----------------------------
This author as a Reformed/Calvinist makes his tradition the benchmark for evaluating John Mark Comer's book. However, Comer pulls from various traditions in formulating a different understanding of how to walk out the successful Christian life. This offends the author, primarily because Comer is violating the boundaries of denominations and theological schools of thought.
This author as a Reformed/Calvinist makes his tradition the benchmark for evaluating John Mark Comer's book. However, Comer pulls from various traditions in formulating a different understanding of how to walk out the successful Christian life. This offends the author, primarily because Comer is violating the boundaries of denominations and theological schools of thought.
Comer may be sensible and might have some good ideas, or maybe, he's off course and teaching falsehood. If the author believes the latter, he does not make a clear case.
But either way, we certainly understand Comer's motivations. The Christian church, particularly in the Western world, is lukewarm, compromising, and increasingly irrelevant. To a substantial degree, it has lost its way. Therefore, though his approach may possibly be wrong, at least Comer knows there's a problem and wants to do something about it.
But the author wants to preserve his tradition in the face of supposed threats to it. Comer wants something else because he believes that traditional ideas aren't working. The author will try to make his case for possible heresy, but based on this article, we simply don't see it.
We should note, we are not here to defend Comer or his book. In fact, we don't really care for his ideas on Spiritual Formation. We are interested only in the author's presentation.
John Mark Comer’s book Practicing the Way: Be with Jesus. Become like Him. Do as He Did has been declared the ECPA 2025 Christian Book of the Year. It’s no surprise that many evangelicals are discussing its vision for spiritual formation. Do we need more engagement with Comer’s work?
First, the widespread interest in and unease about his approach tell me something deeper is going on. Many Christians I’ve spoken to express discomfort with Comer’s approach, but they can’t always articulate why. That tension warrants further reflection. (Indeed. Is the discomfort due to legitimate concerns about errant teaching, or is it actually a matter of an approach to the faith that threatens the author's traditions and comfort?)
Second, the differences between Comer’s approach and a Reformed Christian perspective on spiritual formation are worth exploring. (Is the author going to defend his religious traditions or explain the error of Comer's book?)
Comer’s book is influencing many evangelicals. And evangelicalism arose from the Reformed tradition during the revivals of the 18th century. Unfortunately, my own book on spiritual formation in the Reformed tradition was too far along in production to engage with Comer’s work directly.
This isn’t a book review. Rather, I want to highlight three significant ways Practicing the Way diverges from the model of spiritual formation commended by the reformers and, I’d argue, the Bible itself. (Um, yeah. Let's do the Bible, shall we?)
This isn’t a book review. Rather, I want to highlight three significant ways Practicing the Way diverges from the model of spiritual formation commended by the reformers and, I’d argue, the Bible itself. (Um, yeah. Let's do the Bible, shall we?)
Regeneration Neglected
A Reformed approach insists spiritual growth is only possible for those who have been born again and united to Christ by his Spirit. Growth apart from this saving union is inconceivable because it’s only when we “are in Christ Jesus” that he can become for us our “righteousness and sanctification” (1 Cor. 1:30). Jesus teaches that “unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3).
A Reformed approach insists spiritual growth is only possible for those who have been born again and united to Christ by his Spirit. Growth apart from this saving union is inconceivable because it’s only when we “are in Christ Jesus” that he can become for us our “righteousness and sanctification” (1 Cor. 1:30). Jesus teaches that “unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3).
By contrast, in Practicing the Way, the doctrines of regeneration and union with Christ are virtually absent. (The author complains about what Comer didn't write. Doesn't Comer get to decide what he writes about?
Since we haven't read the book we can only go by what the author says about it. And it seems to us that the book was written to Christians. Therefore, why should "regeneration" [being born again] be explained to those who are already regenerated?
As far as the vague notion of "union with Christ," isn't the book about the things we can do to improve our relationship with Jesus?)
Comer does talk about the need for the Holy Spirit, stating that spiritual formation requires you to “make your home in [Jesus’s] presence by the Spirit” (37). (Oh. So Comer does talk about it.)
However, he doesn’t explain how one acquires the assistance of the Holy Spirit. (Again the author complains about what Comer didn't write. So perhaps the author is going to tell us how to properly do this? No? Oh.)
