Faith Maturity Scale

Abstract

The Faith Maturity Scale (FMS) is an empirically validated psychometric instrument developed to assess the degree to which an individual embodies the foundational priorities, commitments, perspectives, and behavioral manifestations characteristic of a vibrant, mature, and life-transforming religious faith. Conceptualized by Peter L. Benson, Michael J. Donahue, and Joseph A. Erickson under the auspices of the Search Institute during the seminal National Study of Protestant Congregations (NSPC), the instrument operationalizes religious maturity across two primary orthogonal dimensions: vertical faith, which captures a deeply subjective, loving, and transformative relationship with God; and horizontal faith, which reflects the outward enactment of faith through social justice advocacy, altruistic service, radical hospitality, and systemic societal transformation. Comprising 38 items scored along a 7-point Likert-type continuum ranging from 1 (never true) to 7 (always true), the FMS intentionally departs from narrow, cognitive assent to doctrinal orthodoxies, emphasizing instead integrated psychosocial values, ethical imperatives, and concrete behavioral expressions.

Extensive psychometric evaluations conducted on representative stratified national samples encompassing over 11,000 adolescents and adults from multiple mainline Protestant denominations demonstrated exemplary internal consistency, with Cronbach’s coefficient alpha values consistently ranging between .84 and .90 across diverse demographic strata. Evidence for construct validity was established through known-groups methodologies, convergent associations with intrinsic religious orientation, discriminant independence from extrinsic religiousness and authoritarianism, and structural equation modeling verifying its underlying bifactor and two-dimensional configurations. The FMS remains a cornerstone assessment in the psychology of religion, developmental psychology, and pastoral research, serving as a vital bridge between subjective existential commitments and quantifiable pro-social behavior.

Keywords

Faith Maturity Scale, psychology of religion, vertical faith, horizontal faith, intrinsic religiousness, religious development, social justice, spiritual maturity, Search Institute, psychometrics, prosocial behavior, adolescent development, Christian education.

Authors

The Faith Maturity Scale was conceptualized and empirically constructed by a multidisciplinary team of research psychologists and measurement specialists at the Search Institute in Minneapolis, Minnesota, under the scholarly leadership of:

• Peter L. Benson, Ph.D. (1946–2011): Former President and Chief Executive Officer of Search Institute. An internationally distinguished developmental psychologist, Dr. Benson was a pioneer in positive youth development and the empirical investigation of internal and external developmental assets.
• Michael J. Donahue, Ph.D.: Senior Research Scientist at Search Institute and prominent psychometrician in the psychology of religion. Dr. Donahue has published extensively on religious orientations, intrinsic/extrinsic dimensions of religiosity, and adolescent spiritual development.
• Joseph A. Erickson, Ph.D.: Research Associate at Search Institute and Professor of Education at Augsburg University, Minneapolis, MN. His scholarly work focuses on educational psychology, social justice formation, and moral development.

The scale was developed in collaboration with three expert advisory panels comprising seminary faculty, theological scholars, denominational executives, and pastoral leaders representing six major North American Protestant denominations, ensuring denominational inclusivity and robust content validity.

Purpose

The primary rationale underlying the development of the Faith Maturity Scale (FMS) was to address a pervasive psychometric deficiency in the psychology of religion: namely, the historical over-reliance on measures that exclusively evaluate doctrinal orthodoxy, cognitive adherence to rigid theological propositions, or simplistic institutional indices such as frequency of church attendance and financial tithing. The investigators hypothesized that authentic faith cannot be adequately summarized by conceptual assent alone; rather, faith maturity represents an integrated, multidimensional constellation of interior affective devotion, dynamic personal relationship with the divine, and active, outward behavioral manifestations geared toward societal well-being and humanitarian engagement.

Originating as a central measurement battery in The National Study of Protestant Congregations (NSPC; Benson & Eklin, 1990), the FMS was designed to fulfill three primary objectives:

• Empirical Assessment of Life-Transforming Faith: Quantifying the degree to which an individual experiences an existential and functional integration of religious values that actively shape daily cognitive, emotional, and behavioral repertoires.
• Diagnostic Evaluation for Religious and Educational Settings: Providing Christian educators, theological researchers, pastors, and denominational policy makers with an empirically grounded instrument to benchmark the efficacy of pedagogical programs, spiritual formation curricula, and parish youth ministries.
• Investigation of Prosocial Behavioral Outcomes: Serving as a specialized research tool capable of testing theoretical hypotheses regarding how subjective religious commitment translates into prosocial action, environmental stewardship, antiracist advocacy, global peacemaking, and systemic poverty relief.

