Faith, Spirituality, and Religion: A Model for Understanding the

102

NEWMAN

Differences

Leanne

Lewis

Newman

*

The terms faith, spirituality,

and

religion

are

often used interchangeably,

though their definitions

are

unique

and

distinct. This article discusses the

nuanced

differences

among

the three terms. It presents a model

for

the

interrelatedness

among

the three important constructs

and

suggests ways

the model

can

be used

for

further

research.

"Faith" is

nearly

impossible

to define.

It

means

something

different to

each

individual. Faith is

understood

to

be

intensely

personal

and

often

seen

as

extremely

private. "The

term

'faith'

ranges

in

meaning

from a

general

religious attitude

on

the

one

hand

to

personal

acceptance

of

a specific

set

of

beliefs

on

the

other

hand"

(Hellwig, 1990, p. 3). Yet faith is still

superimposed

on

the

lives

of

our

students

(Newman,

1998).

Though

most

often

seen

in religious terms, faith

remains

an

"extraordinarily

important

construct" (Lee, 1990, p. vii).

Despite

the

mandate

from

the

Student

Personnel

Point

of

View (American Council

on

Education, 1937) to

develop

the

whole

person

as

part

of

the

student

affairs

profession, a relative silence

has

permeated

the

faith

dimension

of

student

development.

Even

with

the

advent

of

Fowler's

(1981) faith

development

theory, it

has

taken

until

well

into

the

1990s for

student

development

researchers

to

begin

investigating faith

development

of

college students.

Within

the

past

few

years,

however,

researchers

have

called

on

our

profession

to

begin

focusing

on

this

dimension

of

students'

development

(Love & Talbot, 1999;

Temkin

& Evans, 1998). With this call

comes

the

responsibility to

make

clear

distinctions as to

the

specific focus

of

our

inquiry.

The

terms

faith, spirituality,

and

religion frequently

appear

either

side

by side

or

are

even

used

synonymously

for

one

another. In fact,

the

focus

of

this

special

issue

uses

all

three

terms

in

the

title,

including all

three

as

equal

parts.

While

there

is merit to

including

all

three

terms

for investigating issues

and

areas

of

students'

development,

a distinction

should

also

be

made

when

discussing

these

three

important

and

interrelated

concepts.

In this issue

alone,

we

discuss religion,

spirituality,

and

faith,

and

the

developmental

issues

involved

with

each.

Yet,

when

we

discuss

one,

are

we

really talking

about

another?

Where

is

the

overlap

of

one

to

the

other? Or are

we

really

lumping

all

three

into

the

same

construct?

* Leanne Lewis

Newman

is a lecturer in the

student

services

administration

graduate

preparation

program

at

Baylor

University. Correspondence concerning this article

should

be sent to

Leanne

[email protected].

THE COLLEGE OF STUDENT AFFAIRS JOURNAL

103

Faith,

Spirituality,

Religion

Model

Both

Fowler

(1981)

and

Parks (1986, 2000)

have

offered

a fairly

comprehensive

notion

of

the

term

faith.

Other

researchers

have

taken

their

ideas

and

placed

them

in the

context

of

student

development

(Love, 2001, 2002; Love & Talbot, 1999).

Both

Love (2001)

and

Nash

(2001) discuss

the

differences

between

religion

and

spirituality. While Love

suggests

that

religion

and

spirituality overlap, he

does

not

delve

further

as to

why

or

how.

Nash

makes

the

distinction

by

saying

that

spirituality is

an

inward

expression,

while

religion is

an

outward

expression

of

faith.

While

both

Love

and

Nash

attempt

to

define

the

terms, I feel

there

is

more

to

understanding

these

important

differences.

First, I will discuss

the

three

concepts

of

faith, spirituality,

and

religion.

Then,

I will

propose

a

model

for

understanding

the

nuanced

differences

among

them.

