As we have seen in the last two
Think on These Things articles, “Spiritual
formation is viewed by a growing number of evangelicals as an ancient ministry
of the church, concerned with the ‘forming’ or ‘shaping’ of a believer’s
character and actions into the likeness of Christ.”
[1] Spiritual formation is distinguished from
biblical discipleship primarily by its source of authority and its
methodology. On the one hand, discipleship
as defined by the Bible turns to the Word of God as the final and ultimate
authority over all matters of life and godliness. This means that if one truly desires to be a
follower of Jesus Christ, he will turn to the inspired Scriptures to determine
both truth and how to “observe all that I [Christ] commanded you” (
Matt
28:20). Spiritual formation pays
lip-service to Scripture but the true source behind the movement is the
extrabiblical teachings and experiences of those in the past who supposedly
have discovered the “secret” of deeper intimacy with God. Bruce Demarest says
it this way: “For our help, [in the context of growth in the Spirit] we can
turn to our Christian past – to men and women who understood how the soul finds
satisfaction as we grow in God, and how His Spirit finds a more ready home in
us.”
[2] Richard Foster and Gayle Beebe concur:
“Through their reflections, the great saints witness to the work of the Holy
Spirit and, when we study them, guide our spiritual life as well.”
[3] While Scripture is referenced by spiritual
formation leaders, it is Scripture filtered through the experiences and
insights of the “spiritual masters,” as they are often called, that set the
pace in spiritual formation.
From the above comments, and those of others
with similar views, we clearly see that spiritual formation is different from
the typical understanding of discipleship. Professor Demarest informs us that the
difference lies not only in divergent authoritative sources but also in
methodology and technique. He declares that
some past saints have discovered “certain spiritual practices were highly
effective in nurturing the inner man. These practices came to be known as the art and ministry of
spiritual formation, a form of
discipleship we are rediscovering today.”
[4] These practices are usually called “spiritual
disciplines” and are the supposed means by which we become more like Christ.
There are dozens of these disciplines, drawn almost entirely from Roman
Catholic mystics and contemplatives throughout church history, which are being
touted as essential to our spiritual life; however, the two foundational disciplines
as recognized by all spiritual formation adherents, are prayer and
Scripture.
No evangelical would ever question the value of
prayer and the Word in the process of sanctification. But, as we are seeing, when the spiritual
formation devotees speak of these disciplines they mean something entirely
different from what Scripture does. Prayer to those promoting spiritual formation does not reference
biblical prayer but contemplative prayer which we explained in our last
paper. Similarly, when spiritual
formation enthusiasts promote the reading of the Bible they mean something very
unlike the traditional actions of reading, studying and applying of the Word of
God to our lives. Foster agrees that
“reading and studying and memorizing and meditating upon Scripture have always
been the foundation of the Christian Disciplines. All of the Disciplines are built upon
Scripture. Our practice of the Spiritual Disciplines is kept on course by our
immersion in Scripture.”
[5] I have no argument with Foster’s comment
about the Word; it is what follows that is problematic. The breakdown comes in a seemingly innocent
remark that completes Foster’s quote, “So we must consider how we can ourselves
come to the Bible.”
[6] It
is how we approach the Bible, what we believe is its purpose, and how we understand
its interpretation that marks the distinction between biblical discipleship’s
and spiritual formation’s use of Scripture. Continue at
Gary Gilley
