis to spring from - as it were. As we moved every couple of years, each time they arrived in a new town, they searched out the church with the best approach to children. So we went to Presbyterian, Anglican, Methodist, Unitarian - you name it! My grandmother and aunt were Christian Scientists and we sometimes read Mary Baker Eddy - whose ideas I have some respect for still. But when we started to question things, my parents response was always something along the lines of 'Well, many people believe......' or 'I feel such and such, but I don't really have an answer - I'm still searching.' My mother had always been interested in Eastern religious philosophy. There were a wide range of books around the house to dip into. It was always clear that we could formulate our own ideas without fear of being criticised or judged. At around 14, both my brother and I went through a 'churchy' phase where we wanted to get confirmed, serve at Mass, read the lessons, run the Sunday school and so on. Then as we got older the scepticism came in, and both of us let go of our interest in established religion. At this point, both my parents (with, I think, a sigh of relief), stopped attending church. Their job was done.
My mother and I both took up Transcendental Meditation when I was 18. Later I became a Quaker. I guess I'm around levels 3-4 now, mostly.
I've tried to follow my parents principles with my own children. We attend church - but not frequently. My son was a chorister in the cathedral here in York. I go to Quaker meeting, and the children have attended with me in the past, but only when they chose to. My daughter went to a Quaker school (but here in the UK Quakers are not a religion anyway - just a group of people seeking the truth where they can find it.)
I think my children are open to ideas, accepting of people's beliefs and have a strong core of spirituality that will take them who knows where. One thing I'm pretty certain of - none of them will become fundamentalists!"
Person C: "I wish I could comment on the childrearing issue, but I'll humbly listen, instead, to those people who have actual experience.
Here's my attempt to compare the religious attitudes addressed in Peck's model to a similar outline of attitudes toward the Enneagram of ego defenses (and, in some ways, toward ego defenses in general). Like Peck's stages, the following analogues begin with egoism and progress to transcendence.
Equivalent Stage I (Egoism): People at this stage "don't give a hoot" about dealing with their ego defenses, which disposition often precludes interest in personality psychology, though egoists occasionally use the Enneagram to reinforce their ego defenses and to excuse their immature behaviors. Also, they might oversimplify the types to bolster their bigotry toward self or others.
Equivalent Stage II (Lexical Dogmatism): "Whatever (this author) says is correct." Enneagram books, to these people, are Bibles. I'm not referring to neophytes, in whom such misguided attitudes are understandable and hopefully temporary. Rather, a broad lexical knowledge of the Enneagram, in addition to lexical dogmatism, would seem essential in Stage II. Since dogmatists lack depth of insight, their self-assessment typically relies on indirect superficial evidence (e.g., surface behavior) rather than inner awareness. They cannot usefully apply the integration theories they often support, let alone evaluate these theories for feasibility.
Equivalent Stage III (Skepticism/Theorizing): A while back, some people on the 9types.com forum started to feel suckered by the prospect of puppet-like paticipation in Stage II, so they went skeptical, and demanded empirical proof of Enneagram principles. Even the self-evident aspects of their ego defenses had to wait, as our skeptics insisted upon first mapping every square nanometer of the mind. Another Stage III participant, the theorizer clears (or evades?) the skeptic's hurdle by claiming an intuitive grasp on the system. Theorizers think innovatively, and can be ingeniously insightful, yet they consider insight the Enneagram's ultimate end, while ignoring or downplaying its implication toward the higher purpose of psychological growth.
Equivalent Stage IV (Transcendence): People at this stage understand the consequences of their compulsive ego defenses. While people in the earlier stages can intellectually comprehend the concept of integration, this is the stage at which the truth touches their higher sensibility: "I must transcend this limiting ego, and live in Essence, love, felicity, unhindered communion with life, and so on." These things are unquantifiable mysteries. I've heard that some people arrive at this stage immediately upon being introduced to the Enneagram. They might be the naturals, but I'm hoping I can catch up with them."
Person D: "In terms of these Stages of Faith, I don't really have any recollection of beginning in Stage I. My earliest memories would only correlate to Stage II, from which I "backslid" to Stage I when I tossed out orthodox Christianity and adopted somthing along the lines of Athiesm. Stage II would become the "chaos" Peck describes that I couldn't... would not accept. I suppose in a way that might have been my initial emergence to Stage III. But for a good year (most of Grade 6 and the summer leading to 7) I was certainly of the mind that I could care less about anyone else. Not a fun time to remember. I don't really have an explanation of what pulled me from that funk, but by the end of that summer things were decidedly different. I went from Stage I directly to III, where I stayed through my late teens before jockeying b/n and evenutally arriving at Stage IV.
One distinction I'd like to make b/n Stage I and II:
--Stage I may be narrowly defined as those who will deceive others in order to further their own self-interest.
--Stage II may be narrowly defined as those who will deceive themselves in order to further their own self-interest.
Therefore, in synthesis:
Stage I people are true in the fact that they are unprincipled (and moreover are relatively unconcerned with how society views them); whereas Stage II persons will erect false principles in order to be thought of as good (specifically due to their concern of how society views them). I's will is arbitrarily imposed, whereas II's will is systematically imposed.
In light of this, the question is begged: Who is the pretender?
Beck holds it is those in Stage I. A case can be made, I think, for both Stages. However, the more dangerous, imho, belong to Stage II. I don't see that ignorace can be used as any more of an excuse for those in Stage II as it may be applied to those in Stage I."
