Running head: UNIFYING MODEL 1

Unifying Model of Faith Development

Carrie P. Hachadurian

Western Carolina University

UNIFYING MODEL 2

Introduction

It is common for college students to question aspects of themselves when they enter a

higher education institution, sometimes causing an identity crisis. Students enter college with a

sound knowledge of who they were within the context of previous authority figures, but as they

move away from ascribed identities to an environment rich in differing perspectives, their sense

of self is often questioned (Patton, Renn, & Guido, 2016). In particular, college students

oftentimes question their purpose and life’s meaning and therefore experience spiritual struggle

to some degree (Patton et al., 2016). While there has been substantial research on faith

development, particularly Fowler and Park’s faith development theories, there is not a current

model which reflects the nuances of spiritual struggle in faith development and the subsequent

path to commitment. Therefore, in this paper, I propose a Unifying Model of Faith Development,

which takes a closer look at a lifelong journey of spiritual struggle and path of commitment using

Dillon, Worthington, and Moradi (2011)’s Processes for Sexual Identity Development model.

Literature Review

Faith development and spiritual struggle can be broad in scope, bringing many

perspectives and definitions. It is important to note that faith and religion have separate

distinctions. First, faith is a universal process in which individuals uniquely form their beliefs of

what is true (Patton et al., 2016). Religion, however, is the collective organization and vehicle for

practicing or expressing one’s faith (Patton et al., 2016). Although faith and religion often

intertwine, faith is “also inclusive of secular worldviews” (Patton et al., 2016, p. 196). Faith

development, then, is the increasingly complex way of understanding one’s belief and meaning

making systems over a period of time (Patton et al., 2016).

UNIFYING MODEL 3

Bryant and Astin (2008) defined spiritual struggle as the “intrapsychic concerns about

matters of faith, purpose, and meaning in life” (p. 2). Moreover, Pargament and Trevino (2006)

described it as the “expressions of tension and conflicts over sacred matters” (slide 8), or

anything associated with “God, a higher power, or the divine” (slide 2). Simply put, as

individuals confront previously held belief systems to a deeper meaning of faith, purpose, and

meaning of life, disequilibrium can occur, causing stress and anxiety throughout the process of

searching for answers (Bryant & Astin, 2008).

While many can experience such struggle and development over a lifetime, college

students are particularly vulnerable to facing faith identity uncertainty (Parks, 2000; Bryant &

Astin, 2008; Andrade, 2014; Patton et al., 2016). Fowler (1996) contended that faith

development occurs when one’s “biological maturation, emotional and cognitive development,

psychosocial experience, and religio-cultural influences” are developed, creating dissonance that

cannot be reconciled with one’s current meaning-making systems (Fowler, 1996, p. 57).

Likewise, Park’s Faith Development Theory found that “young adulthood prompts self-

conscious reflection on life’s meaning” (Patton et al., 2016, p. 203) and defined faith

development as the “activity of seeking and discovering meaning in the most comprehensive

dimensions of our experience” (Parks, 2000, p. 7). Faith development, therefore, is often

triggered by spiritual struggle (Bryant & Astin, 2008).

Additionally, college students are more likely to experience spiritual struggle because

struggle is common around life’s stressful transitions, such as the move away from parental or

familial figures and into an independent college setting (Wortmann, Parks, & Edmondson, 2012).

As college students grapple with additional perspectives they may not have considered before, it

is only natural for students to experience spiritual struggle and question their ascribed belief
UNIFYING MODEL 4

systems (Bryant & Astin, 2008; Wortmann et al., 2012; Andrade, 2014). Spiritual struggle is

then compacted when students encounter traumatic experiences which creates an even deeper

divide between their ascribed belief system and the possibility of other beliefs (Bryant & Astin,

2008; Andrade, 2014).

Fowler (!996) found faith development happens in a series of six stages from infancy and

undifferentiated faith to universalizing faith (Andrade, 2014; Patton et al, 2016). College

students specifically often transition from stage three – synthetic-conventional faith wherein

individuals have a set of beliefs formed by a variety of sources but are unaware of their ideology

and do not actively reflect on it to stage four – individuative-reflective faith where individuals

“adopt new value systems as a result of exposure to different ways of life” (Andrade, 2014, p. 2).

