Although Terence Tilley and James Fowler have decidedly different goals in their purpose for having written their respective pieces, they share common ideas that are spoken about differently. Tilley uses a broader approach to attempt to include and explain all versions of faith, whilst Fowler makes use of a focused event to explain the transition of faith of an individual that Tilley would gladly accept as following some of the characteristics of faith that he describes. However, Tilley would disagree with Fowler’s claims that the self changes during a transition to a more advanced level of faith, arguing rather that one’s energizing core changes.
Tilley writes from the perspective of a studied theologian and his work entitled, “Faith: What Is It and What Isn’t It” is an attempt to explain the broader characteristics of faith that apply to everyone, as opposed to what may simply apply to a select few of a certain faith or tradition. Tilley begins by excluding religion entirely in his definition of faith – that is, “the relationship between one and the irreducible energizing source of meaning and center of value in one’s life” (Tilley, 26) – to allow for other things, such as money or power as he later explains, to fulfil the role of ‘God’, or one’s energizing source, and thus makes his definition greater in its level of inclusion.
Tilley also argues that faith is not an intuitive thing, not something one is born with, though rather something that is taught and learned through one’s interactions with their community and personal experience (Tilley, 27). Tilley’s definition and understanding of faith is greatly influenced by his understanding of one’s personal journey with their faith. Tilley argues that doubt may play a substantial role in influencing what one has faith in and, much like the science of energy, faith cannot be created nor destroyed, only transferred from one state to another. The fact that faith can be lost or gained in one idol or God means that people can have faith in any number of objects, or whatever they may assume as their ideal. Tilley believes that this ideal is “a social construct which results from the way which one internalizes (or resists) that socially given ideal” (Tilley, 33). As it is evident that one can have faith in many different things, either at the same time or in various stages of their life, how one chooses to worship their energizing center of meaning can vary hugely from case to case.
Tilley finally argues that even those who greatly misunderstand their faith still fall victim to the characteristics of his definitions as they all maintained their faith for a substantially long period of time in their life and that like love, faith can be in a state of constant evolution that makes it difficult to pinpoint and understand if you aren’t conscious of it (Tilley, 51).
By contrast to Tilley’s attempt to understand all faith and be able to categorize it under a singular definition, James Fowler follows the case of a young man through his life and uses his personal journey and experiences to help explain the psychological evolution of his faith and the role that doubt plays in one’s theological journey.
Fowler makes use of the seemingly simple tale of Jack’s journey through life to simplify and make obvious his psychological analysis of one’s religious path. Jack follows Fowler’s outlined steps of eventually becoming disillusioned by the belief system he inherited as a young boy and his process of realizing that there is more to life than what he has experienced previously.
Fowler explains his theory of stages by using Jack as an easily understandable example, from being a young boy eagerly believing in whatever he was told, to understanding more and more of what he believes, critically analyzing it and growing disillusioned by faith having gained an alternative perspective to the one which had shaped his life up until that point (Fowler, 180).
Fowler pays particular attention to what he calls ‘the movement from Stage 3 to Stage 4’ (Fowler, 182) as it shows what may seem as a loss of faith from the viewpoint of a casual observer, however, this movement is actually incredibly important as it highlights the conversion of one from being purely influenced and molded by their immediate social setting to being more conscious of a worldview and understanding themselves to a more critical degree (Fowler, 182).
Tilley and Fowler both describe transitions of faith for different reasons, which may appear similar on face value, however, Tilley describes a shift in faith away from an energizing core to another entirely, whilst Fowler believes that a shift away from inherited faith is actually just a process of strengthening and changing one’s faith. Therein lies the issue that I would assume Tilley would have with Fowler; Tilley would doubtless point out that the inherited faith a child possesses, from their immediate social sphere and learned stories, which gives them their basis for their moods and motives, changes so drastically upon an interaction with a different social setting and a deeper understanding of one’s self that it would be incorrect to maintain that the person has the same faith; though that it has rather shifted or changed into something else – a different energizing core that may share similar characteristics but is noticeably different.
I believe that Tilley would greatly appreciate the story that Fowler tells of Jack and his interactions with his community as a child and his move to the army, which armed him with a more varied and different way of thinking and understanding his faith. Tilley would doubtless point out that Jack not only came to realize that there are other energizing cores than his own, though also that he made the transition from one to another. Whether Jack ever makes the transition back to his original core values isn’t revealed though Tilley would argue that even if he did, he would have changed so much about his assumptions about the world and how he interacts with it that he may have even transitioned from being a monotheist – that is having a singular, irreducible energizing core – to being a polytheist – having multiple energizing cores or Gods.
Despite disagreeing with Fowler’s assumption that Jack’s movement from one faith to another just simply being the act of doubt and strengthening his faith in the long run, I believe that Tilley would be very fond of Fowler’s work for numerous reasons: Fowler’s diagnostics of faith movement gives an added sense of clarity to Tilley’s ideas that faith and energizing cores are subject to shifting and changing due to a complex mix of personal and societal pressures and influences; additionally, Fowler’s work highlights the importance of doubt in religion and how it may actually strengthen one’s belief in their energizing core as it requires them to take a leap of faith, or ‘burn bridges’, in order to fully commit to and gain the greatest possible joy from their believes.
Although Tilley and Fowler set out to achieve very different goals with what they have written and has been analyzed in this paper, Tilley would likely have great appreciation for parts of Fowler’s work as he manages to accurately locate and diagnose the various reasons that people may have for their movements or complete changes in faith. However, Tilley would disagree with the conclusion that Fowler draws from his works; that the movements in faith are actually acts of strengthening it in the long term, and would propose instead that these movements either represent a shift from having faith in one energizing core to an entirely separate one or even by changing one’s belief system from finding solace in a singular source to multiple sources.