Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible

and Theology
http://btb.sagepub.com

That You May Believe: the Fourth Gospel and Structural Developmental Theory
Elizabeth Liebert
Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology 1984; 14; 67
DOI: 10.1177/014610798401400207

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://btb.sagepub.com

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Biblical Theology Bulletin Inc.

Additional services and information for Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://btb.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://btb.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations http://btb.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/14/2/67

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 23, 2009

 THAT YOU MAY BELIEVE: THE FOURTH GOSPEL
AND STRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENTAL THEORY
Elizabeth Liebert, SNJM, St. Thomas
Over and over again, one hears questions about faith:
&dquo;Should I believe?&dquo; &dquo;Why?&dquo; &dquo;Believe in what or whom?&dquo;
&dquo;How does belief happen?&dquo; &dquo;I don’t think I believe any
longer. How can I be sure?&dquo; Clearly, belief is of perennial
significance to religious and non-religious persons alike.
In this paper, I shall use two widely differing sets of texts to
examine the process of believing: the Fourth Gospel and
the writings of the structural developmentalists, a rela-
tively recent school of psychology. I submit that these two
perspectives share some striking similarities when
brought to bear on the topic of belief and further, that
each perspective illumines, challenges, and enriches the
other. Specifically, I propose that: (1) the Fourth Gospel
challenges its readers to believe as deeply as it does, at
least partly because it reflects the developmental struc-
tures by which we all come to know, to believe, to act and
(2) the Gospel illustrates what has often been so painfully
discovered in therapeutic situations that insight by
-
itself is insufficient to bring about a total transformation
of actions. The Gospel writer insists that belief is a move-
ment in sometimes painful increments towards a particu-
lar kind of understanding-response.
First, some brief remarks about the choice of texts and
the hermeneutical perspective. In relation to the Gospel
text, one can establish the centrality of faith as one of the
Evangelist’s major theological concerns from several dif-
ferent perspectives. Without elaborating here, one may
conclude from the stated intention of the author in 20 :30-
31, an analysis of the number, content, and literary role of
the texts on believing and knowing (Gaffney), and the
whole ambiance of the community which produced the
Gospel (Brown, 1979), that believing and knowing are
central concerns in the Fourth Gospel. This study is
based upon the further assumption that, since believing
is so important to the evangelist, the process of coming
to belief, the very structure of believing, as well as the
contents of belief, are included in the author’s preoccupa-
tion, albeit perhaps unconsciously.
When one begins to focus on the structure rather than
the content of faith in the Fourth Gospel, some interest-
ing parallels with structural developmental psychology
become apparent. The processes of coming to belief (or
hardening into unbelief) are formally analogous to pro-
cesses which have been the center of the structural devel-
opmentalists’ concern. From these parallels arise the
thesis that the Fourth Gospel &dquo;speaks&dquo; to its readers
about believing as deeply as it does partly because it
Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 23, 2009
Seminary, Denver, CO 80210
reflects the structures by which we all come to know, to
believe, to act, as elaborated in the structural develop-
mentalists’ work. My concern will be not so much with the
fact of belief or unbelief of the characters in the Gospel as
with the dynamic which the Gospel illustrates and which
the evangelist attempts to evoke within us, his readers.
The second preliminary point is hermeneutical. Gada-
mer holds that any classical text has an &dquo;excess of mean-
ing&dquo; beyond the intention of the author; and Ricoeur that
the text &dquo;projects a meaning of its own.&dquo; The text is then a
&dquo;mediation of meaning evoking an infinity of related and
non-contradictory interpretations&dquo; (Schneiders,
1978b:733, 1982:59). The text necessarily calls into play
the consciousness of the interpreter, which differs from
that of any other interpreter because it is historically
structured. Every valid interpretation can therefore be a
unique actualization of the text.
