Spiritual Formation—Deviant Disciplines
Ever since the Evil One encountered Eve in Eden and Jesus in the wilderness, the word of God has been under attack. With ingenious subtlety, Satan has tried to adulterate the Word by attaching it to rival sources (some other book, some other philosophy, some other tradition), and also to emasculate the Word by attacking its validity outright.
Throughout history this war on the Word has been constant, complex, and devious.
One such attack on the Word—unrecognized by many and yet not at all difficult to find—has surfaced in our day in the spiritual formation movement. Richard Foster’s book, Celebration of Discipline, proved hugely popular in the 1970s, and since its release has gained a much wider popularity on several continents. At issue, however, is whether the disciplines Richard Foster celebrates should be celebrated.
In focusing on Foster and fellow leader Dallas Willard, we do so recognizing they are in the vanguard that brought mysticism into the modern evangelical church.
In Francis Schaeffer’s book, The God Who is There, Schaeffer said, “… mysticism is nothing more than a faith contrary to rationality, deprived of content, and incapable of communication.”1
Mysticism toys with truth, especially Christian truth, and is quite willing to abandon any or all of it. We see ample evidence of that in the writings of Foster and Willard.
The “disciplines” promoted by the spiritual formation movement are not the disciplines set forth in Scripture but are the disciplines of various philosophies: monasticism (withdrawing from society), asceticism (imposing rigorous demands on the body), Gnosticism (launching mystical excursions through silence, the imagination, visions, and spirit guides).
To demonstrate the incompatibility of the spiritual formation movement with biblical Christianity there is need to be specific and succinct about the spiritual formation’s view of scripture, silence, salvation, and imagination.
The war on the Word Richard Foster launched is not all that subtle. On page six of his book, Life with God, Richard Foster writes, “As we allow Scripture to lead us into the process of transformation, we discover that it is not a matter of religious beliefs and behavior.”2
It is not? How Scripture would have us think and act is irrelevant?
Actually, yes. Under Foster’s system, Scripture is only a launching-pad to mystical encounters.
Foster writes, “Distinct from other ways of approaching the Bible, the ancient Christian practice of lectio divina (spiritual reading) is the primary mode of reading the Bible for transformation.”3
Well, is it now?
What the Bible never mentions—because it was a practice taken up centuries after the last words of Scripture were written—turns out to be the best way, the primary way, to be spiritually transformed. Do you see a war on the Word being waged in that statement?
In his book, The Signature of Jesus, Brennan Manning, a contemporary commended by Richard Foster, wrote, “… the first step in faith is to stop thinking about God at the time of prayer.”4
To assist in this practice, the spiritual formation leaders tell us, Scripture is used—a word or a phrase—for the purpose of blocking contrary thoughts until there is a cessation of all thoughts.
That’s Scripture’s purpose, pick out a word, then keep repeating it until there’s a shutdown of the rational?
Crazy Claims
But where does Scripture ever tell us to use its words in this manner? With willful Scripture-twisting, Dallas Willard answers:
There is no greater disciplinary verse in the entire Bible than Josh. 1:8 (mirrored and expanded in Psalm 1), and none more instructive on the restoration of the soul. There we read: “This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it; for then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success.” Memorization enables us to mumble and meditate….5
Seriously? He who led the march to the Promised Land was practicing the Lectio Divina all the way?
Willard concocts this silly view by surreptitiously selecting one of many possible meanings for the Hebrew word in this verse regarding the Book of the Law being in our mouth.
According to Strong’s Concordance, the etymology of this Hebrew word includes the following possible meanings: roar, growl, groan, utter, speak, to meditate, devise, muse, imagine, mutter. Mutter! Dallas found his word! And so he extracted it from all others that could give definition, to fit his scheme.
With no shame, and obviously no scholarship, Willard then promotes an interpretation of this verse that no commentary supports.
Is his conclusion persuasive? Not by a long shot? Plausible? Not even that. Preposterous? Totally!
Lectio Divina teaching directly contradicts what Scripture forbids: the usage of vain repetitions in prayer. The Bible says to gird up the loins of your mind; it never tells you to abdicate your intellect.
