Professional Documents
Culture Documents
That You May Believe The Fourth Gospel and Structural Development Theory - Liebert, Elizabeth
That You May Believe The Fourth Gospel and Structural Development Theory - Liebert, Elizabeth
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
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Additional services and information for Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology can be found at:
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
Over and over again, one hears questions about faith: reflects the structures by which we all come to know, to
&dquo;Should I believe?&dquo; &dquo;Why?&dquo; &dquo;Believe in what or whom?&dquo; believe, to act, as elaborated in the structural develop-
&dquo;How does belief happen?&dquo; &dquo;I don’t think I believe any mentalists’ work. My concern will be not so much with the
longer. How can I be sure?&dquo; Clearly, belief is of perennial fact of belief or unbelief of the characters in the Gospel as
significance to religious and non-religious persons alike. with the dynamic which the Gospel illustrates and which
In this paper, I shall use two widely differing sets of texts to the evangelist attempts to evoke within us, his readers.
examine the process of believing: the Fourth Gospel and The second preliminary point is hermeneutical. Gada-
the writings of the structural developmentalists, a rela- mer holds that any classical text has an &dquo;excess of mean-
tively recent school of psychology. I submit that these two ing&dquo; beyond the intention of the author; and Ricoeur that
perspectives share some striking similarities when the text &dquo;projects a meaning of its own.&dquo; The text is then a
brought to bear on the topic of belief and further, that &dquo;mediation of meaning evoking an infinity of related and
each perspective illumines, challenges, and enriches the non-contradictory interpretations&dquo; (Schneiders,
other. Specifically, I propose that: (1) the Fourth Gospel 1978b:733, 1982:59). The text necessarily calls into play
challenges its readers to believe as deeply as it does, at the consciousness of the interpreter, which differs from
least partly because it reflects the developmental struc- that of any other interpreter because it is historically
tures by which we all come to know, to believe, to act and structured. Every valid interpretation can therefore be a
(2) the Gospel illustrates what has often been so painfully unique actualization of the text.
discovered in therapeutic situations that insight by
-
opmentalists’ concern. From these parallels arise the indeed, the whole world - of the child is qualitatively
thesis that the Fourth Gospel &dquo;speaks&dquo; to its readers different from that of the adult. Simply put, babies lack
about believing as deeply as it does partly because it the competencies of adults. A theoretical assumption
67
Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 23, 2009
follows: the child proceeds in a series of developmental them, and learning what must be done to obtain them.
increments from its simpler, diffused and undifferen- The key finding in terms of motivation theory is this: the
tiated world toward the adult’s relatively greater percep- modal amount of time goes to stimuli slightly more com-
tual clarity, more complex and highly differentiated ways plex than a person’s ideal. A person is attracted by that
of making sense of reality and of acting on the which is just a little too complex for comfort. These
environment. objects are called pacers. As one masters a pacer, one’s
From this point on, developmentalists separate into level of complexity grows and one is ready for a new,
two major groups, sometimes called the maturational more complex pacer (Dember: 421). Loevinger claims:
and the structural developmentalists. The maturational- &dquo;The pacer appears to be the formula or model for non-
ists -
among them, Sigmund Freud, Erik Erikson, revolutionary growth&dquo; (424, 308-309).
Robert Havinghurst, and Harry Stack Sullivan - hold that Thus far, these considerations have focused on pro-
11
development is age-specific. That is, each new &dquo;age&dquo; gress and development. The next critical area concerns
leads to a new stage, regardless of reorganizations at arrested development and regression. While all structural
previous stages. Education and experience are valuable developmentalists theoretically hold that permanent
not in order to precipitate or facilitate movement to a new equilibration (arrested development) may take place at
stage, but to aid the successful or healthy integration of any level, they usually prefer to concentrate on the
the concerns of the present stage. In contrast, the structu- forward-moving examples of their theories. The most
ral developmentalists see developmental progression as notable exception to this pattern is William Perry, who
age-related rather than age-specific. They view progres- points to conditions of delay, deflection, and regression.
sion as a result of the individual’s more-or-less successful He calls these temporizing, escape and retreat respec-
attainment of the prior stage. Operating out of this theo- tively. Temporizing names the delay during which the
retical orientation are Jean Piaget, Lawrence Kohlberg, individual explores implications or explicitly hesitates to
William Perry, Jane Loevinger, and James Fowler take the next step. Escape occurs when the individual
(Aubrey, 318-321; Kohlberg and Mayer, 458). This dis- exploits the possibilities inherent in relativism to deny
cussion follows the theoretical perspective of the latter responsibility through passive or opportunistic aliena-
group. tion. Retreat happens when the individual entrenches in
Most developmentalists hold a definitive stage which is dualistic, absolutistic earlier structures ( 14, x).
