why is spiritual formation so polarizing? part 2

This is part two of a series around the concept of spiritual formation. This series seeks to explore spiritual formation carefully and biblically—listening with empathy, asking thoughtful questions, and grounding our understanding firmly in Scripture. Here are the previous articles: PART ONE. Jeff Chacon also offers a good primer HERE.

Few topics in the church today generate as much passion—and misunderstanding—as spiritual formation. For some believers, the phrase itself instantly raises red flags. For others, it represents a long-awaited recovery of depth, intentionality, and transformation in the Christian life.

How did a concept so closely tied to Christian growth and transformation become so polarizing?

The answer, I believe, lies not in the desire for spiritual growth—nearly everyone I know shares that—but in deeply different assumptions about Scriptural authority, knowledge, and transformation.

 

Two Reactions, Both Understandable

On one end of the spectrum are Christians who outright reject spiritual formation as it is often presented today. Their concern is not imaginary. In many contemporary expressions, formation language is untethered from Scripture and grounded primarily in subjective experience—what feels authentic, meaningful, or spiritually resonant in the moment. Practices like silence, contemplation, guided discernment or spiritual direction can subtly replace Scripture as the primary means by which God speaks and forms His people.  They can be treated as “have-to’s,” even though not commanded or prescribed in scripture.

For those who hold a high view of biblical authority, this feels like a dangerous shift. If formation becomes driven by inner impressions rather than God’s revealed Word, how do we test truth? How do we guard against self-deception? These Christians are not anti-growth; they are sincerely concerned about faithfulness.

At the same time, not everyone who embraces spiritual formation does so uncritically or irresponsibly. Many are reacting to something very real: a version of Christianity that has emphasized correct belief while neglecting embodied obedience, spiritual attentiveness, and transformation of the heart. They long for a faith that shapes not only what we affirm, but how we live, love, and endure.  As I said in my last post, the idea of slowing down and becoming more attuned with what God might be saying to me in any given moment is very appealing to myself and others.

Both reactions come from sincere spiritual hunger. And yet, as I’ve seen in my own fellowship of churches, the conversation often collapses into suspicion rather than understanding.

Where the Tension Escalates

The polarization intensifies when advocates and critics begin talking past one another, or assuming the people who don’t agree with them are lacking in depth or discernment.  The assumptions each side tends to make can be quite condescending.

For example, some proponents of spiritual formation assume that those who raise concerns are simply afraid of change, resistant to growth, or trapped in an overly intellectual faith. Analytical engagement with Scripture is often described as insufficient—or even obstructive—to real transformation. Ruth Haley Barton, a popular spiritual formation advocate, writes that many of us were trained to approach Scripture primarily as an intellectual exercise rather than a transformational encounter, and that information alone does not lead to transformation.  Here is what she says specifically, offering reflections on how an overly analytical approach to Scripture felt incomplete and unsatisfying to her:

“You see, something else was happening that was very subtle. Somewhere along the way I figured out that you could get really good at studying and memorizing verses, filling in the blanks of Bible study guides, checking chapters off a reading list, coming up with creative approaches for Bible study and message preparation. In my circles, you could get major brownie points for such things. Although I wouldn’t have known how to talk about it then, slowly but surely the Scriptures were becoming a place of human striving and intellectual hard work. Somehow, I had fallen into a pattern of using the Scriptures as a tool to accomplish utilitarian purposes rather experiencing them primarily as a place of intimacy with God for my own soul’s sake.”[1]

This is a very tricky and confusing quote. 

I appreciate Barton being vulnerable about how an overly rigid approach to the Bible was stunting her own experience of drawing closer to God.  However, what follows can be read as a gross generalization of that experience, and could be taken by others in negative way. 

What if a person’s way of connecting with God IS to memorize large chunks of Scripture?  What if authentic intimacy for someone resides in deep and analytical Bible study?  What if a well-meaning parent offers Bible study guides and reading assignments as a way of developing good habits and patterns in their child’s life?  And what if all of this is NOT meant as a way of earning people “brownie points” in the eyes of others?  Lastly, does she realize how using phrases like “place of human striving,” and “utilitarian purposes” can alienate people who genuinely love deep Bible study?  If her approach to Scripture led her to a bad place, it doesn't necessarily mean it will for others.

To take it even further, how does this generalization leave room for people with different personalities than Barton, types that may lean toward a more intellectual or analytical approach to life?  What if true authenticity for a Christian is found in simply reading the Bible and obeying it?

Let me just say, I get it.  It may be that Barton doesn’t look down on people that think differently than her, but that is the point.  It sure seems like it.  In fact, many (not all) spiritual formation teachers or authors tend to come across like modern day gnostics, people who have discovered truth that will set everyone free if they follow them.

