The difference between the Spiritual Formation and sanctification is where you go for it. In Spiritual Formation a person goes inward…and supposedly listens. In sanctification, a person goes into God’s word…and the focus is on God. Though both are a process, one is about the Glory of God and the other is about “making my life better now.”
I would love any insight on sanctification vs. spiritual formation…I am not as studied as I should be on this for sure.
Thank you for this. I’ve read your posts a couple of times but have never responded. I am finishing my Ph.D in systematic theology on Jonathan Edwards, and founded a spiritual formation ministry (which is why I think I can add in something to this post). Actually, as a proponent of spiritual formation, I can say that the only difference between spiritual formation and sanctification is that sanctification is a doctrine that talks about what it means to be made holy by God, through the work of Christ and His Spirit. Spiritual formation takes the doctrine of sanctification and seeks to spell out what that work looks like. The Puritans are, I believe, the best example of this. Therefore, every book on the Christian life actually is a book about spiritual formation. There is much confusion over the term, which is why our blog at MetamorphaBlog.com exists. I have just finished a series of posts on Reformed Spiritual Formation, for instance, which seeks to spell out this issue a bit more. My personal worry is that the conversation has become about practices rather than focusing first on what an evangelical doctrine of sanctification is, and allow that to ground the discussion. But, I also believe, it would be a mistake to write off “spiritual formation” just because some people with misguided theology use the term.
So for you, Kyle, does Spiritual Formation include prayer exercises and “the silence?”
I’ve never heard of “the silence” before, but if by that you mean fostering silence, like Jesus in the wilderness or when he would awake early by himself to go and pray, then yes. Prayer exercises are simply ways to approach God, usually modeled after Psalms – such as Psalms 139 or even after the Lord’s Prayer.
I take it that by your question you think these are questionable in some way?
If so, I think it is a better question to ask what differences in opinion about difficult issues are, in your view, too wrong to be considered either evangelical, or even Christian. Once we accept that spiritual formation is simply another term denoting the Christian life, then the discussion has to, I emphasize MUST, be a family discussion. I emphasize this because of how much divisive discussion and misinformation are espoused on the internet about spiritual formation.
I recently began looking at the Lazarus Life which is being taught at my former church and “the silence” is something that is practiced. It’s not just going off on a simple retreat, but is a practice that seems to be intentionally sitting silently and “waiting for Jesus to speak.” I am getting my information on this right out of the author’s books…and even Willow Creek has videos on Spiritual Formation. Lectio Divina and other forms of “disciplines” appear to me to be practiced methods. They are not what Jesus encouraged, nor the disiples, from what I have learned reading scripture.
The Lord’s Prayer itself doesn’t include silence, it doesn’t include breath prayers (repeating a phrase all thoughout the day). Methods to quiet the soul, to focus on listening to God do not appear to me to be taught by Christ or the disciples.
If there is misinformation about spiritual formation online, I suspect some of it may come from the people attempting to pracitice it themselves.
Some of what I have read also, Kyle, is that to be a deeper Christ Follower, you should be doing these spiritual exercises. To be close to God, you need silence and solitude. To experience peace, soul care, etc. you need to go through these prayer practices.
Times I have known God was near I was in a room full of people (once I was in labor and there was activity all around). I surrendered to his will in the incident. It was not calm, it was not peaceful…I was not repeating a specific verse or altering my prayer style. I was just crying out to him and I found comfort. When I miscarried, I did spend a lot of time in prayer and alone. Not as a spiritual discipline but out of a need. I couldn’t cry in front of all my children on a daily basis, so I went off alone to read my bible and pray. I found Christ there again in my mourning. Other times, in busy days, I pray throughout the day and find God is there to help me through my problems.
It’s not an ordered, organized thing. It’s just that I rely on God. I am not against studying the bible, not against planning a time for prayer. I have done this too in the past. I am just against a dogmatic statement (and I’ve read these quotes from authors promoting spiritual formation) that you will get all these wonderful things from the spiritual disciplines, and even that you cannot experience deeper whatever without “the silence” or solitude. I don’t buy it.
Kyle,
I looked at one of the featured disciplines and it involved changing breathing and repeating a phrase several times. Though you say these exercises are modeled after Psalms or in the Lord’s prayer. I do not see this practice myself, and instead see a warning not to repeat phrases in the bible.
When stating that Christians are uncomfortable with certain disciplines because they resemble mantras, this is an accurate statement. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…well…
If you’ve read much of my blog you will realize my former church was into spiritual formation (it’s a major part of it…they weren’t and then suddenly we noticed things changing like a pastor was named “Spiritual Formation Pastor” and it was mentioned more and more. Pastors never described to the general congregation what this was, and when my husband and I met with them about concerns of things the church was involved in, we were not told much about where the church was going with all this. We didn’t know what it was, weren’t instructed at all. If we had an irreconcilable difference on this topic, why was it hidden from us? Couldn’t the pastors just let us go and gently say, “we do this now and you obviously aren’t comfortable with it…so it’s okay for you to find a church that doesn’t practice spiritual formation in the way we do.” No one was upfront about it, and it was being introduced over time and slowly. When we became members, it was not a part of our church. When it was brought in, we were not as congregants given any information on it. Our church has changed into one with programs and plans…to become Missional and into Spiritual Formation…they want to reach out to the postmodern generation. On and on, change after change. If they were just up front as to what they are, people could leave if they don’t want to be a part of it. Instead, I felt manipulated. I felt somehow they hid it because what they were doing was wrong and they were trying to was sneak it in.
See how confusing it can all be? If this is happening all over you are going to get a revolt from Christians who want to focus on scripture, on basics.
Kyle,
How did you happen across this little blog? I’m really not anybody out here on the web. I am just a mom who discovered a seeker friendly church…which was a problem in itself, was mingling with Spiritual Formation…and actually is still presenting it slowly to the congregation from what I can tell while holding onto the old seeker stuff…and in the youth program has been into some emergent stuff though barely.
