Approaching Formation
Two different approaches to spiritual growth
In my last article I noted that there are, broadly, two approaches to spiritual formation. The first approach is perhaps best done by Willard. This approach to formation focuses on human formation generally, locating “spiritual formation” in the larger category of human formation. In other words, for folks like Willard, all human beings undergo a spiritual formation, because all human beings are spiritual agents.
The second approach, the one I prefer, starts with a clear distinction between natural and supernatural formation. When I define formation, it is focused on the Spirit’s work to form us into the likeness of Jesus. Spiritual formation, in other words, is not about a general account of human formation. Rather, spiritual formation specifies the unique kind of formation that those with the Spirit undergo.
We might say that we all have a choice at the outset of our development of our spiritual theology. Are we going to start with continuity or discontinuity? I choose the latter, whereas many choose the former.
But why do I choose discontinuity over continuity? Why do I focus on the difference between supernatural formation as compared with natural formation?
Before I answer, let me say this. We cannot choose one over the other. We have to do both. But it matters which one we start with, because the way we approach this discussion will often set the trajectory of how we end up talking about these things. In theology, in particular, we spend a lot of time trying to discern the ordering of a conversation. It is not enough to just try to answer a question, you have to know what sorts of prior commitments should govern your thinking.
What I have found is that folks who start with a generic account of formation, focusing on continuity between human formation and spiritual formation, and then turn to discontinuity, tend not to turn to discontinuity at all. There are some who do a great job of this actually (Thomas Aquinas being the most important, but it is something Willard seeks to do as well), but oftentimes the folks who follow them fail to make the second move.
When a generic account of formation sets the agenda, and someone does not press hard enough on what a uniquely Spirit-focused account of supernatural formation is, several things go wrong:
The work of the Spirit is replaced by something merely natural.
God’s work in our formation is replaced by our work.
Christian practices are reduced down to the same level as any other habit.
Similarly, the church is either ignored or else the practices of the church are treated like secular means of growth.
Theological frameworks are replaced with general secular counterparts (sociology, psychology, etc.).
Our formation becomes the goal rather than the fruit of the goal of our abiding.
This list, unfortunately, is basically an overview of most of what I see going on in spiritual formation circles today. This is not how the broadly Western theological tradition understood these things, and it is not how Protestants ever thought about these things.
Starting with discontinuity allows us to focus our attention on the Spirit’s work and use that as a framework to understand our own work within that. We cannot grow ourselves, but that does not mean we don’t seek to grow. Nonetheless, biblically, we have to consider why our virtues are talked about as fruit of abiding, or as fruit of the Spirit, and not merely as fruit of our ability to develop habits. Even self-control is the fruit of another - the Spirit - and not merely the self.