Thursday, March 18
Follow us on twitter!
Reforming Spiritual Formation
I had an odd interaction on a blog the other day, when I ran across people who thought spiritual formation is dangerous. As in all these kinds of conversations, the issue was quite simple: They had seen it done badly and/or seen it defined poorly, and therefore concluded that it was dangerous. But this is not the odd part. If that were it, I wouldn't have been surprised. But as I tried to redefine it for them, they simply wrote me off. One person even claimed that spiritual formation was defined well before I came along and I had no right to define it myself.
My point here, and let me be very clear about this, is that as Christians, we are called to do just the opposite. There is never a point where we take terms and categories as they are handed us and simply say, "Ho hum, this is what this will always mean." To do so, as I will argue, is akin to idolatry. We are called, to the contrary, to reform what the church (and even the world) hands us, not because we necessarily know better, but because we follow a living God.
To call yourself Reformed, as I do, is to accept the axiom that we are Reformed but Always Reforming. In other words, being Reformed can never simply be quoting Calvin (or pick your Reformed theologian), because that just isn't what it means to be Reformed. Likewise, as evangelicals, Reformed or not, I believe it is imperative that we take on the yoke of always reforming. We do so because that is exactly what Jesus did, Paul did and the early church did. Jesus reformed what it meant to be a child of Abraham as well as, for instance, what the temple was. Paul, likewise, redefined the Athenian idol and even redefined the phrase "height, length, depth and breadth" in reference to God - whereas in his day it was only used in magical texts and spells (see Clint Arnold's work on this). The early church, following their lead, took pagan holidays and sought to redeem them for the kingdom of God.
Likewise, when we use the term "spiritual formation," what we are proclaiming by it is that we are formed by the Spirit of God. As such, there are no practices, theories or definitions which can contain it. We speak of God who is unparalleled in his freedom, and, in talking about formation, call out the work He does in our hearts. Therefore, we must be "always reforming" when we talk of this activity because it is not ours to hold and define. We stand under the Great Prophet, Christ, and therefore are always called into correction by His Word. The Spirit in our hearts is sent by Jesus to do His will and continue the work He started and continues to achieve. Therefore, the Word of God, to quote Dietrich Bonhoeffer, is the "dagger at the heart of the church." We stand under and within the reign of Christ in this world, and therefore when we talk about His work we must do so with open hands, trusting that we do not have it all figured out and that our sin still blinds us from His grace and truth.
On the other hand, as I mentioned before, failure to do this is akin to idolatry. There is a temptation to simply solidify what we are comfortable with and then attack and judge anyone who thinks differently (the Pharisees are always good examples of this). To sit back and judge and criticize spiritual formation therefore, is to fail to engage in with God's people wrestling with the process of reformation. This is idolatry because it has turned one's own views into Truth (capital "T"). It fails to recognize one's own finitude and sinfulness, undermining Christ's office of Prophet with one's own status as Truthfulness. This person doesn't stand under the Word of God, allowing it, in the words of Hebrews 12, to leave them naked and exposed to the One whom they must give an account. They, instead, put themselves in the place of judge, wielding the sword of the Spirit instead of standing under its blow.
The church is called to reform and always reform. Faithfulness, in regard to things like spiritual formation, is to turn our attention to the Word of God, standing under and within the reign of Christ, trusting that God is Truth while we are merely seeking to be faithful. It is impossible, in other words, to simply point to someone and say, "Look, he says spiritual formation is x, y, and z" and use that as the end all be all answer. Spiritual formation is not ours to claim nor is it ours to claim for others. Spiritual formation is the Spirit's work which we must seek to grasp that we may offer ourselves as living sacrifices to the God to whom we all will give an account.
For Part 2: Reforming Spiritual Formation: But So and So said Such and Such click here
- Kyle Strobel's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
I appreciate Kyle your
I appreciate Kyle your heart-felt struggle to push for some clear language and engagment of spiritual formation. What I find so intriguing about the "dangerous" debate about spiritual formation is that I do not know alot of evangelical churches engaging spiritual formation. When I hear most people articulate spiritual formation in evangelical circles, it really equates to doing the spiritual disciplines and not to some more divergent theological stance, let alone practices. I am not sure who these evangelical churches are that are practicing spiritual formation? Those that are, I would imagine it is probably pretty benign and more rooted in a more discipleship/mentoring model and not a spiritual direction model.