After seeing your blog with all it’s contributors, what brought you here?
I do come from a very up and down background and most of what I know of Christianity really came from reading the bible and church. I came from so many different churches with a broken family that really has little to do with Christianity. I had to learn a lot on my own.
In college, I came across cults, was in the Navigators, and studied my bible. I was bold in speaking out against things like the “Boston Movement” that demanded much from it’s followers. I also later spoke to Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons in my home. I used to listen to Hank Hanergraff regularly.
I also read a book called “Dangers of the Rainbow” in college. When our pastors began bringing new terms into our church, and actually had been doing it for a few years and I was blind to it, I began to investigate. Of course I came across a lot of information for and against Spiritual Formation.
I have found that at least in my former church scripture is used and abused in order to prove their teaching. Small group is used to break down defenses and bring people to a certain belief system.
So, this explains a bit about me. I assume you may think I am uneducated, but I do not know for sure. I do actually wonder about why spiritual formation and missional have come about and are taking over everywhere.
It sounds as if your church really didn’t do a good job with a transition to a new philosophy of ministry. Most churches, sadly, don’t really have a theology undergirding their practices, and so they just change practices and language at will, often times only doing so because it is the new hot thing, or some such nonsense. I can imagine your frustration and worry.
I’m not sure what is the best way to answer some of your thoughts. First, I think it is important to try and step aside, however difficult that may be, from some of your experiences with spiritual formation which sound negative. The important thing to note is that spiritual formation simply is the Christian life. Therefore, if you have frustrations with certain practices, you should be against spiritual formation, but against that version of it. To be against spiritual formation would be, in no uncertain terms, to write off about 1900 years of Christianity, including the likes of Jonathan Edwards, John Owen, Calvin, etc.
In terms of silence, I think that your church, like I mentioned above, probably didn’t really have a robust understanding of sanctification functioning and were just bringing in new practices because they thought it would somehow spur on deeper Christians. The purpose of silence and solitude are to turn your heart and mind to Christ. It is to pray, not just sit there.
In terms of mantras, we have to ask what the Bible is truly again. Note, that it is against using many words because you think that in doing so you can someone make something happen. No one in spiritual formation, to my knowledge, is saying that. Jesus, for instance, in Gethsemane, prayed, and then went back and prayed the same words. Likewise, we are given a set prayer in the Lord’s Prayer to pray. Again, any discussion of breathing or repeating words, is simply to turn your heart and mind to Christ – to, in Paul’s words – set your mind on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God.
In terms of spiritual disciplines, I am aware of no group in the history of the church who were considered orthodox who thought you could live the Christian life truly without doing disciplines. Any time you pray, go to church, talk with someone about Christ, etc., you are doing a spiritual discipline. Again, I do agree that many who claim to talk about spiritual formation only seem to talk about the disciplines – and I think this is very misguided. If you look at the MetamorphaBlog.com site, one of our bloggers just blogged about how people talk too much about the disciplines. The point is not doing disciplines, the point is orienting your life to God in Christ through the power of His Spirit.
And actually, we are very much in agreement, I think, about spiritual disciplines. The Christian life is never about doing something to get an affect – it is about being faithful to God. But, on the contrary, I would just add in that when you were mourning, when you were in the crowded room, that is exactly what you were doing – you were setting your mind and heart on Christ – and that is fundamentally what spiritual formation is about.
One more thing – sorry for the multiple posts – I think your experience, which is incredible unfortunate, is exactly why the spiritual formation conversation needs to be grasped more fully rather than rejected. There is a lot of junk out there under the name “spiritual formation.” There is a lot of stuff I think is great that you might not, and that is fine. But we must not write people off who are brothers and sisters, but instead, should help to focus our attention on what it means to be followers of Christ in this day and age. My greatest fear with evangelicalism is that whenever someone does something that either hurts us, frustrates us or exposes us, our solution tends to be to attack, minimize or condemn (I am plenty guilty of this sin by the way – but I wrote a book on it which is probably worse than just thinking it!). I think if we take the New Testament seriously, Paul’s constant admonition for unity and the “weaker brother” need to guide our practices. If not, we become divisive and a source of sin in the life of Christ’s church.
In terms of your education, it never came to mind. I’m sorry if I came across as if I thought you were uneducated in any way. That certainly was never my intent.
Sometimes though, people do things that aren’t really just hurtful…they are actually false teachers. If someone is a false teacher, should they not be exposed at some point? I have avoided actually naming the church we attended, but do write about the practices so that if someone else is experiencing it themselves, they can know they are not alone in it and can learn from my mistakes…or can be encouraged from anything good I might actually have learned from it.
Now, as to discipline in life, there is nothing wrong with it. We are all learning and growing as Christians. However, the practices promoted as disciplines including all these different prayer practices are not actually visible to me in the bible. I do not think promoting breathing or repeating the same words all day is comparable to what Christ did. Breath prayers, for example, are being taught as something you can say in one breath and it can be done over and over again. I realize in life sometimes we naturally might repeat something, it just happens…but to encourage the same thing all day long is not biblical practice.
The Lord’s prayer is an example and it’s a “pray in this way” sort of thing. I have no problem reciting it, but getting a whole set of procedures before doing so or doing it again and again I do see as a problem. It’s not something I can get around. It’s important that our practices be glorifying.
I do not think changing our breathing or repeating prayers can bring us any closer to a focus on God. The process is usually outlined as a step by step thing, the focus seems to be inward and on what we are doing. It appears to be on the practices. It appears to be on the words. Sometimes visualization is encouraged. Imagining something that did not happen is encouraged. I do not see this as a healthy Christian practice. Jesus did not tell the disciples to put themselves in the place of someone in a bible account, or to breath a certain way when praying. We are encouraged to pray without ceasing, pray for leaders, pray to ask and petition, pray to praise, pray to thank. We do get into doing things over the year, like having communion together or baptism. We do have order and structure, this is not sin.