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; Development and Johannine Belief
(Fowler, 49). Stages represent qualitatively different
organizations of reality, progress in invariant order, func- The focus now moves to the Gospel itself. I will attempt
tion as &dquo;structural wholes,&dquo; and recapitulate earlier stages to show that, without violating the integrity of the Gospel,
(Kohlberg, 1973). We quite literally see things differently one can divide the texts on believing and knowing in a
at different stages. developmentally informed way. Secondly, I will demon-
The stage concept emphasizes the stability of the or- strate some further parallels to the structural develop-
ganism in relationship to the environment. In order to mental theory just presented as they occur in the
account for movement, developmentalists must deal evangelist’s literary devices of signs, misunderstandings
with the factors which precipitate change. Piaget holds and heightened conflict. The discussion will be limited to
that three main factors together contribute to disturbing material in Chapters 2-20.
the individual’s sense of coherence: maturation, the indi- As the divisions of the table suggest, the Gospel’s
vidual’s own experience, and social transmission. These treatment of believing falls into three broad categories
create &dquo;cognitive dissonance&dquo; (Leon Festinger’s term) which emerge from the Gospel itself: Unbelief, Develop-
and activate a process in which the individual strives for ing Belief, and Normative Belief. These categories are
progressively more adequate states of equilibrium based on the following considerations.
(Pulaski: 14). To believe in Jesus means to accept him, to identify
Obviously, too much cognitive dissonance is paralyz- with him, to follow him, to grow in discipleship (Schneid-
ing. The concept of the &dquo;pacer,&dquo; one of the most firmly ers 1978a: 45). In the Fourth Gospel, faith must be under-
researched concepts in ego psychology, is of assistance stood as activity, the proper response to revelation in
at this point. William Dember’s work indicates that Jesus. Because this revelation occurred in history, the
humans in particular are motivated to a great extent by way of coming to faith is through normal historical expe-
the novelty and complexity of stimulus objects. Each rience, through seeing or hearing (Painter: 71). That is to
person has an ideal level of complexity which is stimulat- say, the way to faith is through our human processes,
ing neither too much nor too little. If possible, a person
-
68
ized by &dquo;seeing&dquo; at the level where the individual is and differentiated reaction, but rather the quality of the
deciding to follow the process to the next stage. A study response which the individual makes to the signs. One
of the texts reveals that all the major and most of the also observes that &dquo;the many&dquo; of 8:30 can be identified
minor characters believe in or know Jesus in the course with &dquo;the Jews&dquo; of 8:31, a group to whom unbelief is
of the Gospel (Gaffney: 225). The disciples, as individuals most often attributed. Examining the texts which
or as a group, are portrayed as believing more often than describe &dquo;the Jews&dquo; (5:38-47; 8:45-46; 9:18, 40; 10:25,
anyone else. But within the context of Jesus’ ministry, 26; 12:37-40, etc.) leads to the description of the category
even their belief is portrayed as a process toward a certain of Unbelief- an unreadiness to see, a hardening, a
kind of belief; it is clear that they did not always, from the retrenchment, a refusal to develop in insight and
first moment, display a complete and full belief (2:22; response. One may believe and then turn away (8:31 ), or
16:31). As readers, we are included in the category of one may simply not see (5:14-15). Clearly, the Fourth
Developing Belief by virtue of our continued interaction Gospel reveals relative amounts of belief and unbelief, yet
with the text (Boers: 181). the evangelist makes a fundamental distinction between
After the disciples, &dquo;the many&dquo; are most frequently unbelief and developing belief (Painter: 811). have tried to
described as believers. As a group, however, they span suggest this distinction on the table, through the use of
the distinction between the categories of Developing the solid line dividing these two categories.
