This article offers a critique of the contemporary Contemplative Tradition’s view of spiritual transformation from the lens of the universally accepted letters of Paul. The article argues that contemporary contemplatives, especially Dallas Willard and Richard Foster, differ from Paul in three principle areas. Firstly, whereas Paul’s concept of transformation is based largely on objective realities, representatives of the Contemplative Tradition tend to focus on subjective realities. Secondly, contemporary contemplatives view transformation as coming as one imitates the life of Christ, his daily disciplines and activities, whereas Paul’s view centres on the death of Christ as foundational to the Christian’s identity and thus vital to the way they live out their faith. Finally, the cornerstone of the contemporary Contemplative Tradition’s view of spiritual transformation is the belief that the essential means by which transformation takes place is engagement in the spiritual disciplines. It is argued that many of the activities that are denominated as ‘spiritual disciplines’ are not in fact ‘transformative’ activities, and thus do not fit the category of spiritual disciplines. Furthermore, this study insists that Paul seldom links the practice of the disciplines with the means of transformation, offering instead five examples of specific means of transformation that flow out of Paul’s accepted letters.
Was Paul among the contemplatives? According to contemporary contemplatives such as Richard Foster and Dallas Willard the answer is a resounding, ‘yes’! Foster (
it is clear that ascetic practices were seriously engaged in by Jesus as well as by St. Paul. Both were upon occasion intensely involved, for long periods of time, with solitude, fasting, prayer, poverty and sacrificial service, and not because those conditions were unavoidable. It would seem, then, that those who would follow Christ, and follow Paul as he followed Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1), must find in those practices an important part of what they should undertake as His disciples. (Willard
The Contemplative Tradition flourished in the desert fathers of the fourth century and was maintained in the practices of the Catholic mystics during the Middle Ages. This same Contemplative Tradition which experienced a revival in the twentieth century through the writings of contemporary Catholic mystics has now overflowed these borders and become very influential in the Evangelical Church.
But does this claim have adequate biblical support? Our goal in this article is to analyse such claim. More specifically we hope to contrast several aspects of Paul’s concept of transformation with that espoused by the modern Contemplative Tradition, especially evangelicals, Foster and Willard.
Although there is no doubt that Paul and the contemporary contemplatives share certain theological convictions regarding the process of transformation in the life of Christian disciples,
Whereas Paul’s view of transformation is undergirded by certain objective realities that are true for all Christ-followers,
So our union with God – his presence with us, in which our aloneness is banished and the meaning and full purpose of human existence is realised – consists chiefly in a conversational relationship with God while we are each consistently and deeply engaged as his friend and colaborer in the affairs of the kingdom of the heavens. (Willard
Thus for Willard, union with Christ is almost exclusively subjective. It refers to our personal relationship with the indwelling Christ who is the remedy to our loneliness. Later he writes:
But in the progress of God’s redemptive work communication advances into
Evidently for Willard, union with Christ is part of a process towards which one must strive, but not all achieve. As our personal relationship matures it can reach a level of intimacy that is akin to the marriage relationship, a true union. Those who do not achieve this communion which eventually grows into union cannot truly say the words of Galatians 2:20. But is Paul asserting that co-crucifixion with Christ and the indwelling of Christ in the Christ-follower are merely subjective experiences and thus the privilege of only those who somehow reach communion and then union? Willard seems to be espousing this. The problem is his truncated view of union with Christ as something mostly subjective and as the ‘end’ of a process of deepening communion, without the undergirding indicative which is so vital to Pauline theology and which is objective in nature.
