Defining Christian Spiritual Formation

[Stanley N. Helton]

There appears no consensus definition on spiritual formation, but I would define Christian spiritual formation in line with the following authors: Robert Mulholland [Invitation to a Journey (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 15-17] defines Christian spiritual formation as “… the process of being conformed to the image of Christ by the gracious working of God’s spirit, for the transformation of the world.” Likewise, James C. Wilhoit [Spiritual Formation as if the Church Mattered: Growing in Christ through Community (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2008)] says that Christians spiritual formation “(1) is intentional; (2) is communal; (3) requires our engagement; (4) is accomplished by the Holy Spirit; (5) is for the glory of God and the service of others; and (6) has as its means and end the imitation of Christ.” However, more simply, Dallas Willard [Renovation of the Heart: Putting on the Character of Christ (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2002), 31] suggests that Christian “[s]piritual formation in Christ is the process leading to that ideal end, and its result is love of God with all of the heart, soul, mind and strength, and of the neighbor as oneself. The human self is then fully integrated under God.”

[Stanley N. Helton]

Michael,

I'm not ready to hang my hat on any definition yet. I do believe you are pushing in the right direction, that if spiritual formation has anything to do with the mission of God, then is must be more than individual transformation and it must contain something about getting on with the mission of God. So I'm open to you playing with my head a bit as we seek a definition for Missional Christian Spiritual Formation, which is redundant, because if it is Christian, it is missional. Or, at least, should be.

Michael Hanegan said:

I have am familiar with both Wilhoit and Willard's definitions of spiritual formation, but my challenge with defining spiritual formation that is missional is that there are so many complimentary elements. It is both individual and communal, it requires both active and passive stances, etc.
When I try to define spiritual formation that is missional I come up with the following working definition... "Spiritual Formation is the process by which both individuals and communities of believers are:

(1) Called (Jn. 6:44; 1 Pet. 2:9) and Sent (John 20:21) by God the Father

to

(2) Be Conformed to the Image of (Rom. 8:29; Col. 1:15) and Continue to Carry On the Message and Ministry of Jesus (Matt. 28:18-20; Jn. 20:21; Ac. 1:1, 8; 2 Cor. 5:20)

through the

(3) Conviction (Jn. 14:16, 26), Formation (Jn. 14:26; 16:13; 1 Cor. 2:6-16; 2 Thess. 5:13), and Empowerment (Eph. 3:14-19; 2 Tim. 1:7) of the Holy Spirit.

[Stanley N. Helton]

Let me point out a couple of articles that might help in the quest for a definition:

Philip Sheldrake, "What is Spirituality?" in Spirituality and History: Questions of Interpretation and Method (New York: Crossroads, 1992), 32-56.

Walter Principe, "Toward Defining Spirituality," Studies in Religion/Sciences religieuses 12.2 (1983): 127-41.

In the study of Christian spiritual formation, "spirituality" is the larger category and is broad enough to cover non-Christian spiritualities so we may have to back up and ask what we mean by the basic words, like Spirit, Spirituality, etc.

[James Nored]

Spiritual formation, also referred to as discipleship, is commonly set as a complement to mission. In fact, Hirsch gives three aspects of the Christian faith--worship, discipleship, and mission. In this definition, as with others, discipleship/spiritual formation has an inward transformation component (individually and perhaps communally).

I am okay with some type of distinction between spiritual formation and mission. However, these concepts must be intimately linked. Spiritual formation should lead to mission. (Actually, Hirsch says that mission is the means towards discipleship, and I tend to agree with this.) And it certainly must be greater than just growing in knowledge.

Too much of spiritual formation is purely inward and individual. There is an inward and individual component to spiritual formation, but it is much more than this. For practices, I like Michael Frost's "B.E.L.L.S." pretty well, which I have practiced in a discipleship group.

Of course, this may show my lack of introspection and self-examination! So I am glad to hear voices who understand and support the missional concept share their thoughts on spiritual formation.