Some of the additions through the practice of some of these disciplines are divisive in my mind. The implication is that these are needed for soul care, for a closer relationship with Jesus…and on and on. It’s not a discomfort with the practices, it’s a concern that they are actually unbiblical practices. That’s what I personally feel.
I do not believe you implied anything about my education either. I just know I am a regular mom who basically learned about Christ because I read my bible even as a child and many times got myself to the nearest church. No theology degree, and I am a novice when it comes to all that. I am not offended by you and didn’t feel you were putting me down. I do not however, have a Ph.D in anything churchish, doctrine, theology, or whatever. I just want to raise my children in the right environment to encourage them to know Christ.
I would agree with your estimation christianlady. People are always trying to pawn off the Eastern Spirituality of the Spiritual Formation movement on the any earlier Christian tradition that they think might have enough of a similarity to legitimize the practices.
Really, there is almost nothing from the spiritual formation movement that has root in the Protestant tradition; certainly not Edwards, Owen, or Calvin. This is simply to confuse Christian spirituality with a spirituality more generally conceived.
Anyone that could read Richard Foster and get John Calvin from the hodge podge of Buddhist, Quaker, Weslyan and New Age spirituality would be arguing not only counter to Calvin’s obvious estimations of the kind of extra-biblical paganism that Foster promotes but in the face of some of the most influential “Living Spiritual Teachers” presentations of their own dogmas.
Christianlady, there is definitely a time and a place to take a strong stand on false teaching – but doctrinally, but we need to have a grasp of where that comes into play and where it does not.
I agree that your old church, from the sounds of it, made some poor decisions and sent the wrong message, and possibly, suggested some practices that were not helpful. But, again, in my mind, that is the extent of their error. These people are not picking up aspects of new age mysticism or Eastern religion, contra Neiswonger, but are simply trying to point to the reality that prayer is a bodily practice (go to your prayer closet, if nothing else, means that your posture and environment matter during prayer). Calvin himself claimed that the best prayers are often those without words, and Jonathan Edwards would take nature walks to meditate upon the glory of God seen in nature.
In terms of introspection, those who espouse spiritual formation do not claim that somehow looking inward is an end in itself, but it is to model the Psalmists prayer, “O my soul.” Note how the Psalmists seem to have a conversation with his soul in the presence of God. It is a way to present yourself honestly before God. The Puritans had a similar practice called soliloquy, and they used journaling to practice this as well.
Lastly, I want to push back a bit on what a “biblical practice” entails. I know of no one, either currently or in church history, who wants to treat the Bible like a step by step devotional manual. In other words, when we talk about spiritual gifts, we claim that they are not all listed, when we talk about how to run a church service, we claim that the Bible helps us develop a Christ-centered theology of church and that informs our practices, but there is nothing like: Step 1: Pray; Step 2: Announcements, etc.
So, for instance, it is not surprising that we find Peter, when he received the vision from God about all animals being clean, that he was praying at the set time of the day. He practiced a rhythm of prayer throughout set times based on Jewish practices – but of course – as a Jewish Christian believer. Likewise, with things like choosing a short prayer like: “Lord have mercy on me” as many do, the purpose is certainly not that somehow saying this over and over achieves something or forces God’s hand – it is to recognize that we live in an evil age as Paul says, and that we need to, again, with Paul, “Pray without ceasing.” Is it really unbiblical to pray “Lord have mercy on me” throughout the day? If so, I think that is an odd understanding of what “biblical” means.
In terms of imagination, that is, in my mind, just what it means to read something. I imagine myself in any novel I read, and when I read the gospels, I am one of the people standing there. That is, I believe, what the writers are trying to do. That is why the gospel writers focus on the crowd so much – so that you have to answer – who am I as I listen to Jesus? Am I the Rich Young Ruler, am I the Pharisee am I like Peter? Martin Luther, for instance, has a whole meditation on the Passion of Christ for lay people calling them to imagine themselves as the ones who were pounding in the nails – precisely because it was for our sin that he died, and not merely for others.
In the end, I have no problem saying that these practices aren’t for everyone – and I personally wouldn’t have tried to develop practices like that for an entire church. But I don’t think it is false teaching as much as poor teaching. To turn the corner and say that it is simply wrong, sounds as if it may derive more from being hurt than it does from a theology – which, in my mind, is actually an understandable reaction from being let down by the church. Take Neiswonger’s comment – there is no insight there, no evidence, no helpful point. Clearly he/she doesn’t know church history (and clearly not Jonathan Edwards), but instead seems both scared and angry. The comment they made is sub-Christian – it treats other believers, brothers and sisters who claim allegiance to God, in Christ and the empowering Holy Spirit, who are Bible believing Christians, and simply dismisses them entirely because they don’t agree with them. This epitomizes divisiveness – it is scarily similar to the false accusations made against Jesus – so I accept them as a follower of Jesus. I just wish it wouldn’t come from inside the church.
Like I said before, this is exactly why we need to be so serious about talking about spiritual formation – wrestling with what sanctification entails. This is why I have devoted my life to studying Jonathan Edwards, John Owen and the Puritans – they understood the nature of the Christian life and its practices in a robust sense. But, again contra Neiswonger, we need to do so with a bit of charity, grace and respect for the fact that these are difficult questions and is still a very “young” conversation for most.
Neiswonger, I struggle to respond to this in grace. Let me say, admittedly, with a bit of harshness, that your phrase:
“Really, there is almost nothing from the spiritual formation movement that has root in the Protestant tradition; certainly not Edwards, Owen, or Calvin. This is simply to confuse Christian spirituality with a spirituality more generally conceived.”
Is so widely inaccurate and naive that I don’t find reason to respond. It shows ignorance of spiritual formation firstly, but even more so of the Reformed tradition. Spiritual formation, as I have argued here ( http://metamorphablog.com/content/spirituality-spirituality-and-spiritual-formation-what-difference ) is about the Holy Spirit of God working to sanctify His creatures for His own use. Spiritual formation, let me be clear, has nothing whatsoever to do with either the new age or Eastern Religions, and, importantly, has nothing to learn from them. If you have read others who disagree with this, then they are just bad at spiritual formation and misguided – but do not somehow level a critique against everyone simply because some are misguided.
