I am not the me I want to be. You are not either. Both of us desire to become better people. But what does better mean? And how do we become better? In his latest book, John Ortberg answers both questions with gentle wit and spiritual insight.
Ortberg is pastor of Menlo Park Presbyterian Church in Menlo Park, California, and author of several books, including Love Beyond Reason; The Life You’ve Always Wanted; If You Want to Walk on Water, You’ve Got to Get out of the Boat; and God Is Closer Than You Think—all of which I highly recommend.
The Me I Want to Be is about spiritual formation, which Ortberg defines as “the process by which your inner self and character are shaped.” Many people use the word spiritual in distinction from, or even contradiction to, physical. Two unfortunate consequences of this distinction are that it separates spirituality from everyday life and then narrowly equates spirituality with the spiritual disciplines. Ortberg rejects this distinction. Your whole life is spiritual, not just the praying, Bible-reading, and church-going part. And while spiritual disciplines are indispensable, they are not the only way God forms your inner self.
For Ortberg, a spiritually formed person is a flourishing person. He writes: “Your deepest longing should be to be alive with God, to become the person God made you to be, and to be used to help God’s world flourish.” Spiritual formation, then, involves your relationship with God, your growth in Christlikeness, and your mission to the world God is redeeming.
How do you become a flourishing person? “The only way to become the person God made you to be,” Ortberg writes, “is to live with the Spirit of God flowing through you like a river of living water.” Spiritual formation is not about trying harder, which only results in fatigue, failure, and guilt. Rather, spiritual formation is about discovering and moving with the flow of the Holy Spirit in your spirit, mind, use of time, relationships, and experiences.
For Ortberg, the Holy Spirit does not replace you, he redeems you. Spiritual formation is not about becoming wholly different than who you are now. It is about taking who you are now and refining you in God’s image. Two examples: Drawing on the work of Michael Mangis, Ortberg talks about “signature sins.” He writes, “the pattern of your sin is related to the pattern of your strengths.” When you operate in the flow of the Spirit, God does not eradicate your strengths in order to eradicate your sins. Rather, he works out your sins to help you build on your strengths.
Another example: Many people believe that a spiritually well-formed person will go into some kind of vocational ministry. Ortberg strongly disagrees. The Bible is a book written by workers about workers for workers,” he writes, and by workers he means people who are not vocational ministers. “Most adults spend about half their waking lives at work,” he goes on to say. “Your work is a huge part of God’s plan for your life, and God intends the Spirit to fill and energize workplaces. Work that gets done in offices and elsewhere…desperately requires the guidance and energy of the Spirit.” Spiritually formed people will be pastors, evangelists, and missionaries, of course, but also lawyers, doctors, and plumbers. The first person in the Bible to be described as “filled with the Spirit of God” was Bezalel, who was not a priest, but an artisan.
Ortberg does not neglect spiritual disciplines in this book, but he does reframe the way we think about them in a very helpful way. Take prayer, for example. We think of prayer as a discreet activity that we participate in for a set number of minutes (or hours) each day. But Ortberg frames it differently. “The goal of prayer,” he writes “is to live all of my life and speak all of my words in the joyful awareness of the presence of God.” Looked at this way, it becomes much easier to see how we can pray without ceasing and do everything to the glory of God. Our life as a whole, not just a set number of minutes a day, is prayer, an ongoing conversation with God.
As a Pentecostal Christian, I am greatly cheered to see an evangelical Christian talking so much about the Holy Spirit. Ortberg’s book is a reminder that all Christians are the beneficiaries of the regenerating and sanctifying work of God through the Holy Spirit, and we have much to learn from others about these issues. Ortberg does not address the issue of baptism in the Spirit, however, which is the only downside to the book from a Pentecostal perspective.
Read it anyway! It will help you become the “me” God wants you to be.
P.S. If you would like to use The Me I Want to Be as a small-group curriculum or a church-wide teaching series, check out this website.
P.P.S. If you found this review helpful, please vote “Yes” on my Amazon.com page.
GeorgePWood.com 
I haven’t read this book but have become aware of many troubling things that Ortberg teaches as well as who he apparently resonates with. Just recently he had Dallas Willard appear at his church. I heard the audio and the two engaged in heretical teaching after heretical teaching. Spiritual formation (which typically goes hand in hand with contemplative spirituality and is arguably not taught in the Bible)is also problematic and well-documented as such.
