Diagnosing Christian Maturity

 

            Christian maturity is a concept that most church-goers and religious people will agree exists, but they are inept at defining exactly what that means.  With shifting values in today’s culture, I feel it is necessary to try to differentiate between a mature and an immature or non-Christian individual.  Using these differentiations, others can begin to integrate the factors of maturity into their own lives.  Christian maturity has always been a very rigidly defined idea in my home church, and I have gone through many classes aimed at teaching the habits of a mature Christian.  These habits aided me in forming the two systems described below.

 

 

Diagnostic System 1: Private Devotion

            The most basic practice of any Christian is that of Bible study and prayer.  These are the two ways that God has shown that he talks to his people.  Even Christ rose early in the morning to pray in solitude to his father, so how much more an imperfect Christian should do so!  The purpose of this system is to categorize the different devotional habits of four groups, namely: mature, maturing, immature, and non- Christian individuals.

            Mature Christians are those who schedule a time each day to study alone with God.  In addition to using this time to read God’s Word, they also pray faithfully.  Many of the prayers of a mature Christian focus on the needs of others, though periodically, they may pray for guidance.  Maturing Christians aim to achieve this daily routine, but they are not sure exactly how they want to do that yet.  They read the Bible on most days, though it may or may not be scheduled, and they work to develop the habit of prayer.  Most prayers of a maturing Christian are pleas for guidance from God.  Immature Christians are working to figure out the power of the Bible and discover its role in their lives.  Therefore, they generally read the Bible whenever they think about it, and their prayers are often requests of God for wants, rather than for needs.  Obviously, a non-Christian individual would have neither Bible study nor prayer.

            Thus, these criteria are presented as follows in the diagnostic system.

            Mature                                                                         Maturing

-          Daily Scheduled Bible Study                               -    Bible Study 3-6 Times Per Week

-          Daily Prayer Time                                                 -    Prayer Time 4-6 Times Per Week

(others’ needs; occasionally guidance)                      (mostly for personal guidance)

 

Immature                                                                     Non-Christian

            -     Bible Study 1-3 Times Per Week                         -    No Bible Study

                  (unscheduled)

            -     Prayer Time 1-3 Times Per Week             -    No Prayer Time

                  (for self)

 

            This system has its advantages and its disadvantages.  Since private devotion is so central to the Christian faith, this system provides a way to categorize and understand these activities.  One of the disadvantages is that this system relies solely on the self-reports of the subject.  Also, diagnoses from this system say nothing about the motive behind the devotion, nor do they address the ways in which a person is spending this devotion time.  One of the case studies included attempted to reflect the information lost in this system and how it inevitably plays a role in determining maturity.  Hunter (case study #3) read his Bible every day and often asked himself for guidance.  As an atheist, these conversations with himself constitute prayer to his god.  Therefore, on the basis of this system alone, he would need to be diagnosed Mature.  Yet, many of the diagnosticians classified him as a non-Christian individual, which implies that they were unable to set aside their personal beliefs about motive in regard to this issue.  Thus, the information “lost” actually was present in the use of this system.

 

 

 

Diagnostic System 2: Interpersonal Relations

            In the New Testament, the religious leaders tried to trap Christ by asking Him, “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment?”  The latter half of Christ’s response is the basis of this diagnostic system – “Love your neighbor as yourself.” (Matthew 22:36,39)  Jesus realized that one of the most important ways we demonstrate our faith is through our interactions with others, our interpersonal relationships.  This system attempts to unravel exactly how Christ envisioned these interactions and how they relate to the level of maturity a Christian possesses.

            Mature Christians know that they must be honest with one another and open about their struggles and victories in order for others to see the love of Christ.  Thus, their self-disclosure is fairly frequent, but it is always appropriate.  When relating, they also tend to use assertive language, which is a respect to themselves as well as to the other person involved, and an ultimate respect to God.  Maturing Christians maintain appropriate self-disclosure, but it is very infrequent.  They are struggling within their own minds and are working out their own relationship with God.  Since they tend to want to be left alone to figure out their faith, they are nonassertive, simply to avoid conflict.  Immature Christians are the ultimate self-disclosing group.  They talk about their own problems as much as possible, regardless of how inappropriate it might be for the given situation.  They are also very “on fire” for God, which leads them to a style of aggressive (let-me-shove-God-down-your-throat) interaction.  Non-Christian individuals tend to be non-assertive, clutching the worldview that says “conflict is bad.”  The other feature used to diagnose non-Christian individuals in this system is infrequent, inappropriate self-disclosure, since the world is attempting to teach that one’s own business is private and should not be disclosed except under the most strict of circumstances.  The pressure to keep details private leads the non-Christian individual to blurt out their feelings or thoughts, which is usually inappropriate.