Kyle, I have to be honest. Of everything you’ve shared, this statement right here gives me most cause for concern and immediately negates any semi-reasonable defense you may have presented on behalf of the practice of spiritual formation:
You said: “This is why I have devoted my life to studying Jonathan Edwards, John Owen and the Puritans – they understood the nature of the Christian life and its practices in a robust sense.”
Devoted your life to studying, edwards, owen and the puritans Really?
Insults and condescension. is that the best you can do? This serious stuff; you should take it more seriously. Being spiritually formed must give one the opportunity be dismissive in the face of critical analysis or disagreement. Are you showing the fruits of the principles and practices of spiritual formation by responding with self-declared “harshness”, name calling, and how easily you lose the capacity for graceful dialogue?
More to the point, are you willing to make any kind of substantial argument for your positions? So far you have been very, very long on monologue and very light on communicated content.
Kyle, you are not convincing me. You have never heard of “the silence” before? You are kidding, right?
I browsed through your website, and wonder why you have many books for sale by such authors as Thomas Merton, and other Catholic mystics? Seriously.
I am with Christianlady on this one. My red flags go up the minute I hear “Spiritual Formation” and for good reason I believe.
Christianlady, you have correctly recognized many things going on in the church today, in my opinion. I like your distinction between Spiritual Formation and Sanctification.
Could anyone list some good readings on sanctification or spiritual formation?
I came up through many different protestant churches as a child because of my broken family…walked myself to church at one time because it was across the street. My family really didn’t go for years. When my dad married in my teens, I went to the Lutheran church and also to a small church in town (I think it was Disciples of Christ). Because I spent 4 years in a Nazarene church in my early years (with an aunt and uncle) I heard a lot about sanctification then, but never really understood it. It was always, “saved and sanctified.” However, Nazarenes at that time thought you lost your salvation and as a kid I really felt if I sinned I was going to hell…so how could sanctification occur? When I moved on to different churches I didn’t hear as much about it later and never studied it. My quote in this post came after reading a Sproul piece on sanctification and thinking, “I have a friend who would ask me ‘how is Sproul’s piece different than the talk about spiritual formation I hear in my church?'”
Kyle, what are your recommendations for spiritual formation specifically? You tie it to sanctification, but is there something I can read that explains it? I did read the article on overstressing the discipines and have to admit, that’s really not the point of problem for me. I actually have a problem with certain disciplines chosen AND with the attitude in articles I have read about why they are done. Some may write they are for the glory of God, or for us being more like Christ, but I’m not seeing this in practice or when reading articles more closely. I actually find a bit of a bait and switch. The author will often say, “this is about getting close to Christ” and yet will speak all about the self over and over again. Any suggestions for understanding spiritual formation and it’s practice overall? If it’s not as I’m perceiving it, there are many out there misusing it.
El, I’m not sure why studying the Puritans is bad in any way. If you question “devoted my life,” what I am referring to is my career. I am a Jonathan Edwards scholar. Hence my dismissal of Neiswonger’s comments – it shows no knowledge of Edwards. Neiswonger, I wasn’t seeking to be insulting or condescending in any way – just honest. I felt that your comments were sub-Christian and, since you just made bold statements about a large area of study without any evidence and wrote off what I do completely, I thought it justified.
Scott, I honestly have never heard of “the” silence before. I have heard of silence, and I think it is an important discipline to foster – for the purpose of prayer – but “the” silence makes no sense to me. Also, we don’t agree with much of what is in those books, but I think those guys have some good things to say – for the same reason that just because they say, Jesus is Lord, I don’t write it off as bad. Would I suggest a new Christian read them? No. I would suggest someone who is well versed in doctrine – and, with my background – Reformed doctrine read them? Yes. For the same reason that the Puritans used Thomas a’ Kempis’ book Imitation of Christ as a standard textbook on the Christian life. There are certainly many things I worry about in a’ Kempis’ work, things that are not Reformed, as I’m sure they did – but that didn’t stop them from using it for good. We are called to sift the wheat from the chaff are we not? If you are suggesting there are authors we should just accept wholesale then that would worry me moreso, as both a negation of this commend as well as idolatry.
christianlady, that sounds like a difficult circumstance both emotionally as well as spiritually. I imagine that it can be easy to feel like everything is a free-for-all doctrinally. Personally, I am what I consider to be conservative Reformed. From this standpoint, the emphasis in this area is on the language of “The Christian Life” instead of “sanctification” or “spiritual formation.”
I am not all that happy with books on spiritual formation. I think what we tend to do as evangelicals is to just talk about practices – we are, it seems, inherently pragmatic. Sanctification, as a doctrine, on the other hand, will usually err on the other side – talking about it solely in theological categories without much help in terms of what it means for us. I tend to read guys like Edwards, Owen, Calvin and Luther, who are all masterful in many ways, but I personally have found individuals like Henri Nouwen to be incredibly insightful. I read him with Reformed glasses on, separating the theological wheat from the chaff, but I find him to be much more insightful when it comes to the reality of life under God than most of the theologians I read.
Like I said, regardless of what Neiswonger, el and Scott think about my personal reading habits, I believe that spiritual formation is simply the doctrine of sanctification with the focus on the practical and existential components to the doctrine. In this way, broadly speaking, Edwards’ Religious Affections would fall into this category (although the focus of this work is not on living the Christian life but discerning God’s working from our own self-deception – helpful nonetheless). Therefore, as evangelicals, the way we need to talk about this is Christ-centered, biblical astute doctrine of the Christian life which builds on the reality of justification by faith alone with the specific focus of the life of grace as always being given by God (never ours to grasp – contra Catholic readings). This will help frame, with other things of course, a faithful evangelical understanding of spiritual formation.