Derek:
Charging someone with teaching heresy should not be done lightly. I’ve been reading both John Ortberg and Dallas Willard for years, and I haven’t seen anything heretical in their writings.
I watched this video (http://mppc.org/learn/series/sermons/heart-worship-dallas-willard) and didn’t see or hear anything heretical in it either.
Perhaps you could enlighen me on what specific heresies you think Ortberg and Willard are perpetraing.
George
George,
In the service that Ortberg and Willard were a part of earlier this year, Willard, in answering the question whether devout Buddhists or Hindus would be saved, said this,
“I believe everyone who deserves to be saved will be saved no matter where they are or what they do.”
This is one example. So no one thinks that I am taking these comments out of context, they can listen to the interview themselves (along with Fighting for the Faith commentary) at http://www.extremetheology.com/2010/02/is-dallas-willard-a-christian.html
Hope this helps.
Derek
Derek:
How is Dallas Willard’s statement different from the Apostle Paul’s statement in Romans 2:6-8:
“God ‘will give to each person according to what he has done.’ To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.”
Or from Paul’s statement in Romans 2:12-16:
“All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God will judge men’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.”
In both these passages, Paul tells the truth about God, that he is just, and about judgment, that we get what we deserve. If Paul leaves open the formal possibility that pagans will be saved, regardless of whether this possibility is ever materially realized, why are you critiquing Willard for what he said? He doesn’t say that such people WILL be saved. He says that they will get what they deserve.
If you believe that God is just, then surely you must believe the same thing.
George
George,
Why should I presume that Willard meant the same thing as Paul in his statements? That seems like quite a leap of faith. After all, Willard has also written this about the scriptures you cite:
“What Paul is clearly saying is that if anyone is worthy of being saved, they will be saved. At that point many Christians get very anxious, saying that absolutely no one is worthy of being saved. The implication of that is that a person can be almost totally good, but miss the message about Jesus, and be sent to hell. What kind of a God would do that? I am not going to stand in the way of anyone whom God wants to save. I am not going to say “he can’t save them.” I am happy for God to save anyone he wants in any way he can. It is possible for someone who does not know Jesus to be saved.”—Dallas Willard
Derek
Derek:
I thought you might be interested in today’s Daily Word: https://georgepwood.com/2010/03/12/only-the-message-of-the-cross-is-intellectually-satisfying-1-corinthians-118-21/. It touches on this theme indirectly by outlining Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 1:18-21 that the message of the cross is foolishness from a worldly perspective, but true wisdom from a divine perspective.
As for Willard…
Let me start at the end of the statement you quoted: “It is possible for someone who does not know Jesus to be saved.” Do you disagree with this? If so, how did God save anyone in the Old Testament? None of them knew Jesus. If you agree that people in the Old Testament were saved without knowing Jesus, then what problem do you have with Willard’s statement?
“I am happy for God to save anyone he wants in any way he can.” I am too. You are too, aren’t you? Of course we all know that God saves people through faith in Jesus Christ. Willard affirms this, as do you and I. The tough question is how does God relate to people who, through no fault of their own, have never heard a presentation of the message of the cross? This would include, by the way, Old Testament believers.
I think the statement that you disagree with most–certainly the one that caught my eye too–is this: “The implication of that is that a person can be almost totally good, but miss the message about Jesus, and be sent to hell. What kind of a God would do that?” Without knowing the broader context in which Willard wrote these words, it seems to me that there are two possible readings of this statement: (1) People can be almost totally good, hear the message about Jesus, not believe it, and be saved. I don’t believe that. I’m not sure Willard believes that either, although if you have a relevant quote to share, I’d like to see it. My understanding of New Testament teaching is that a person who hears the gospel and rejects is condemned, no matter how “good” they may have been. Certainly Paul himself fit into that category. On the contrary, if a person is almost totally good and hears the gospel, he will affirm it because, as it were, “deep calls to deep.”