Belief and Unbelief. &dquo;The many&dquo; most often believe in If belief deepens as it should, where will it lead? The
response to signs (2:23; 7:31; 8:30; 10:42; 11:45; 12:11), third category is labeled Normative Belief. in the sense
a situation to which the
evangelist responds both posi- that it is toward this level that developing belief tends and
Note that it is not the presence or
tively and negatively. by it that developing belief is measured. Seeing, knowing,
absence of signs which distinguishes the evangelist’s and believing are all transformed (2:22; 12:16). The
69
parallel to stage and stage change, misunderstanding for came to an end, the life situation of the Johannine com-
the way it appears to function as a pacer, and heightened munity as well as our own. Brown’s last two groups
conflict for its potential to illustrate temporizing and demonstrate developing belief as I have described it.
retreat 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
Signs: Stage and Stage Change some, with personal testimonies; and for others, simply
through what Jesus said. Faith that begins through a
What the evangelist means by &dquo;sign&dquo; is by no means miracle is not by any means the strongest (20:29). Yet
entirely self-evident. He names only two miracles as signs signs seem designed to aid faith in that they are manifes-
(2:11; 4:54). As soon as one examines the Johannine tations of the glory that was an intrinsic element of the
miracles, it becomes clear that the miraculous events are revelation concerning Jesus. Even with the miraculous,
usually the settings for a discourse. At the same time, not however, some altogether refused to believe (Hawthorn:
all discourses are clearly set in signs ( 10:1-21 ) and some 124).
70
Clearly, transformations of vision and motive occur tally. The interpreter may avoid this problematic moral
between the categories of Unbelief, Developing Belief judgment by restricting developmental considerations to
and Normative Belief. It is less obvious but nonetheless the middle category of the chart, the texts which show
clear that the category of Developing Belief also manif- developing belief. In this case, the solid line would signify
ests &dquo;stages,&dquo; or qualitative transformations. I have used a &dquo;fundamental option,&dquo; so to speak, with everything to
the example of the disciples thus far, but the man blind the left (Unbelief) as non-developmental, and everything
from birth gives a more concise example of the develop- to the right (Developing and Normative Belief) as devel-
mental increments. At first, he sees Jesus as the one who opmental. Were the evangelist presented with a choice in
sent him to wash (9:11 ), then as a prophet (9:17), then, in these terms, however, he would hold individuals responsi-
the face of increasing opposition, as one who does the ble for their lack of belief.
work of God and is from God (9:30ff). For this stance he
is cast out of the Sanhedrin. Upon meeting Jesus, he MISUNDERSTANDING: PACER
expresses belief in him as the Son of Man and worships We now turn to the evangelist’s use of misunderstand-
him (9:35-37). He has moved from the sign to a faith
ing. Chapters 3, 4 and 6 contain increasingly complex
which approximates the normative.
examples of this stylistic device. Nicodemus (Chapter 3)
How does the evangelist’s treatment of signs corre-
provides the most straightforward example. He comes by
spond to the general characteristics of stage theory as night and Jesus instructs him by the enigmatic figure of
listed above? First, the Gospel text shows qualitatively the new birth (3:4). He understands in a purely natural
different ways of structuring reality between unbelief,
way, failing to penetrate deeper into the words. Jesus
developing belief and normative belief. Likewise, qualita- explains further in what this new birth consists (3:5-6), but
tive changes in belief exist within the category of Develop- Nicodemus still misunderstands (3:9). Had he been pre-
ing Belief. This category also clearly shows hierarchical pared by the Hebrew Testament’s revelation, he should
integration, with each stage recapitulating the structures have understood (3:10) (Riga: 408). At this point, Nicode-
found at lower stages. One may or may not be able to mus simply fades from the scene and the reader is left
demonstrate the existence of true stages within the cate- with the evangelist’s own deep thinking on the meaning
gory of Developing Belief, but it is at least clear that the of Christ. As Lindars says, &dquo;It requires of the reader ’an
evangelist has conceived of coming to belief as a process energy of understanding’ (to use Hoskyns’ phrase),
71
&dquo;’7’&dquo;
72
73