I just do not understand the position Neiswonger, el and Scott want to take – that somehow we should throw away the term “spiritual formation” just because people say crazy things about it. I don’t throw away evangelical, Christian, etc., so why spiritual formation? All it does is call out the reality of our life under God – we are formed by His Spirit alone.
christianlady – one more thing. I was thinking about your first comment concerning spiritual formation and sanctification, where spiritual formation is inward focused and sanctification is Spirit focused, which, as I emphasized, I believe to be the same thing. If you do go inward, it is for the purpose of opening your heart to God honestly. But as I thought about this, I remembered Calvin, and thought he would be helpful (he often is).
Calvin begins his great work The Institutes, by saying that, for Christians, we must have both knowledge of God and knowledge of self. You can’t, as it were, have one without the other. In other words, you can know that God is holy, but unless you also, immediately, know yourself as not holy, you don’t really know He is holy. Likewise, you can know that God is righteous, but unless you know yourself as the one who desperately needs His righteousness you don’t really know it. This is all that those in spiritual formation mean by introspection, and it is why the Puritans focused on self-examination so heavily. Knowledge of God, to be true knowledge, needs to go hand in hand with knowledge of one’s self and one’s heart.
I hope that helps show how these two aspects can, and should, go hand in hand. But I would emphasize, as you seem to, that introspection should never be for its own sake, but only to be faithful to the God who calls us to love him with our whole heart, mind, soul ans strength.
Spiritual formation as a movement existed long before you. You did not invent it. You do not get to define the terms or reconceptualize the impetus. There is no true Reformational heritage here. For you to create one is both contrary to fact and misleading as to the nature of the tradition.
The integration of Eastern spirituality with Christian thought is the essence of the movement from Henri Nouwen to Richard Foster. What you insult by calling “naive” would simply be the facts of the case.
Since your techniques of visualization are drawn directly from “Celebration of Discipline” and you didn’t even footnote Foster, some might call that dishonest. “I imagine myself in any novel I read, and when I read the gospels, I am one of the people standing there.” This is almost a verbatim lift. Or did you come up with this yourself? Or did you get it from John Calvin? 🙂
And you are misusing Calvin’s clear thought to promote an obsure interpretation. Calvin sums up in section 2 by writing, “On the other hand, it is evident that man never attains to a true self-knowledge until he have previously contemplated the face of God, and come down after such contemplation to look into himself.” That he promotes self examination still does nothing to support the ideology of spiritual formation which entails finding God “in” the self and not merely knowing one’s self well enough to understand one’s spiritual condition.
That Edwards took nature walks and Calvin saw the value of silent prayer says nothing that supports your position. That nature speaks of God is very different from the paganizing tendencies of the spiritual formation practices such as meditating for long periods of time upon a leaf or a blade of grass. The first makes sense to a Christian; the second is nonsense. Are you willing to admit the difference? Or even bear that there night be a difference? If not I would think that you are simply unwilling to make obvious distinctions between radically different philosophies, worldviews, and religious ideologies that have merely superificial points of similarity.
As to why we would have strong cautions against using the terminology of “spiritual formation”, it is because it means something. If something means everything, it really means nothing. That you are attempting to cover the entire Christian life within the conceptual framework of spiritual formation would seem to mean that you are trying to define eveything in terms of it. This, even if it meant what you are trying force into it, makes it trivial.
The terminology itself is of recent Roman Catholic origin and of common use in that communion, and that John Calvin, the Puritans, and Jonathan Edwards (as Calvinistic and Puritanical as any theologian ever was) held incipient Romanizing tendencies in their “spirituality” is mere fantasy. Popular fantasy is still fantasy. You are accusing them of what they held a pure and thoughtful intent to escape.
That Edwards held to a strong course of purposeful sanctification is as obvious as that he strictly measured what he allowed as legitimate Religious Affections, and little of anything he wrote was analogous to the “Hand’s Up, Hands Down” prayer prattle of Richard Foster or the “Concentrate on your heart muscle” until-you-feel-god-warming-your-heart-spiritism of J.P. Moreland. (Moreland is a fine Christian gentleman. Lately though, he is spending much of his time promoting things antithetical to his most basic and long held commitments such as the value of reason and clarity of Christian thought.)
Actually, Kyle, I learned a great deal just from the bible itself…though leadership was lacking. I did eventually learn that I have to listen carefully to what is being taught from the pulpit or by a bible study leader…or anyone who shares their beliefs. I may not have a strong background in church history, but if I need to know something I seek the answers in the bible. I also do ask for help from those I can trust. I had to learn to seek out things and not just believe it because someone told me something. As to emotional issues, I also learned to rely on Christ for my strength and also to not hold onto the past so much. I remember it, but I am thankful for it at the same time. I believe the circumstances I was in have lead me no option but to look to Christ. Where I am weak, He is strong…that is true in my case.
Because I don’t know a lot of church history or haven’t learned about all the doctrinal/theological things….I don’t know where to place myself in terms of labels. I think I am leaning Calvinist/Reformed based on things I understand. I believe I was chosen by God and could never have been saved by my own effort. I am a sinner, am in no way equiped to earn my own salvation. I do not believe I would have chosen Christ on my own, period. I believe I cannot loose my salvation. If I could, I was not saved in the first place. I am still trying to figure out if those like Pharoah are chosen for destruction ahead of time, and anyway, I do not know while someone is alive how we can decide that so I still do pray and talk to those who are not Christians. I believe we are to live according to the scriptures, but that the old law is impossible to follow. Jesus died for my sins as well as for those He has saved. I believe that scripture can be trusted, and that I should search the scriptures to see if men’s teachings line up or not.
I personally am bugged by some of the practices I’ve learned about in spiritual formation because I think the focus is on man…on self. This is what I see. I see many things that parallel other religions and their practices…had a Hindu roommate in college so I’ve learned a small bit about meditation and other practices.
I have a friend who came from the New Age movement as a child (unity village) and she is very alarmed with things I have shown her that come out of spiritual formation. She has researched more, and also had to leave a church because they were on the edge of teaching these things.