Faith and Faith Development

As a

part

of

sociological research, faith

development

has

been

virtually

absent

until

the last 10

years

(Hiebert, 1992). In fact,

according

to Hiebert, faith

development

as

a citation

was

not

present

in Sociofile,

the

computer

index

of

sociological journal

articles, until

the

middle

of

1989.

Interestingly, faith -

defined

as a

general

religious attitude

or

accepted

set

of

personal

beliefs -

was

not

present

in

the

ancient

worlds

of

Greek

and

Roman

culture. Rather,

the

concept

of

faith singularly

and

directly originates in

the

Hebrew

scriptures (Hellwig, 1990). Hellwig traces

the

notion

of

faith

through

the

New

Testament,

the

Church

Fathers,

the

Middle Ages,

the

Reformation,

and

into

the

Modern Era. Faith

has

been

a

part

of

religion,

and

explored

by

scholars

from

numerous

disciplines (Hellwig, 1990).

However, as

Hiebert

(1993)

points

out,

Fowler

(1981)

departs

from

these

conventional

notions

of

faith

and

"equates

faith

with

individual

meaning

systems"

(p, 321). "Fowler

describes

the

most

generic

and

most

profound

process

of

being

human,

the

process

of

meaning-making,

as faith. Faith, in his

conception,

is

therefore

often

but

not

necessarily religious" (p. 321).

In his

introduction,

Fowler

(1981)

discusses

how

faith:

is

so

fundamental

that

none

of

us

can

live

well

for

very

long

without

it,

so

universal

that

when

we

move

beneath

the

symbols, rituals

and

ethical

patterns

that

express

it, faith is

recognizably

the

same

phenomenon

in

Christians, Marxists,

Hindus

and

Dinka,

yet

it is so infinitely varied

that

each

person's

faith is

unique.

(p,

xiii,

emphasis

original)

Tying

together

the

uniqueness

of

individual faith into a

workable

and

plausible

theoretical framework,

Fowler

is careful at

numerous

times

throughout

not

to

confuse

it

with

religion.

Fowler

describes

faith in

human

terms. "Prior to

our

being

religious

or

irreligious ...

we

are

already

engaged

with

issues

of

faith.

Whether

we

become

nonbelievers,

SPRING 2004 - VOLUME 23, NUMBER 2

SPECIAL ISSUE

ON

FAITH, SPIRITUALITY,

AND

RELIGION

ON

CAMPUS

104

NEWMAN

agnostics or atheists,

we

are

concerned

with

how

to

put

our

lives

together

and

with

what

will

make

life

worth

living" (p. 5),

In fact, Fowler

spends

the

entirety

of

Part

I

(pp,

3-36)

of

his

foundational

work

Stages

of

Faith (1981)

describing

what

faith is. He

takes

enormous

care

to

point

out

the

differences

among

faith, religion,

and

belief. Additionally,

he

discusses faith

and

relationship,

and

faith

and

imagination. Specifically,

he

stresses

the

concept

of

"radical monotheism."

Although

monotheism

is traditionally

held

to

be

the

"doctrine

or

belief

that

there

is

only

one

God," (Fowler, 1981, p. 22) as in

Jewish,

Christian,

and

Islamic traditions,

he

broadens

the

concept

to

be

a

relation

"in

which

a

person

or

group

focuses its

supreme

trust

and

loyalty in a

transcendent

center

of

value

and

power,

that

is

neither

a

conscious

or

unconscious

extension

of

personal

or

group

ego

nor

a finite

cause

or

institution" (p. 23). This implies a

singular

loyalty to

the

"principle

of

being

and

to

the

source

and

center

of

all value

and

power' (p. 23,

emphasis original).

In

addition

to

being

universal, faith is relational,

implying

the

trust

of

one

upon

another

(Fowler, 1981, 1986a, 1986b). Faith is also

seeing

and

knowing.

"Knowing

occurs

when

an

active

knower

interacts

with

an active

world

of

persons

and

objects,

meeting

its

unshaped

or

unorganized

stimuli

with

the

ordering, organizing

power

of

the

knower's

mind" (Fowler, 1986b, p. 19).