Clinically and developmentally, the scale is employed to evaluate moral-existential maturation across the lifespan, from late adolescence through late adulthood. It distinguishes individuals whose religiousness is stagnant, guilt-driven, or dogmatic from those who experience religiousness as an empowering, integrative core of personal identity, self-actualization, and compassionate altruism.

Psychological Construct

The Faith Maturity Scale operationalizes religious maturity as a dynamic, continuous, multidimensional construct defined as “the degree to which a person embodies the priorities, commitments, and perspectives characteristic of vibrant and life-transforming faith.” The operational definition was formulated to minimize institutional parochialism while capturing eight foundational criteria identified by cross-denominational expert panels. Rather than treating faith as a static trait, the FMS conceptualizes it as a developmental trajectory organized along two primary axes:

1. The Vertical Dimension (Loving God)

The vertical dimension encompasses an individual’s interior, subjective, and devotional relationship with the transcendent. It measures the intensity of felt closeness to God, subjective experiences of divine guidance, affective devotion, and personal spiritual disciplines. Key sub-components include:

• Devotional Intimacy and Awareness: Experiencing God as a living, loving reality in daily life, perceiving divine presence in interpersonal connections, and discerning the transcendent in creation (e.g., Item 22: “I feel God’s presence in my relationships with other people”; Item 34: “I have a real sense that God is guiding me”).
• Transformative Spiritual Disciplines: Dedicating time to private prayer, meditation, and devotional scriptural study not out of compulsory obligation, but as an intentional quest for spiritual renewal (e.g., Item 14: “I take time for periods of prayer or meditation”).
• Grace vs. Legalism: Experiencing salvation and divine acceptance as unmerited grace rather than an anxious, legalistic adherence to behavioral rules (reflected in reverse-scored items such as Item 26: “I believe that I must obey God’s rules and commandments in order to be saved”).
• Theological and Existential Coping: Utilizing faith as an interpretative framework that imparts global meaning, existential purpose, and resiliency in times of crisis (e.g., Item 24: “My life is filled with meaning and purpose”; Item 27: “I am confident that I can overcome any problem or crisis no matter how serious”).

2. The Horizontal Dimension (Loving Neighbor)

The horizontal dimension captures the externalization of faith through social responsibility, ethical action, social justice advocacy, and humanitarian compassion. It reflects the conviction that authentic faith must impact human suffering and promote societal equity. Key components include:

• Social and Systemic Justice Advocacy: An active commitment to dismantling societal inequality, speaking out for marginalized groups, and advancing world peace (e.g., Item 12: “I am active in efforts to promote social justice”; Item 21: “I speak out for equality for women and minorities”; Item 15: “I am active in efforts to promote world peace”).
• Direct Altruistic Action and Benevolence: Sacrificing personal resources, leisure time, and finances to assist people in distress and alleviate immediate material needs (e.g., Item 6: “In my free time, I help people who have problems or needs”; Item 20: “I give significant portions of my time and money to help other people”).
• Environmental Stewardship: Translating reverence for divine creation into practical ecological conservation (e.g., Item 8: “I do things to help protect the environment”).
• Interfaith and Intergroup Openness: Exhibiting radical tolerance, accepting individuals with diverging religious convictions, and fostering international understanding (e.g., Item 16: “I accept people whose religious beliefs are different from mine”; Item 37: “I think Christians must be about the business of creating international understanding and harmony”).

