Conversatio Divina

Part 4 of 12

Empirical Evidence of Christian Maturity and Immaturity

A Review of Longitudinal Research on Christian Leaders

David Wang

The third session of the 2024 Martin Institute Christian Formation Workshop featured a presentation by Dr. David C. Wang (psychology, Fuller Theological Seminary) and comments by Dr. Tyler Greenway (psychology, Calvin University). The session was moderated by Dr. Peter C. Hill (psychology, Biola University). Dr. Wang’s paper was titled “Empirical Evidence of Christian Maturity and Immaturity: A Review of Longitudinal Research on Christian Leaders.” This session and the following session focus on evidence for Christian maturity/immaturity.

Below is a summary and some key quotes from Dr. Wang’s paper. In the video, Dr. Wang summarizes the main points of his paper and Dr. Greenway offers his comments.

Download and read the full presentation paper, Empirical Evidence of Christian Maturity and Immaturity: A Review of Longitudinal Research on Christian Leaders by David C. Wang.

01.  Summary

Wang points to a discrepancy between the increased emphasis on formation in seminaries and church discipleship programs and the reality of Christian immaturity found in empirical studies and reflected in a low trust in clergy by those within and without the church. After providing a detailed analysis of differences between Christian maturity and immaturity, Wang contends that this might be because common discipleship models tend to form people toward immaturity. 

Wang expounds upon a 10 year + study that included 18 seminaries and over 4k seminary students. The study found that spiritually mature “individuals act and choose the course and direction of their lives in freedom, not reluctantly or out of pure duty or obligation.” They are “people of communion, with deep relational capacities not only with God but also with one’s neighbor.” Further, the spiritually mature “demonstrate affective maturity–they are aware of their internal emotional states and are equipped to cope with these internal states.” They are “interculturally competent” and

“well-integrated people; there is a consistency to their personhood and character and spirituality regardless of context. This integration of their personhood spans the vast distances between one’s heart and one’s head in such a way where they not only know doctrinally that God loves them, but they feel it implicitly and experientially.”  

As such, they 

“tend to return to the Lord faster and more readily than the average individual, not sinking into despair or shame, nor demonstrating shock or surprise at their capacity to think and act in ways that they wish were not true . . . They possess a marked capacity to tame and navigate their will to power, their will to dominate and manipulate others, their disposition towards recognition, entitlement, and privileges.” 

In contrast, the study found that the spiritually immature lack “interior freedom (i.e., internal rigidity, non-acceptance).” They “manifest underdeveloped relational capacities and may likewise be emotionally immature—lacking insight and awareness into their internal emotional states while being largely ineffective in coping with these internal states.” They are “unable to see the world through the eyes of others who hold different opinions, come from different backgrounds, lived different experiences, and hold different intersectional identities.” The spiritually immature, “lack integration – they behave one way in one context and behave another way in a different context.” With moral failure, “the immature sink into despair and shame or become shocked with disbelief that they are capable of thinking and acting in ways they wish were not true.” They are 

“driven by a will to power, a will to dominate and manipulate, and a disposition towards recognition, entitlement, and privileges and they will often resort to utilizing spiritual or religious language as a means to achieve these ends or as a means to justify or rationalize their self-interest.”  

The spiritual immature “seek to retain control over their lives, resisting or refusing the crosses they are given to bear.” 

As a helpful summary, Wang puts forth the following “three empirical predictors” of Christian maturity, to which he juxtaposes their immature counterpart:

 

Constructs of Maturity

  • Differentiation of Self: “belonging to a community without losing oneself in the community.” 
  • Intercultural Competence: “a sensitivity, capacity, and competence in navigating cultural differences with others.” 
  • Religious Quest: “a capacity to engage in existential questions without simplifying in complexity, a perception of religious questioning as constructive, and an openness to change and evolving religious ideals and beliefs.”

Counterfeit/Immature Models 

  • Seeks to reinforce conformity.
  • Views contrary perspectives as threat. 
  • Appeals to religious group identity and rigidly defined boundaries in group membership.

Following his cogent description of the differences between Christian maturity and immaturity, Wang contends that common approaches to discipleship (of both youth and adults) run counter to the cultivation of maturity, thereby yielding immaturity. In closing Wang suggests that “if we are to robustly address this present crisis of spiritual immaturity, a new (or ancient) approach to discipleship and a new (or ancient) form of Christian community is needed.”  

02.  Key Quotes

“By and large, these longitudinal studies suggest that common approaches to discipleship and spiritual formation in religious education (at least within the context of North America) do not seem to be effective in cultivating the formation of character and mature Christian spirituality.”  

“Together, these findings suggest that almost half of our sample of seminary students may seem (at least at first glance) to be thriving and flourishing, but upon further investigation, may not in fact be completely honest with themselves and others about the reality of how they are actually doing. One possibility might be that they are consciously hiding (as Adam and Eve modeled following original sin, c.f. Genesis 3:1-21) and/or that they are doing their best to present well to others. Or another possibility is that they don’t know themselves well and lack insight into the true condition of their soul.”  

“On the other hand, for most of the other half of our sample, we observed a more moderate and modest presentation that masked a pronounced implicit fear that God may not love them and may abandon them at a moment’s notice. In turn, this fear is prone to drive a preoccupation to avoid rejection and abandonment and to perpetually strive to earn the short-lived favor of others, including God. In colloquial terms, this pattern seems to fit that of a people-pleaser.”  

“ . . . spiritually mature individuals act and choose the course and direction of their lives in freedom, not reluctantly or out of pure duty or obligation. Spiritually mature individuals are also people of communion, with deep relational capacities not only with God but also with one’s neighbor. Spiritually mature individuals also demonstrate affective maturity–they are aware of their internal emotional states and are equipped to cope with these internal states (as a clinical psychologist, this was music to my ears). The spiritually mature are also interculturally competent, particularly as it relates to the treatment of the poor and marginalized. They are well-integrated people; there is a consistency to their personhood and character and spirituality regardless of context. This integration of their personhood spans the vast distances between one’s heart and one’s head in such a way where they not only know doctrinally that God loves them, but they feel it implicitly and experientially.”  

“Empirical research has identified three salient constructs relevant to Christian maturity and immaturity: self-differentiation, intercultural competence, and religious quest . . . Behaviorally, discipleship practices often reinforce conformity, view contrary perspectives as threat, and appeal to religious group identity and rigidly defined boundaries in group membership. Churches currently represent one of the most demographically segregated social institutions in the United States, where people of similar race, socio-economic status, and political affiliation cluster.”  

03.  Application Questions

  • Wang asks, “How does one go about forming an individual who is either hiding or who lacks insight and self-knowledge and is thus not convinced that they need to change and grow?”  
  • Wang asks, “How . . . does one go about forming an individual who is oriented towards people-pleasing because they fundamentally believe that they are unworthy of love and will be abandoned otherwise?” 
  • In light of Wang’s descriptions of maturity/immaturity, how might we respond to his call for a new approach to discipleship?  
  • What might Wang’s findings teach us about our present and future models of spiritual formation? 
  • Based on Wang’s models, are our ministries forming leaders toward constructs of maturity or immaturity? 
  • Do we recognize Wang’s signs of immaturity in those we lead? If so, are there practices or models for helping others toward Wang’s mature construct? 
  • Wang asks, “if spiritual formation is indeed not a one-size-fits all phenomenon, to what extent do common approaches and understandings of discipleship and formation hold space and account for these differences?” 

Footnotes