Gadamer also speaks of &dquo;effective historical con-
sciousness&dquo; (Schneiders, 1982:64). In our culture, psy-
chological concerns are included in the &dquo;effective
historical consciousness&dquo; which we bring to the New
Testament texts. However, reading the text with a psycho-
logically informed mind-set need not lead to psychologiz-
ing. According to Dan Via, the legitimacy of any approach
-
in this case, psychological - depends on whether the
narrative elements and the psychological categories can
be shown to attract one another (21 ). That the develop-
mental focus is a contemporary one, unavailable to the
author or his hearers (or any readers until this last quarter
century), need not violate the hermeneutical task if the
integrity of the text and the integrity of the contextual
system are both preserved (Tolbert, 1979: 111 ).
Progress, Development, and Regression
In order to sketch the broad lines of similarity between
the concerns of the author of the Fourth Gospel and the
structural developmentalists, 1 will next set out the main
theoretical emphases of the structural developmental
psychologists.
Developmental psychology rests upon the fundamen-
tal observation that the perceptions, value structures,
thought processes, degrees of conceptual clarity -
indeed, the whole world - of the child is qualitatively
different from that of the adult. Simply put, babies lack
the competencies of adults. A theoretical assumption
67
follows: the child proceeds in a series of developmental
increments from its simpler, diffused and undifferen-
tiated world toward the adult’s relatively greater percep-
tual clarity, more complex and highly differentiated ways
of making sense of reality and of acting on the
environment.
From this point on, developmentalists separate into
two major groups, sometimes called the maturational
and the structural developmentalists. The maturational-
ists -
among them, Sigmund Freud, Erik Erikson,
Robert Havinghurst, and Harry Stack Sullivan - hold that
11
development is age-specific. That is, each new &dquo;age&dquo;
leads to a new stage, regardless of reorganizations at
previous stages. Education and experience are valuable
not in order to precipitate or facilitate movement to a new
stage, but to aid the successful or healthy integration of
the concerns of the present stage. In contrast, the structu-
ral developmentalists see developmental progression as
age-related rather than age-specific. They view progres-
sion as a result of the individual’s more-or-less successful
attainment of the prior stage. Operating out of this theo-
retical orientation are Jean Piaget, Lawrence Kohlberg,
William Perry, Jane Loevinger, and James Fowler
(Aubrey, 318-321; Kohlberg and Mayer, 458). This dis-
cussion follows the theoretical perspective of the latter
group.
Most developmentalists hold a definitive stage which is
an elaboration of Piaget’s concept of cognitive stages:
&dquo;an integrated set of operational structures that consti-
tute the thought processes of a person at a given time&dquo;
(Fowler, 49). Stages represent qualitatively different
organizations of reality, progress in invariant order, func-
tion as &dquo;structural wholes,&dquo; and recapitulate earlier stages
(Kohlberg, 1973). We quite literally see things differently
at different stages.
The stage concept emphasizes the stability of the or-
ganism in relationship to the environment. In order to
account for movement, developmentalists must deal
with the factors which precipitate change. Piaget holds
that three main factors together contribute to disturbing
the individual’s sense of coherence: maturation, the indi-
vidual’s own experience, and social transmission. These
create &dquo;cognitive dissonance&dquo; (Leon Festinger’s term)
and activate a process in which the individual strives for
progressively more adequate states of equilibrium
(Pulaski: 14).
Obviously, too much cognitive dissonance is paralyz-
ing. The concept of the &dquo;pacer,&dquo; one of the most firmly
researched concepts in ego psychology, is of assistance
at this point. William Dember’s work indicates that
humans in particular are motivated to a great extent by
the novelty and complexity of stimulus objects. Each
person has an ideal level of complexity which is stimulat-
ing neither too much nor too little. If possible, a person
-
chooses stimuli which fall within the prescribed range of
complexity, seeking out those objects, working toward
68
Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 23, 2009
them, and learning what must be done to obtain them.
The key finding in terms of motivation theory is this: the
modal amount of time goes to stimuli slightly more com-
plex than a person’s ideal. A person is attracted by that
which is just a little too complex for comfort. These
objects are called pacers. As one masters a pacer, one’s
level of complexity grows and one is ready for a new,
more complex pacer (Dember: 421). Loevinger claims:
&dquo;The pacer appears to be the formula or model for non-
revolutionary growth&dquo; (424, 308-309).