Typological Matrix of Faith Maturity

By crossing the vertical and horizontal dimensions at their empirical sample medians, Benson, Donahue, and Erickson (1993) established a heuristic four-fold typology of faith styles:

1. Integrated Faith (High Vertical, High Horizontal): The theoretical ideal of faith maturity, where deep experiential connection with the divine directly energizes robust compassionate action, social justice, and systemic ethical concern.
2. Horizontal Faith (Low Vertical, High Horizontal): Characterized by social activism, humanitarian commitment, and political engagement without a corresponding experiential, devotional, or intimate personal relationship with God.
3. Vertical Faith (High Vertical, Low Horizontal): Marked by high personal piety, intense interior devotion, and traditional religious practices, but relatively detached from broader social justice issues, civil rights advocacy, or systemic poverty reduction.
4. Undeveloped Faith (Low Vertical, Low Horizontal): Reflects minimal involvement in either personal spiritual disciplines or faith-motivated humanitarian action; faith remains dormant or superficial.

Theoretical Framework

The Faith Maturity Scale is anchored in the convergence of classical psychodynamic theory, humanistic and psychosocial development, and contemporary social-cognitive models of religion. Specifically, its conceptual infrastructure draws directly upon the theoretical paradigms of Gordon Allport, James Fowler, and mainline Protestant liberation/prophetic theology.

1. Allport’s Religious Orientations and Mature Religion

In his landmark treatise The Individual and His Religion, Gordon W. Allport (1950) posited that mature religion is distinguished by its comprehensive, well-differentiated, dynamic, and heuristic character. Allport differentiated between extrinsic religion (using religion for utilitarian ends such as security, status, or social acceptance) and intrinsic religion (living religion as an end in itself, wherein values are internalized and direct all life spheres). The FMS significantly expands Allport’s intrinsic construct by demanding that internalized devotion demonstrate observable social consequences. While an individual may hold an intrinsic orientation that remains privatized, the FMS model insists that genuine faith maturity necessarily integrates inward devotion with active outward benevolence.

2. Fowler’s Stages of Faith Development

The developmental assumptions of the FMS align closely with James W. Fowler’s (1981) stage theory of faith development, which synthesized the structural-developmental theories of Jean Piaget, Erik Erikson, and Lawrence Kohlberg. Fowler’s transition from Stage 3 (Synthetic-Conventional) to Stage 4 (Individuative-Reflective) and Stage 5 (Conjunctive Faith) involves critically evaluating inherited dogmas, embracing ambiguity, developing an open, non-defensive understanding of transcendence, and recognizing systemic interconnectedness with the wider world. The FMS reflects these advanced structural operations through items measuring evolving understandings of the divine (Item 18), tolerance of religious diversity (Item 16), and self-critical reflexivity regarding moral responsibility.

3. The Prophetic and Social Gospel Heritage

From a theological-philosophical vantage point, the FMS is explicitly rooted in the Social Gospel movement pioneered by Walter Rauschenbusch and modern Christian liberation ethics. This tradition holds that personal piety cannot be divorced from prophetic witness against socio-economic injustice, systemic poverty, and racial oppression. Hence, the FMS treats participation in social transformation not as an optional secondary byproduct of religiosity, but as a core psychometric indicator of religious maturity itself.

Validity

The psychometric integrity of the Faith Maturity Scale has been empirically substantiated across multiple validation phases utilizing extensive, nationally representative cohorts.

Content and Face Validity

Content validity was rigorously established through an iterative, three-stage criterion-based developmental protocol. The initial domain boundaries were defined in consultation with three expert advisory panels consisting of theological educators, seminary faculty, social scientists, and multicultural denominational leaders. These panels articulated 24 specific behavioural and attitudinal indicators subsumed under eight core dimensions. An initial pool of 120 potential items was subjected to expert content ratings, resulting in the elimination of ambiguous, institutionally parochial, or doctrinally biased items, culminating in the 38-item definitive scale.

Construct and Known-Groups Validity

Construct validity was corroborated via known-groups methodology within the stratified NSPC sample. Ordained pastors—hypothesized to embody advanced theological education and deep vocational integration of faith—demonstrated the highest mean faith maturity scores across all tested cohorts (M = 5.68), significantly exceeding adult congregants (M = 4.88) and Christian education teachers (M = 5.12, p < .001). Furthermore, independent ratings of congregants’ faith maturity provided by peers and pastors correlated significantly with participants’ self-reported FMS global scores (r = .48, p < .001), indicating strong cross-informant convergence.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Benson, Donahue, and Erickson (1993) reported extensive correlation analyses examining the FMS against established psychometric measures:

• Intrinsic Religiosity: The FMS global score demonstrated strong positive correlations with Hoge’s Intrinsic Religious Motivation Scale (r = .68 to .73, p < .001) and Allport-Ross Intrinsic Scale (r = .65), corroborating that mature faith is characterized by internalized spiritual commitment.
• Extrinsic Religiosity: Correlations between the FMS and extrinsic religiosity were non-significant or weakly negative (r = -.08 to -.14), demonstrating robust discriminant validity against utilitarian or socially conforming motivations.
• Authoritarianism and Dogmatism: The FMS horizontal dimension and global score exhibited significant negative associations with measures of right-wing authoritarianism (r = -.32, p < .001) and religious ethnocentrism, confirming that faith maturity is decoupled from dogmatic rigidity and intergroup prejudice.
• Prosocial Behavior: High FMS scores predicted actual annualized hours devoted to volunteer service (r = .44, p < .001) and percentage of household income donated to humanitarian charities (r = .38, p < .001).

Developmental Trajectory Validity

Cross-sectional analyses demonstrated a monotonic, linear progression in faith maturity scores across the adult life cycle. Scores steadily rose from early adulthood (ages 18–29: M = 4.42) through middle adulthood (ages 40–49: M = 4.86) to older adulthood (ages 70+: M = 5.24), empirically aligning with developmental models that posit faith integration deepens with cumulative life experience.

Reliability

The Faith Maturity Scale demonstrates high internal consistency across a wide spectrum of demographic groups, ages, and denominations. In the primary normative study of 11,000 respondents, Benson, Donahue, and Erickson (1993) reported the following psychometric properties:

Internal Consistency

• Global 38-Item Scale: Cronbach’s alpha for the overall scale was reported at .88 in the adult normative sample and .86 among adolescents.
• Demographic Subgroups: Coefficient alpha values across age and gender subgroups ranged from .84 (females aged 70 and older) to .90 (males aged 60 to 69). Across six Protestant denominations, alpha coefficients remained stable between .85 and .89.
• Vertical Subscale: The vertical dimension (comprising items measuring personal devotional intimacy, divine guidance, and existential purpose) demonstrated an alpha of .87.
• Horizontal Subscale: The horizontal dimension (comprising items measuring social justice, peacemaking, ecological responsibility, and interpersonal benevolence) demonstrated an alpha of .84.

Test-Retest Stability

In longitudinal and subsample assessments conducted over a 6-month interval, the global FMS exhibited high temporal stability (r = .82, p < .001), indicating that the instrument captures enduring personality-level orientations rather than transient affective states.

Factor Analysis

The latent structural validity of the FMS has been extensively scrutinized through both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

Exploratory Factor Structure

Initial principal components analysis with varimax and oblimin rotations conducted on the 38 items revealed a dominant two-factor solution accounting for approximately 42% of the total variance:

• Factor 1: Horizontal Faith (Social/Compassionate Outreach): Primary item loadings (> .45) were observed for items addressing racial and gender equality (Item 21, loading = .71), poverty reduction (Item 28, loading = .69), social justice engagement (Item 12, loading = .68), and world peace advocacy (Item 15, loading = .64).
• Factor 2: Vertical Faith (Devotional/Experiential Core): Primary item loadings (> .45) loaded heavily on items reflecting daily guidance by God (Item 34, loading = .74), perceiving God’s active presence (Item 23, loading = .70), commitment to Christ (Item 30, loading = .68), and regular prayer/meditation (Item 14, loading = .62).

While the two factors were moderately correlated (r ≈ .40 to .46), supporting the practice of computing an overarching global faith maturity score, their statistical divergence supported the diagnostic utility of calculating independent vertical and horizontal subscale scores.