(2) A more charitable reading of Willard’s statement, and the one I think he means, interprets “miss” as “never hears the message of the gospel.” If this is what Willard is writing about, then he’s addressing the well-known problem of the “virtuous pagan.” If a person who has never heard the gospel satisfies the conditions of Romans 2:6-8, 12-16 (quoted above), then he might be saved, even if has “missed” the gospel in the sense of never having heard it.
My own inclination is that while there exists a formal possibility that there is a virtuous pagan who will be saved under these conditions, it is a material improbability, given what Paul goes on to say about the universal problem of sinfulness in Romans 3. In other words, formally speaking, “To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor, and immortality, he will given eternal life. But materially speaking, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23).
If this is the proper interpretation of Willard’s statement–and again, you would have to provide me the broader context in which this particular statement appears–then I would agree with Willard on the formal possibility of the salvation of a virtuous pagan, mainly because I think that formal possibility is taught by Paul himself. On the other hand, given what Paul said about his own righteousness in the light of Christ, not to mention the universal problem of sin, I doubt that such salvation has been materially realized.
On the other other hand, there is the issue of the salvation of Old Testament believers, who had no explicit faith in Christ, not to mention the salvation of children who die in infancy, whom I also believe God redeems.
It’s a complex problem. Willard may be at the liberal edge of evangelical theology, but he’s not heretical, not by a long shot.
George
Thanks for the reply. First, I would argue that those from the OT times actually did put their faith in Jesus for salvation (though they did not necessarily know his name) through the sacrificial system instituted by the law. I don’t think this is really comparable to the “virtuous pagan”. Second, it would seem to me that because of Romans 3, which you cited, the salvation of this hypothetical person is not just materially improbable but in fact formally impossible. Maybe the way you’re saying it is more theologically correct but I don’t think this is the situation Willard is honing in on anyway. He really does seem to espouse a quasi-universalist soteriology.
Honestly, it never occurred to me that we would actually be debating the veracity of Willard’s statement. It’s unbiblical on so many levels. My main point was that very valid criticisms of both Willard and Ortberg are plentiful. You yourself even admit that Willard may be “at the liberal edge”. Therefore, why would you, without any caveat, recommend a book written by someone who seemingly has an affinity with those in that theological camp? And it’s not just a matter of guilt by association, either. Apparently this book deals with the practice of spiritual formation which is in itself controversial. So I have my doubts about the content and am dubious because Ortberg has written some very questionable things in the past.
Derek:
If OT believers were saved by the Mosaic sacrificial system, how were those before Moses were saved (e.g., Adam, Eve, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc.)? Wouldn’t it be better, and more in keeping with Paul’s remarks in Romans 1-2, to say that God judges us on the basis of our response to the revelation we have? This principle covers the cases of both OT characters as well as “virtuous pagans.”
I disagree on your interpretation of Romans 3 because I’m not sure you understand the difference between formal and material. Perhaps “hypothetical” and “actual” would be better terms. Hypothetically, a person could be saved under the conditions Paul specifies in Romans 2. Actually, however, every person born into the world is a sinner, so the hypothetical scenario is never realized. Well, not everyone born into the world is a sinner. Jesus Christ was born into the world, and he’s not a sinner. And, interestingly, he fulfills the conditions of Romans 2. So, at least in Jesus’ case, the conditions of Romans 2 are not merely hypothetical but real. Romans 3 seems to apply to everyone else.
The reason I’m defending Willard’s statement is because I don’t think he’s saying what you think he’s saying. You haven’t even begun to prove that it’s unbiblical on so many levels, let alone that it’s heretical.
On the notion that there are “valid criticisms” of Willard and Ortberg, of course there are! They’re imperfect thinkers, so are we. My problem is that you’re critiquing me for not adopting your theological evaluation of these authors, when I think your theological evaluation of them is mistaken.
Remember: You haven’t even read this book, so you’re not aware of its content. Indeed, what books by either Ortberg or Willard have you read? I don’t find them suffused with heresy.
What intrigues me is why you think “spiritual formation” is so controversial. For both Willard and Ortberg, spiritual formation means the process by which God, through the Spirit, forms us into Christlikeness. Ortberg puts it like this: spiritual formation is about becoming so like Christ so that what you think, feel, say, and do is what Christ would think, feel, say, and do if Christ were in your place. Or as Willard puts it, spiritual formation is about explicit obedience to Christ.
