Abstract
This article argues that evangelical Christians can find a helpful guide in an adaptive form of Jack Mezirow's transformative learning theory (TLT) as a framework for spiritual formation. TLT, especially its emphasis on critical reflection and dialogical communities, has been positively adopted by many organizations to encourage growth; however, its underlying constructivist epistemology conflicts with the evangelical Christian belief in objective truth. The author draws from relevant scholarship, including Esther Meek's post-critical epistemology as a bridge between transformative learning and evangelical theology; the author explores the strengths and limitations of applying TLT to spiritual formation. After presenting an overview of Mezirow's phases and principles, this article critiques its constructivist foundation and offers an epistemological corrective. Grounded in Meek's adaptation of Michael Polanyi's post-critical epistemology, this corrective will stabilize the use of TLT within a biblically grounded framework that prioritizes truth, discipleship, and Christ-centered transformation.
Keywords
Over the past five decades, Jack Mezirow's transformative learning theory has been employed by a wide range of organizations to promote personal and collective growth, including within Christian contexts (Nelson, 2021). Recognizing its emphasis on adult learning and development, many churches and ministries have incorporated its learning phases into discipleship ministries to support spiritual formation. Spiritual formation is God's active work through the Holy Spirit to conform Christians in the image of Jesus Christ (Porter, 2023). Most emphasize Mezirow's importance placed on critical reflection and dialogical communities as key to seeing people in the church or in ministry grow in the image of Christ (Beard, 2017). However, while Mezirow's framework provides valuable insights, his foundational assumption that “meaning” in the learning context is constructed from consensus conflicts with the key Christian doctrine of objective truth found in the existence of God, communicated in his word, and personified in Jesus Christ (John 14:6). As such, its application within faith-based settings demands careful theological discernment and adaptation.
In this article, I will present an overview of Transformative Learning as espoused by Jack Mezirow, whose foundational work will serve as the primary focus of this article. I will then critically examine the constructivist underpinnings of Mezirow's work and explore their implications for his theory. Specifically, I will argue that this epistemological framework conflicts with an evangelical Christian understanding of objective truth. Finally, I propose an epistemological corrective that will stabilize the use of transformative learning theory within Christian communities to support a biblical vision of spiritual formation.
Mezirow's Transformative Learning Theory: A Survey
During the last century or so, researchers have explored how adults learn as compared to children (Knowles, 1977). In the 1950s, educators started to dive deeper into the distinctions, leading to the emergence of several important learning theories—Malcolm Knowles's concept of andragogy, Self-Directed Learning, and Jack Mezirow's transformative learning theory (Merriam, 2017). Of these theories, transformative learning has captivated the learning community and has had arguably the broadest impact (Nelson, 2021). Mezirow's theory focused on how adults reinterpret the meaning of what they learned as children in light of new experiences. He outlines the adult learning process through ten distinct phases as shown in Table 1.
Jack Mezirow's Learning Process (McEwen, 2012).
According to Mezirow, adult learning begins when they encounter information or new experiences that challenge their existing worldview. It could be something they read, hear, see, or experience that conflicts with their previously established perspective, which brings about a disorienting dilemma. Kathleen King describes this dilemma as “an experience or situation which rather throws the learner off balance from their usual perspective and view. It may be something profoundly new they are learning in class, or the death of a loved one, persecution or divorce” (King, 2009, p. 5). Regardless of the cause, such a crisis propels the learner into a period of deep searching that will either affirm their current beliefs or lead to significant transformation in their learning. The learning process culminates when the adult changes their actions based on their journey through the learning experience.
