Specifically, as I've highlighted here and there in these posts, in Protestant visions of salvation human nature is impotent and powerless. This vision of incapacity sets up monergistic visions of election and predestination. Since humans can do nothing, God has to do everything.
This vision of incapacity, however, can get pushed to distorting extremes. For example, the view we call "total depravity." Sometimes called "worm theology."
From a spiritual formation perspective, such a pessimistic anthropology can interfere with spiritual formation in two ways.
First, an extremely pessimistic anthropology keeps us stuck on justification. We continuously point out human depravity and wickedness to re-proclaim the message of grace. Of course, the message of grace is necessary, but hammering away at total depravity doesn't effectively set up or support a conversation about spiritual formation. Conversations about discipleship get stuck on pointing out our sinfulness and need for grace. Spiritual formation reduces to "perpetual evangelism" across the life span. To be clear, revisiting grace is vital, and I'll have more to say about this in a coming post, but a pessimistic anthropology keeps churches perpetually stuck in revivalistic, altar call presentations of the gospel which struggle to pivot to sanctification, formation, and discipleship.
As second way a pessimistic anthropology interferes with spiritual formation concerns progressive reactions. As I have often pointed out, there are a lot of Oedipal dynamics at work among ex-evangelicals. Ex-evangelical theology tends to be a reaction against an evangelical upbringing. This reactivity has a distorting effect. Which should be obvious. If evangelicalism is distorted and impoverished, the reaction against these distortions and impoverishments create their own distortions and impoverishments. The pendulum, as we say, swings too far to the other side. Evangelical action. Ex-evangelical reaction. The broken parent of evangelicalism creates broken ex-evangelical children.
Here's how this Oedipal dynamic plays out with theological anthropology. Reacting against the total depravity view of human nature they grew up with, ex-evangelicals swing, reactively, to proclaim the goodness of human nature. Original sin is countered with original blessing. And there is much good and vital work here. People crippled by shame and guilt due to a very toxic and harmful upbringing need to have the love and affection of God rehabilitated in their lives. People do need to be told they are worthy and that God loves them.
And yet, there is a distortion at work here if we are not careful. The pendulum can swing too far to this side as well. For example, in ex-evangelical spaces the sermon "You are good!" and "You are loved!" can impoverish our conversations about sin and salvation. Does sin even exist? Does anyone need saving? Is shame and guilt always a bad thing? The ex-evangelical gospel often reduces to psychological uplift, a spiritual-but-not religious therapeutic "You are worthy" affirmation.
Let me say it this way. When discussions about spiritual formation get trapped between evangelicals and ex-evangelicals the pendulum swings between condemnation and affirmation, from "You are bad" to "You are good," over and over again. As should be obvious, this is a very thin conversation. Affirmation is important, vital even, but saying to people, over and over, "You are good!" doesn't form anyone.
Affirmation isn't discipleship. And neither is condemnation. And yet, so many churches are caught up in this action/reaction dynamic thinking they are pushing the spiritual formation ball forward when all they are doing is standing still.