Another

important

concept

to

understand

is

Fowler's

concept

of

faith

and

imagination, specifically

what

he

calls

the

"ultimate

environment"

(p. 24).

The

ultimate

environment

is

the

means

by

which

we

find

order

and

shape

our

actions

based

on

what

we

see

going

on

around

us. As imagination, faith forms a

comprehensive

unit

of

what

we

see

in

our

ordered

world

and

deposits

value

and

power

in it

with

regard

to self, others,

and

world. Symbols

and

metaphors

can

bring

the

shared

images

of

an ultimate

environment

together

as

expression.

Often

unconscious

or

tacit

within

a

community,

the

ultimate

environment

poses

a

tremendous

influence in a

person's

response

to life.

Fowler

adds

that

faith

exhibits

the

qualities

of

a mystery,

rather

than

a

problem.

"Faith ... is

perplexing,

because

we

are internal to it" (1981, p. 32,

emphasis

original). '''Objectivity'

about

faith inevitably involves

our

'subjectivity.' While I

have

tried at various

points

to pull definitions

of

faith together, I

have

never

sought

to

oversysternatize it into a

manageable

concept,"

Fowler

writes

(1986a, p. 281).

Tam

(1996)

concludes

that

"any

attempt

to

reduce

Fowler's

understanding

of

faith to

any

simple definition is in fact

doing

injustice to his theory" (p. 252).

Fowler (1986b)

provides

a summary,

composite

definition as:

Faith is

the

process

of

constitutive-knowing;

underlying

a

person's

composition

and

maintenance

of

a

comprehensive

frame

(or

frames)

of

meaning;

generated

from

the

person's

attachments

or

commitments

to

centers

of

supraordinate

value

which

have

power

to

unify

his

or

her

experiences

of

the

world;

thereby

endowing

the

relationships, contexts,

and

patterns

of

everyday

life,

past

and

future,

with

significance.

(pp.

25-26)

THE COLLEGE OF STUDENT AFFAIRS JOURNAL

105

Faith,

Spirituality,

Religion

Model

Succinctly stated, faith "has to

do

with

the

making,

maintenance,

and

transformation

of

human

meaning"

(Fowler, 1986b, p. 15).

This definition

of

faith naturally

leads

to a

discussion

of

faith

development.

Faith

development

is

new

to

the

psychology

of

religion

(Nipkow,

Schweitzer, & Fowler,

1991). And, as

the

limited citations in

education

and

sociology

journals prove, it is

new

to

those

areas as well. According to

Nipkow,

Schwietzer,

and

Fowler, faith

development

is

not

about

one

type

of faith

or

religion,

but

it refers to

the

"developmental

process

of

finding

and

making

meaning

as a

human

activity" (p. 1).

As has

already

been

noted

by

Fowler

(1981, 1986b), it is "equally

applicable

to

religious

and

nonreligious, Christian

and

non-Christian interpretations

of

self

and

world"

(Nipkow,

Schweitzer, & Fowler, 1991, p. 1). Further, faith

development

is a

psychological

concept,

distinct from

anyone

particular

belief. At

the

same

time,

faith

development

can

be

seen

"in

such

a

way

that

it

can

also

be

interpreted

theologically

and

filled

with

substantive beliefs" (p. 1).

Influenced

by

Fowler's theory,

Parks

(2000)

provides

a

detailed

view

of

the

young

adult faith journey. Love (2001)

provides

an

excellent

overview

of

her

theory,

depicted

as a

three-component

model

as

the

young

adult

interacts

with

forms

of

knowing,

dependence,

and

community.

Ultimately,

Parks

challenges

the

community

of

higher

education

to

serve

as spiritual

guides

or

mentors

as

the

young

adult faces this faith journey.

Student

affairs professionals

are

called

to

provide

challenge as well as

opportunities

for

pause

and

"ah-ha"

moments.

Ultimately,

these

times

of

conflict,

pause,

and

"ah-ha"

allow

the

growth

of

the

young

adult's

faith to

take

shape.