Thus, these criteria are presented as follows in the diagnostic system.

            Mature                                                                         Maturing

-          Self-disclosure                                                      -     Self-disclosure

-          Frequent                                                                 -    Infrequent

-          Appropriate                                                            -    Usually Appropriate

-    Assertive                                                                -     Nonassertive

 

 

Immature                                                                     Non-Christian

            -     Self-disclosure                                                      -      Self-disclosure

                   -     Frequent                                                                 -     Infrequent

                   -     Inappropriate                                                         -     Usually Inappropriate

                -     Aggressive                                                              -      Nonassertive

 

            The advantages of this system are fairly simple.  The ways in which a person interacts with another person is easily observable and generally quantifiable.  That is, a diagnostician could watch and interpret a subject’s behavior, rather than relying on self-reports.  The major loss of information in this system is that which would say where the style of relating comes from.  Perhaps it comes from faith in God, but perhaps it does not.  There is no way to factor in a person’s natural personality or past experiences that may mold his or her interpersonal style.  Jeremy (case study #2) attempted to show this flaw.  As a war veteran, his past has shaped him in the way he views and relates with others.  Because this system cannot account for that, it was unreasonable to believe that a diagnostician would reach the conclusion that Jeremy is mature unless he or she personally accounted for this past experience.  Once again, the information “lost” by the system still influenced at least one diagnostician.

 

 

The Method

            As the system developed, and as I faced more and more revisions of the criteria, I was fairly certain that my final system would be at the least very reliable.  I was hoping for a measure of validity as well, but it was secondary to reliability at that point.  A testing session was set up, in which other diagnosticians and myself were to trade case studies and use each other’s criteria to diagnose these studies.  I distributed my study in ten packets of three papers, each paper containing a case study and the criteria for both of my diagnostic systems.  This was the test for reliability.  The sheets, distributed and returned, are included in this packet.  In order to test validity, another factor needed to be added in.  The three case studies used in the test for reliability were given to an expert on Christian maturity.  This expert is a man from my home church who is very keen about understanding the Biblical concept of maturity.  His responses to the case studies were then compared with the responses from the diagnosticians used for reliability testing.  These results are included below.

 

The Case Studies

Case Study #1: Madeline

            Madeline is a 28-year-old single mother of two, a son and a daughter.  Though she rarely attends church services, she says that someday, she would like to.  Whenever she wakes up a little earlier than the alarm, she picks up the Bible and reads until it is time to get ready for work. Every other day, while her children attend day care, she prays for something good to happen for her or her children.  She holds down a full-time job as a pediatric nurse at a local hospital, which sometimes leads to stress and frustration in her life.  In a small group with friends, these frustrations often come out when they ask about her week.  When they struggle with what to say to her, her frustration rises, and she has been known to verbally lash out at those who she feels do not understand her.  She then may avoid the group for a week or two, claiming, “They just do not understand the plight of a working single mother.”

 

Case Study #2: Jeremy

Jeremy is a 65-year-old widower.  A Vietnam veteran, Jeremy recommitted his life to Christ after the war, claiming that only prayer kept him going in the trenches.  With the war in Iraq going on, he has strengthened his prayer time, often saying prayers for the soldiers, using the same words he prayed many years ago.  He enjoys looking back to the prayers of David in the Psalms and using them as a template for his own communications with God.  All of this, he does in private.  Only months after being in the States, Jeremy was diagnosed as having PTSD from his combat experiences.  He is therefore very withdrawn from the general social population.  He is very quiet, rarely talking even to his children.  He makes a brief appearance at parties or other gatherings, but usually only compulsorily.  His children have considered placing him in a Veteran’s facility to help him with his illness, but as of yet, they have not done so.

 

Case Study #3: Hunter

            Hunter is a 40-year-old man whose self-proclaimed mission in life is “to hassle Christians.”  As an active atheist, Hunter reads the Bible several times a week to study the flaws of the written Word.  On weeknights, he sits down and re-reads his notes, asking himself what he would like to focus on in the future to achieve his mission.  He has become so involved in this work that when others ask him how he is doing, he responds with his latest discovery in the Biblical text.  Everything else has taken a backseat to the fulfillment of this mission.  As long as it does not interfere with something he is proving through the text, he will accept any suggestions or ideas just to avoid a fight, which might take his time away from his study.  Though for now, he has no life outside of this work, Hunter says he wishes that one day, he could run his own support group for “recovering former Christians.”