Nor is there any sense in Practicing the Way that the Spirit’s work of regeneration is a definitive moment in a person’s life through which God “has caused us to be born again to a living hope” (1 Pet. 1:3). (The author is leveling vague and increasingly strange charges against Comer. Does this mean that Comer didn't explain how to be born again, or that being born again is the start of a new life in Christ, or that there's a difference between justification and sanctification? We apologize, we're just riffing here because the author's criticism is simply empty.)
Instead, Comer focuses on the need to become an “apprentice” to Jesus, the master Rabbi, with an “end goal” of becoming “the kind of person who can say and do all the things Jesus said and did” (122). This description puts Jesus at the center—which is good— but neglects our Spirit-wrought union with him. (???)
Comer’s approach is all about the way Jesus’s earthly ministry provides an example or pattern to imitate. Patterning our life after Jesus is clearly a biblical theme (e.g., 1 Pet. 2:21), but it’s not the only or even the most important theme when considering the person and work of Jesus Christ. (But, but... It's the theme Comer chose to write about. Why does the author insist that Comer must write about the things he wants him to write about?)
When the Jesus-as-pattern theme is emphasized at the expense of everything else, (The author expands his supposition to being all-encompassing.)
When the Jesus-as-pattern theme is emphasized at the expense of everything else, (The author expands his supposition to being all-encompassing.)
it obscures the biblical reality that our first and primary need is a Savior rather than a moral teacher. (The saved have a savior. They now need a moral teacher.)
The Bible teaches that “everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God” (1 John 5:1), the implication being that those who haven’t “been born of God” do not and cannot believe that Jesus is the Christ and thus cannot enjoy any spiritual growth at all. (Well, yeah. That's the whole point. We're quite certain that Comer was not writing this book for the unsaved.)
For example, Gandhi may have learned from Christ’s moral example, but by all accounts, he was never converted, and he died in his sins.
Scripture Sidelined
The Reformation was, in large part, a recovery of Word-based piety. The reformers insisted that deep, sustained engagement with God’s Word is the key driver of spiritual growth. They also taught that any means of spiritual formation must be derived from and dependent on Scripture. Thus, many spiritual practices that medieval people might have found useful were scrapped in favor of the biblical simplicity reflected in Psalm 119:9: “How can a young man keep his way pure? By guarding it according to your word.”
Comer lists Scripture as one of the “nine core practices” that you must incorporate into your personal “Rule of Life” (181). He also states, “Scripture is the primary way we are ‘transformed by the renewing of [our] mind’” (186). So what’s the problem?
First, Scripture intake isn’t one among many practices to be “utilized by an apprentice of Jesus for formation” (181). Rather, it is the means through which we commune with God. (So Scripture is NOT used for renewing our minds? What???)
The Reformation was, in large part, a recovery of Word-based piety. The reformers insisted that deep, sustained engagement with God’s Word is the key driver of spiritual growth. They also taught that any means of spiritual formation must be derived from and dependent on Scripture. Thus, many spiritual practices that medieval people might have found useful were scrapped in favor of the biblical simplicity reflected in Psalm 119:9: “How can a young man keep his way pure? By guarding it according to your word.”
Comer lists Scripture as one of the “nine core practices” that you must incorporate into your personal “Rule of Life” (181). He also states, “Scripture is the primary way we are ‘transformed by the renewing of [our] mind’” (186). So what’s the problem?
First, Scripture intake isn’t one among many practices to be “utilized by an apprentice of Jesus for formation” (181). Rather, it is the means through which we commune with God. (So Scripture is NOT used for renewing our minds? What???)
As Herman Bavinck notes, “Scripture is the ongoing rapport between heaven and earth.” (This actually sound more like a definition of prayer.)
In contrast, Comer labels “more Bible study” as a “losing strategy” and states that “church attendance, good sermons, and regular Bible study . . . have a very poor track record of yielding a high level of transformation in large numbers of people” (86–87). (So, Comer seems to want to change the approach to teaching Christian living in order for it to be more successful. Does the author agree or disagree that the way we currently do church is not yielding the results we want to see?)
In contrast, Comer labels “more Bible study” as a “losing strategy” and states that “church attendance, good sermons, and regular Bible study . . . have a very poor track record of yielding a high level of transformation in large numbers of people” (86–87). (So, Comer seems to want to change the approach to teaching Christian living in order for it to be more successful. Does the author agree or disagree that the way we currently do church is not yielding the results we want to see?)
On the one hand, he states that sermons and Bible study are “more than good, essential” (86). (Oh. Comer doesn't want to replace them.)