Spirituality,

Religion,

and

Faith

The distinguishing line

between

spirituality, religion,

and

faith

can

become

fuzzy.

To

some,

it

would

seem

that

they

would

be

interchangeable.

Some

authors

in this

issue

use

them

synonymously.

In

some

cases,

they

perhaps

could

be.

However,

they

are

distinctly different

concepts,

especially

when

seen

in

the

light

of

the

model

presented

in this article. Love

and

Talbot (1999)

provide

a

discussion

of

spirituality

and

an

overarching

theme

to spiritual

development,

yet

do

not

provide

the

distinction

between

it

and

faith.

How

then

do

such

concepts

of

spirituality

and

religion figure

into

the

faith

equation? Related to

each

other,

but

different in

scope,

they

are

the

constructs

that

build

on

the

foundation

of

faith.

Defining

religion "is

often

held

to

be

difficult" (Smith, 1995, p. 893). Many

attempts

have

been

made

to

pinpoint

a definition. An

adequate

definition lies in

the

understanding

that

"religions

are

systems or structures consisting

of

specific

kinds

of beliefs

and

practices: beliefs

and

practices

that

are

superhuman

beings"

(p. 893).

The

superhuman

being

or

beings,

whether

male, female,

or

androgynous,

do things

ordinary

mortals

cannot

and

are

"known

for

miraculous

deeds

and

powers

that

set

them

apart

from

humans"

(p. 893).

SPRING 2004 - VOLUME 23, NUMBER 2

SPECIAL ISSUE

ON

FAITH, SPIRITUALITY,

AND

RELIGION

ON

CAMPUS

106

NEWMAN

For sociologists, religion is a "stable

cluster

of values,

norms,

statuses, roles,

and

groups

developed

around

a

basic

social

need"

(Smith, 1995, p. 905),

The

social

need

to

make

a distinction

between

sacred

and

profane

is at

the

core

of

all

religions. "Religious life

thus

thickens

and

solidifies

community

life,

inducing

a

sense of

attachment

to

the

community

and

its values" (p. 906).

Dependence

on

superhuman

beings

within

the

context

of

community

life

has

wide

and

varying implications

into

all

types

of

religions

world-wide.

For

the

purpose

of

this model, religion is limited in

scope

to

the

superhuman

in "radical monotheistic"

(Fowler,

1981) terms. Religion is still a

set

of

beliefs

and

practices

that

revere a

god

or a

center

of

power

and

value.

Persons

do

things,

such

as

attend

worship

services

or pray, to

show

reverence

and

worship.

In short, it is a

state

of

doing.

Webster's dictionary (Guralnik, 1984)

defines

spiritual as

"of

the

spirit

or

the

soul

as

distinguished

from

the

body

or

material matters" (p. 1373)

and

spirituality

follows as "spiritual character, quality,

or

nature"

(p.

1373). Viewing it from

the

Christian perspective, spirituality:

is

an

existence

before

God

and

amid

the

created

world.

It

is a

praying

and

living in

Jesus

Christ.

It

is

the

human

spirit

being

grasped,

sustained,

and

transformed

by

the

Holy

Spirit.

It

is

the

search

of

believers

for a

communion

that

arrives as a gift. (Wainwright, 1987, p. 452)

To

be

spiritual or-have spirituality,

persons

attempt

to live a life

guided

by

the

spirit

of

their faith.

Persons

may

meditate,

pray,

or

make

conscious

decisions

regarding

their actions

based

on

how

they

sense

the

Spirit

leading

them.

In short, it is a state

of

being.

The Model

Despite

notable

attempts

by scholars to distinguish

among

these

terms

as

described

above,

the

current

trend

is to

treat

these

three

concepts

as

equal

and

interchangeable.

One

might

use

religion

to

mean

faith in

one

instance.

In

the

someone

else

may

use

spirituality to

mean

religion.

Depending

on

use

or

application,

one

may

substitute

any

of

the

three

terms

to

mean

the

other.