Thus far, these considerations have focused on pro-
gress and development. The next critical area concerns
arrested development and regression. While all structural
developmentalists theoretically hold that permanent
equilibration (arrested development) may take place at
any level, they usually prefer to concentrate on the
forward-moving examples of their theories. The most
notable exception to this pattern is William Perry, who
points to conditions of delay, deflection, and regression.
He calls these temporizing, escape and retreat respec-
tively. Temporizing names the delay during which the
individual explores implications or explicitly hesitates to
take the next step. Escape occurs when the individual
exploits the possibilities inherent in relativism to deny
responsibility through passive or opportunistic aliena-
tion. Retreat happens when the individual entrenches in
dualistic, absolutistic earlier structures ( 14, x).
Development and Johannine Belief
The focus now moves to the Gospel itself. I will attempt
to show that, without violating the integrity of the Gospel,
one can divide the texts on believing and knowing in a
developmentally informed way. Secondly, I will demon-
strate some further parallels to the structural develop-
mental theory just presented as they occur in the
evangelist’s literary devices of signs, misunderstandings
and heightened conflict. The discussion will be limited to
material in Chapters 2-20.
As the divisions of the table suggest, the Gospel’s
treatment of believing falls into three broad categories
which emerge from the Gospel itself: Unbelief, Develop-
ing Belief, and Normative Belief. These categories are
based on the following considerations.
To believe in Jesus means to accept him, to identify
with him, to follow him, to grow in discipleship (Schneid-
ers 1978a: 45). In the Fourth Gospel, faith must be under-
stood as activity, the proper response to revelation in
Jesus. Because this revelation occurred in history, the
way of coming to faith is through normal historical expe-
rience, through seeing or hearing (Painter: 71). That is to
say, the way to faith is through our human processes,
with all the vicissitudes which that entails. Recognizing
these vicissitudes suggests the title of the central cate-
gory, Developing Belief Developing Belief is character-
 TABLE I
ized by &dquo;seeing&dquo; at the level where the individual is and
deciding to follow the process to the next stage. A study
of the texts reveals that all the major and most of the
minor characters believe in or know Jesus in the course
of the Gospel (Gaffney: 225). The disciples, as individuals
or as a group, are portrayed as believing more often than
anyone else. But within the context of Jesus’ ministry,
even their belief is portrayed as a process toward a certain
kind of belief; it is clear that they did not always, from the
first moment, display a complete and full belief (2:22;
16:31). As readers, we are included in the category of
Developing Belief by virtue of our continued interaction
with the text (Boers: 181).
After the disciples, &dquo;the many&dquo; are most frequently
described as believers. As a group, however, they span
the distinction between the categories of Developing
Belief and Unbelief. &dquo;The many&dquo; most often believe in
response to signs (2:23; 7:31; 8:30; 10:42; 11:45; 12:11),
a situation to which the
evangelist responds both posi-
Note that it is not the presence or
tively and negatively.
absence of signs which distinguishes the evangelist’s
Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 23, 2009
differentiated reaction, but rather the quality of the
response which the individual makes to the signs. One
also observes that &dquo;the many&dquo; of 8:30 can be identified
with &dquo;the Jews&dquo; of 8:31, a group to whom unbelief is
most often attributed. Examining the texts which
describe &dquo;the Jews&dquo; (5:38-47; 8:45-46; 9:18, 40; 10:25,
26; 12:37-40, etc.) leads to the description of the category
of Unbelief- an unreadiness to see, a hardening, a
retrenchment, a refusal to develop in insight and
response. One may believe and then turn away (8:31 ), or
one may simply not see (5:14-15). Clearly, the Fourth
Gospel reveals relative amounts of belief and unbelief, yet
the evangelist makes a fundamental distinction between
unbelief and developing belief (Painter: 811). have tried to
suggest this distinction on the table, through the use of
the solid line dividing these two categories.
