1. Abstract
The Faith Maturity Scale (FMS) is an influential psychometric instrument developed by Peter L. Benson, Michael J. Donahue, and Joseph A. Erickson (1993) under the auspices of the Search Institute. Designed to capture a vibrant, life-transforming religious commitment within Judeo-Christian traditions, the scale conceptualizes mature faith as a multidimensional construct integrating both personal devotion and outward compassionate action. The baseline instrument comprises 38 self-report items evaluated on a 7-point Likert-type response format ranging from 1 (“Never true”) to 7 (“Always true”). Structural analyses have consistently revealed two foundational, complementary dimensions: Vertical Faith (inward/upward orientation capturing an intimate, experiential relationship with God, personal devotion, and reliance on divine guidance) and Horizontal Faith (outward social orientation characterized by prosocial action, social justice advocacy, racial and gender equality, ecological responsibility, and merciful service toward vulnerable populations).
Extensive psychometric investigations involving diverse denominational cohorts (including mainline Protestant, evangelical, and ecumenical samples exceeding 11,000 participants) demonstrate high internal consistency, with total scale Cronbach’s alpha coefficients routinely falling between .84 and .90. Subscale reliabilities typically register around .88 to .91 for the Vertical dimension and .82 to .86 for the Horizontal dimension. A psychometrically optimized 12-item short form (Ji, 2004) exhibits comparable structural fidelity, yielding total alpha coefficients of .87 (Vertical .89; Horizontal .77). Construct, convergent, and discriminant validity studies confirm that the FMS robustly predicts prosocial behaviors, financial generosity, institutional volunteering, anti-racist attitudes, lower racial prejudice, higher life purpose, and greater emotional well-being, while maintaining discriminant distinctiveness from dogmatic orthodoxy, rigid fundamentalism, and social desirability biases. The FMS remains one of the most widely cited and empirically sound instruments in the psychology of religion and pastoral sociology.
2. Keywords
Faith Maturity Scale, FMS, religious development, vertical faith, horizontal faith, prosocial behavior, social justice, psychology of religion, Search Institute, psychometrics, spiritual well-being, Peter L. Benson, Michael J. Donahue, Joseph A. Erickson
3. Authors
The Faith Maturity Scale was originally conceived, operationalized, and validated by research psychologists at the Search Institute in Minneapolis, Minnesota:
- Peter L. Benson, Ph.D. (1946–2011) — Former President and Senior Fellow at the Search Institute; renowned developmental psychologist who pioneered the Developmental Assets framework for adolescent and positive human development.
- Michael J. Donahue, Ph.D. — Senior Research Scientist at the Search Institute and prominent psychometrician in the empirical psychology of religion; former research director for multiple national denominational surveys.
- Joseph A. Erickson, Ph.D. — Professor of Education at Augsburg University, Minneapolis, MN; research consultant specializing in moral development, civic engagement, and religious education.
Subsequent psychometric refinements, including the widely utilized 12-item short form, were formulated by Chang-Ho C. Ji, Ph.D. (La Sierra University), with cross-cultural adaptations validated across Chinese and international populations by C. Harry Hui, Ph.D. and colleagues (University of Hong Kong).
4. Purpose
The primary purpose of the Faith Maturity Scale is to assess the degree to which an individual embodies, internalizes, and actualizes a mature, dynamic Christian faith in personal and social life. Prior to the development of the FMS in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the empirical measurement of religiousness was largely dominated by unidimensional indices (such as church attendance frequency, private prayer frequency, or strict adherence to doctrinal statements) or by intrinsic versus extrinsic religious orientation paradigms (such as Gordon Allport’s Religious Orientation Scale). Although Allport’s construct differentiated utilitarian religiousness from internal religious commitment, it frequently overlooked the socially transformative, prophetic, and compassionate manifestations of spirituality emphasized across biblical traditions.