In contrast to this

common

approach,

in my

model,

spirituality

and

religion

are

a

function

of

faith.

Both

religion

and

spirituality

require

faith as a

foundation

(Figure

1). In

other

words,

faith is

the

guiding

principle

by

which

individuals

are

either

religious

or

spiritual. Faith

serves

as

both

the

source

and

the

target

of

their

religion

or

spirituality.

Devotion

to religion

or

perception

of

growth

in spirituality

may

be

seen

as a

measure

of

greater

valence

of

understanding

one's

faith.

Further,

one

can

be

present

without

the

other. For

instance,

it is

possible

for

someone

to

have

faith (KNOWING),

but

not

necessarily

be

religious (DOING). Or,

someone

may

have

faith

and

be

religious,

but

not

necessarily spiritual (BEING).

Moreover, in

the

strictest

sense

of

the

definitions, religion

and

spirituality

are

not

necessary

elements

to a

person's

faith.

They

are,

however,

indicators

of

the

depth

of faith.

Because

of

the

value

added

to faith

due

to religion

and

spirituality,

they

are

often

seen

as

overlapping

elements

to faith,

and

though

not

necessary,

are

critical to faith

growth

and

development.

THE COLLEGE OF STUDENT AFFAIRS JOURNAL

107

Faith,

Spirituality, Religion

Model

..

SPIRITUALITY

"BEING"

in Faith

l

J

Movement

may

occur

along each

continuum, may

ebb and flow

and/or

may

move

in or

out

of

"sync" with

each other.

•

~. ~~

RELIGION

"DOING"

in Faith

FAITH

"KNOWING"

of

Faith

Foundational for

Spirituali

ty

or Religion

Figure

1.

SPRING 2004

~

VOLUME 23, NUMBER 2

SPECIAL ISSUE

ON

FAITH, SPIRITUALIT'{,

AND

RELIGION

ON

CAMPUS

108

NEWMAN

In fact,

people

can

be

spiritual

or

religious

and

still

have

a faith

that

is

not

reflected

upon.

Or, alternatively,

the

meaning-making

system

in

their

own

lives

may

be

tacit

to

the

point

that

acts

of

spirituality

or

religion far

outpace

their

ability to articulate

their

faith.

For

example,

one

might

say, "I

may

not

be

religious,

but

I'm

still a

good

person."

Thus,

he

or

she

has

not

examined

his

or

her

own

meaning-making

system

to

understand

why

he

or

she

is

good.

In

my

study

of

the

faith

journey

of

12

students

during

their

first

year

of

college

(Newman,

1998),

the

students

talked

about

how

they

had

"grown

spiritually"

or

described

instances

of

"religious

experiences."

As stated,

though

not

synonymous

with

faith,

these

elements

serve

as indicators

of

how

student

respondents

were

doing

and

being in

their

faith,

and

thus

how

they

made

meaning. Religion

and

spirituality

are

indicators

of

faith.

This

model

allows

the

freedom

to discuss

the

three

terms

interchangeably

while

giving a

context

for

them.

With faith as a

foundation,

spirituality

and

religion

can

be

seen

as

by-products,

those

things or

ways

of

life

which

allow

an

individual to

live

out

his

or

her

faith.

Further,

while

faith is

grounded

within

an

individual, spirituality

and

religion

are

dynamic.

They

have

motion.

In

other

words,

there

is

not

a

threshold

that

one

can

or

should

attain

with

either

one.

Rather, individuals

ebb

and

flow

along

the

"spirituality"

and/or

"religion"

continuums.

At

certain

times in life,

one

may

be

more

spiritual

and

perhaps

not

as religious. At

other

times, it

could

be

the

opposite:

one

is

more

religious,

yet

not

as spiritual. However,

both

essences

can

feed

and

assist

the

other

in

developing.

For

instance,

acts

of

religion

can

assist a

person

to

become

more

spiritual,

and

vice versa, acts

of

spirituality

may

lead

to religiosity.