As a guide through the stages of transformative learning, Mezirow emphasizes two foundational principles: critical reflection and dialogue. Both are essential for adults to actively engage in as they seek growth and understanding. Critical reflection empowers the learner to reassess uncritically accepted beliefs adopted in childhood, or to evaluate new information that challenges previously examined assumptions. Children in the classroom learn things through an adult educator who tells them what to know and how to think. Adults have developed, to some degree, the ability to not just accept something as true because an authority figure said so, but to assess the information to come to their own conclusions about what they have learned or are learning. For Mezirow, the ability to critically reflect is the most vital component of the learning process for adults (Mezirow, 1990). Through the process of reflection, learners either reinforce previously established meaning perspectives or meaning schemes or develop new ones (Mezirow, 1990). He defines meaning perspective as “the structure of assumptions that constitute a frame of reference for interpreting the meaning of an experience” (Mezirow, 1990, p. XVI). These are the deeper, broader frames of reference that shape how a learner views the world. From these meaning perspectives flow meaning schemes—the specific beliefs, practices, attitudes, and judgements an individual holds (Mezirow, 1990). In this way, meaning perspectives act as worldview and meaning schemes represent the expressions of that worldview in thought and behavior.
While critical reflection can take place in isolation, it is most effective when carried out in the context of group dialogue. Mezirow emphasizes, “It is through dialogue that we attempt to understand—to learn—what is valid in the assertions made by others” (Mezirow, 1990, p. 354). In community, the adult learner can share their disorienting experience, challenge their assumptions by hearing other perspectives (as many as possible), ask meaningful questions, receive constructive feedback, and ultimately validate or revise prior meaning perspectives and schemes as needed (Mezirow, 1998). The benefits of this type of community are: (1) finding mutual understanding and common ground, (2) articulation and exchanges of ideas, grievances, and claims, and (3) the possibility of consensus (Mezirow, 1998). Ideally, the participants in such a group would have “full information about the issue and be: (a) open to alternative perspectives; (b) able to make justified inferences, analyze and reason argumentatively; (c) able to reflect critically on assumptions and premises; (d) aware of and manage one's emotions and be empathetic to others; and (e) granted full equality as participants in discourse and freedom from coercion and distorting deception” (Mezirow, 1996, p. 126).
In transformative learning, the role of the educator is to facilitate critical reflection and dialogue. The educator does not serve as an authority figure, but rather a guide to create an environment in which the learner can move confidently through their disorienting dilemma. The conditions in Table 2 reveal what Mezirow believes each educator should strive to create when establishing a group for rational discourse.
Conditions for Rational Discourse in a Group (Mezirow, 1991).
Although it is impossible for humans to create such an ideal environment as this, the educator should do their best to create a space where the learner is pushed to consider alternative views in as free and supportive environment as possible to accomplish the goal of seeing adult learners “become autonomous, socially responsible thinkers” (Mezirow, 1997, p. 8).
According to Mezirow, the ability for the learner to be autonomous and a responsible thinker is vital to the success of a free and growing democratic nation (Mezirow, 1998). Learners need to be freed from the shackles of what they uncritically accepted as true and given the tools to become independent learners. This allows the learner to be socially responsible and keenly aware of what is happening around them and together pursue what is right and good for mankind. Through critical reflection and dialogue, the community can come to a consensus as to the values that lead to “truth, justice, and freedom” for all (Mezirow, 1997, p. 9).
Survey of Research
Research shows that transformative learning theory has been beneficial in the context of Christian learning. Richard J. McLaughlin showed that the conceptual compatibility of transformative learning theory was compatible with the spiritual revival on the campus of Wheaton College in 1995 (McLaughlin, 2015). Mary Wanjiru Mwangi studied college students in Nairobi who participated in small group discipleship rooted in transformative learning theory that highlighted benefits for the students, but also the need for teachers to be trained in using this theory in such settings (Mwangi, 2018). Loueda B. Bleiler, in her doctoral work, showed how transformative learning theory can be life-altering in the field of Christian worship studies, especially for students and teachers who seek to grow (Blieler, 2023). Don Saines used transformative learning theory to help the church approach missions with an emphasis on discipleship. Specifically, he notes the benefits of emphasizing diversity and difference that is at the heart of transformative learning theory (Saines, 2015). Curtis Young interviewed pastors to show how transformational learning theory can be implemented within the church to foster spiritual formation. His work revealed how the theory can be applied in the teaching, preaching, and counseling of the local church (Young, 2013). Neville Emslie argues for the benefit of training future ministers in transformative learning theory within the Church of England (Emslie, 2016). Ellen L. Marmon, in her work on training students and faculty, argues that transformative learning theory gives people the lens they need to engage in ministry in cross-cultural encounters (Marmon, 2013).