The FMS was commissioned as part of a landmark national study titled The Effective Christian Education Study, funded by multiple Protestant denominations (including the Christian Church [Disciples of Christ], Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church [USA], United Church of Christ, United Methodist Church, and later expanded to the Southern Baptist Convention and the Christian Reformed Church). The participating bodies recognized an urgent clinical and pastoral need: to develop a unified, non-sectarian psychometric tool capable of assessing whether religious education and congregational life foster a mature faith that manifests simultaneously in personal piety and active, altruistic service.
In empirical research, the FMS is utilized to investigate the structural trajectories of spiritual development across the lifespan, evaluating how faith maturation interacts with identity formation, prosocial civic involvement, systemic advocacy, psychological resilience, and existential flourishing. In clinical, counseling, and pastoral settings, the scale serves as a comprehensive diagnostic and developmental tool. Mental health practitioners working within spiritually integrated psychotherapy frameworks deploy the FMS to evaluate whether a client’s religious belief system is predominantly characterized by restrictive, guilt-driven, or extrinsic mechanisms versus integrated, prosocial, and self-actualizing mechanisms that foster psychological health.
5. Psychological Construct
The Faith Maturity Scale operationalizes mature faith not as a passive state of cognitive assent to theological propositions, but as a vibrant, holistic, and integrating life force that dynamically influences thinking, emotion, valuation, and behavioral conduct. Benson, Donahue, and Erickson (1993) synthesized theological perspectives (ranging from Augustine and Martin Luther to Dietrich Bonhoeffer and James Cone) with psychological models of moral and cognitive maturation, identifying eight foundational core indicators of faith maturity:
- Trusting in God’s saving grace and believing firmly in the humanity and divinity of Jesus Christ;
- Experiencing the fruit of faith in a life marked by peace, joy, and deep inner meaning;
- Integrating faith into daily life through regular prayer, meditation, and scripture engagement;
- Seeking spiritual growth in fellowship with other believers and learning communities;
- Living out faith in radical hospitality, loving relationships, and community service;
- Advocating for social justice, systemic equality for minorities and women, and peace;
- Demonstrating stewardship toward ecological creation and allocating financial resources toward the alleviation of human suffering; and
- Maintaining an open, non-dogmatic posture that accepts people holding divergent religious perspectives while actively working through religious doubts.
These eight indicators crystallize into two overarching, orthogonal or moderately correlated higher-order dimensions:
The Vertical Dimension (Vertical Faith / FMS-V)
The Vertical dimension measures the inward and upward axis of spirituality. It captures an individual’s affective, personal, and cognitive intimacy with the transcendent. Vertical faith manifests as an experiential awareness of God’s real-time presence in everyday life, an abiding reliance on divine guidance, personal commitment to Jesus Christ, regular devotional habits (such as personal prayer, private meditation, and Bible reading), and an acute sense that faith provides existential coherence, life meaning, and moral direction. High scorers on the Vertical subscale view their relationship with God as the central orienting hub of their self-identity, finding comfort and resilience during personal crises.
The Horizontal Dimension (Horizontal Faith / FMS-H)
The Horizontal dimension measures the outward, compassionate, and societal axis of faith. It reflects how spiritual conviction translates into altruism, social action, and human solidarity. Horizontal faith is characterized by a strong moral responsibility to alleviate poverty, hunger, pain, and systemic injustice; vocal advocacy for the equality of historically marginalized groups; active involvement in peacemaking and environmental stewardship; and generous investments of personal time and financial capital to support vulnerable persons. Rather than treating religious devotion as a private sanctuary, high scorers on the Horizontal subscale consider structural mercy, community reform, and civic activism as non-negotiable expressions of genuine spiritual vitality.
6. Theoretical Framework
The theoretical architecture of the Faith Maturity Scale is rooted in an integration of developmental psychology, social-cognitive theory, and contemporary theological ethics. Foremost among its developmental theoretical anchors is James Fowler’s Stages of Faith theory (1981), which synthesizes Jean Piaget’s cognitive constructivism, Lawrence Kohlberg’s moral development stages, and Erik Erikson’s psychosocial crises. Fowler argued that faith develops from intuitive, literal, and conventional conformity toward individuative-reflective and conjunctive stages characterized by paradoxical understanding, post-conventional moral commitment, and universalizing compassion. Benson and colleagues constructed the FMS to capture the empirical operationalization of these higher developmental stages, wherein faith transcends tribalism and rigid dogmatism in favor of universal benevolence.
