John Fowler's seven stages of faith development:
Stage 1 -- Primal faith (the incorporative self):
Stage 2 -- Intuitive projective faith (the impulsive self):
Stage 3 -- Mythic literal faith (the imperial self):
Stage 4 -- Synthetic conventional faith (the interpersonal self):
Stage 5 -- Individuative reflective faith
Stage 6 -- Conjunctive faith
Stage 7 -- Universalizing faith:
Stages of faith development-- what do you think about them? Where do you think you are?...?

We-eell, in the context of my faith journey...

this doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Are these stages of development supposed to be universal, or are they intended to describe faith development from within a particular cultural context? I could probably force my experience to fit the model, but it's a bit of a stretch:

I can't of course remember stage one, but I can remember stage 2 -- which was for me a realization that other people believed in something else. No anthropomorphic or non-anthropomorphic images of God; just bemusement. Stage 3 for me was characterized by sensual images --a parental caress in the feel of the wind on my cheek, or the sense of being held in strong arms as I dropped off to sleep. But these amorphous images were uninformed by cultural Deity images. I don't remember *ever* thinking God could be swayed by bargaining. Stage 4 -- "Synthetic conventional faith" is also a toughie, since the prevailing *convention* was *no* faith.

I suppose I probably entered in to the developmental model around stage 5. Certainly, taking the initiative to begin attending church involved questioning parental authority. At the same time however, I was fully aware that I was entering *into* particular "socially defined roles" in doing so; and having to grapple with, and redefine those roles, to accomodate my unconventional background. But I didn't have to go through a process of deconstruction within myself. And, I think, my familiarity with sympathetic magic in witchcraft actually allowed the understanding of the symbol to empower it (this is how an icon functions -- in short, I think Tillich is wrong on this point).

Probably Stage 6 characterizes where I am now, with characteristics of 5 and 7, and even 4 and 3 stirred in to the mix. I'm a little put off by the words used to describe stage 7 -- this is far more rhetorical in tone than a scientific analysis usually is. I think there's some evidence here that the whole model is based on a particular subjective value system.

Two jokes I often tell when I am lecturing on my area of expertise (which is building models of power systems); or when incorporating a new engineer into my team:

 The first is an obscure movie reference:
 http://www.montypython.net/sounds/hg/model.wav 
 (Camelot! Camelot!! Camelot!!! It's only a model. Shhhh!!)
 The second: "An engineer and a mathematician are sitting on the 
 beach when a gorgeous blond runs by. The engineer leaps up and
 begins pursuing. After a moment, the bemused mathematician also
 gets up. Panting along behind the engineer, the mathematician 
 says 'What are you doing? You know, you can never catch up. 
 Before you do, you will get halfway, and still have half the 
 distance to go. And before you can cover that distance, you 
 will half to go halfway. You will *always* have halfway left 
 to go!" The engineer shrugs, "I can get close enough for all
 *practical* purposes".

This *is* only a model. What is the purpose of this model? My use for a model is usually to see things about myself (or others, usually my children -- or about the electric grid <g>) that I do not perceive directly. This model doesn't do that for me. I find myself seeing it as a standard to measure my "enlightenment quotient", and I'm not really comfortable with that.