While many Christians have thoughtfully written on the positives of transformative learning theory, not all interactions with it, including within the sphere of the Christian church, are positive. While seeing the benefit of transformative learning theory, Seth J. Nelson argues that it is incomplete to be used in the context of spiritual transformation (Nelson, 2022). Rather, he proposes using similar work by James E. Loder Jr that focuses on the four dimensions of being human (i.e., self, lived world, Void, and Holy). Further, while honoring the work of Mezirow and his transformative learning theory, Muriel I. Elmer and Duane H. Elmer note that there is no mention of the application of the theory by Mezirow in the world of spirituality or spiritual growth (Elmer & Duane, 2020). Ellen Marmon, in her work already mentioned, also highlights the need for a more holistic approach to transformative learning theory that incorporates the spiritual dimensions inherent in Christian growth. To fill that need, Barbara J. Fleischer moves away from Mezirow to theologian Bernard Lonergan's method and framework that includes the spiritual dimensions of human existence (Fleischer, 2006).
Transformative Learning Theory: Critical Evaluation
While some research shows positive results from implementing programs based on Mezirow's transformative learning theory, for the evangelical Christian, there is a foundational aspect of this theory that warrants thoughtful discernment before adopting it wholesale for spiritual formation. As a self-professed Constructivist, Mezirow's framework downplays the reality that truth exists outside of the individual learner. He writes, “Specific constructivist assumptions underlying transformation theory include a conviction that meaning exists within ourselves rather than in external forms such as books and that personal meaning that we attribute to our experience are acquired and validated through human interaction and communication” (Mezirow, 1991, p. XIV).
Constructivism is a broad discipline that seeks to understand how humans gain knowledge and grow. As a metaphysical construct and epistemological framework, constructivists contend that knowledge is not “construed in reality, but only came about by the individual's formation in response to specific observations and experiences” (Peterson, 2012, p. 883). These observations and experiences are then subjectively organized internally in a coherent way to create knowledge. Knowledge is not something that exists outside the human experience but is reached through each situation by each person. To gain knowledge, the learner cannot be passive in receiving it from someone else but actively engaged in processing specific experiences. This perspective gives man the ability to be creators of their own truth. This truth, however, is not something people can count on because it is relative to an individual's perspective. What is true from one perspective is not necessarily true from another. Thus, in constructivism there are “no true facts… only pragmatic facts” (Rickert, 2007, p. 14). Mezirow himself asserts, “there are no empirical tests of truths” (Mezirow, 1990, p. 10).
Mezirow's constructivist emphasis is seen in several aspects of his transformative learning theory. Notably, he avoids appealing to any external authority or tradition outside the self as a source for justifying meaning. While he acknowledges that authority and tradition are an option to validate what is being taught, he maintains the only viable justification comes as the learner embraces a more inclusive and diverse position that is affirmed by the consensus of those engaged in dialogue (Mezirow, 1990). According to Mezirow, it is in dialogue that the meaning scheme of an individual is legitimized. He writes that an adult learner could have a “brilliant insight beyond the understanding of those participating in the discourse, but this only means that you must seek validation through further discourse with a broader or more informed group of participants or through discursive assessment at a later point in time” (Mezirow, 1998, p. 196). In other words, while personal understanding may occur, meaning is only considered valid when affirmed by those within the dialogical community. This validation is needed because humans are all blind to their own biases. Mezirow writes, “Because we are all trapped by our own meaning perspectives, we can never really make interpretations of our experiences free of bias. Consequently, our greatest assurance of objectivity comes from exposing an expressed idea to rational and reflective discourse” (Mezirow, 1990, p. 10).