 

The Results

            The following table shows the individual responses of each diagnostician in response to the three case studies.

Case 1

 

System 1

 

 

 

 

System 2

 

 

 

Mature

Maturing

Immature

Non-Chr.

 

Mature

Maturing

Immature

Non-Chr.

1

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

2

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

X

 

3

 

X

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

4

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

X

 

5

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

X

 

6

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

X

 

7

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

X

 

8

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

9

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

X

 

10

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2

 

System 1

 

 

 

 

System 2

 

 

 

Mature

Maturing

Immature

Non-Chr.

 

Mature

Maturing

Immature

Non-Chr.

1

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

2

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

3

X

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

4

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

5

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

6

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

7

 

X

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

8

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

9

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

10

 

 

X

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 3

 

System 1

 

 

 

 

System 2

 

 

 

Mature

Maturing

Immature

Non-Chr.

 

Mature

Maturing

Immature

Non-Chr.

1

 

X

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

2

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

X

3

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

4

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

X

5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

6

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

X

7

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

8

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

9

 

 

 

X

 

X

 

 

 

10

 

 

 

X

 

X

 

 

 

 

            Diagnostician 5 was unable to make a clear indication of choice on the case of Hunter (in the first diagnostic system), so the result of that particular case was thrown out.  All factors henceforth based either on the first diagnostic system or on the case of Hunter will exclude that diagnosis from the total count.

The next table shows a summary of overall diagnosis totals for each case in each system.  The boxes shaded in gray indicate the way the expert responded to the cases.  These boxes were used in the calculation of validity.

               

 

Case 1

Case 2

Case 3

 

 

 

Mature

1

7

1

 

Reliability

Dx

Maturing

2

2

3

 

19/29

1

Immature

7

1

0

 

Validity

 

Non-Christian

0

0

5

 

19/29

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mature

0

1

2

 

Reliability

Dx

Maturing

1

7

1

 

21/30

2

Immature

9

0

2

 

Validity

 

Non-Christian

0

2

5

 

15/30

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reliability

16/30

14/30

10/29

 

 

 

Validity

16/30

8/30

10/29

 

 

 

            As expected, the reliability of each system was fairly high, 66% for system 1 and 70% for system 2.  These reliability factors are not high enough to constitute including the system in the DSM-IV without some revision.  In system 1, the diagnosticians were not given numerical frequencies of the case studies’ private devotion, but such numbers were included in the criteria.  This required the diagnostician to decipher each case individually and use his or her own conclusion to diagnose the subject.  In system 2, the diagnostician was forced to interpret the subject’s style of relating and then try to fit each study into one of the diagnostic categories provided.  I believe it is these kinds of subjectivity that led to lower reliability percentages than what would be desirable.

            The validity for each system was remarkably higher than I expected, 66% for system 1 and 50% for system 2.  Thus, system 1 is as valid as it is reliable, so revising the system could potentially produce 100% validity, provided the rewritten material could provide 100% reliability.  The exception to the validity of system 1, as previously mentioned, includes cases like that of Hunter, whose motive was non-Christian, though his studies and devotion qualified him as maturing.  As the test diagnosticians confirmed, however, it would be very difficult to set aside motive in determining a diagnosis, regardless of the criteria presented.  In regard to system 2, it is nearly as valid as could be expected of it.  People are too different to try to classify their personalities as mature or immature.  Christ himself demonstrated assertive, non-assertive, and aggressive behaviors.  At times, he even refused to disclose information about himself.  Yet, I do not believe that anyone would argue that Christ was an immature Christian.  System 2 was inherently flawed, and there is nothing that could make it more valid using the same type of criteria.

 

Conclusions

            Christian maturity is a very abstract concept, which complicates the process of trying to diagnose it.  In addition to the schematical issues involved, there are also moral and Christian factors to consider.  The Bible expressly states that we are not to judge one another, and we should first take care of our own shortcomings.  That being said, I think this kind of a system fails as a diagnostic approach to Christian maturity.  It would do better as a simple guideline for the practice a maturing Christian should work on stabilizing in his or her own life.  Furthermore, the “expert” used to calculate validity is as fallible as any of the diagnosticians.  There is no training that one can receive to be able to classify maturity – it will always be a judgment call, influenced by personal experiences.  So the question must be asked – is this system really as valid as the statistics show?  It probably is not.  The only expert who could truly validate the systems would be Christ, but he cannot comment directly on the case studies.  It was an interesting idea to diagnose maturity, but an individual’s maturity in the Christian faith is ultimately between that person and God.