If belief deepens as it should, where will it lead? The
third category is labeled Normative Belief. in the sense
that it is toward this level that developing belief tends and
by it that developing belief is measured. Seeing, knowing,
and believing are all transformed (2:22; 12:16). The
69
changed situation is brought about by the glorification of
the Son of Man (3:14; 8:28; 12:23, 31; 13:31). The work of
the powers of darkness has been decisively overcome,
making the new perception of faith possible. Resurrec-
tion faith is qualitatively different and is, from a develop-
mental point of view, the natural completion of the
process. The dashed line of the table suggests this
relationship.
In Chapter 20, the evangelist lays great stress on belief
in the risen Lord (20:8, 18, 20, 25, 27-29). In so doing, he
raises a tension between two perspectives on belief: the
way belief was perceived during Jesus’ ministry and the
way it was perceived after the resurrection (Painter: 81,
84-85). During Jesus’ ministry, we expect the disciples’
belief to be partial and developmental, but with the resur-
rection the possibility of faith is qualitatively changed. Is
the developmental perspective thereby done away with?
Can we, living in the post-resurrection period, emerge
with fully developed resurrection faith at the first moment
of our believing?
The evangelist’s answer lies in his portrayal of the
Paraclete. The Paraclete carries on the work of Jesus
when he is no longer present and brings about and
continues the judgment which began with the coming of
Jesus. But this is still a process ( 14:25;16:12). The possi-
bility of faith is radically transformed by the resurrection.
The process from a human point of view, however, is still
developmental: the Spirit will guide us to understand that
which we cannot bear now (16:12-13). Far from being
done away with, the evangelist portrays a developing faith
as typical for the post-resurrection era. Just as those
during the time of Jesus’ ministry grew in faith, so we also
must deepen step by step toward a grasp of the full
significance of Jesus the Christ in our lives and in the
world.
Up to this point, the discussion shows how the Gospel
texts on believing and knowing can be &dquo;sorted&dquo; develop-
mentally. Note that one might also look at the resulting
three columns of the table as examples of stage change
according to structural theory. I will return to this point
below. Let us for the moment focus on the evangelist’s
literary devices, examining the concept of signs for its
parallel to stage and stage change, misunderstanding for
the way it appears to function as a pacer, and heightened
conflict for its potential to illustrate temporizing and
retreat
Signs: Stage and Stage Change
What the evangelist means by &dquo;sign&dquo; is by no means
entirely self-evident. He names only two miracles as signs
(2:11; 4:54). As soon as one examines the Johannine
miracles, it becomes clear that the miraculous events are
usually the settings for a discourse. At the same time, not
all discourses are clearly set in signs ( 10:1-21 ) and some
70
Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 23, 2009
signs are not followed by discourses (2:1-21 ) (Painter:
24). However, since both miracles and discourses func-
tion together as reuelation, the broadest notion of sign
could include both Jesus’ words and works (Riga: 402).
Lindars reminds us that semion means significant act,
which is not necessarily miraculous (132).
Signs are similar to parables of the Synoptics in their
ambiguity. Both contain an enigmatic element which
divides the audience. An old reality or way of seeing is
turned upside down, and the hearer is invited to create a
new level of meaning out of the wreckage of the old way
of seeing (Riga: 404-407).
Signs always force a choice. The man cured at the pool
of Bethzatha seems himself to be unaffected by the cure
beyond reporting who cured him. But the on-looking
Jews are affected - they are provoked into trying to kill
Jesus (5:18). And, of course, the reader is also provoked
into a choice, in opposition to the Jews who saw only the
extraordinary in Christ’s works (2:23; 4:54; 6:2; 11:47;
12:18).