Parks (2000) explored how higher education specifically shaped college student faith

development. She found three forms of development –forms of knowing, dependence, and

community. Within each category are subcategories individuals move throughout young

adulthood and continue later on in life. In the Forms of Knowledge category, college students are

most likely in the probing commitment stage where individuals take on short-term “serious,

critically aware exploration” before transitioning to tested commitment where commitments to

faith become more secure (Patton et al., 2016, p. 204). In the Forms of Dependence category,

students are most likely in the fragile inner-dependence stage where students balance the views

of others with their own perspective (Parks, 2000; Patton et al., 2016). They are vulnerable and

need additional support and guidance to reinforce their emerging faith identity before moving on

to confident inner-dependence where they feel increasingly confident in their sense of self and

faith (Patton et al., 2016; Parks, 2000). And finally, in the Forms of Community category,

college students most likely identify with the diffuse community where their previous and
UNIFYING MODEL 5

familiar social groups become increasingly uncomfortable and they begin to seek out new

relationships based on their new sense of self (Parks, 2000; Patton et al., 2016).

While both Parks and Fowler explore stages of faith development within the traditional

college student age and natural progression, neither pay particular attention to the process of

spiritual struggle and the subsequent path to commitment. Additionally, neither theory explains

how some students might embrace new perspectives and ideas while others might choose to

deflect and abandon one’s sense of faith. Spiritual struggle in faith development is a complex and

nuanced experience, particularly for college-aged students who are suddenly introduced to

different ways of thinking or who may experience an event or non-event during a stressful

transition to college. Moreover, spiritual struggle in faith development does not stop at college

graduation but is, for some, a lifelong process. A model which is flexible, cyclical, visual and

easy to understand is needed for those seeking validation in their struggle.

Proposed Model

To create a visual representation of the diverse and nuanced path individuals take in their

journey to finding meaning and purpose through faith development, I propose a model based on

Dillon, Worthington, and Moradi’s (2011) Processes of Sexual Identity Development within

their Unifying Model of Sexual Identity Development (See Figure 1). Although this model in no

way is connected to faith development or spiritual struggle, their model is intentionally written to

be broad and cyclical in nature to explain a wide and diverse identities on the LGBTQ+

spectrum, making this model flexible in other identity realms as well.

Within Dillon et al.’s (2011) model are five sexual identity statuses: compulsory

heterosexuality, active exploration (exploration, no commitment), diffusion (no exploration, no

commitment), deepening and commitment (exploration, commitment), and synthesis (Dillon,

UNIFYING MODEL 6

Worthingon, & Boradi, 2011). Dillon et al. (2011) explained compulsory heterosexuality is the

ascribed and socially sanctioned term for the assumption that everyone begins life as

heterosexual. As individuals gain the cognitive ability to question their sexual orientation, they

may go into active exploration in which one either behaviorally or cognitively explores other

sexual identities or further explores one’s ascribed heterosexual identity; or, they may travel to

the diffused status in which they do not explore their identity and remain in state of “limbo”

(Dillon et al., 2011). Some will go back and forth between active exploration and diffusion while

others will go on to the deepening and commitment stage where they either “come out” as non-

heterosexual or remain committed to a heterosexual identity (Dillon et al., 2011). In the synthesis

status, individual and group sexual identity and attitudes towards the dominant sexual identity

“merge into an overall sexual self-concept” (Patton et al., 2016, p. 166).

(Figure 1: Dillon, Worthington, and Moradi’s (2011) Processes of Sexual Identity Development within their
Unifying Model of Sexual Identity Development)
UNIFYING MODEL 7

Adapting this model to better understand faith development and struggle, I propose

students begin with the ascribed faith or non-faith status, wherein individuals begin with the faith

identity into which they are born and are raised to believe, with “non-faith” meaning the absence

of a belief in a higher power altogether (See Figure 2). As students move through the stages

described by Parks and Fowler and are cognitively able to assess their own faith identities and

experience spiritual struggle, they can go into either active exploration, diffusion, or straight into

deepening and commitment. Those who travel into active exploration may intentionally explore

their ascribed faith or non-faith or explore an alternative faith (active alternative exploration).