The instrument also integrates Gordon Allport’s classic dichotomy of religious orientation, while resolving several of its structural limitations. Allport posited that individuals with an extrinsic orientation “use” religion for security, social status, or solace, whereas individuals with an intrinsic orientation “live” their religion as a master motive. However, empirical studies repeatedly noted that high intrinsic scores did not reliably differentiate individuals who engaged in progressive social justice from those who exhibited racial prejudice or cultural conservatism. The FMS addressed this theoretical fissure by establishing that genuine “maturity” requires both an internalized devotional core (the vertical) and an explicit, non-prejudiced commitment to human welfare and structural equity (the horizontal).
Theologically, the FMS is underpinned by the prophetic biblical mandate captured in the Great Commandment (Matthew 22:37–40; Luke 10:27)—to love God with all one’s heart, soul, mind, and strength (the vertical axis), and to love one’s neighbor as oneself (the horizontal axis). By conceptualizing faith maturity as the dynamic synthesis of both axes, Benson et al. derived a 2 × 2 typological matrix consisting of four distinct faith postures:
- Undeveloped Faith (Low Vertical, Low Horizontal): Minimal devotional life coupled with low social or civic concern; spirituality is latent or marginal.
- Vertical Faith (High Vertical, Low Horizontal): Intense personal piety, prayer life, and private devotion, but insular, detached from social issues, and resistant to church engagement in systemic justice.
- Horizontal Faith (Low Vertical, High Horizontal): Robust commitment to social justice, anti-poverty campaigns, and humanitarian action, but detached from devotional disciplines, personal prayer, or transcendent connection.
- Integrated Faith (High Vertical, High Horizontal): The theoretical zenith of faith maturity, where profound mystical and personal love for God directly energizes sustained, self-sacrificial love and advocacy for humanity.
7. Validity
The psychometric validity of the Faith Maturity Scale has been confirmed across dozens of empirical studies spanning four decades, diverse denominational ecologies, and multiple cultural contexts.
Construct and Structural Validity
In the seminal national validation study comprising 11,122 Protestant adolescents and adults across six major denominations, Benson, Donahue, and Erickson (1993) demonstrated that the 38 items mapped coherently onto the hypothesized vertical and horizontal dimensions. Confirmatory analytic models demonstrated that while a single general second-order factor (“Overall Faith Maturity”) can account for common variance, the two-factor model provides superior conceptual and practical utility. Factor loadings for primary items consistently exceed .45, with key vertical items (such as commitment to Jesus Christ and experiencing God’s guidance) and horizontal items (such as helping the poor and promoting social justice) loading distinctly on their designated factors.
Convergent and Concurrent Validity
Convergent validity has been established through robust correlations with established psychological and religious instruments:
- Religious Engagement: The Vertical subscale correlates strongly with Allport and Ross’s Intrinsic Religious Orientation (.70 to .78), private prayer frequency (.65), and personal scripture engagement (.62).
- Altruism and Philanthropy: The Horizontal subscale strongly predicts prosocial behavioral metrics, including monthly hours dedicated to voluntary community service (.42 to .55), financial tithing and charitable donations (.38 to .49), and active involvement in civic advocacy groups.
- Psychological Well-Being: Both subscales correlate positively with the Purpose in Life Test (Crumbaugh & Maholick), the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, and general indices of life satisfaction, while demonstrating inverse relationships with existential despair and chronic hopelessness.