With his characteristic thoroughness, Raymond Brown
discusses the various reactions of the Gospel characters
to signs ( 1966: 530-531 ): ( 1 ) Some persons refuse to see
the signs with any faith (3:19-20; 6:30; 9:41; 11:47;
15:22). (2) Others see signs as wonders and believe in
Jesus as a wonder-worker sent by God. Jesus refuses a
type of belief based on signs (2:23-25; 3:2-3; 4:46-48;
6:3-7). If arrested here, the person misses the true revela-
tion of who Jesus is as one with the Father. Therefore, this
level of faith as a final response is unacceptable in the
Fourth Gospel. (3) Others see the true significance of the
signs and come to believe in Jesus in the full depth of his
relationship to the Father. This kind of faith is the culmina-
tion of several of the miracles of Jesus (4:33; 6:69; 9:38;
11:40). In these cases, understanding the sign leads to
the manifestation of God’s glory. We can point to further
developmental increments within this level. The disciples
believe at Cana (2:15) and are still growing in 6:60-71 and
14:5-12. Full salvific (normative) faith comes only after
the resurrection. (4) Lastly, some believe in Jesus without
seeing signs (20:29). A faith not based on signs became
a necessity when the period in which Jesus worked signs
came to an end, the life situation of the Johannine com-
munity as well as our own. Brown’s last two groups
demonstrate developing belief as I have described it.
In sum, faith in Jesus is initiated in different ways and
operates on different levels: for the disciples, it originates
with the sign at Cana; for &dquo;the many,&dquo; with other signs; for
some, with personal testimonies; and for others, simply
through what Jesus said. Faith that begins through a
miracle is not by any means the strongest (20:29). Yet
signs seem designed to aid faith in that they are manifes-
tations of the glory that was an intrinsic element of the
revelation concerning Jesus. Even with the miraculous,
however, some altogether refused to believe (Hawthorn:
124).
 At this point, I wish to examine the dynamic that the
evangelist has set up from the point of view of the structu-
ral developmentalists. In the Fourth Gospel, belief dem-
onstrates the major characteristics of stage and stage
change. While I am not concerned to elaborate specific
stages of the faith development of the Gospel characters,
I do want to note a striking correspondence to Piaget’s
concept of stage and stage change in general.
Stages represent &dquo;theories&dquo; or principles within which
facts or concrete experiences are interpreted or to which
they are assimilated. Experience can only be stretched so
far that a theory may assimilate it; eventually an inade-
quate theory or stage will be caught in contradiction, and
the individual will then generate a new principle or theory
to accommodate the experience. Stages, then, represent
equilibrium points in the successive revisions of princi-
ples and concrete experiences in relation to one another
(Kohlberg, 1981: 195).
Signs are a major vehicle in the Fourth Gospel to
stimulate the development of belief. They provoke a
breakdown in our former ways of seeing. When we put
new data from correct perception of the signs into the old
structure of vision, we find the data no longer fits. Ideally,
this &dquo;cognitive dissonance&dquo; provokes a movement
towards a more differentiated, more inclusive, less con-
crete belief, one which is better able to withstand the
negative forces from within and without, one which more
closely approximates the normative (Kohlberg, 1981:1
190-191).
Clearly, transformations of vision and motive occur
between the categories of Unbelief, Developing Belief
and Normative Belief. It is less obvious but nonetheless
clear that the category of Developing Belief also manif-
ests &dquo;stages,&dquo; or qualitative transformations. I have used
the example of the disciples thus far, but the man blind
from birth gives a more concise example of the develop-
mental increments. At first, he sees Jesus as the one who
sent him to wash (9:11 ), then as a prophet (9:17), then, in
the face of increasing opposition, as one who does the
work of God and is from God (9:30ff). For this stance he
is cast out of the Sanhedrin. Upon meeting Jesus, he
expresses belief in him as the Son of Man and worships
him (9:35-37). He has moved from the sign to a faith
which approximates the normative.
How does the evangelist’s treatment of signs corre-
spond to the general characteristics of stage theory as
listed above? First, the Gospel text shows qualitatively
different ways of structuring reality between unbelief,
developing belief and normative belief. Likewise, qualita-
tive changes in belief exist within the category of Develop-
ing Belief. This category also clearly shows hierarchical
integration, with each stage recapitulating the structures
found at lower stages. One may or may not be able to
demonstrate the existence of true stages within the cate-
gory of Developing Belief, but it is at least clear that the
evangelist has conceived of coming to belief as a process
Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 23, 2009
from initial to normative post-resurrection belief.
