Jon, I sometimes wonder if the 'formation' industry should drop the word 'formation'. I wonder if it's become too cliche, too impersonal, too mechanical. Becoming more like Jesus or similar is more relational, more explicit in some ways ... it's clear that getting to know Jesus is important to becoming more like him, 'dwelling in Christ' as the title of your book states.
I wonder if we should start a movement to stop using 'formation' ... in my mind, 'formation' has lost it's power it merely being a buzzword for a movement that perhaps now needs to move to being more personal just like Jesus is. Yes, I know it's in our nature to 'define' something but one of the wonders of Jesus is he kinda didn't, he loved and loved some more while being with Father and people, allowing Holy Spirit to work through him as he did so.
One reason I continue to value the word formation is that it reminds me I’m in process. I’m something that is formable—designed by God to be shaped and transformed over time. In that sense, formation is a metaphor, and I think we need multiple metaphors when we’re talking about the telos of human life: being created in God’s image and gradually growing into his likeness.
The relational component is absolutely essential. In fact, one of the reasons I chose Dwelling in Christ as a title is because I wanted to emphasize that transformation happens through relationship, not technique.
That said, I wouldn’t want to abandon the language of formation altogether. I might actually want to use friendship more alongside it. Trevor Hudson has championed that metaphor for years, and I think there’s real wisdom there.
My concern is that if we only emphasize the relational dimension, a few decades from now we may end up with language that feels sentimental in the same way formation can sometimes feel mechanical. A healthy spiritual vocabulary probably needs several metaphors working together, each correcting the excesses of the others.
So I take your point. You’re right that formation can sometimes sound impersonal—as though we’re merely clay being shaped into a pot. But at its best, formation is not opposed to relationship. It’s simply one way of describing what happens as we learn to live in friendship with Christ.
Jon, I sometimes wonder if the 'formation' industry should drop the word 'formation'. I wonder if it's become too cliche, too impersonal, too mechanical. Becoming more like Jesus or similar is more relational, more explicit in some ways ... it's clear that getting to know Jesus is important to becoming more like him, 'dwelling in Christ' as the title of your book states.
I wonder if we should start a movement to stop using 'formation' ... in my mind, 'formation' has lost it's power it merely being a buzzword for a movement that perhaps now needs to move to being more personal just like Jesus is. Yes, I know it's in our nature to 'define' something but one of the wonders of Jesus is he kinda didn't, he loved and loved some more while being with Father and people, allowing Holy Spirit to work through him as he did so.
Ian,
I resonate with much of what you’re saying.
One reason I continue to value the word formation is that it reminds me I’m in process. I’m something that is formable—designed by God to be shaped and transformed over time. In that sense, formation is a metaphor, and I think we need multiple metaphors when we’re talking about the telos of human life: being created in God’s image and gradually growing into his likeness.
The relational component is absolutely essential. In fact, one of the reasons I chose Dwelling in Christ as a title is because I wanted to emphasize that transformation happens through relationship, not technique.
That said, I wouldn’t want to abandon the language of formation altogether. I might actually want to use friendship more alongside it. Trevor Hudson has championed that metaphor for years, and I think there’s real wisdom there.
My concern is that if we only emphasize the relational dimension, a few decades from now we may end up with language that feels sentimental in the same way formation can sometimes feel mechanical. A healthy spiritual vocabulary probably needs several metaphors working together, each correcting the excesses of the others.
So I take your point. You’re right that formation can sometimes sound impersonal—as though we’re merely clay being shaped into a pot. But at its best, formation is not opposed to relationship. It’s simply one way of describing what happens as we learn to live in friendship with Christ.
Thx, Jon. Love that you've brought the 2 'dimensions', together and your thought process here. I understand that notion of sentimentality.
Go well.