In
We were baptised
Although we agree with Willard that Paul is teaching that our baptism into Christ results in death to sin and the powers behind sin, we question Willard’s conclusion that Paul is emphasising our subjective experience. Is our union something that we now experience through our communion with him, as Willard asserts, and thus, by implication, when we lack vital communion with him fails to be true, or is it something that is true regardless of the state of our communion? This is not to deny a subjective side to our union with Christ, but rather to observe how Willard seems to neglect the objective side, which for Paul is fundamental to our identity in Christ and thus crucial to our capacity to overcome sin’s practical reign in our lives. Paul’s point is that we have in fact been baptised into Christ and this objective historical reality has practical implications – we are dead to sin and thus sin has absolutely no right to rule over us (Rm. 6:2–11). This is the case whether or not we subjectively feel that it is true or whether we are presently enjoying sweet communion with Christ. My union does not change, although my enjoyment and appropriation of the benefits of this union may be affected.
Willard does not seem to grasp this side of the believer’s union with Christ commenting:
It is less a status than it is a modulated flow of life in which transformative experiences of God come and go, along with a constant undertone of divine presence interwoven with the events of a normal human existence. (Willard
Once again, he sees union with Christ as largely subjective and thus misses the objective side.
The Pauline concept of union with Christ differs significantly from Willard’s stated view. For Paul the most notable feature of his concept of transformation is its rootedness in the redemptive work of Christ and the believer’s union with Christ-crucified, buried and resurrected.
This crucial truth so evident in Paul’s theology of transformation is not central in the teachings of contemporary contemplatives. Paul bases his view of transformation on objective realities; the contemplatives tend to base theirs on subjective experiences.
A second point of separation between Paul and the Contemplative Tradition is that the Contemplative Tradition focuses on the life of Christ – imitation of the way he lived and specifically the practices he engaged in – whereas Paul centres his view of transformation around the death of Christ and its impact on our identity and thus ultimately, the way we should live in light of this death (Romans 6:6). It is not that the Contemplative Tradition says nothing about the death of Christ, nor that Paul says nothing about the life of Christ. The point rather is one of emphasis. Notice, for example, Foster’s comment:
As Jesus walked this earth, living and working among all kinds and classes of people, he gave us the divine paradigm for conjugating all the verbs of our living. Too often in our concern to make doctrinal points we rush to expound upon Jesus’ death, and in so doing we neglect Jesus’ life. This is a great loss. Attention to Jesus in his living gives us important clues for our living … We are, to be sure, reconciled to God by Jesus’ death, but even more, we are ‘saved’ by his life (Rom 5:10) –
Foster appears to be saying that, although the death of Christ brings reconciliation, the life of Christ brings even more: it brings salvation. But Foster misunderstands Paul. What Paul wrote to the Roman Christians was ‘For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more,
Interpretation of Romans 5:9–10.
Paul’s point is that justification (A1) and reconciliation (A2) come through Christ’s death (B1 and B2). If we have in fact experienced this justifying, reconciling work through the death of Christ, then there is assurance that we will likewise be saved by his life (C2). But to what does this salvation refer? Foster claims that it is our future and present experience of eternal life. But when verses 9 and 10 are viewed together it is evident that Paul is referring to salvation from the wrath of God not to a
Willard also sees the earthly life of Christ as the key to a person’s transformation:
My central claim is that we
Thus the key to Christlikeness is imitation of the life of Christ and specifically the habits he engaged in. Foster (
I am writing about what it
Thus for Willard and Foster the key to a transformed life is to live like Jesus. And to live like Jesus requires that one practice the same spiritual disciplines that Jesus practiced. In other words, imitation of the lifestyle and daily practices of Jesus is what makes a person ‘new’. Thus we read:
so, basically, to put off the old person and put on the new we only follow Jesus into the activities that he engaged in to nurture his own life in relation to the Father … his use of solitude, silence, study of scripture, prayer, and service to others all had a disciplinary aspect in his life. And we can be very sure that what he found useful for conduct of his life in the Father will also be useful for us. (Willard
But does this square with what Paul taught regarding the key to a transformed life? There is no doubt that Paul often spoke of imitating Christ (1 Cor. 11:1; Phlp. 2:5:5–11; 1 Th. 1:5–7; cf. Rm. 15:1–3) or Paul himself (1 Cor. 4:16; 11:1; Gl. 4:12; Phlp. 3:17; 2 Th. 3:7–9) or one of the churches (1 Th. 2:14). However, generally these are calls to follow specific attitudes or virtues.