On the other hand, by its very nature, the Gospel text
does not allow one to verify that the sequences are invar-
iant across cultures and over time; one can only intuit a
kind of cross-cultural and trans-temporal reality from the
response of believers to this Gospel through the centu-
ries. Nor does the Gospel clearly illustrate invariant order
of stage progression. Thus, while we may not be able
rigorously to describe stages and stage change in the
Fourth Gospel according to all the characteristics of
stages, there seems to be sufficient similarity to support
the assertion that coming to belief in the Fourth Gospel
parallels the human developmental processes which are
the concern of the structural developmentalists.
Before leaving the discussion of stages, I’d like to
return to the possibility, suggested earlier, of seeing the
three categories of texts as each representative of stages,
the progression being from unbelief to developing belief
to normative belief. If one takes that option, one faces the
logical conclusion that certain stages of the developmen-
tal sequence carry a negative moral judgment, a position
that would make most developmentalists very uncomfor-
table. That is, one can be in fact responsible for one’s lack
of development. Interestingly, one of the critiques of a
developmental perspective from within the field of pas-
toral theology is precisely that moral responsibility and
sin so easily drop out of consideration. At this point,
Freud himself would join the evangelist in insisting that
one assume responsibility for where one is developmen-
tally. The interpreter may avoid this problematic moral
judgment by restricting developmental considerations to
the middle category of the chart, the texts which show
developing belief. In this case, the solid line would signify
a &dquo;fundamental option,&dquo; so to speak, with everything to
the left (Unbelief) as non-developmental, and everything
to the right (Developing and Normative Belief) as devel-
opmental. Were the evangelist presented with a choice in
these terms, however, he would hold individuals responsi-
ble for their lack of belief.
MISUNDERSTANDING: PACER
We now turn to the evangelist’s use of misunderstand-
ing. Chapters 3, 4 and 6 contain increasingly complex
examples of this stylistic device. Nicodemus (Chapter 3)
provides the most straightforward example. He comes by
night and Jesus instructs him by the enigmatic figure of
the new birth (3:4). He understands in a purely natural
way, failing to penetrate deeper into the words. Jesus
explains further in what this new birth consists (3:5-6), but
Nicodemus still misunderstands (3:9). Had he been pre-
pared by the Hebrew Testament’s revelation, he should
have understood (3:10) (Riga: 408). At this point, Nicode-
mus simply fades from the scene and the reader is left
with the evangelist’s own deep thinking on the meaning
of Christ. As Lindars says, &dquo;It requires of the reader ’an
energy of understanding’ (to use Hoskyns’ phrase),
71
which will be rewarded by a grasp of the essential mes-
sage of the Fourth Gospel (146).&dquo; Nicodemus’ misunder-
standings provide the setting for the evangelist to stretch
our perception of who Jesus is.
The same phenomenon in increasingly more complex
form is found in Chapters 4 and 6. In the eucharistic
discourse, for example, there are three enigmas pro-
posed (6:27,32-33,48-51), and the action involves more
persons - Jesus, the Jews, the disciples, and us. In this
case, however, the misunderstandings generate quite dif-
ferent responses. The Jews murmured (6:47). Some dis-
ciples drop out (6:66) and some are led to a new level of
confession: &dquo;We have believed and have come to know
that you are the Holy One of God&dquo; (6:70) (Brown, 1966:
298). Yet even among the disciples, the possibility
remains of acting against the confession (6:71). The
divisive element of the sign remains clearly evident in this
case - a choice has been opened, a point of separation
between those who believe (and who therefore see more
fully) and those who cannot or will not penetrate to the
deeper meaning of the sign (Riga: 408-410).
Dember’s concept of pacer appropriately bears on this
material. Recall that his research indicates that humans
change by mastering increments of novelty (pacers)
which are neither too great nor too small. Active contact
with the pacer and mastery of it leads to readiness for a
new pacer and a still higher ideal. The literary form of
misunderstandings functions in a similar way both for the
Gospel characters and for us, the readers. Each response
of Jesus to a misunderstanding functions like a wedge of
novelty being driven into our &dquo;old&dquo; way of seeing. If we
follow and &dquo;master&dquo; each reply of Jesus, we will progress
steadily in our understanding of his true significance.