Does some one mind giving some concrete examples of those who's practices or theology are dangerous, besides Foster, Willard, or Willow Creek, who seem to me pretty safe in regards to this debate? Unless one counts the the above mentioned as dangerous then that changes the conversation.
I think the problem for many
I think the problem for many of us is the Eastern thought that seems to be coming into what is called "contempletative spirituality" and even "spiritual formation." Most American evangelicals don't understand Buddhism and Hinduism, but in reading articles by those Christians who used to be Buddhists, Hindus and/or were into the New Age (which is similar) and their dire warnings about what is passing for spiritual formation today, some of us are beginning to look at these practices with more discernment. For example, we keep hearing about Roman Catholic monks, Thomas Merton and Henri Nouwen, who enthusiastically embraced Buddhism. To me this is troubling--not because the two men have nothing good to say, but I wonder what spirit they are coming out of? Buddhists have lots of good things to say and want to help the poor. But that is not the point. We need to understand the spirit under which they operate. The American Christian, because of their scientific orientation, doesn't udnerstand this type of spirtual realm. Many of us feel this can be dangerous. If you are talking about how to pray and listen to God (with an active mind--Read some Watchman Nee and Jessica Penn-Lewis about this topic), and how to read your Bible, I don't think most Christians would object. But unfortunately, most "spiritual formation" today goes way beyond these things. Frankly, I think it is simply a case of spiritual naivete.
Thanks for listening.
Eastern Influences
Thanks for your thoughts. To be honest, I think the Eastern influence is overblown a bit. I honestly think you would be hard pressed to find Eastern influence in spiritual formation today. As someone who writes in, and has helped to found a ministry of, spiritual formation, let me assure you that I personally have no interest whatsoever in Eastern spirituality. I often look to the Puritans, who are very much the model of Christian spirituality.
I also think that we need to focus, not on practices, but on a theology of formation. The Eastern religion critique comes in concerning practices - but you could say that about anything (Buddhists pray, therefore it is Eastern to pray, etc.). Therfore, what we need is a robust theology of formation that informs practice, like the Puritans did, that is evangelical, biblical and, I would add, trinitarian.
My worry, more than anything else, is that the critiques of spiritual formation (the Eastern one being a large one) come not from a real engagement of the issues but are themselves naive. Instead of jumping in the conversation and helping to develop a real theology of formation, for instance, many people just stand back and criticise, judge or condemn. The important point to remember is that every Christian has a theology of spiritual formation - what we need to question is whether or not it is a good one.
Definition
Matthew, that is exactly right. We never lose our ability to point and proclaim, "Look, this isn't the way it is supposed to be!" Sadly though, more often than not I would venture, that is born out of "the way I would like it to be" rather than a robust theological claim. The problem, I believe, for evangelicals, is that we have become so biblio-centric that we turn the text into something it isn't. We start making claims for it that it doesn't make for itself. Suddenly, statements like: "I don't see this in Scripture," become valid statements on their own - when, throughout the history of the church - those statements were usually used by heretics who were pointing to the text and saying, "Look, I'm just trying to be biblical, and I don't see the Trinity in here." Biblicism, or, nuda scriptura as Williams says, almost always leads to heresy.
The other problem, again, as I see it, is that evangelical theology has often failed to be robustly trinitarian, and has often puttered out before the doctrine of sanctification or the Christian life. Therefore, we have focused our attention on pragmatics instead of developing a truly practical and spiritual theology.
And yet...
And yet, we do have to accept the fact that there are those whose definition and practice of spiritual formation is theologically and pratically warped. In addition, we need to accept the fact that in overall contemporary Christian culture, there is a theologically weak concept of spiritual formation, and thus the conceptualization of spiritual formation is amorphous and may be right or wrong depending on who happens to be talking about it. Perhaps the people were wrong for writing you off when you said, "No, that's not what I mean." But they weren't necessarily wrong if they were pointing to other things in the formation community and saying that those things are wrong.
This only enhances the need for a more theologically grounded, coherent definition and practice of spiritual formation, but creating that is an uphill battle. Most of the formation world isn't particularly interested in that.