So then, if Paul’s emphasis regarding personal transformation does not rest on an imitation of the earthly life of Christ, on what does it depend? The death of Christ! Paul illustrates this most powerfully in Romans 6:6. In Romans 6:2–4 Paul asserts that the believer has died with Christ. Then in verse 5 Paul concludes that this death with Christ guarantees a resurrection with him. What is the basis of this confidence? Romans 6:6 answers, ‘because we know this, our “old man” has died’! Paul grounds the Christian’s confidence in her co-crucifixion with Christ. The ‘old man’, which refers to the pre-conversion status of the person, what she was ‘in Adam’, is gone because of her union with Christ in his death. But then Paul shares the assured result of having died with Christ, ‘the body of sin was destroyed’. That is, that aspect of our person that lived enslaved to sin has been decisively neutralised and sin’s rightful reign over the disciple’s life has ended. She no longer must live as an unwilling pawn to sin’s inclinations. She is free! This implies a radical transformation resulting in new life – victory over sin and freedom to live God’s will – all of which is firmly based upon the death of Christ. This is not mere doctrinal truth; it is practical Christian living. The Christian
This same emphasis on the death of Christ rather than his earthly life as the basis for transformation is implied in several passages in Galatians. Paul begins his letter by declaring that Christ’s death ‘delivered us from the present evil age’ (Gl. 1:4). Later Paul ends the same letter by affirming that it is through ‘the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ’ that ‘the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world’ (Gl. 6:14). In these two statements Paul avows that something dramatic has occurred that has resulted in a wholesale transformation in his existence. Paul’s whole ‘location’ has changed. He no longer lives in the sphere of darkness ruled by the forces of darkness. He no longer is a helpless slave to the warped system that opposes God. The death of Christ has ‘relocated’ Paul. He has been transferred from Satan’s realm, from Adam’s world, to the kingdom of Christ, to the realm of the Holy Spirit. Although Paul does not specify in these verses the practical consequences of this resettlement project, they are nonetheless implied. This ‘evil age’ no longer enslaves those who have died with Christ. The ‘world’ no longer enthrals and controls those united to Christ in his death. Freedom is the operative word. The co-crucified ones are free to live in obedience to their new governing authority, the Crucified and Risen Christ.
In Galatians 2:19–20 Paul affirms that his present earthly life, his life in the flesh, is radically different now. It is a life lived ‘by faith’ whereas before his life was under the law. He has ‘died to the law’ so that he may now ‘live to God’. Once again his life has a radically new orientation. To what does he owe this whole new direction in his life? He has died together with Christ! This miraculous act has resulted in a radical change in his life so that now he is free to live a ‘by faith’ life with Christ living in and through him. This new faith-controlled life will result in new fruit, a truly transformed existence. The change is a result of the death of Christ.