What I find to be obnoxious is most people who find their church involved in this stuff in the initial stages find it being hidden or sneaked in. (sneaked…snuck????). What is odd to me is that you can find it in seeker sensitive and in emergent circles in varying degree. I feel my former church was sort of between both. They never outright taught the congregation to do spiritual exercises but seem to be about to based on the studies they are beginning.
I so far have found people who I’ve spoken to or listen to…or read…who promote spiritual formation use the bible text in a different way. They take scriptures out of context to promote their “agenda” so to speak. This was really my first clue to problems, that texts were taken out of context or versions of the bible such as the message are used. Usually, when you study the scriptures used for proof, they end up meaning the exact opposite.
hi kyle,
i didn’t really explain why i was asking about your professed life’s devotion to edwards, owens and the puritans. i simply asked for your clarification.
personally, your statement was disconcerting because i believe our life’s devotion should be directed solely toward Jesus, our Savior. those other people are simply men, copies of copies of copies and though i recognize that their examples might have been worthy enough to glean something (even a lot) from, i would never expect a supposed teacher of the word of God to make the statement that you made. it suggests your priorities are skewed.
i would also like to say that i have visited your website that you linked to time and again throughout this discussion, and i have also watched your videos explaining the heart/vision you had for the site.
again, there was very little mention of Jesus, our Christ. In fact, what i observed (And i’m not suggesting this was your intent, but it is what i saw) were two guys (Obviously friends) who shared a personal vision and who appeared quite proud of their own personal accomplishments.
if in fact there is any good coming from your site, i was hard pressed to find God being given the glory. on the contrary there was a great deal of subtle boasting going on between you and your friend, which doesn’t surprise me, because Scripture warns us that if our walk is based upon our own personal works, (Which i believe Spiritual Formation teaches) then we will, indeed, be inclined to boast.
your site, quite frankly, appears to be man-made and not God-breathed. it appears to be works-based and not faith-based, and you can imagine why i might not want to be a part of something like that.
now, as i said, you certainly may not have intended for, –what did you call it– oh, yes, “your company” to appear not so Christ centered, but indeed, i believe it does, and you might very well want to call a round table session with your “marketing team” and rethink your approach.
then again, the goal should not be to appear Christ centered, but to actually be Christ centered.
christianlady, I am encouraged to hear of your journey with Christ, and trust that you will continue to turn to Him as He speaks to you in his Word. It has become clear that this discussion is no longer fruitful. It is sad really. The tone and charity is very similar to when I was young and thought it would be fruitful to debate atheists online. In the end, there is no true dialogue, only anger divisiveness. It is amazing that those who claim Christ can lack any charity whatsoever towards someone they’ve never met, never prayed with, never worshipped next to, and, as it were, only “knows” through short comments on a blog or short videos from a website. Inclined to boast indeed.
Neiswonger, that is exactly what I meant – Calvin does not allow for knowledge of God or self to derive apart from each other.
What I find ironic is that, by admission of everyone here, it seems, I am both a proponent, author and help run a ministry (“company” is legally true because we are a LLC) devoted to spiritual formation and yet none of you think I know what it is! Likewise, I “devote my life” meaning “I go to work every day and read Edwards” (again, how little charity can you offer?), and yet you actually think you can make sweeping statements with no evidence and somehow just assert the opposite. Please, read Edwards, read Calvin, read Owen, and yes, please read them in light of Scripture. But if nothing else, offer a little charity to brothers and sisters in Christ.
You don’t have a ministry; you have a website. The spiritual authority ends there. Lot’s of people have websites. It is not a spiritual gift.
I think the problem is more acute. Your only attempt to deal with the actual issues and arguments presented seems to be by casting moral aspersions upon others. People disagree with you as to the facts; unless you can show actual error, relent. There have been argumuments made here. The ad hominen is not a Christian mode of conduct.
You have some odd and eccetric interpretations of some of the major figures in Protestant thought. Everyone knows these figures. Your presumption of the ignorance of others is certainly unhelpful. Still, I would only fault you for not being willing to make any arguments for your positions and then acting like eveyone else is ignorant because they do not know what you will not say.
Education is not a weapon that will fight battles for you. Being a PhD student means onlyn that you don’t have a PhD.
Kyle, i will do you the courtesy of continuing to address you personally, because i consider the passive aggression of an indirect slam to be an earmark of youth.
i am sure you are aware that the internet has introduced a whole new dynamic to the art of social networking. this is all the more reason when someone chooses to put themselves out here, on the net, that they should first have a clear understanding of how they are about to sell themselves, if you will.
did you assume that your title as scholar, founder and owner, and your potential for a PhD would give you a free pass and anything you had to share would never be challenged?
you see, i do not need to have met you in person to be able to address that which you have already put out here for all the world to see, particularly that which is supposedly representing our Lord and Savior.
As for who you are beyond your website, i have no opinion, because i do not have anything to base such an opinion upon.
if, you feel that the conclusions i have drawn about your company, as you have represented it, both here and on your website, are not a fair, then by all means, show me how i have erred.
if, however, you do not have anything fresh to bring to the table, then simply say that and move on. that is believable and respectable, but trying to suggest that i am too ignorant or immature to share dialog with only does your stance a disservice.
now, as far as charity and grace are concerned, (because you keep bringing those up) i will remind you that i have not dared to judge your heart’s intent. i am only discerning and weighing against Scripture that which you have placed before me.
i have simply shared that it appears to me that man is being given far more credit than our Lord through your website, and as a business woman, if i were running your company, i would take a concern like that very seriously and not just write off the person expressing that concern as youthful and ignorant.
I’ve had long talks with Dallas Willard on this and though he thinks that there is a common sub-surface spirituality between the Puritan, Reformed, Methodist, Ana-Baptist, Quaker, Shaker, Mennonite, Roman Catholic, Buddhist, and Pentecostal spiritualities, he has never made any kind of clear or unambiguous argument for such.
Mere inference is not sufficient for such a counter intuitive claim.