But what if one encounters too much novelty? Some
disciples respond, &dquo;This is a hard saying; who can listen
to it?&dquo; (6:60). The result: &dquo;After this many disciples drew
back and no longer went about with him&dquo; (6:66). Too
much novelty leads to paralysis, retrenchment, or
escape, and these moves carry a moral judgment in the
eyes of the evangelist. All persons should be able to see,
at least at the level of associating the works that Jesus
performed with the works that God had done in Israel’s
past (5:15ff). Failure to see the glory in the signs pre-
vented faith and lack of faith is a moral perversion with a
spiritual cause.
HEIGHTENING OF COIyFLICT: TEMPORIZING,
RETREAT, OR COMMITMENT
The evangelist’s polemic and the heightened sense of
conflict proceed hand in hand, especially through Chap-
ters 5, 7, and 8. On the historical level, the Jewish relig-
ious leaders apparently have devised some way to
identify and root out the Christian believers in their midst.
A threat of excommunication forces those Jews who also
believe in Jesus to keep their faith secret in order to
&dquo;’7’&dquo;
72
Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 23, 2009
remain within the fold of Judaism. Examples of this
dynamic include Nicodemus (3:lff; 7:50; 19:38) and the
parents of the man born blind (9:22). The evangelist sets
out to show that revelation in Jesus justifies facing perse-
cution (Painter: 13-14). Christians in this situation face a
moral dilemma - and an invitation to clarify and deepen
the significance of Jesus. Indeed, public confession in
these circumstances marks a qualitatively different level
of faith, one tested not merely with words, but with one’s
very life.
The Gospel also portrays those who have not yet suc-
cessfully negotiated the challenge. Nicodemus, for exam-
ple, illustrates Perry’s concept of temporizing.
Temporizing may sometimes be a spreading out and
consolidation of a position one has already obtained, or it
may be a gathering of inner resources in preparation for
the next step. Perry reports students saying, &dquo;I’m just not
ready yet.&dquo; Whether temporizing will end in foreclosure or
in a new spirit of growth seems foretold in the tone in
which the person waits (Perry: 178-182). The Fourth
Gospel only hints at these distinctions. We find &dquo;the
Jews&dquo; murmuring at Jesus in 6:41 and some disciples
murmuring in 6:60. Both groups soon turn away, &dquo;the
Jews&dquo; actively opposing Jesus. The Gospel also seems to
suggest that there is a group of disciples who are never
able to profess publicly their belief in Jesus (12:42; 19:38)
(Hodges: 144). Beyond this, however, the Gospel does
not yield enough data to draw more specific parallels.
Perry includes all forms of regression in his term
&dquo;retreat.&dquo; The most vivid instances of this dynamic
among Perry’s subjects occurred when an individual had
moved into a relativistic way of viewing reality and then
returned to an absolutist position. If &dquo;the many&dquo; who
believed in Jesus of 8:30 turn out to be &dquo;the Jews&dquo; who
had believed in him of 8:31, we have one example of this
dynamic (Brown, 1966: 354-355; Painter: 81). From the
fifth chapter on, the type of person whom the evangelist
calls &dquo;the Jews&dquo; personifies increasing hostility and oppo-
sition to Jesus. The complaints of &dquo;the Jews&dquo; against
Jesus include healing on the Sabbath (5:16), calling God
his Father (5:18), challenging the authority of the relig-
ious powers (7:25-27), and claiming to be equal with God
(8:58-59; 10:29-39; 11:45-53). As Perry says, regression
into dualism requires an enemy. Reactive adherence to
authority requires violent repudiation of otherness and
complexity. In &dquo;the Jews&dquo; (synonymous with chief priests
and Pharisees in many cases, such as 18:3, 12; 8:13-22),
the evangelist has given a typical example of regression
to certainties, security, order, and control.