Additionally,

the

arrows

symbolizing "spirituality"

and

"religion"

can

take

a direction

that

may

plot

them

to

be

closer

together

and

heading

in

the

same

direction. Or,

conversely,

the

two

may

be

moving

in different directions.

For

instance,

one's

religious acts

may

not

complement

or

enhance

one's

spirituality. Thus,

the

arrows

would

be

heading

in a

much

wider

direction

than

one

whose

spirituality

and

religion

both

serve

to edify

the

other.

The

simplicity of

the

model

allows

one

to

massage

and

maneuver

those

things

both

tacit

and

explicit

that

allow

one

to

develop

in faith.

One

can

begin

to

see

the

distinctiveness,

yet

interconnectedness

of

the

three

terms.

Some Questions For Further Consideration

With this

model

as a

guiding

basis

for

the

distinction

between

the

terms,

we

can

begin

to investigate

the

subtle

nuances

all

three

derive.

For

instance,

when

we

discuss spiritual

development

are

we

looking

at

those

issues

that

allow

our

growth

in

the

realm

of

being in faith? Or,

are

we

still talking

about

issues

that

focus

on

the

meaning

making

systems? If it is

the

latter,

then

we

should

refer

to it as faith

development

rather

than

as spiritual

development.

THE COLLEGE OF STUDENT AFFAIRS JOURNAL

109

Faith,

Spirituality,

Religion

Model

This

model

can

also

serve

as a

basis

for

further

study.

How

does

one

exercise

faith

in light

of

this model?

What

makes

a

person

more

religious? More spiritual? Are

there

certain

experiences

within

one's

faith

development

that

make

him

or

her

more

or less spiritual or religious? Do

greater

acts

of

religiosity

or

spirituality actually

trigger faith

development

(such

as

movement

along

Fowler's

stages

of

faith)? As

student affairs professionals,

how

do

we

encourage

or

mentor

the

spiritual

and/or

religious

sides

of

faith

development?

Further,

the

spirituality

and

religion

sides

of

the

model

are

fluid

and

dynamic. At

some point, a

numerical

scale

could

be

assigned

to

certain

points

along

each

continuum,

which

could

allow

for empirical research. With

such

a scale, researchers

could

study

individuals at varying stages

along

each

scale.

What

cognitive,

psychosocial,

and

typological

elements

are

present

in individuals

who

are

more

spiritual

or

more

religious

or

those

individuals at

any

point

along

the

continuums

in relation to

the

three

terms?

Moreover, if faith is

foundational,

how

do

we

investigate

those

issues for individuals

who

say

they

are

spiritual

or

may

be

religious,

yet

have

not

reflected

upon

their

personal faith?

How

do

we

uncover

the

meaning-making

systems

that

lead

to

spiritual growth?

How

do

we

provide

the

avenues

for

questioning,

examining,

pause,

and

reflection

necessary

to critically

examined

faith?

Conclusion

As a

profession,

we

have

begun

the

process

of

uncovering

the

faith/spiritual!

religious

aspect

of

development

among

our

students.

Just

as

pulling

a single

thread

can

cause

more

threads

to

unravel,

so too,

pulling

at

the

concept

of

faith

presents

a torrent

of

further

questions

and

considerations.

I

present

a

model

that

provides

clarification

and

definition to

the

terms

of

faith,

spirituality,

and

religion.

It

is

intended

to

promote

discussion

about

the

intricacies

it

proposes.

The

model

can

serve

as a

means

to

begin

the

dialogue

needed

to

increase

understanding

of

this

important

construct.

References

American Council

on

Education. (1937). The

student

personnel

point

of

view.

(American Council

on

Education

Studies, series 1, no.S). Washington, D.C.:

Author.

Fowler,

J. W. (1981). Stages offaitb: The psychology

of

human

development

and

the

quest

for

meaning. San Francisco:

Harper

& Row.

Fowler, J. W. (1986a).

Dialogue

toward

a future in faith

development

studies. In C.

