In this post I want to return to a point I made at the very start, about transplanting Catholic spiritual formation practices in Protestant soteriological soil.
In that first post I mainly focused upon cultural frictions we face when we attempt to get low-church, evangelical Protestants to adopt or experiment with practices from the Catholic tradition. As I pointed out, some practices can be rejected as being "too Catholic." There's nothing wrong with these practices, theologically or doctrinally, but there's a clash of cultures.
But as I went on to point out, there are deeper concerns here, and this series has been slowing unpacking those. The spiritual formation practices we adopt from Catholicism, from contemplative prayer to celebrating Lent, were grown in very different soteriological soil. So the transplanting of practices doesn't just create cultural frictions, there are deeper theological issues that concern the soil itself.
Specifically, in light of the observations we've made in this series, Protestants have tipped toward justification in contrast to Catholicism's emphasis upon sanctification. This was, in fact, one of the major issues that drove Martin Luther's break with Catholicism, his concerns that Catholic soteriology leaned too heavily upon human effort in striving for holiness and perfection.
Relatedly, Catholics have a more optimistic view of human nature when compared to the Protestant Reformation's "total depravity" and "bondage of the will." Catholics hold to synergism (God and human agency acting together) where the Reformers proclaimed monergism (God acting alone).
Here's my point in drawing out these contrasts.
As we've noted, a lot of the spiritual formation practices found in Protestant spaces come from the Catholic tradition. For example, best-selling author and pastor John Mark Comer's new book on spiritual formation and discipleship strongly recommends a "rule of life." Once again, a Catholic practice is being transplanted in low-church Protestant soil. Consequently, some low-church Protestant readers of Comer's book might find his call for a "rule of life" culturally strange and odd. And like I said, that's normal and to be expected. But my deeper concern in this series is theological. Specifically, can a rule of life thrive in Protestant soteriological soil?
The rule of life was grown in soil that emphasized both sanctification and a synergistic view of human agency. There's a fit here between the practice (a rule of life) and the soteriology (human participation toward holiness). So it raises a question, can a rule of life take root and thrive in theological soil that emphasizes justification and monergism? Instead of a fit between practice and theology, I detect here a disjoint.
Now, is a practice/soteriology disjoint damning? Are Protestants unable to practice a rule of life? Of course not. Low-church Protestants can do all sorts of things Catholics have done for centuries, from practicing contemplative prayer to celebrating Lent to adopting a rule of life. And yet, I wonder if such practices are going to struggle to grow widely and deep because the soteriology espoused in low-church Protestant spaces implicitly undermines these practices. Again, might the soteriological soil be unable to support the transplant we are attempting?
You might ask, "How so?" I'll turn to that question in the next post.