That though all of these communions thought they were doing something different, defined themselves differently, and even separated themselves from each other because they had serious disagreements about what the others were doing and how they were doing it, holds so much more persuasive force than the mere hopeful magic that they were all really doing the same thing though ignorant of the fact, that it is incredibly insulting to them and contrary to common reason to accuse them of mere similitude and identity.
Superficial similarity of action does not in any sense display a commonness of spirituality.
Philistines and Jews both went to Temples.
Upon this is the condition that it demands a vast amount of evidence to say that what Willard, Foster, and Nouwen say spiritual formation is, is what Luther, Calvin, The Puritans, and Edwards thought sanctification, spiritual experience, religious affections, and character formation were, not to mention the cultivation of the Christian virtues.
These have a different Justification, a different Sanctification, a different theology of the cross, the atonement, pneumatology, standards of ethical practice, on and on.
Identity of practice or of the content of spiritual practice? Not likely. Not likely at all.
How much anger and hostility are we all going to throw around on this little blog? Almost every last person here ought to be ashamed of themselves. (And yes, I already am for the way I started my commenting in a different post. My apologies to christianlady, though I stand by what it all eventually worked its way towards.)
Kyle, your head is obviously full of good information, but your self-promotion and then your defensiveness is damaging and offensive. I agree with el’s assessment that you seem to be coming from the arrogance of youth. Whether that’s actual youth or emotional youth, I’m not sure, and I don’t know if it really makes a difference.
On the other hand, el, your direct assaults on Kyle are just as foolish and catty. You initially twisted his meaning, and it looks like you did it because you wrote him off from the very start – I don’t know if you meant to or not – and were reading everything from that point forward through the lens of self righteousness. You are very careful to not judge, but you judged from the very start.
Neiswonger, you, more than anyone here, feel like you’re responding from a place of open anger, and your comments come out bitter and spiteful, which only lead to irrationality, obstinacy, and close-mindedness. Who cares if you’re right if it means you’ve beaten to death your fellow man? That’s hardly Christlike.
If the world is supposed to know we’re all Christians by our love, then the world won’t even begin to recognize us here. Maybe people walked in here with good intentions, but they degraded fast to shouting ideals at each other in anger and defensiveness.
Christianlady, you feel somewhat close-minded, but at least you’re willing to admit your ignorance and be relatively humble about it, and I really respect that. I wish you were a bit more open to things, but maybe that isn’t where the Lord has you right now. You’ve apparently been attacked enough by things that have been twisted or having zeal without knowledge that it’s understandable.
Nice to know at least the author of the blog is pretty reasonable. It’s the shame the rest of us aren’t.
Anon: “you initially twisted his meaning, and it looks like you did it because you wrote him off from the very start – I don’t know if you meant to or not – and were reading everything from that point forward through the lens of self righteousness. You are very careful to not judge, but you judged from the very start.”
i don’t believe i twisted his meaning at all. i didn’t understand his meaning, and i simply asked for clarification. i still take issue with his choice of words; “devoting his life to studying Edwards, Owen and the Puritans”. If that is not what he meant to say, then he should simply submit that he unintentionally misrepresented himself and that he could have chosen his words differently.
and of course that little mistake in and of itself seems hardly something to become ruffled about, but within the context of what i have observed in his discussion and while visiting his website, things are looking more and more like Jesus is merely a side dish, or worse yet, a fancy spice sprinkled here and there.
as far as judging: judging a person’s intentions is something we are not to do because obviously we can’t see into a person’s heart the way our Lord can. However, judging what is laid out before us, or discerning whether something is of God or not is indeed something we are called to do.
i visited Kyle’s website to glean a better appreciation of where he might be coming from since he wasn’t addressing a lot of the specifics being brought to the table. Unfortunately while i was there, i was presented with several more red flags, which i felt were also worthy of discussion. i haven’t even addressed what i read in various articles, and at this rate, i probably won’t.
in any case, it appears that kyle is not willing to address specifics and has instead developed a tactic of proclaiming his opponents unworthy of his thought and time, (Of course that is going to ruffle a few feathers) especially since he was the one who came here as the expert ready to help everyone understand the ins and outs of spiritual formation.
i appreciate your critique. i’ll try not to be so insult(ing)ed next time.
Anonymous,
I am not actually closed minded so much as I am wanting to live according to scriptures. My experience with spiritual formation shows me a few things that have put me on guard to not just swallow what is taught.
1. My former church is into this and lives are being very hurt when people ask questions and when people bring up biblical objections. This is a fruit I cannot ignore. It’s almost like, “if you don’t like it, don’t let the door hit you on the backside as you leave.”
2. If you go to the sites like Renovare and watch videos, you will find that Christianity is being purposefully changed by those who are pushing missional or spiritual formation. It is recognized as a new way to “do church” and they are training seminary students in a new way to think. This again is a red flag for me. I am ignorant in terms of where this is all going, and also if it is as bad as I think it is. I am ignorant of church history and ignorant of the full expectation of Christ as to my sanctification. I have things to learn and figure out, but I am not at all comfortable with how spiritual formation is being promoted, and the practices being taught. I do feel there may be some areas of good, but just like Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness theology…it has too much that takes it too far away for me to feel it’s something I can be open minded about.
3. When prepping our former church for spiritual formation, they purposely set up one side of the church against another. There were comedians who came in and pointed out the difference between one kind of Christian and another. Pastors also have done sermons that divide the church into those who are “traditional” who wish to be fed in church and those who are willing to be coached. There are those who are “Christian” and those who are “Christ followers.” This was at first subtle, but once looked into, it was evident a rift was being set up. We were encouraged not to accept the status quo, but what was the status quo. I thought it was just our church, but once I began to research, this was everywhere. There appears to be an attempt to divide the church and then when people get frustrated with this, they are labeled the divisive ones.
Yes, I am ignorant in many ways, but my eyes have been opened. I do not think that is closed minded at all. The light shines in the darkness…and well, it reveals a lot.
It continues to appear that spiritual formation through silence, and the blogoshpere, are incongruous.