Discriminant and Predictive Validity
Importantly, Ji (2004) examined the discriminant properties of the FMS relative to doctrinal orthodoxy and authoritarian religious dogmatism. Findings revealed that while the Vertical dimension showed a moderate positive association with traditional doctrinal beliefs (e.g., belief in biblical authority and the divinity of Christ), the Horizontal dimension operated independently of rigid dogmatism. In fact, mature faith as measured by the combined FMS negatively correlated with racial prejudice, xenophobia, and gender bias, successfully differentiating mature, integrated believers from individuals characterized by extrinsic religious conventionalism or ethnocentric fundamentalism. Furthermore, Hui et al. (2011) confirmed the cross-cultural construct validity of the FMS in East Asian populations, proving its applicability beyond Western individualistic frameworks.
8. Reliability
The Faith Maturity Scale demonstrates high internal consistency and temporal stability across broad adult, collegiate, and adolescent populations.
Internal Consistency
In the original national norming samples (Benson et al., 1993; N = 11,122), the total 38-item instrument yielded an overall Cronbach’s alpha coefficient ranging between .87 and .88 among adults, and .84 to .86 among adolescents. Subscale evaluations revealed exceptionally high internal consistency for both core dimensions:
- Vertical Subscale (FMS-V): Cronbach’s alpha coefficients routinely range from .88 to .91 across diverse congregational studies.
- Horizontal Subscale (FMS-H): Cronbach’s alpha coefficients consistently fall between .82 and .86.
In psychometric assessments of the abbreviated 12-item short form (Ji, 2004), reliability metrics remained robust: the total scale achieved an alpha of .87, with the 6-item Vertical subscale recording an alpha of .89 and the 6-item Horizontal subscale recording an alpha of .77. In international and translated validations, such as the Chinese adaptation by Hui et al. (2011), Cronbach’s alpha values of .86 (Vertical) and .79 (Horizontal) were documented, corroborating the stability of the item set across diverse linguistic contexts.
Temporal Stability (Test-Retest Reliability)
Test-retest stability assessments conducted across 4- to 8-week intervals have demonstrated intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Pearson stability coefficients exceeding r = .82 for the full scale, with the Vertical dimension exhibiting stability coefficients of r = .85 to .89 and the Horizontal dimension yielding coefficients of r = .78 to .83. These stability figures confirm that while faith maturity is developmental and responsive to sustained educational, spiritual, or life interventions over years, it represents a stable, enduring personality and value orientation over intermediate timeframes.
9. Factor Analysis
The structural composition of the Faith Maturity Scale has been rigorously evaluated via Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
During original scale construction, Benson et al. (1993) subjected an initial 80-item developmental pool to principal components analysis with varimax and oblimin rotations. A clean two-factor solution emerged, successfully reducing the scale to 38 high-functioning items. Factor 1 accounted for the largest portion of variance (approximately 28.4%) and was populated by items explicitly measuring personal devotion, intimate fellowship with God, and reliance on Jesus Christ (the Vertical factor). Factor 2 accounted for an additional 14.2% of explained variance, dominated by items assessing systemic justice, anti-poverty action, social responsibility, and racial/gender equity (the Horizontal factor). Items with dual cross-loadings (> .35 on both factors) or item-total correlations below .30 were excised, ensuring strong structural clarity.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
Subsequent modern CFA investigations (e.g., Ji, 2004; Hui et al., 2011) have formally tested competing structural models, comparing a unidimensional model, an orthogonal two-factor model, and an oblique two-factor model:
- Unidimensional Model: Positing that all items load onto a single undifferentiated “religiosity” factor yielded poor model fit: Chi-square/df > 4.8, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) > .085, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) < .82, and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) < .80.
- Oblique Two-Factor Model (Vertical & Horizontal): Exhibited superior fit across empirical datasets: RMSEA values typically range between .048 and .056 (90% CI [.042, .061]), CFI values consistently exceed .93 to .96, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) falls below .050, and TLI exceeds .92.
The latent inter-factor correlation between the Vertical and Horizontal dimensions is typically positive and moderate, ranging between r = .42 and r = .56 in adult samples (and slightly lower, r = .30 to .38, among adolescents). This moderate covariance confirms that while the two dimensions naturally reinforce one another in mature Christian functioning, they remain psychometrically distinct and cannot be collapsed into an undifferentiated single score without losing critical diagnostic variance.