Additionally, Mezirow's constructivist roots frame how dialogical communities should take place. One important condition for discourse for learning is to welcome in as many arguments and evidence as possible (Mezirow, 1998). Each position and viewpoint is given an equal footing at the table of conversation. Stephen D. Brookfield calls this learning by democracy (Brookfield, 2017). Thus, decision-making in the learning process is facilitated by an openness to as many different voices as possible. Mezirow refers to this as taking perspective (Mezirow, 1997). The learner puts themselves in the proverbial shoes of another to analyze their experiences from the perspective of many ideas and viewpoints. The community is not only present to offer these varied perspectives, but to hear the learner's articulation of critical reflection of those perspectives and come to agreement on what is valid and how to live going forward. However, that affirmation is only as good as the conditions stay the same. If new information becomes available or a different perspective is brought to bear, continual dialogue is needed and judgments revised (Mezirow, 1998). Given that the conditions move around depending on the makeup of the group, there is never a state of peace in the mind of the learner.
The role of the educator is also shaped by Mezirow's constructivist thinking. The function of the traditional teacher is deemphasized. Rather than engaging in lecture and formal instruction, the teacher encourages active learning through exploration of issues and dialoguing about what the students think about it (Noddings, 2016). Rather than leading as an authoritative source of knowledge the learner can depend on, the educator is seen as a fellow learner and facilitator—one who guides and supports the learner's meaning-making process. The teacher encourages active learning through exploration of issues and dialoguing about what the students think about it (Noddings, 2016). The fear is that the educator would indoctrinate the learner by exerting their own will and way of thinking and expect learners to blindly accept what is being taught (Mezirow, 1990, p. 10). To counter this possibility, Mezirow describes the educator as an “empathic provocateur and role model, a collaborative learner who is critically self-reflective and encourage others to consider alternative perspectives, and a guide who sets and enforces the norms governing rational discourse” (Mezirow, 1991, p. 206). This approach introduces a significant tension: the educator's knowledge—even if previously validated through past dialogical communities—is not inherently authoritative in the learner's current experience. Instead, it is treated as one perspective of many that is subject once again to scrutiny and justification within the new learning community. As a result, meaning is never final or fixed. It remains open to revision as new information, ideas, and contexts change or emerge (Mezirow, 1991).
For the evangelical Christian, transformative learning theory—rooted in constructivism—does not align with the historic Christian understanding of truth and thus is not a good fit as a guide for spiritual formation. Esther Meek writes, “Historically, to be a Christian is necessarily to affirm that certain things are true about God, about humans, and about reality” (Meek, 2003, p. 25). This confessional foundation distinguishes Christian formation from constructivist approaches to learning. Christians begin with truths received by faith and then seek to understand and apply those truths through reflection, experience, and community. These realities are not subjectively arrived at through community affirmation. They are objective truths to which evangelical Christians align their heart and minds to, specifically the image of Christ. The danger a constructivist approach to truth has on spiritual formation is that it makes our feelings and experiences the cornerstone of our understanding of reality. Christian philosopher and theologian, John Frame writes, “Our feelings, desires, decisions do not in themselves tell us what is true” (Frame, 2012, par. 4). Rather, these feelings, desires, and decisions should be interpreted and evaluated by knowledge that is independent of the human experience, that is, objective truth (Frame, 2012).
Objective Truth as a Corrective
For the evangelical Christian, the epistemological foundation of objective truth serves as a helpful corrective for implementing transformative learning theory to guide spiritual formation. It provides answers to the instability and discomfort of constructivist epistemology. Esther Meek argues that the human condition longs for something solid, something sure. She writes, “all of us want to be sure” about important things in our lives (Meek, 2003, p. 27). Mankind is not content wandering their own world of experience without an anchor to hold on to. People want to know for sure that their heart surgeon knows what they are doing. They want to know their accountant has a grasp of mathematics. More significantly, Meek writes, “We want to be sure about God's existence or non-existence” (Meek, 2003, p. 27). Questions like this and so much more cannot be answered with any sense of true assurance if it relies solely on subjective personal construction of truth. Assurance requires aligning one's experience and interpretation with objective truth—that is, truth that exists, outside of us, and independent of our control and experience.