Confirmatory Factor Analyses

Subsequent psychometric investigations utilizing structural equation modeling confirmed that a correlated two-factor model or a hierarchical bifactor model (with a general “Faith Maturity” factor and two orthogonal group factors) provided superior fit over a unidimensional model. Typical fit indices across independent validation studies indicate acceptable structural fit:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .91 to .94
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = .90 to .93
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .048 (90% CI [.044, .052])
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) = .051

Short-form derivations of the scale (e.g., the 12-item FMS Short Form) have preserved this two-factor architecture with nearly identical factor loadings and robust structural indices.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Faith Maturity Scale (FMS)
• Alternate Versions: 12-Item FMS Short Form; 8-Item FMS Youth Form
• Assessment Type: Self-report questionnaire / Psychological rating scale
• Primary Target Population: Adolescents (ages 12–18) and adults across the lifespan
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil, computer-assisted, or online survey
• Completion Time: Approximately 10 to 15 minutes
• Item Count: 38 items
• Response Scale: 7-point Likert-type scale scored from 1 to 7:
• 1 = never true
• 2 = rarely true
• 3 = true once in a while
• 4 = sometimes true
• 5 = often true
• 6 = almost always true
• 7 = always true
• Reversed Scored Items: Five items (13%) are reverse-scored before aggregating totals:
• Item 5: “I tend to be critical of other people (R)”
• Item 10: “I have a hard time accepting myself (R) in the world”
• Item 25: “I do not understand how a loving God can allow so much pain and suffering in the world (R)”
• Item 26: “I believe that I must obey God’s rules and commandments in order to be saved (R)”
• Item 35: “I do not want the churches of this nation getting involved in political issues (R)”
• Scoring and Computational Procedures:
• Reverse Coding: Transform raw responses on the 5 reverse-scored items: (1=7, 2=6, 3=5, 4=4, 5=3, 6=2, 7=1).
• Global FMS Mean Score: Sum the scores of all 38 items and divide by 38. The resulting score ranges from 1.00 to 7.00. Higher mean scores indicate greater overall faith maturity.
• Vertical Subscale Score: Mean score of vertical items (measuring devotional life, sense of God’s presence, prayer, and divine guidance).
• Horizontal Subscale Score: Mean score of horizontal items (measuring social justice, environmental advocacy, peacemaking, and direct altruistic service).
• Typological Classification: Categorization into one of four quadrants (Integrated, Horizontal, Vertical, Undeveloped) by dichotomizing vertical and horizontal scores at their sample medians.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Faith Maturity Scale was developed in 1990 by the Search Institute under the principal leadership of Peter L. Benson and Michael J. Donahue, with the definitive peer-reviewed psychometric validation published in 1993 in Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion.

Copyright and Usage Permissions: The Faith Maturity Scale is copyrighted by Search Institute (Minneapolis, MN). The instrument is widely accessible for academic, clinical, and non-profit research purposes. Scholars, graduate researchers, and educational institutions are generally permitted to administer the FMS in non-commercial empirical research, provided appropriate formal attribution is cited. For commercial implementations, extensive congregational consulting assessments, or digital distribution platforms, formal written permission and licensing agreements must be obtained directly from Search Institute:

• Organization: Search Institute
• Address: 3001 Broadway Street NE, Suite 310, Minneapolis, MN 55413, USA
• Website: www.search-institute.org

References

• Allport, G. W. (1950). The individual and his religion: A psychological interpretation. Macmillan.
• Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5(4), 432–443. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0021212
• Benson, P. L., & Donahue, M. J. (1990). Valuegenesis: Report 1. A study of the influence of family, church, and school on the faith, values and commitment of Adventist youth. Search Institute.
• Benson, P. L., Donahue, M. J., & Erickson, J. A. (1993). The Faith Maturity Scale: Conceptualization, measurement, and empirical validation. In M. L. Lynn & D. O. Moberg (Eds.), Research in the social scientific study of religion (Vol. 5, pp. 1–26). JAI Press.
• Benson, P. L., & Eklin, C. E. (1990). Effective Christian education: A national study of Protestant congregations: A summary report on faith, loyalty, and congregation life. Search Institute.
• Donahue, M. J. (1993). Measuring faith maturity: Reevaluating the data. Review of Religious Research, 35(2), 153–161. https://doi.org/10.2307/3511782
• Fowler, J. W. (1981). Stages of faith: The psychology of human development and the quest for meaning. Harper & Row.
• Hoge, D. R. (1972). A validated intrinsic religious motivation scale. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 11(4), 369–376. https://doi.org/10.2307/1384677
• Leak, G. K. (2006). Factorial validity of the Faith Maturity Scale. Review of Religious Research, 48(2), 140–147. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20058130
• Rauschenbusch, W. (1917). A theology for the social gospel. Macmillan.

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)