10. Instrument / Measurement Tool
- Instrument Name: Faith Maturity Scale (FMS)
- Alternative / Abbreviated Name: FMS-38 (Full Scale); Short-Form FMS (12-item version; Ji, 2004)
- Instrument Type: Self-administered psychometric questionnaire / Likert-type attitudinal and behavioral inventory
- Target Population: Adolescents (ages 13–18) and adults (ages 19 and older); suitable for congregational, collegiate, clinical, and community research
- Administration Time: Full 38-item version: approximately 10–15 minutes; 12-item short form: 3–5 minutes
- Item Count: 38 items (Full Version); 12 items (Short Form)
- Subscale Breakdown:
- Vertical Dimension (FMS-V): Personal piety, relationship with God, prayer, guidance, Christocentric commitment.
- Horizontal Dimension (FMS-H): Prosocial service, social justice advocacy, environmental protection, poverty alleviation, peace promotion, tolerance.
- Response Scale: 7-point Likert-type scale scored as follows:
- 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
- Scoring and Transformation Rules:
- Items marked with (R) indicate reverse scoring: Item 5, Item 10, Item 25, Item 26, Item 32, and Item 35 must be reversed (1 = 7, 2 = 6, 3 = 5, 4 = 4, 5 = 3, 6 = 2, 7 = 1) prior to summing or averaging.
- Subscale Scores: Calculated by either summing or computing the arithmetic mean of items belonging to the respective subscale (yielding a mean subscale score from 1.0 to 7.0).
- Total Score: The composite FMS score is calculated by summing all 38 items (after reversing designated items), with possible raw scores ranging from 38 to 266 (or a mean score from 1.0 to 7.0).
- Typology Categorization: Using median splits or sample tertiles on the Vertical and Horizontal dimensions, participants can be categorized into four quadrants: Undeveloped (Low V, Low H), Vertical (High V, Low H), Horizontal (Low V, High H), and Integrated (High V, High H).
11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year
The Faith Maturity Scale was developed in the late 1980s and formally published in empirical literature in 1993 by Peter L. Benson, Michael J. Donahue, and Joseph A. Erickson through the Search Institute. The instrument was created under grant-funded initiatives to serve religious educational bodies, academic researchers, and faith communities.
For non-commercial academic research, institutional theses, educational assessment, and clinical scholarly investigations, the FMS is generally accessible in the public domain or under academic fair-use guidelines, provided appropriate theoretical attribution and formal citation are given to the original authors and the Search Institute. Researchers intending to incorporate the scale into commercial assessment platforms, profit-generating software, or large-scale institutional curricula should contact the Search Institute to verify licensing requirements, intellectual property guidelines, or associated administrative fees.
12. References
- 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.
- Fowler, J. W. (1981). Stages of faith: The psychology of human development and the quest for meaning. Harper & Row.
- Hill, P. C., & Hood, R. W. (Eds.). (1999). Measures of religiosity. Religious Education Press.
- Hui, C. H., Ng, E. C. W., Mok, D. S. Y., Lau, E. Y. Y., & Cheung, S. F. (2011). “Faith Maturity Scale” for Chinese: A revision and construct validation. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 21(4), 308–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2011.607418
- Ji, C.-H. C. (2004). Faith maturity and doctrinal orthodoxy: A validity study of the Faith Maturity Scale. Psychological Reports, 95(3), 993–998. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.95.3.993-998
- Lynn, M. L. (2001). Spiritual maturity and executive leadership: An empirical study of Christian business executives. Journal of Biblical Integration in Business, 7(1), 105–124.
- Tisdale, T. C. (1999). Faith Maturity Scale (Benson, Donahue, & Erickson, 1993). In P. C. Hill & R. W. Hood (Eds.), Measures of religiosity (pp. 171–174). Religious Education Press.