But he also says that on their own they’re “wildly insufficient” to promote spiritual growth (87). (If this isn't true, then why is the Church waning?)
The medieval church would have said positive things about Scripture and allowed a place for it in spiritual formation. But, like Comer, medieval authorities also maintained that the Word on its own isn’t enough. (But... The author himself believes the word on its own isn't enough. Doubtless he listens to sermons, reads commentaries, seeks advice from friends, and possesses a Bible dictionary. He most certainly does not rely solely on the Bible.
The medieval church would have said positive things about Scripture and allowed a place for it in spiritual formation. But, like Comer, medieval authorities also maintained that the Word on its own isn’t enough. (But... The author himself believes the word on its own isn't enough. Doubtless he listens to sermons, reads commentaries, seeks advice from friends, and possesses a Bible dictionary. He most certainly does not rely solely on the Bible.
In fact, the existence of this very article proves the author doesn't believe that the Bible alone is enough.)
For them, the real interest, excitement, and efficacy are found in a host of other spiritual practices. For Reformation-minded Christians, God’s Word is always at the center of our piety, both as the key driver of transformation and as the blueprint for our pursuit of spiritual growth. (It doesn't seem to us that Comer was negating this, but rather, he was criticizing our approach to it.)
Incoherent Theology
Comer’s method in Practicing the Way is theologically promiscuous. He mingles sources from wildly different theological traditions—many mutually incompatible—without acknowledging the tension. While occasionally Comer cites thinkers in the Reformed tradition, like Tim Keller, Rosaria Butterfield, and Tim Chester, he more frequently turns to Roman Catholics (Teresa of Ávila, Ignatius of Loyola, Henri Nouwen), Eastern Orthodox writers (Kallistos Ware, Kallistos Katafygiotis), Quaker mystics (Thomas Kelly), and even a non-Christian spiritualist (Kahlil Gibran).
He presents these highly heterogeneous teachers collectively as “masters of the Way of Jesus” (47). The implication is that all these different “spiritual masters” (43) are heading down the same path and toward similar conclusions. That’s simply not the case. (What the author infers may not have been implied. Did Comer really say that there are non-Christians who know the way to Jesus?)
For example, at one point he quotes a Catholic writer who mentions the “Blessed Sacrament,” a term that Comer explains as referring to “what Protestants call ‘the Lord’s Supper’” (42). Yet a differing view on the sacraments was at the heart of disagreements during the Reformation. (It's certainly true that there is substantial difference in doctrine here. But the author doesn't supply us with enough information. By mentioning the "blessed sacrament," was that a point of emphasis for this Catholic writer ?)
Comer’s method in Practicing the Way is theologically promiscuous. He mingles sources from wildly different theological traditions—many mutually incompatible—without acknowledging the tension. While occasionally Comer cites thinkers in the Reformed tradition, like Tim Keller, Rosaria Butterfield, and Tim Chester, he more frequently turns to Roman Catholics (Teresa of Ávila, Ignatius of Loyola, Henri Nouwen), Eastern Orthodox writers (Kallistos Ware, Kallistos Katafygiotis), Quaker mystics (Thomas Kelly), and even a non-Christian spiritualist (Kahlil Gibran).
He presents these highly heterogeneous teachers collectively as “masters of the Way of Jesus” (47). The implication is that all these different “spiritual masters” (43) are heading down the same path and toward similar conclusions. That’s simply not the case. (What the author infers may not have been implied. Did Comer really say that there are non-Christians who know the way to Jesus?)
For example, at one point he quotes a Catholic writer who mentions the “Blessed Sacrament,” a term that Comer explains as referring to “what Protestants call ‘the Lord’s Supper’” (42). Yet a differing view on the sacraments was at the heart of disagreements during the Reformation. (It's certainly true that there is substantial difference in doctrine here. But the author doesn't supply us with enough information. By mentioning the "blessed sacrament," was that a point of emphasis for this Catholic writer ?)
Then, on the same page, Comer quotes Kelly on the topic. (This would be Thomas Kelly, who the author mentioned above.)
Yet the Quakers are notoriously one of the only groups in the Christian tradition to eschew the outward observance of the Lord’s Supper altogether. Comer never suggests there could be any serious conflict among his assembled “spiritual masters of the Way” (43). (This is all very confusing. Was Comer discussing the Lord's Supper? Did the above-mentioned Catholic make a point about it, or only mention it in passing?)