[Stanley N. Helton]

Ok, since you dropped the G word: define Gospel.

Michael Hanegan said:

One the contributions to the spiritual formation discussion that comes from Wilhoit is that viewing the Gospel as merely the entry point into "salvation" or the Christian life is a distortion. Guder also deals with this in "The Continuing Conversion of the Church".

When we have a Conversion/Discipleship dichotomy we are more likely to have a self-reliant, works/disciplines oriented (self)spiritual formation. This is not only dangerous but counterproductive to the actual purpose of spiritual formation.

I would propose that a healthy balance would be to see the Gospel as the source and driving force of worship and mission. In other words, the Gospel is the source of all our formation both worship (Communal and in the context of the local community of believers) and mission (Communal and individual in the context of life with believers and unbelievers).

[Bret Wells]

I'm very late to this conversation...you may have all moved on to other things. However, I have a definition of Christian spiritual formation that I've been using for the last several years which I find helpful.

"CSF is the lifelong process together in community of being informed of the One Holy God, transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit and continually conformed to the Image of Christ for the sake of others and for the purpose of godliness."

Its kinda long but its intentional.

The important components for me are:
1) it is process oriented
2) it takes place in community rather than isolation
3) there is a distinctly Trinitarian nature to this process (wholistic, relational and communal)
4) it emphasizes the need to learn and be informed
5) it emphasizes that our transformation is the work of God not ourselves - and also that information is incomplete without transformation
6) it also emphasizes that while we depend on God for our transformation we are called to continually conform ourself to the image of Christ...we are called to carry responsibility
7) we also see that our formation is not a narcissistic endeavor - it sends us out to serve others, to join God in his missionary work of reclaiming all things
8) the transformation that takes place is seen by our increasing "godliness" - like theosis in Eastern Church, we recognize that to be fully formed - to be fully human - is to reflect the image and glory of God.

[Stanley N. Helton]

Brett,

It is never too late for this discussion; spiritual formation is ongoing. I appreciated the turns you add here and I also appreciate the mention of theosis. Students here have found it a very useful way for understanding both salvation and the transformation that is inherently a part of what it means to be saved.

Stan

Bret Wells said:

I'm very late to this conversation...you may have all moved on to other things. However, I have a definition of Christian spiritual formation that I've been using for the last several years which I find helpful.
"CSF is the lifelong process together in community of being informed of the One Holy God, transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit and continually conformed to the Image of Christ for the sake of others and for the purpose of godliness."
Its kinda long but its intentional.

The important components for me are:
1) it is process oriented
2) it takes place in community rather than isolation
3) there is a distinctly Trinitarian nature to this process (wholistic, relational and communal)
4) it emphasizes the need to learn and be informed
5) it emphasizes that our transformation is the work of God not ourselves - and also that information is incomplete without transformation
6) it also emphasizes that while we depend on God for our transformation we are called to continually conform ourself to the image of Christ...we are called to carry responsibility
7) we also see that our formation is not a narcissistic endeavor - it sends us out to serve others, to join God in his missionary work of reclaiming all things
8) the transformation that takes place is seen by our increasing "godliness" - like theosis in Eastern Church, we recognize that to be fully formed - to be fully human - is to reflect the image and glory of God.

[James Nored]

Bret, I like your definition of spiritual formation. Clearly, you have well thought this through. My question--and I do not know the anwer to this--for spiritual formation is, what is its relation to evangelism/mission? When is it helpful to separate the two, and when is it not?

[Bret Wells]

James,
That's a great question. My initial response would be to say that if it is truly "Christian" spiritual formation it will have everything to do with evangelism/mission. Tomorrow I will be preaching on the core value of mission. Contrary to how it may or may not be presented, mission is not an addendum to the life of faith - it is centered in the revealed nature of God. God, the Eternal Community has continually gone to every length to restore lost relationships and reconcile damaged community. As the Image Bearers, we are to reflect this same priority.

