33
one another. And while I would wish that both Demarest and Willard would devote more
attention to the mutual ministry of all believers to one another as a crucial means of grace that
God uses in the process of spiritual transformation (thus seeing the social dimension of spiritual
formation not only as a necessary outcome but also a necessary means), they do make
considerable advances, in my opinion, from what has gone before.
The point of all this is that even within the Reformed tradition they most closely
approximate, the views of evangelical spiritual formation expressed by Dallas Willard and Bruce
Demarest do represent, in many ways, significant advances over traditional discussions of
sanctification. Those who preach, and teach the doctrine of sanctification, in Reformed as well
as in Wesleyan and Keswick models, will do well to pay close attention to and to profit from the
views of Demarest and Willard (and others like them).
Yet at the same time, the mutually nourishing and mutually beneficial relationship
between the spirituality of spiritual formation and the theology expressed in these models of
sanctification goes the other way as well. Writers and practitioners in the ministry of spiritual
formation have much to learn from theologians of sanctification. They need to be challenged to
consider some of the issues that the various models of sanctification do grapple with. While
proponents of the various models do not agree among themselves as to the most biblical answers
to these questions, these issues are indeed significant ones that need to be grappled with. A short
list of these issues include:
(1) Union with Christ. While many of the models of sanctification join with both
Willard and Demarest in highlighting the role of the Holy Spirit in the process of spiritual
transformation (and rightly so in light of texts like Rom 8:13; Gal 5:16-25; 2 Thess 2:13; 1 Pet