Dykstra

& S.

Parks

(Eds.), Faith development

and

Fowler

(pp.

275-301).

Birmingham,

AL:

Religious

Education

Press.

Fowler,

J. W. (1986b). Faith

and

the

structuring

of

meaning.

In C. Dykstra & S. Parks

(Eds.),

Faith development

and

Fowler

(pp.

15-42). Birmingham,

AL:

Religious

Education Press.

SPRING 2004

~

VOLUME 23, NUMBER 2

SPECIAL ISSUE

ON

FAITH, SPIRITUALITY,

AND

RELIGION

ON

CAMPUS

110

NEWMAN

Guralnik, D. B. (Ed.). (1984). Webster's

new

world dictionary

of

the

American

language.

New

York:

Simon

& Schuster.

Hellwig, M.

K. (1990). A

history

of

the

concept

of

faith.

In].

M. Lee (Ed.), Handbook

offaith

(pp.

3-23). Birmingham,

AL:

Religious

Education

Press.

Hiebert,

D. W. (1993). Schools

of

faith: The effect

of

liberal arts, professional,

and

religious education on

faith

development.

Unpublished

doctoral

dissertation,

University

of

Manitoba, Canada.

Hiebert, D. W. (1992).

The

sociology

of

Fowler's

faith

development

theory.

Studies

in Religion/Sciences

Religieuses,

21,

321-335.

Lee, ]. M.

(Ed.),

(1990). Handbook

of

faith. Birmingham,

AL:

Religious

Education

Press.

Love, P. G. (2001). Spirituality

and

student

development:

Theoretical

connections.

In M. A.

Jablonski

(Ed.), The implications

of

student

spirituality

for

student

affairs practice.

New

Directions for

Student

Services,

no.

95.

(pp.

7-16). San j

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Love, P. G. (2002).

Comparing

spiritual

development

and

cognitive

development.

j

journal

of

College Student Development, 43, 357-373.

Love, P.,

& Talbot, D. (1999).

Defining

spiritual

development:

A missing

consideration

for

student

affairs. NASPAjournal, 37, 361-376.

Nash,

R.].

(2001). Religious pluralism in the academy: Opening the dialogue.

New

York:

Peter

Lang.

Newman,

1. 1. (1998). Faith

and

freshmen: A qualitative

study

of

the faith

development

of

traditional

first-year

students

at

a Baptist institution.

Unpublished

doctoral

dissertation, University

of

Louisville, Louisville, KY.

Nipkow,

K. E., Schweitzer, F., &

Fowler,].

(1991).

Introduction.

In].

W. Fowler, K.

E.

Nipkow,

& F.

Schweitzer

(Eds)., Stages

of

faith

and

religious development: l

Implications

for

church, education,

and

society

(pp.

1-15).

New

York: (

Crossroads.

Parks, S. (1986). The critical years: Young adults

and

the search

for

meaning, faith,

and

commitment.

San

Francisco: HarperCollins. r

Parks, S. D. (2000).

Big questions, worthy dreams: Mentoring

young

adults in their a

search

for

meaning,

purpose,

and

faith. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Smith, ]. Z. (Ed.). (1995). Religion, definition of. In ]. Z. Smith (Ed.),

The 1

HarperCollins

dictionary

of

religion

(pp.

893-894).

San

Francisco: l

HarperCollins.

Tam, E. P. C. (1996). Faith

development

theory

and

spiritual direction. Pastoral

Psychology,

44, 251-263.

Temkin,

1., & Evans,

N.].

(1998). Religion

on

campus:

Suggestions

for

cooperation

between

student

affairs

and

campus-based

religious organizations. NASPA

journal,

36, 61-69.

Wainwright, G. (1987). Christian spirituality. In M. Eliade (Ed.),

The encyclopedia oj

religion

(Vol. 3),

(pp.

452-460),

New

York: Macmillan. -

:I

a

s

THE COLLEGE OF STUDENT AFFAIRS JOURNAL