There’s a website out there, Lighthouse Trails Research, that has influenced a lot of AG critics of “spiritual formation.” I’ve read through the site and find it to be a mishmash, some valid critiques, peppered with a lot of bad research and guilt by association. I hope you’re not using that site as a source of information about Willard or Ortberg.
George
Ironically, this article just came out today:
http://mikeratliff.wordpress.com/2010/03/17/the-dangers-of-spiritual-formation-and-spiritual-disciplines/
I do wonder, though, given your enthusiasm for spiritual formation, just how widely regarded is it within the AG leadership? Should I be concerned?
George,
Spiritual formation is man’s attempt to connect with God in man’s own way. Don’t believe me? Please watch the three minute video here: http://www.monvee.com/Marketing/ChurchLeaders.aspx
Monvee, as you may know, is being billed as the future of spiritual formation. Apparently it’s a kind of virtual Holy Spirit or something. John Ortberg is the headliner along with many others. My jaw dropped when I heard mega-church mogul, Bob Buford, say, “What we need is a diagnostic device to find out what the customer needs at different stages in their development in a life of faith, and what it looks like we have now is that device.” Customer?!?!? Are you kidding me? And what’s the deal with this device?Too bad the early Christians lacked the technology to connect with God like we can now. Amazing!
I found this article after I posted the last note. The author explains it better than I.
http://blog.betterthansacrifice.org/2010/03/07/spiritual-growth-there%E2%80%99s-an-app-for-that/
Derek:
I have read widely in Ortberg and Willard. I don’t find them heterodox, and I’m not sure why I should trust Neadles’ or DeWaay’s theological judgment over my own.
George
P.S. Both authors seem to be Reformed. One of the annoying tricks of the Reformed is to label anything that deviates from Calvinism as “Pelagianism.”
So that’s it? That’s your rebuttal? You weren’t really “intrigued” then why I thought spiritual formation was controversial, were you?
But I will say, with all due respect, the Reformed/Calvinism labeling is a total smokescreen. DeWaay didn’t even mention Pelagianism. Neadles did, but went out of his way to be clear that he was not asserting that spiritual formation proponents in fact held Pelagian doctrine. If you’re going to throw out a parting shot, it would be nice if you could stick to the facts and not resort to stereotypes.
But overall I do appreciate your willingness to dialogue on the subject. Thank you.
Derek
Derek:
That’s my way of saying that I’m not interested in the links. If you’d like to argue your point based on actually reading the book in question, I’d be happy to continue the dialog. If you’re just going to post links to other authors, there’s no point in continuing, for the reason I already stated: Why should I prefer their theological judgment to my own?
George
Just for the record, I asserted that “spiritual formation is man’s attempt to connect with God in man’s own way” and then backed up that statement with quotes from the proponents themselves. I did not just post links but don’t see how that devalues the point anyway. If I would have taken those articles and summarized them in my own words, I don’t think that would make the arguments any more or less valid.
Neadles detects the putrefying stench of Pelagianism in Monvee, states that Ortberg et all seem Pelagian in their approach to spiritual formation, then denies he’s accusing them of teaching Pelagianism.
That’s nice work if you can get it, and Neadles evidently can, because insinuating that someone is Pelagian is much easier than proving it. If Neadles thinks monvee/Ortberg are Pelagian, he should come right outand say it. If not, he shouldn’t bring it up. Insinuation is just a lazy man’s character assassination.
By the way, Ortberg’s book is about how the Holy Spirit forms us into Christlikeness. Neadles seems to miss that. Of corse, it’s notcalled “spiritual” formation for nothing.
Again, for the record, I don’t see the logical fallacy in pointing out similarities between Monvee and Pelagianism while not necessarily ascribing hard-core Pelagian beliefs to individual proponents of Monvee. It is, after all, possible and in fact quite common for someone to misapply something they may believe theologically.
Derek:
Please re-read my review, especially the paragraph about how to become a flourishing person. Note Ortberg’s statement that the only way to do so is to have the Holy Spirit flowing through you like a stream of living water. Having read most of his books–not just having watched a three-minute infomercial–I simply cannot agree with your definition of spiritual formation as man’s attempt to connect with God man’s way.
George