Forums
I agree that most protestants would start with the Word and Christ and eventually a variety of sources would be drawn into the conversation of the Spirit. I do, however, think that the semantics are important. Coming from a background in chemistry and biology, I see spiritual theology as more descriptive, categorical and systematic where sanctification is more of a process and practical—perhaps the practical application of spiritual theology??
I also appreciate the idea of having a theological grounding on/out of which to base spiritual formation. The church (all Christians) have suffered and struggled greatly (needlessly?) by not addressing the Spirit and spiritual theology more intentionally. I would venture to say that our emerging culture of individualism, technological distance (vs. face to face communication), over commitment/lack of hours in the day/inability to choose priorities in an attempt to do everything, has encouraged us to shun the disciplines of spiritual care and interaction with the Spirit. Essentially we are relationally handicapped. This is a huge issue in the church at large as our God is a relational God—within the Trinity and with all of creation.
So what do we do? Admit that we aren’t God (we can’t do everything), but are human creatures (we can do some things by the Triune God’s Spirit working in us). As humans that are limited beings, we need to release our pride and position and accept that we need to practice spiritual disciplines (discerned for each person, maybe prayer, bible study, theological reading, etc.) much like we need to have our car engines tuned up or go to a doctor for a check up. All these things I’ve mentioned are practical. Perhaps we humans work backwards by learning and doing practical things that lead us toward deeper spiritual theological comments and frameworks.