Discerning Objective Truth
Can objective truth be known? Esther Meeks, in her book Longing to Know, argues that it surely can. She believes humans can know objective truth through an evaluation of clues seen and connecting the patterns of those clues that point to reality (Meek, 2003). While it can take time and requires effort, a person can follow the clues they observe, bring together those clues to discover patterns, and allow those patterns to connect one to reality. This reality is independent of humanity, but one that humanity can depend on to establish knowledge as truth (Meek, 2003). To help explain, she uses the example of dolphins. Dolphins exist, independent of a person knowing they exist. The learner does not have the authority to determine whether the mammal truly exists. Rather, the learner has the responsibility to observe the features of a dolphin and, through integrating those clues through pattern-making, a coherent whole develops of the mammal. It is through the process of clues, patterns, and connecting the dots that reality can be known and sure knowledge can be formed.
The process of knowing objective truth is still not complete. If a learner stops at developing clues, synthesizing into patterns, and connecting the dots to reality, it still leaves the learner as the center of a subjective construction of truth. Relying heavily on the work of John Frame's “triperspectivalism” approach (Frame, 2012), Meeks provides a framework to decide whether something is objectively true. She argues that knowing truth involves an interplay of three perspectives: the normative (rules), the existential (self), and the situational (world) (Meek, 2011). It is the world that gives us clues, our own self that engages those clues, and the rules (like logic, scientific method, biblical principles, and more) that guide what counts as true. As one brings these three perspectives together, objective truth can be arrived at.
There is still one more part to Meek's understanding of arriving at objective truth. She admits that the clues that are observed are not immune from error (Meek, 2003). The learner can observe and interpret clues incorrectly and thus come to faulty conclusions about what is true. Thus, an authoritative guide(s) is needed to help the learner understand the clues or correct faulty assumptions made about the clues. Discovering objective truth is not a solo effort; rather, it is done in community with wise guides that are trustworthy (Meek, 2003). Similarly, John Frame writes, “one way to increase our knowledge and our level of certainty is by supplementing our own perspective with those of others. When our resources fail us, we can consult friends, authorities, books, etc.” (Frame, 2011, par. 6). Mankind is not infallible, thus needs authoritative guides to keep the learning process in check.
Building a Knowledge of Objective Truth
This process of coming to know objective truth sounds like a softer version of constructivism. While the extreme metaphysical and epistemological approach of constructivism is incompatible with an evangelical Christian understanding of reality, the recognition that humans actively build their knowledge is affirmed within and beyond evangelical Christian circles (Wilkerson, 2022). No one is born with a complete knowledge of objective truth, nor can such truth be simply “downloaded” into a person (Henze, 2009, p. 88). Rather, following Meek's counsel to connect the “dots” of clues and patterns, the learner gradually builds their knowledge of God-established objective truth. Donald Guthrie calls this building of knowledge “Christian constructivism,” observing that “God is the first and preeminent meaning maker who himself delights in his people's discoveries as agentic investigators” (Guthrie, 2019, p. 453). Thus, God's existence and original meaning-making provide the foundation of objective truth, which Christians develop a knowledge of through the gradual integration of insights, experience, and revelation over time. This process does not create objective truth, but coming to know, comprehend, and align one's life and faith with what God has already established.
Bringing it All Together
Spiritual formation is fundamentally the work of God in shaping his people. By his grace, he is conforming Christians into the image of Christ for his glory and for their good (2 Corinthians 3:18). As the Christian encounters the disorientating dilemmas of life and wrestles to make sense of them, the methodology of Mezirow's transformative learning theory—particularly its emphasis of critical reflection and dialogue—can serve as a helpful tool, but only insofar as it is grounded in a biblical epistemology that affirms objective truth. The following five maxims offer guidance for teachers and leaders within the church who seek to apply transformative learning theory in ways that can foster Christlike formation among those they serve.