Active exploration can include exploring one’s beliefs, values, and religious community. Those

who explore an alternative faith may stay in active alternative exploration, move into deepening

and commitment, then synthesis of the alternative religion; they may also revert back to their

ascribed faith, move back into diffusion, or explore an additional alternative faith.

(Figure 2: Proposed Hachadurian (2016) Unifying Model of Faith Development)

UNIFYING MODEL 8

Students who travel into the diffusion status in which they do not explore nor are they

committed to their ascribed faith fall into one of two status types: diffused diffusion or carefree

diffusion. Those who do not experience stress from their diffused state and are overall apathetic

to their faith development are in the carefree diffusion category. Those who do experience stress

from their lack of commitment to faith are in the diffused diffusion category. Individuals can

move back and forth between active exploration, and even active alternative exploration, and

diffusion as many times as they feel necessary, if at all. Some will never progress to the

deepening commitment/synthesis status but instead will continually cycle through the active

exploration, active alternative exploration, and diffusion statuses.

In the deepening and commitment status, the individual is committed to their chosen or

ascribed faith’s values, beliefs, and religious community. If individuals are committing to an

alternative faith or non-faith, they experience a “coming out” process to one’s family and friends.

Those who move into this status from active exploration experience a deeper sense of self and

appreciation for differing belief systems. Those who move into this status directly from the first

status of ascribed faith/non-faith are committed to their ascribed status without any exploration

and therefore express little to no appreciation for differing beliefs. This is common to those who

believe in the majority faith and who wish to keep the status quo among their peers and family

members.

Finally, the last status, synthesis, is only achievable through the deepening and

commitment status in which the individual synthesizes their faith identity with their individual

and religious group membership identity. All aspects of one’s life are merged with one’s faith.

Those who moved from ascribed faith/ non-faith straight to deepening and commitment and

synthesis will not fully encompass synthesis compared to those who have had active exploration
UNIFYING MODEL 9

experience. In short, the process of the Unifying Model of Faith Development is one of

navigating external authorities to developing an inner sense of peace with one’s faith and beliefs.

Conclusion

The proposed Unifying Model of Faith Development is by nature innovative, flexible and

encompasses room for nuanced faith development many experience throughout a lifetime. This

model is based off research from other faith development theories and borrows structure from

sexual identity theory. Further research is needed on the proposed Unifying Model of Faith

Development in its ability to accurately describe and explain a multitude of faith development

paths over a period of time, but it has potential to help us, as educators and practitioners, better

understand support students through their own faith development and related struggles.
UNIFYING MODEL 10

References

Andrade, A. (2014). Using Fowler’s faith development theory in student affairs practice. College

Student Affairs Leadership, 1(2), 1-13. Retrieved from

http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/csal/vol1/iss2/2

Bryant, A. N., & Astin, H. S. (2008). The correlates of spiritual struggle during the college years.

The Journal of Higher Education, 79(1), 1-28. Retrieved from

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/25144648.pdf

Dillon, F. R., Worthington, R. L, & Moradi, B. (2011). Sexual identity as a universal process. In

S. J Schwartz., K. Luyckx, & V. L. Vignoles, (Eds.), Handbook of Identity Theory and

Research, volume 2 (pp. 649-670). New York: Springer Science + Business Media.

Pargament, K. I., & Trevino, K. (2006). Spiritual struggles as a fork in the road to healthy living.

[PowerPoint slides]. Faith and Health Conference. Retrieved from

www3.nd.edu/~coping/assets/presentations/pargament-trevino.ppt

Parks, S. D. (2000). Big questions, worthy dreams: Mentoring young adults in their search for

meaning, purpose, and faith. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Patton, L. D., Renn, K. A., Guido, F. M., & Quaye, S. J. (2016). Student development in college:

Theory, research and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Wortman, J. H., Park, C. L., & Edmondson, D. (2012). Spiritual struggle and adjustment to loss

in college students: Moderation by denomination. The International Journal for the

Psychology of Religion, 22(4), 303-320. doi: 10.1080/10508619.2011.638605