The result of Comer’s eclecticism is a vision for spiritual formation that doesn’t align with any existing, recognizable stream of historic Christianity. (The author appeals to tradition. But this seems to be the point. Why would Comer write a book that had nothing to say other than what's already been said? It seems to us that traditional understandings and historic practices become obstacles when the result is cold faith and dying churches. Comer thinks he has a remedy.)
The result of Comer’s eclecticism is a vision for spiritual formation that doesn’t align with any existing, recognizable stream of historic Christianity. (The author appeals to tradition. But this seems to be the point. Why would Comer write a book that had nothing to say other than what's already been said? It seems to us that traditional understandings and historic practices become obstacles when the result is cold faith and dying churches. Comer thinks he has a remedy.)
Consider Comer’s high praise for Ware’s Eastern Orthodox spirituality. With reference to Ware’s influential book The Orthodox Way, Comer says, “When I read this absolutely wonderful book, it felt like coming home” (237). (The horror. Comer likes a book by a non-reformed author.)
Yet Comer’s Practicing the Way lacks, among other things, a substantial reverence for icons, due esteem for Mary as the Theotokos, and a real priesthood standing in apostolic continuity with Jesus himself—all key elements of Eastern Orthodox spirituality. (Liking a book written by an Eastern Orthodox writer does not mean one must adopt Eastern Orthodox practices.)
Yet Comer’s Practicing the Way lacks, among other things, a substantial reverence for icons, due esteem for Mary as the Theotokos, and a real priesthood standing in apostolic continuity with Jesus himself—all key elements of Eastern Orthodox spirituality. (Liking a book written by an Eastern Orthodox writer does not mean one must adopt Eastern Orthodox practices.)
Moreover, if he genuinely felt like he was “coming home” while reading The Orthodox Way, why hasn’t he been received into the Orthodox Church? (Perhaps because Comer isn't Eastern Orthodox?)
In part, it seems that identifying consistently with one tradition would hamper Comer’s a la carte approach to spiritual formation. (The author again appeals to tradition. He complains that Comer is all over the map, then complains about him complimenting a specific thing. Which one is the problem, sir?
The author want Comer to stay in a specific tradition. However, Comer seems to think that this is the problem.)
Cafeteria Approach
Comer’s overall vision for the Christian life is a pick-what-works-for-you approach. (Is it that, or is it that various churches get certain things right, and those things are worth emulating?)
It’s not that he’s a secret Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox proponent hiding things from his readers. Rather, his cafeteria approach is inherently unstable and doesn’t sit comfortably within any established Christian tradition. (This is the third time the author has appealed to tradition. If Comer has a unique or fresh approach to the faith, why would that in any way have anything to do with tradition? His ideas need to stand or fall , not because "this isn't the way we do things around here," but because of their own merit.)
A Reformed approach to spiritual formation, by contrast, flows out of a consistent commitment to the Bible and the Bible alone as the ultimate rule of faith and practice. (Did Comer deny this?)
That rigorous grounding in the Word provides a consistency and a coherence that has proven durable over many centuries.
Insofar as the Reformed tradition has rightly understood Scripture, Practicing the Way represents a serious deviation from a biblical understanding of spiritual formation. (The author has written the bulk of his article at this point. He has yet to point out this deviation in specific terms. Like this: "Here's what we Reformers believe. Here's what Comer says. Here's why he's wrong.")
Insofar as the Reformed tradition has rightly understood Scripture, Practicing the Way represents a serious deviation from a biblical understanding of spiritual formation. (The author has written the bulk of his article at this point. He has yet to point out this deviation in specific terms. Like this: "Here's what we Reformers believe. Here's what Comer says. Here's why he's wrong.")
As evidenced by Comer’s downplaying of regeneration and union with Christ, an approach to spiritual formation that isn’t anchored to Scripture will drift with whatever theological currents seem attractive at the moment.
Perhaps Comer and others are dissatisfied with evangelicalism’s Reformation heritage and wish to reject it. (We doubt Comer made any such statement. We're only speculating ourselves, but we think that Comer is looking at the decline of the Church and is suggesting ways that he thinks will bring reinvigoration to it.)
Perhaps Comer and others are dissatisfied with evangelicalism’s Reformation heritage and wish to reject it. (We doubt Comer made any such statement. We're only speculating ourselves, but we think that Comer is looking at the decline of the Church and is suggesting ways that he thinks will bring reinvigoration to it.)
That’s their decision. But they should clearly identify and own that decision.
No comments:
Post a Comment