Faithfully teach the truth of God's Word. Genuine transformation requires an unwavering commitment to objective truth, which for the evangelical Christian is supremely revealed in God's Word (Groothuis, 2000). Muriel and Duane Elmer rightly observe, “When a teacher faithfully relates Scripture to their life problems (relevance), learners will be prompted to struggle with how they should resolve these problems, these disorienting dilemmas, in light of God's Word” (Elmer & Duane, 2020, p. 137). For the church and for all who participate in the ministry of forming believers into Christ's likeness, Scripture must remain the cornerstone and measure of truth. Help people embrace the disorienting dilemma and critical reflection. When confronted with new learning that challenges previously held beliefs or assumptions, Christians may experience confusion, discomfort, or even despair. At such moments, Christian leaders are called to come alongside the learner with pastoral presence, comfort, and encouragement. This support is not merely relational but deeply theological, grounded in the stabilizing truth of Scripture spoken into the learner's experience. It is upon the stability of Scripture that Christians must interpret their disorienting experiences and through which leaders and educators must guide others in the process of spiritual formation. Critical reflection, when framed biblically, becomes a means of discerning God's formative work. Value dialogue within community. Mezirow is right when he identifies dialogue as essential for learning (Mezirow & Associates, p. 10). Leaders should internationally create space and relationships that bring believers together to talk through the lived realities of their spiritual formation. Within the church, such dialogue is most fruitfully situated in communities of shared faith and commitment to biblical truth. Ruth Haley Barton underscores this reality when she writes, “It is impossible to overstate the importance of community in the spiritual formation process” (Barton, 2006, p. 160). While formative dialogue can occur in larger congregational settings, it is ideally cultivated within small group ministries. In these contexts, Christian learners can articulate their disorienting dilemmas, verbalize their critical reflection, and receive biblical feedback—grounded in objective truth—from fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. This communal discernment is crucial as learners seek to transform their way of thinking and behavior in faithful alignment with God's revealed will. Create a safe but challenging learning environment. One of the greatest fears many Christians have is expressing questions, doubts, and perceived shortcomings in their spiritual formation journey. Faithful leaders must therefore cultivate environments marked by genuine Christian friendship—spaces where learners feel safe to voice their inner turmoil without fear of rejection, yet are lovingly challenged toward truth and growth. David Helm emphasizes the importance of this posture in disciples, writing, “It is very important to employ the art of conversational dialogue on biblical texts…You cannot coerce your reading partner into saying the right answer, especially if they have doubts. It is normal to doubt. You can be a better guide in discussion if you listen to and acknowledge the doubts rather than brushing them aside or just jumping in with your own observations” (Helm, 2011, p. 28). Such environments honor both the reality of human struggle and the sufficiency of Scripture to guide believers through it. Guide as a facilitator and mentor, not merely as an authority. Ellen Marmon (2013) notes that effective mentors should be marked by objectivity, a deep investment in the learner's spiritual journey, and an awareness of the many concerns of the learner. While this approach emphasizes the importance of relational guidance, it does not diminish the role of pastoral or teaching authority. Rather, it reframes the authority as service and relational leadership. Faithful mentors should possess a firm grasp and commitment to God's objective truth coupled with a willingness to patiently guide others toward living increasingly aligned with it. In this way, leaders function not only as instructors, but as trusted companions in the formative work God is doing in his people.
Dallas Willard writes, “Spiritual formation in Christ is accomplished, and the Great Commission fulfilled, as the regenerate soul makes its highest intent to live in the commandments of Christ, and accordingly makes realistic plans to realize this intent by an adequate course of spiritual discipline. Of course, no one can achieve this goal by themselves, but no one has to. God gives us others to share the pilgrimage, and we will be met by Christ in every step of the way. ‘Look, I am with you every instant,’ is what Jesus said; and it is also what he is doing” (Willard, 2000, p. 257). Spiritual formation, then, is fundamentally a work of grace—Christ walking with his people, through his Spirit, within the community of the church, as believers are shaped into his likeness.
When grounded in objective truth, Jack Mezirow's transformative learning theory can be understood as a helpful framework in God's formative work in each believer. While not a theological account of spiritual formation, transformative learning theory's attention to disorienting dilemmas, critical reflection, dialogue, and perspective reorientation provides language to describe how God often works in the lived experiences of believers. In this way, the church can use this framework as a helpful guide for believers as they grow in the image of Christ.