This focus on Christ’s death as the primary factor in the initial and ongoing transformation of the Christian’s life is central to Paul’s theology. Although the adherents of the Contemplative Tradition would probably give a hearty ‘Amen’ to this emphasis it is not always reflected by their writings. More often than not their emphasis rests on imitating the life of Christ rather than focusing on the death of Christ. This is an unfortunate weakness in their theology of transformation. Such a misplaced emphasis treads dangerously close to transformation by personal effort, a claim that the very same advocates of the Contemplative Tradition would soundly deny. And yet, when so little attention is given to the death of Christ as foundational for all true transformation and so much attention is dedicated to
With this third point we come to the heart of the difference between Paul and the contemporary Contemplative Tradition as it relates to the concept of transformation. What are the means by which transformation is produced in a person? The Contemplative Tradition confidently asserts that it is the practice of the spiritual disciplines. This is unequivocally avowed, for example, by Foster (
The obvious conviction of the Contemplative Tradition is that the primary means of transformation is the regular practice of the spiritual disciplines. Yet Paul’s letters seldom if ever describe the practice of spiritual disciplines as the means by which transformation occurs. Why is this so? Contemporary contemplatives allege that for Paul and the culture in which he lived the practice of the spiritual disciplines was so readily understood and so commonly practiced ‘that he would feel no need to write a book on the disciplines for the spiritual life that explained systematically what he had in mind’ (Willard
The Bible called people to such Disciplines as fasting, prayer, worship and celebration but gave almost no instruction about how to do them. The reason for this is easy to see. Those Disciplines were so frequently practiced and such a part of the general culture that the ‘how to’ was common knowledge. (Foster
Even more pointed:
Zeal without knowledge or without appropriate practice is never enough. Plus, one must train
Thus, contemporary contemplatives seem convinced of two truths: the primary means of transformation is the practice of the spiritual disciplines and so prevalent was their practice in Paul’s context that he did not need to mention it in his letters.
But was this truly the case or have modern adherents of the Contemplative Tradition read into Paul the practices and beliefs of contemplatives from the fourth century on? There is little question that Paul was a man of prayer and of the study of Scripture, yet he does not often link the practice of these and other spiritual disciplines to the process of transformation. Thus in spite of such strong protestations from modern contemplatives, clear concrete evidence that Paul was a ‘contemplative’ is difficult to find. Though some confidently assert, for example, ‘This behavior is a
Now, before considering Paul’s perspective on the means by which transformation takes place, it is necessary to define ‘spiritual disciplines’ according to the Contemplative Tradition. Foster (
A discipline for the spiritual life is … nothing but an activity undertaken to bring us into more effective cooperation with Christ and his Kingdom. When we understand that grace (charis) is gift (charisma), we then see that to grow in grace is to grow in what is given to us of God and by God. The disciplines are then, in the clearest sense, a means to that grace and also to those gifts. Spiritual disciplines, ‘exercises unto godliness’, are only activities undertaken to make us capable of receiving more of his life and power without harm to ourselves or others. (Willard
And what is the role of these spiritual disciplines? Willard comments, ‘these disciplines make room for the Word and the Spirit to work in us’ (Willard
When we engage in the Spiritual Disciplines, we are seeking the righteousness of the kingdom of God through ‘indirection’. You see, we cannot by direct effort make ourselves into the kind of people who can live fully alive to God. Only God can accomplish this in us. Only God can incline our heart toward him. Only God can reprogram the deeply ingrained habit patterns of sin that constantly predispose us toward evil and transform them into even more deeply ingrained habit patterns of ‘righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit’ … we … train with Spiritual Disciplines … This indirect action will place us – body, mind, and spirit – before God as a living sacrifice. God then takes this little offering of ourselves and in a divine time and in a divine way produces in us things far greater than we could ever ask or think. (pp. 15–16)
So then, the practice of the spiritual disciplines places us in God’s way where he can bring about significant changes in our lives. One of the changes these disciplines produce is to enable us to respond and live like Jesus did in the moment of crisis. Foster (
Now if spiritual disciplines are the primary way by which deeply ingrained sin patterns are broken and people are reshaped into the image of Christ, then which activities should be included as spiritual disciplines? Unfortunately it is here that we encounter a serious question, can this transforming power rightfully be claimed for all of the practices that contemplatives allege are spiritual disciplines? Scepticism abounds. This scepticism is aptly applied, for example, to Foster when he asserts:
Whatever leads to the genuine formation of our spirit in Christlikeness can become for us a ‘spiritual’ discipline: walking in the woods; singing and making music; creating a work of art; laughing with friends in the goodness of companionship; caring for animals; or … performing simple tasks associated with meeting food and shelter needs for self and others. (Foster
It appears that almost any activity whatsoever is a so-called ‘spiritual discipline’, even ‘play’ (Foster
This is not to say that Paul rejected the practice of specific ‘spiritual disciplines’, nor that he denied that certain activities could be used to produce change in the Christian. Paul’s letters demonstrate with great clarity that Paul was a man of prayer and a man of the Scriptures.
