Defining religion and finding ways to assess it in individual lives has long challenged psychologists of religion. At first, open‐ended questionnaires were used, but with the advent of modern statistical methods, a succession of religiosity scales was developed. But these usually brief scales were typically based on the preconceptions of their authors, who were overwhelmingly Protestant Christian and often conservative, much as were those who completed them. To provide a more adequate way of assessing “faith,” a term here encompassing both religious and nonreligious attitudes, a new assessment device was developed that incorporates the singular advantages of Q methodology. The Faith Q‐Sort consists of 101 statements that respondents sort on a nine‐category continuum, indicating the degree to which each statement describes himself or herself. Factor analysis based on correlations of the sorts rather than individual items yielded, for the initial group of participants, three major prototypes and five minor ones, accounting for 67 percent of the variance. Of the 42 participants, 31 proved to be exemplars of one or another of the eight prototypes. Subsequent explorations illustrate the wealth of possibilities the FQS offers, both as a research instrument and a counseling tool.

Like the noun mysticism, the phrase mystical experience is a modern Western construction that possesses no settled meaning. Well into the 18th century, the adjective mystical mainly modified theology in reference to devotional practices recommended to Christians for attaining closeness to God; it also characterized the exegetical disposition to search for hidden meaning in scriptural texts. The noun mysticism came into use in the middle of the 18th century, at first only to disparage seemingly fanatic sectarians. By extension, some used the term mystics to refer to a putative sect that sought direct experience of God, a usage that lasted into the latter half of the 19th century. By then, however, others had challenged such pejorative meanings, equating mystical instead with spiritual and arguing that the mystics were the guardians of genuine spirituality. Mysticism became "a global species of religious experience with innumerable subspecies, historical, geographic, and national" (Schmidt, 2003, p. 282).

Falling by definition outside the realm of ordinary discourse, mystical experience eludes any precise description or characterization. Furthermore, as relatively recent constructions that serve diverse and even opposing purposes, the terms mystical and mysticism are themselves hard to pin down. Mystic and its variants derive from the Latin mysticus, of mysteries, and from the Greek mystikos, from mystes, initiate. The 26 definitions of mysticism that Inge (1899) assembled a century ago illustrate how loosely the word was used then, often in disparaging or contemptuous ways. Scholars today (e.g., Forman, 1990) continue to remark on how variable the definitions of this term are. Most commentators agree, however, that any experience qualified as mystical diverges in fundamental ways from ordinary conscious awareness and leaves a strong impression of having encountered a reality different from-and, in some crucial sense, higher than-the reality of everyday experience.' Rare and fleeting though they usually are, 'If one considered these criteria as sufficient for identifying an experience as mystical, neardeath experiences (NDEs) would easily qualify. However, the accent on individual identity (e.g., in the form of a life review and encounters with deceased relatives). the relative clarity of events, and the absence of the experience of union distinguish most NDEs from classic mystical experiences. The two are usually discussed separately, as in this book. Peak experiences, Maslow's (1964Maslow's ( , 1968) preferred phrase, is still looser in meaning than mystical experiences, emphasizing the individual's experience over, if not to the exclusion of, the reality that is 397 such experiences often stand out as defining moments in the lives of those who have them.

No other human preoccupation challenges psychologists as profoundly as religion. Whether or not they profess to be religious themselves-and many do not-psychologists must take religion into account if they are to understand and help their fellow human beings. Factoring in religion, however, is far more easily said than done, for in hardly any other sphere are individuals so cut off from one another. For modern secular psychologists, the great diversity of experiences, conceptions, and practices that constitute "religion" is largely unfamiliar. Moreover, the essential meanings of these phenomena are ultimately derived from their association with a transcendent dimension or realm that, although palpably real to many religious devotees, seems strictly illusory to the secular psychologist. Stripped of the transcendent dimension, religious content can only appear to be deluded superstition and fantasy.Yet even those psychologists for whom the transcendent is an unquestioned reality may have difficulty penetrating the worlds of other religious people. There is first of all the peculiar resistance of religious experience to expression in discursive language. Inevitably, even the most careful description risks being misunderstood, especially by those who have not had the experience themselves. Furthermore, because religion by definition concerns itself with a shared, ultimate reality, every religious claim implicitly asks for the listener's assent and personal appropriation. Most of 43

No abstract