I’m positive that is not always their goal, but we’re all responsible for shaping the messages we feel are important.  I have been told before that my desire to explain the dangerous elements of progressive theology can sometimes come across too one-sided.  I have heard that, owned it, and actively try to introduce more nuance into my important message.  None of us should present our way of connecting with God as a “one-size-fits-all approach.

Statements like Barton’s help explain why critics grow uneasy.  It is common for spiritual formation authors to subtly denigrate the simple art of reading the Bible and obeying it as an insufficient way to experience the will of God.  While these authors do not deny Scripture, they can subtly redefine its functional role in the Christian life. Scripture becomes foundational but incomplete—one voice among several guiding influences. Over time, this can create a framework where personal discernment, inner prompting, or silence are treated as equal, or even superior sources of formation.

On the other hand, critics of spiritual formation sometimes respond by painting the entire movement with too broad a brush. Practices associated with formation are dismissed as mystical, unbiblical, or inherently Catholic, without acknowledging that Scripture itself calls believers to meditate on Scripture (Psalm 119:48), self-examination (Lamentations 3:40, 1 Cor. 11:28), prayerful attentiveness (Matt. 6:6, Col. 4:2), and growth into Christlikeness (2 Cor. 3:18).

When all formation language and ideas are rejected outright, genuine opportunities for deeper discipleship and growth can be lost.  I have seen too many critics of spiritual formation become skeptical without trying to understand what it really is.

Different Views of Scripture Beneath the Surface

At its core, the polarization around spiritual formation is not really about practices. It is about how Scripture functions in shaping the Christian life.  I plan to address this more in depth in another post, but for now I want to explain briefly what I mean.

Historic Christianity has affirmed that the Bible is inspired, infallible, sufficient, and clear—capable of equipping believers for every good work through Spirit-empowered understanding and obedience:

“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

(2 Timothy 3:16-17)

Transformation flows from hearing, believing, and living out God’s revealed truth.  Scripture tells us that doing so is the path to being thoroughly equipped.

Many modern formation approaches, however, are shaped by voices who emphasize moving beyond words and concepts into silence and contemplation. These perspectives can influence how Scripture is approached—not as the authoritative voice forming the believer, but as a doorway into experiences that transcend it.

Talking about a way of reading Scripture called “Lectio Divina,” (another idea I will write about in future post), Kenneth Boa says this: “The formational approach…centers on speaking to the heart more than informing the mind.”[2]  As he goes on to expand, you get the feeling anyone who is approaching spiritual transformation from a more analytical approach is in danger of missing the heart of God, even though there is no place in Scripture where we are told to separate the heart from the mind, or that a non-intellectual pursuit of God is superior.

It helps explain why traditional grammatical-historical study is sometimes caricatured as dry, reductionistic, or spiritually shallow.  I actually believe this tested method of Biblical interpretation is very sound and helpful.  For many Christians, careful and serious engagement with Scripture is not a barrier to transformation—it is the means God has chosen to bring it about.

Do we need to frame things around spiritual growth as either/or?  I don’t find it helpful.

A More Faithful Way Forward

Perhaps the question is not whether spiritual formation is good or bad, or who is right, but what kind of formation we are pursuing—and under what authority.  That is precisely what I intend to discuss in these blog posts.

The Christian life is meant to be formative. We are being shaped every day by habits, loves, communities, and practices. The real issue is whether our formation is anchored in God’s Word or subtly displaced by experience-driven spirituality. Scripture does not oppose transformation; it promises it. But it insists that transformation comes through truth—truth understood, embraced, and lived out by the power of the Holy Spirit.

At the same time, Scripture never intended discipleship to be merely cerebral. The Word we study is meant to dwell in us richly, shaping our affections, habits, and relationships. A faithful approach to formation refuses the false choice between truth and transformation, study and obedience, mind and heart.

 

Why the Conversation Matters

Spiritual formation is polarizing because it touches the deepest questions of the Christian life: How does God change us? How does He speak? And what authority do we trust when voices conflict?

If the church can slow down, listen carefully, and keep Scripture at the center, this conversation does not have to divide us. Instead, it can refine us—calling us to a formational vision that is both deeply biblical and genuinely life-shaping.

Growth is not the enemy. Nor is careful discernment. What we need is both—held together under the gracious and sufficient authority of God’s Word.

Daren Overstreet

Daren is a Senior Leader at Anchor Point Church in Tampa, Florida.  He has been in ministry for nearly 30 years, and holds a Master’s Degree in Missional Theology

You can contact him at

daren@anchorpointtampa.org

[1] Ruth Haley Barton, Sacred Rhythms: Arranging Our Lives for Spiritual Transformation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009), chap. 3, Kindle edition.

[2] Kenneth Boa, Historic Creeds: A Journal (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2000), 10.