So then, if Paul did not espouse the practice of the spiritual disciplines as the primary means of transformation, what was Paul’s view? Here are a few examples of different ‘means’ that Paul develops in his letters.
In Galatians 3:1–6 Paul’s interest is to clarify how one reaches the goal of the Christian pilgrimage (ἐπιτελεῖσθε). The Galatians have been influenced to believe that they could reach maturity in Christ by means of the ‘flesh’ (νῦν σαρκὶ ἐπιτελεῖσθε). The apostle corrects this erroneous idea and points the Galatians towards the only adequate means of transformation, namely ‘by the Spirit’, the very same way that they were brought into a relationship with Christ. In other words, the means by which ongoing transformation towards the goal of Christlikeness occurs is the same as the means by which one begins the Christian life (ἐναρξάμενοι). It is from beginning to end a work of the Spirit of God. But Paul is even more concrete in his description of the proper means for spiritual transformation. Notice the parallels and contrasts that Paul draws (
Comparison of Galatians 3:2 with Galatians 3:5.
Paul uses two rhetorical questions each of which expects the same answer –
Comparison of Galatians 3:3 with Galatians 3:2 and Galatians 3:5.
It is evident that Paul equates πνεύματι (a work of the Spirit) and ἀκοῆς πίστεως (a believing response to the gospel). At the same time, Paul equates ἔργων νόμου (obedience to the requirements of the law) and σαρκὶ (human effort). In other words, seeking to receive the Spirit or to experience an ongoing work of the Spirit through ‘law-works’ is the same as attempting to reach the goal of the Christian life ‘by the flesh’. In the same way, receiving the Spirit and experiencing His ongoing work through ‘the hearing of faith’ is the same as beginning and continuing ‘by the Spirit’.
Paul’s point is simply that progress towards the goal of the Christian life – conformity to the image of Christ – is never attained through human effort (σάρξ or ἔργων νόμου), no matter how diligent. Progress towards the goal of Christian maturity is a work of the Spirit of God. And Paul equates this ‘Spirit-work’ with ‘the hearing of faith’. In other words, to be brought to completion (ἐπιτελεῖσθε) by the Spirit goes hand in hand with responding with faith to the Christian message. Or to relate this to the work of transformation, true change comes through faith.
To the degree that a person’s mind is mired in the thought patterns of ‘this age’ their life will reflect the ‘will of this age’ and thus confusion regarding the will of God. Thus Paul in Romans 12:2 urges the Roman Christians to avoid all conformity to the present evil age and instead to be profoundly changed. This change will come, according to Paul, as the Christian’s mindset is reformatted. Their whole structure of thought must be made new, and they must begin to ‘rethink’ life from a totally new perspective. No longer can they adopt and reflect the attitudes and perspectives of the depraved world system that serves as their daily environment. Instead they must embrace the mindset of the ‘age to come’. This is not a mere superficial change of opinions or a simple exchange of old ideas for new ones. Mind renewal means a deep internalising of the convictions, priorities, and attitudes of the new age to replace those of the present age. As this ‘rethinking’ process works itself out in the believer’s life, they are progressively transformed.
In 2 Corinthians 3:18 Paul compares Christians with Moses who enjoyed unfettered access to God. Whenever he returned to God’s presence he went ‘unveiled’ and was thus able to see God’s glory which had a transforming effect on him, causing his face to shine with this very same divine glory that he beheld. In the same way, says Paul, all Christians are now ‘unveiled-ones’ who have been granted the incredible privilege of open communion with the God of glory. This communion, however, is ‘as in a mirror’. That is, it is now indirect, coming through fellowship with Christ in the gospel. That is, when the gospel is proclaimed, when it is read or heard, or meditated upon, the Christian can see clear manifestations of the living Christ in it. Yet, even this indirect glimpse of the glory of God has a transforming impact on those who enjoy it. As the Christian enjoys personal communion with Christ in the gospel she is gradually changed by this encounter into the same image of the one whom she beholds. In other words, she is progressively becoming more like Christ by beholding his image through an internalisation of the gospel. This change is not something magical that simply comes as a result of reading or hearing. The transformation is wrought as the gospel is understood, applied and lived out in all of life.