However the problem may be how narrowly we have tended to define "evangelism." I contend that evangelism is more than a particular method of convincing someone to become a Christian, a strategic way to initiate or lead a conversation about Jesus or lead a seeker Bible study.

In their proper context these are all fine, but they tend to give the impression that mission/evangelism is only for those who are a) outgoing/extroverted enough to enjoy something like that or b) dedicated/guilty enough to do it anyway.

However, the "for the sake of others" part of the definition is pointing to the need for our spiritual formation to benefit more than just ourselves. As we are informed, transformed and progressively conformed we become acutely aware of the pain and suffering all around us - what's more, we realize that this should not be.

We realize that when God looked at his creation he said, "It is very good." We know that this God walked in the garden with the first humans. We know that the whole creation is groaning in anticipation of that kind of relationship being restored. And this is God's mission. Which means that it is OUR mission. Which means that participation in this mission is more than coercive conversations...its more than conversations period.

That will look different for each of us - depending on our cultural context, our spiritual gifts, our personality and any number of other things. We don't have to learn a particular strategy we simply must be willing to bloom where we are planted. That isn't a sufficient answer...this must be worked out in the midst of community.

James Nored said:

Bret, I like your definition of spiritual formation. Clearly, you have well thought this through. My question--and I do not know the anwer to this--for spiritual formation is, what is its relation to evangelism/mission? When is it helpful to separate the two, and when is it not?

[Stanley N. Helton]

James,

I think Bret is pushing in the right direction; your question may introduce a false dichotomy in that it asks the relationship between spiritual formation and evangelism/mission. Mission is the top category and spiritual formation and evangelism are somewhere under that. Evangelism, as generally understood today, may or may not be connected to mission. The working definition I have been using for explaining the Missio Dei is "It has always been God's intent to call, shape and send a distinct group of people to live His life for the sake of the world."

In short, the purpose of the call is to be shaped so that we can be sent, however, the sending also shapes and opens the call to others who likewise enter the process of God's mission.

Bret Wells said:

James,
That's a great question. My initial response would be to say that if it is truly "Christian" spiritual formation it will have everything to do with evangelism/mission. Tomorrow I will be preaching on the core value of mission. Contrary to how it may or may not be presented, mission is not an addendum to the life of faith - it is centered in the revealed nature of God. God, the Eternal Community has continually gone to every length to restore lost relationships and reconcile damaged community. As the Image Bearers, we are to reflect this same priority. However the problem may be how narrowly we have tended to define "evangelism." I contend that evangelism is more than a particular method of convincing someone to become a Christian, a strategic way to initiate or lead a conversation about Jesus or lead a seeker Bible study. In their proper context these are all fine, but they tend to give the impression that mission/evangelism is only for those who are a) outgoing/extroverted enough to enjoy something like that or b) dedicated/guilty enough to do it anyway.

However, the "for the sake of others" part of the definition is pointing to the need for our spiritual formation to benefit more than just ourselves. As we are informed, transformed and progressively conformed we become acutely aware of the pain and suffering all around us - what's more, we realize that this should not be.

We realize that when God looked at his creation he said, "It is very good." We know that this God walked in the garden with the first humans. We know that the whole creation is groaning in anticipation of that kind of relationship being restored. And this is God's mission. Which means that it is OUR mission. Which means that participation in this mission is more than coercive conversations...its more than conversations period.

That will look different for each of us - depending on our cultural context, our spiritual gifts, our personality and any number of other things. We don't have to learn a particular strategy we simply must be willing to bloom where we are planted. That isn't a sufficient answer...this must be worked out in the midst of community.

James Nored said:

Bret, I like your definition of spiritual formation. Clearly, you have well thought this through. My question--and I do not know the anwer to this--for spiritual formation is, what is its relation to evangelism/mission? When is it helpful to separate the two, and when is it not?