The Church and Spiritual Formation
A theological inquiry
To think theologically about a doctrine we have to consider how it relates to our other theological beliefs. This requires us, therefore, to attend to neighboring doctrines, seeking to recognize ways these should impinge on our development of that doctrine. In particular, we have to consider how God and the works of God orient our understanding of these things. That is an important topic, but this isn’t my main interest in this post. Rather, I want to think about the role that the doctrine of the church plays in one’s theology.
Part of what must go on theologically (i.e., to think Christianly about something), is to move beyond our initial description of what a doctrine is about, to address how that doctrine functions within a theological system. Specifically, I want to consider one way ecclesiology should function in relation to spiritual formation.
The danger in discussions of spiritual formation is how easy it is to develop an account of spiritual formation without ever actually talking about the church. This is what often happens in accounts that begin with what I have called elsewhere “continuity” instead of “discontinuity.” In other words, by starting with the assumption that spiritual formation is simply a species of general formation, the church never really plays a part. When this happens, several things go wrong.
Leaving aside some of the more obvious, let me focus on the main thing I see (and I see this a lot). Someone develops an account of the Christian life as if the church was irrelevant, focusing primarily on individual formation, learning, and mission. In light of this vision of formation, it seems like the church doesn’t work. Many develop a view of formation where the church can only possibly fail, and so they use their vision of formation to judge the church.
When this happens, these individuals typically create terms that signify a “more serious” Christianity than the average Christian, who they look down upon for their lack of growth. The church, in general, is somewhat despised, because they have judged it using worldly metrics, and reduced its activities to worldly endeavors (i.e., preaching becomes teaching, or just a lecture, worship becomes singing, the life of the body becomes community).
Notice what has happened: Instead of thinking theologically about the church or the Christian life, they have come to develop a secular vision of formation that judges the church for its failure to do that secular vision well. Thinking they can help the church, these folks become self-made prophets of sociological, psychological, and commonsense visions of formation that are little more than life-hacks of the flesh.
So what needs to change in our thinking? When we’re thinking Christianly about spiritual formation, and therefore considering what sorts of beliefs apply pressure and form our understanding of these things, the church has to be front and center. This means that the nature and task of the church must always judge our understanding of spiritual formation, Christian identity, and life before Christ.
Put differently, one of the roles of ecclesiology in a theological system - one way the church applies pressure to the doctrine of the Christian life - is to orient the Christian life around the nature, task, and reality of the people of God. The church is not a side issue. The church is not something that shows up after one develops an account of spiritual formation. Rather, the church continually judges our vision of spiritual formation, such that if the church doesn’t make sense for our understanding of Christian growth, we have to reconsider our view of growth, and not reconsider the church.
Consider: How does your view of spiritual formation relate to the church? Are the regular means of grace, which are weekly rhythms of life for all Christians, central to your understanding of spiritual formation? Has the church become a mere secular entity in your mind, functioning only in categories like community, learning, and connection, without mere theological rich realities?
This is more than just a theoretical exercise. Rather, it is in giving ourselves to the people of God, and serving, with open hearts those who are now ours as we are theirs (2 Cor. 6:12). It is trusting that the Lord has called us to be both givers and receivers in the kingdom, humbly embracing life in the church that undermines the power structures of the world.
It can be hard to see this in the academy (for those of us who live in that world), because the economy of the academy is antithetical to the cross. But it can be even harder to see this in churches that have abandoned the economy of the cross for worldly systems of power (for this, see The Way of the Dragon or the Way of the Lamb: Searching for Jesus’ Path of Power in a Church that has Abandoned It).
The church is never a mere tack-on to our understanding of spiritual formation, and it is not somehow a side-issue to our ability to think Christianly about formation in general. These are woven together deeply and can never be torn apart.