In Philippians 3:10 Paul reveals that his deepest longing was to know Christ in a profound and personal way. This kind of deep intimate knowledge of Christ meant for Paul experiencing both the power of Christ’s resurrection – the comprehensive power of God displayed through Christ’s victory over death – and a participation in Christ’s sufferings – the sufferings he endured as a result of his earthly life and ministry. And as one actively participates in the sufferings of Christ, Christ is at work reshaping the person until they take on the form of Christ crucified.
But what does it mean to participate in Christ’s sufferings? It simply refers to the hardships and privations that come with engagement in the gospel mission or sincere identification with Christ and his cause. This is most clearly illustrated by the example of Christ displayed in Philippians 2:5–11. Christ’s decision to not use or abuse his privileged status for his own gain (Phlp. 2:6), his total self-emptying by which he took on the form of a servant (Phlp. 2:7), his extreme self-humiliation through which he demonstrated whole-souled obedience (Phlp. 2:8), and his ultimate self-sacrifice, whereby he gave himself up to be publicly crucified for sinners (Phlp. 2:8), all of these are graphic examples of Christ’s suffering. Everything Christ experienced in fulfilment of his mission constitutes ‘his sufferings’. Paul too participated in these sufferings as he selflessly engaged in gospel mission and was continually hounded and mistreated. His decisions to consider loss all that he had gained, to forsake his own righteousness and to consider everything as rubbish in exchange for Christ was evidence that Paul was sharing in Christ’s sufferings and thereby was being conformed by the divine hand into a cruciform image, the very ‘form’ that Christ had in his death.
In the same way, as Christians selflessly serve others even at great personal expense, as they make decisions to pursue the knowledge of Christ at all costs, as they humble themselves to live in joyful obedience even when this means death or personal humiliation, and as they engage in gospel mission and endure privations and persecution, God is at work slowly ‘re-forming’ them into the image of the Crucified One.
One of the chief obstacles to the transformation process is the continual pull of the forces of ‘this age’ which persist in exercising a shaping influence in the lives of Christians. Though the Christian has been rescued from ‘this age’ and has been crucified to the world yet these enemy forces display incredible resilience in their ongoing efforts to mould Christians to their image. Thus Paul was forced to exhort the Romans ‘do not be sculpted by this age’ (Rm. 12:2). Earlier he charged the Corinthians to cleanse themselves from everything that pollutes (2 Cor. 7:1) including inappropriate relationships with unbelievers (2 Cor. 6:14) and through this they would ‘perfect holiness in the fear of God’. The threat of being sucked into the filthy vortex of this age or being contaminated by the muck of the ungodly world is ever present. Therefore, the Christian, in order to promote the transformation process must break all allegiance to this present evil age. This primarily means living in consistent obedience to the commands of Scripture. Thus Paul encourages the Roman Christians ‘do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts’. They must stave off the world’s influence through continual decisions to reject sin’s advance, abstaining from deceitful desires, rejecting ‘this-worldly’ thought patterns and by avoiding compromising relationships. They also must dedicate themselves to God (Rm. 12:1). All of this is crucial to chipping away at the obstacles to transformation, severing all ties to this age, and fostering change away from a ‘this-world-conformity’ towards Christoformity, the very goal of the Christian pilgrimage.