Conclusions
I have focused on the Johannine concept of belief as
an active, deepening process culminating in resurrection
faith. One may by no means reduce the process of com-

ing to belief in the Fourth Gospel to the structural devel-
opmental processes which I have examined. To be sure, I
have not found rigorous developmental examples of ever-
ything I have presented. Nonetheless, the analogous
dynamics between the Fourth Gospel and the work of the
structural developmentalists do support my assumption
that part of the Gospel’s power to touch us exists because
it resonates with human learning and valuing processes.
The Gospel, in its turn, illustrates the timelessness of the
human behaviors which the structural developmentalists
have very recently called to our attention.
We have seen that without violating the integrity of the
Gospel, one can divide the texts in a developmentally
informed way. The evangelist’s literary devices show
strong parallels in the way they function to central con-
cepts of structural developmental theory. On the other
hand, the Gospel critiques structural developmental the-
ory at a crucial juncture, the moral nature of development
-
at some level one must assume responsibility for one’s
development uis a vis the Christian message. The Gos-
pel thereby articulates one of the significant critiques
which pastoral theology raises of developmental theory:
that it can so easily eliminate or diminish moral
responsibility.
In Dan Via’s terms, the developmental categories and
the Gospel narrative do attract, critique and challenge
each other.
SOURCE MATERIAL
Aubrey, Roger. 1980. "The Technology of Counseling and the Science of
Behavior: A Rapproachment," The Personnel and Guidance
Journal 58:5, 318-327.
Boers, Hendrikus. 1980. "Discourse Structure and the Macro-Structure
in Interpretation of Texts," Society of Biblical Literature 1980
Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 23, 2009
Seminar Papers. Edited by Paul J. Achtemeier. Chico: Scholars
Press, 159-182.
Brown, Raymond. 1966, 1970. The Gospel According To
2 Vols.
John.
Garden City: Doubleday and Company.
. 1979. The Community of the Beloved Disciple. New York:
Paulist Press.
Dember, William N. 1965. "The New Look in Motivation," American
Scientist 53:4, 409-427.
Fowler, James. 1981. Stages of Faith: The Psychology of Human De-
velopment and the Quest for Meaning. New York: Harper & Row.
Gaffney, James, S.J. 1965. "Believing and Knowing in the Fourth Gos-
pel," Theological Studies 26:2, 215-241.
Hawthorn, Gerald. 1959. "The Concept of Faith in the Fourth Gospel,"
Bibliotheca Sacra 116:462, 117-126.
Hodges, Zane C. 1978. "Untrustworthy Believers: John 2:23-25," Biblio-
theca Sacra 135:538, 139-152.
Kohlberg, Lawrence. 1973. "Continuities in Childhood and Adult Moral
Development Revisited," Moralization, the Cognitive Develop-
mental Approach. Edited by Kohlberg and Turiel. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
_. 1981. Essays on Moral Development. Vol. I: The Philoso-
phy of Moral Development. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Kohlberg, Lawrence and Mayer, Rochelle. 1972. "Development as the
Aim of Education," Harvard Educational Review 42:4, 449-496.
Lindars, Barnabas. 1972. The Gospel of John. London: Oliphant
Loevinger, Jane. 1976. Ego Development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Painter, John. 1975. John: Witness and Theologian. London: SPCK.
Perry, William. 1968. Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development
in the College Years. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Pulaski, Mary Ann Spencer. 1980. Understanding Piaget Revised and
Expanded Edition. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Riga, Peter. Inter-
"Signs of Glory: Use of Sēmeion in St. John’s Gospel,"
pretation 17:4, 402-424.
Schneiders, Sandra. 1978a. "Reflections on Commitment in the Gospel
According to John," Biblical Theology Bulletin 8:1, 40-48.
. 1978b. "Faith, Hermeneutics, and the Literal Sense of
Scripture," Theological Studies 39:4, 719-736.
. 1982. "The Paschal lmaginafion: Objectivity and Subjec-
tivity in New Testament Interpretation," Theological Studies 43:1,
52-68.
Tolbert, Mary Ann. 1979. Perspectives on the Parables: An Approach
to Multiple Interpretations. Philadelphia: Fortress.
Via, Dan O. 1977. "The Prodigal Son: A Jungian Reading," Semeia 9:
Polyvalent Narration.
73