The meditation Scripture promotes is to be on the Word, not apart from the Word. Only an utterly false spirituality calls for suspension of the rational in order to access the spiritual. Vigorously refuting what these mystics teach, Jessie Penn-Lewis wrote:
Do not let your mind “lie fallow” and become “passive,” for as you allow your mind to cease to think, and reason, and judge, and bring to the verdict of the Bible all the departments of your life—your experience and your actions—you are inviting Satan’s beguiling into your mind.6
G.H. Lang wrote:
The Buddhist, the spiritist and others study to reduce the mind to passivity or to wait for an impulse or suggestion to be put into the thoughts. Or they may accept without scrutiny an idea unexpectedly presented to the mind when busy about other matters.7
When consulting Scripture, however, we are specifically told to bring each thought into captivity (II Corinthians 10:5). Nowhere does Scripture say that we are to open our minds to whatever thought happens to dart in. To suspend thinking, or to open oneself to the serendipity of silence, is completely contrary to Scripture!
Crazy Claims Continued
Richard Foster declares (in his book, Streams of Living Water) that Hannah is the originator of Contemplative Prayer.
Well, is she now?
To get some background on this story, we turn to I Samuel, chapter 1, where we learn of Hannah’s prayer pleadings to the Lord for a son. During the prayer, Eli could see her lips moving but didn’t hear a voice.
Aha! No voice! Now Richard finds his verse! And what do you know? According to Mr. Foster, this woman is birthing a prayer tradition before she births a prophet!
Oh, really! Does this claim by Mr. Foster make any sense?
Check the record again. Hannah wasn’t contemplating; she was advocating; and she wasn’t passive, as contemplative prayer encourages, she was praying with much intensity. As Hannah moved her lips during these fervent prayer pleadings, she was making her case for God to give her a son.
So can it really be said, based on this report, that only one word was being repeated, mentally? The text never said that! It is Richard Foster who makes this claim based on—nothing! It is an unsubstantiated claim.
The more likely interpretation is that Hannah was moving her mouth as if speaking, with cognitive thoughts processing through her mind. Many others have done the same thing; there’s nothing phenomenal about this aspect of her praying. Yes, the passionate prayer of Hannah was voiceless, but not wordless, or limited to one word, as Richard Foster would have us believe.
The evidence is mounting up to say that both Foster and Willard would both flunk a course in biblical exegesis. But do you think each man thought he was exegeting Scripture? No, they knew they weren’t. They knew it!
Track Dallas Willard’s thinking and, likewise, you’ll see ludicrous nonsense leading to horrendous heresy. In the article, “Spiritual Disciplines, Spiritual Formation and the Restoration of the Soul,” Willard argued:
Indeed, solitude and silence are powerful means to grace. Bible study, prayer and church attendance, among the most commonly prescribed activities in Christian circles, generally have little effect for soul transformation, as is obvious to any observer.8
What kind of leader offers a summary dismissal like this?
Bible study? Doesn’t help.
Prayer? Doesn’t help!
Attending church? Doesn’t help!
A calling card for the heretic couldn’t be clearer!
And would you just listen to Willard’s friend? Richard Foster fires out bibliolatry warnings in his book, Life with God.9
Issues of conscience and Christian practice are deemed “none of our business,” if other groups have other ideas.10 We are only to listen and learn from many traditions and not correct and impose.11 We are admonished to free ourselves from trying to understand Scripture, but instead soak in God’s presence and let the Spirit tell us what it means.12
Heard enough? If you have a pastor that has brought this stuff into the church, that pastor has failed you. This is not difficult to prove.
Given how pervasive the spiritual formation of Foster and Willard is in the church, more reflections on their serious errors are merited and will be cited in the next post.
Notes:
1. Francis Schaeffer, The God Who is There, (Downers Grove, IL., InterVarsity Press, 1968), p. 61.
2. Richard Foster, Life with God, (Harper One, San Francisco, 2010), p.6.
3. Ibid., p.62.
4. Brennan Manning, The Signature of Jesus, (Sisters, OR., Multnomah, 1996), p.212.
5. Dallas Willard, “Spiritual Disciplines, Spiritual Formation and the Restoration of the Soul.” Journal of Psychology and Theology, Spring 1998, Vol. 26, #1, pp. 101-109.
6. Jessie Penn-Lewis, The Cross—The Touchstone of Faith, (Fort Washington, PA., CLC, 1995), p.75.
7. G.H. Lang, Divine Guidance, (Miami Springs, FL., Conley and Schoettle Publishing Co., Inc., 1985), p.25.
8. Dallas Willard, “Spiritual Disciplines, Spiritual Formation and the Restoration of the Soul.”
9. Richard Foster, Life with God, p.25.
10. Ibid., p.128.
11. Ibid., p.128.
12. Ibid., p.174.