So was Paul among the contemplatives? If by this we mean, did Paul believe that the spiritual disciplines were the primary and ultimately essential means by which God transforms people into the image of Christ, then our answer would be a firm, no. Paul practiced certain ‘spiritual disciplines’ but he does not explicitly include them as essential ingredients for transformation. For Paul, the essence of transformation was the Christian living consistently each day with his new identity in Christ – a new creation citizen united with Christ in his redeeming works.
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships which may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
This article represents a reworked version of aspects from the PhD dissertation of J.P., titled ‘Paul and spiritual transformation: Evaluating the contemporary Contemplative Tradition in light of Paul’s μορφή texts’, in the Department of New Testament Studies, University of Pretoria, with E.v.E. as supervisor.
In the literature on Christian ‘spirituality’ diverse titles are used to describe the Contemplative Tradition. Bruce Demarest (
Demarest (
For example, both the modern contemplatives and Paul recognise that the goal of all spiritual transformation is to be conformed to the image of Christ and that genuine transformation is always a work of God’s grace so that humankind’s efforts alone will never be capable of producing real change.
See for example Romans 6:1–14 and Galatians 2:20. Compare the comment by Moo (
Campbell (
It is essential to grasp, as a part of the Christ-believer’s union with Christ, the profound importance of the believer’s co-crucifixion and co-resurrection with Christ. Thus Paul can exclaim, ‘I have been crucified with Christ’ (Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι, Gl. 2:19) and ‘our old man was crucified with him’ (Rm. 6:6). Also, Paul asserts that ‘we have been buried with him’ (συνετάφημεν αὐτῷ Rm 6:4). And if we have died and been buried with him Paul is confident that we will also share with him in his resurrection (Rm. 6:5, 8). Paul is making a radical claim in these texts: Christ-followers participate in Christ’s redeeming works through their union with him. They die together with him, are buried together with him, and rise together with him. His death becomes their death just as his resurrection becomes their resurrection. These are not pipe dreams or pious platitudes; these are deep objective realities that the believer experiences by faith and must reckon to be true in daily practice (Rm. 6:11). The person who is ‘in Christ’ shares in Christ’s redemptive works, having been crucified and resurrected together with Christ. Again, these are objective realities and not mere subjective experiences. There are subjective, ‘this-worldly’ results, for sure, but even during a ‘bad day’ these truths hold up and remain objectively true for the one who by faith is ‘in Christ’.
For example, in 1 Corinthians 11:1 Paul calls the Corinthians to imitate his commitment to seek the benefit of others and not his own benefit so that people might be saved. This is the same attitude Paul witnessed in Christ. Also, in Philippians 2:5:5–11 the call is to imitate the mindset that Christ displayed in his self-sacrificing incarnation and death. Rather than seeking to exalt self, Paul calls the congregation to follow Christ’s example of selfless humility whereby he emptied himself of the enormous privileges he enjoyed and chose costly obedience instead. In Romans 15:1–3 although Paul does not use the language of mimesis the idea is clearly present. If love and unity are to predominate in the congregation then the prevailing attitude must be the one Christ himself portrayed, an attitude whereby no one seeks self-pleasure but rather the good of the other.
It is interesting to note that though Jesus invited people to follow him and obey his teachings, he is never recorded to have called people to imitate his daily habits. The language of mimesis is missing.
Both Willard and Foster claim that the essential process by which transformation occurs is described by VIM; Vision, Intention, Means, where means refers to the practice of the spiritual disciplines. For example, Foster (
See, for example, the many prayers of Paul (Rm. 1:9–10; 10:1; 15:5–6; 13; 30–33; 2 Cor. 1:11; 12:8; 13:7–9; Phlp. 1:9–11; 4:6–7; 1 Th. 3:10, 11–13; 5:17, 23–24, 25; 2 Th. 1:11–12; 2:16–17; 3:1–2, 5, 16; Phlm. 6).
Notice 1 Thessalonians 3:10 where the means of transformation was Paul’s presence and ministry, not his prayer. Compare also Romans 1:9–12.