It appears Apprising Ministries has picked up the discussion going on in this blog.
http://apprising.org/2009/10/the-difference-between-spiritual-formation-and-sanctification/
Kyle,
You are works and feelings oriented. If you truly love the Lord, you will seek and save the lost, not try and help them “experience” anything, except the grace and forgiveness of Jesus Christ. It doesn’t take a PhD to preach Christ crucified, it DOES however take humbleness and faith.
christianlady – I am nearly finished reading Chuck & Nancy Missler’s book called ‘The Kingdom, Power and Glory – An Overcomer’s Handbook”. It is really explaining God’s Word on what it means to be an overcomer, to be sanctified and that’s about making faith choices, not emotional ones. The book explains that becoming a Christian, being saved, is justification – God’s free gift to us.
Sure, that gets us into heaven. But it’s about being sanctified that gives us an inheritance to rule and reign with Christ. It’s running the race as Paul described, not just being a nominal Christian who is justified and leaving it at that. It’s living our life for Him, laying down our self-life, daily taking up the cross, making sure our works are through the Spirit; it’s not about being perfect (we know that’s impossible because the Bible tells us that no-one is or can be except Christ), but it’s exciting stuff, and it’s all about the CHOICES we make!
http://apprising.org/2009/10/the-difference-between-spiritual-formation-and-sanctification/
Kyle,
Greetings. While a professional with a lambskin, I consider myself more akin to the 12 fishermen told “Come, follow Me.” For decades, the Lord has proven faithful (John 14:26) in granting understanding, which He has promised to all who seek His kingdom and righteousness.
Thirty plus years have passed since God drew me unto His Son, and He has been sanctifying this flesh in that gentlemen fashion that is exclusively His. Prayer modeled after the Lord’s prayer is fine, but vain babbling is forbidden (Matt 6:7), and this is where Foster, Willard, Merton, Nouwen, Ahlberg, do err.
If, as you propose, spiritual disciplines/formation, is not Eastern, why did Foster (I believe in the book Spiritual Disciplines) caution readers to pray a prayer of protection? Why would a blood-bought Saint who is told to boldly enter the Throne of Grace (Heb 4:16) need protection, unless, as is the case with its Eastern cousin, darkness resides in the silence of going inward?
A quote from Nouwen disturbs, “The quiet repetition of a single word can help us to descend with the mind into the heart”. Moreover, Kyle, you wrote, “If you do go inward, it is for the purpose of opening your heart to God honestly” … Unwise counsel, given Gen 6:5 and Jer 17:9. During prayer we speak confession of sin for purposes of repentance, both require words.
Obviously, an “inward” descent, as taught by Foster, et. al., would be done with the anticipation that there was something worthy “within”. Our heart will lie to us, the Holy Spirit will not and it is His conviction of conscience that leads one to seek Him. One does not enter prayer to bond with self, but with YHVH.
Lastly, you wrote “… the only difference between spiritual formation and sanctification is that sanctification is a doctrine that talks about what it means to be made holy by God, through the work of Christ and His Spirit. Spiritual formation takes the doctrine of sanctification and seeks to spell out what that work looks like …”
While we agree that sanctification is a work of the Potter (Phil 4:6), and not the clay, sanctification is accomplished, as Paul wrote, by the studying of doctrine (Eph 5:6). There is a movement afoot that presents the meat of the Word, a.k.a. doctrine, as a dirty word. Such teach that ours is a postmodern era, and, therefore, a return to the heretical practices of Rome would be of benefit.
The Gospel, the Power of God unto salvation (Rom 1:6), is sufficient. The cure for the Laodicean church, is a return to the reading of Scripture for 1.5 hours every Sunday, commencing with Genesis and ending with Revelation, repeat. Edwards, Spurgeon and others engaged in this method, as does my pastor, and the church was robust in knowledge and bold in testimony.
To any who have been deceived by these movements, it is best to avoid the Bible and.
You may want to read even if you aren’ t replying here, just to see what others who have found this thread have to say….
It might be robed in a call for Christians to move beyond a mere “nominal Christianity” but since Protestants have traditionally held that it is exactly the kinds of superstitions and practices that the spiritual formation movement promotes that are the definition of nominal Christianity, thoughtful Evangelicals should exercise special care in regard to this kind of teaching.
It’s true that Willard and some others have attempted to distance themselves from the some of the more confused applications of the ideas involved in the spiritual formation movement, but this has been largely pro forma.
There is no practicable method for distinguishing one set self created spiritualized disciplines from another. All are equally valid as all are measured by the same subjective human values.
Measuring these things by scripture alone is the only antidote to fashion and mere human reasoning. Once we begin creating how to approach God, we inevitably recreate who we think we are approaching, because how God is to be worshipped is an expression of who He is.
Willard’s promotion of a new kind of Limited Universalism, his inclusion of “some” Buddhists within the scope of salvation, not because of what they believe, but because of what they do, or by works alone, is one example.
This usually involves the application of the Liberal theological theories to Evangelical doctrinal positions, such as that one must believe in Jesus Christ in order to receive the justification of God; these things are flatly denied by the SPTs (Spiritual Formation Teachers).
Sounds like Willard then has another gospel if he has a Limited Universalism…
Dallas Willard, From “Rethinking Evangelism”
“Acts 4:12 says, “There is no other name given among men by which we must be saved.” If somebody says to me, “What name would you give by which I might be saved?” I’m not going to say, “Buddha.” I’ll say Jesus. Someone may say to me, “I know a Buddhist who is going to heaven.” I will say, “Good luck.”
“I’m not willing to be in a position of saying that one who has not heard of the historical Jesus cannot go to heaven. I’m not willing to say that Christ is not present as the Logos beyond Christian culture, because after all, John says, “This is the light that lights every man who comes into the world.” That doesn’t mean they’re saved; it just means that nobody is beyond the reach of Christ. I am willing to say that no one will be saved without Christ. But Christ’s ways in reaching them are often beyond anything I understand.”