Wyatt, thank you for this charitable piece. I'm 25, and have been deeply influenced by Comer over the past 5 or so years. I read his 'The Ruthless Elimination Of Hurry' a couple of years ago and it was deeply helpful (for a distracted/anxious 20 year old trying to understand the easy yoke of Jesus). I grew up in a PCA church (that I was not very fond of for a long time), and have found much solace in people like Comer who have preach what I find to be a deeply practical theology.
That being said, I had a bit of a pit in my stomach while reading this. That is what happens I think when someone has a thoughtful critique of one of your heroes!
On immutability, I wonder if this is an issue of definitions? I have been confused by immutability because it seems to be a favorite for reformers, but scripture seems to raise questions for it.
I feel frustrated with how loudly folks brandish immutability without also affirming the other moments of God's responding to his children.
Ie.
Genesis 18 Abraham pleading with God for Sodom and Gomorrah
2 Kings 20 where Hezekiah pleas directly against God's word to him, and God grants him his wish.
Or even Mark 6 where Jesus intends/wills (Abbott-Smith, 204) to pass by the disciples then decides to meet them.
I bring those examples up all as moments where the scriptures do not seem to be prioritizing God's immutability. Again, I am advocating for a both/and that you mentioned, and have benefitted much from people delving into these moments of God's seemingly pliability. Maybe this is an issue of nature vs expression. I don't know if those are the right terms, for instance, God is love in his essence. He cannot not be love. He is unchangeable. But he can change His mind how He is responding to particular moments without ever weakening his unchanging essence?
I suppose the place where I take most exception in your piece is when you said, "In other words, the word relation refers to the ineffable relation between the Father and Son through a relation of eternal generation that has no psychological meaning."
I may just need your help understanding this because this to me is where you most misunderstand Comer too. I guess to be incredibly blunt, to say that the eternal relationship of the trinity has "no psychological meaning" is denying the imago dei in humanity. I think for Comer it is the fact that God is relational within himself that so greatly informs how we relate to him and to one another. Though I do see where it seems he takes an almost casual approach to how we can participate in this "inner life of God" which your examples made a strong case for.
Okay, those are some thoughts, I'd love to hear from you, and I hope I have reflected the same charity you humbly showed in your article.
This is a great post. I have a tendency to look at this from the perspective of trying to say too much. Comer tries to say way more than can be (or should be said) given the tradition and scripture. But I also find John Piper doing the same thing. I don't take your essay as a defence of Piper but isn't his theology (and others like him) quilty of overstating things that can be said with a robust understanding of tradition and scripture?
A really helpful critique respectfully written. It seems that defining God's personhood through the categories of human personhood is the root issue? Having taken this primary step, any theology and practice that then flows out of this becomes skewed, which is precisely the point I guess that Comer is intending to underline...
Absolutely excellent. Wow. I’ve spent a few years now thinking and writing about this exact topic (the problem of human and divine agency). I usually tend to defend Comer against a certain sort of Reformed critique. And, generally, I tend to think the agency problem—in the Bible and in the fathers—is more complex than modern popular shorthand Reformed notions of “sovereignty” and “monergism” make it out to be. But you have tackled the nuances so well. I’d love to talk with you more about this sometime.
My addition to the conversation, which you were already implying, would be a framework I call “Mixed Agency” or “Stacked Agency,” where God is not seen as an agent among agents but the Agent of/over agents.
“In the beginning, God did not create things. He created agents, that is, choosers/actors/governors. Like Shakespeare, he is the author and conductor of the play. But unlike Shakespeare, God is the only playwright whose characters are actually real.”
Okay, so I read Wyatt Graham’s long article criticizing John Mark Comer, and honestly, I’m not really buying it. Graham acts like he’s got the whole Christian tradition on his side, but he comes off as super one-sided. He makes it sound like there’s only one “correct” way to talk about God, and if Comer doesn’t line up perfectly with Augustine or Calvin, then he’s basically out to lunch. But that just seems unfair. There’s been a lot of different voices in Christianity over the centuries, not just these old dudes. Comer is trying to make sense of a real problem—why there’s evil in the world and what that means about God—and he’s doing it in a way that might help normal people who are struggling. I’m not convinced Graham understands that Comer’s trying to connect people with God on a personal level, not just give them a theology lecture.
Also, Graham keeps going on about “classical theology” and “the tradition,” like that automatically wins the argument. He doesn’t admit that “classical theology” itself came from people wrestling with Scripture in their own times and places. Theology isn’t frozen in the past; it can grow, develop, and learn from different perspectives. Comer is reading the Bible and dealing with modern thinkers like Greg Boyd and N.T. Wright, who are part of today’s conversation. Just dismissing their ideas as “unorthodox” doesn’t prove anything. All it does is show that Graham wants to stick to one narrow viewpoint.
And honestly, Graham’s approach feels way too academic, as if the best way to fix people’s spiritual struggles is to bury them under a mountain of old theological terms. Comer is trying to reach ordinary people who are hurting. Sometimes Christians want to know that it’s okay to question or struggle with stuff like evil, chaos, and suffering. Comer says God’s not pulling every single string to crush you, and that resonates with people who feel crushed. Graham might have fancy answers, but does he remember that believers also need empathy and a God who feels near, not just a perfect “first cause” outside of time?
In the end, I think Graham’s critique misses what Comer is doing. Comer’s not trying to burn down two thousand years of theology. He’s just trying to help people see that following Jesus means engaging with tough questions and trusting that God is good, even when the world isn’t. Sure, Graham has his points, but being so rigid about “the right doctrine” makes it sound like there’s no room for new perspectives within a solid Protestant Christian faith. Comer is on a mission to make faith feel real and personal, and people clearly appreciate that. Isn’t that something worth taking seriously before tossing his ideas aside?
I have enjoyed Comer’s “Practicing the Way” disciplines. What I have found with him is that, like many modern day Preachers, he does in fact seemingly stay in a comfortable place theologically, as far as how the world views us. And why I think that is, because of his normal Sunday audience. He is trying not to “chase away” potential converts. He also is trying to reach a lot of practicing Buddhist’s. At one point because he was being very vague about sexuality and other high topic concerns in modern church, I thought he was going progressive. So I attended one of his Pastors conferences online and got some clarity. Doesn’t mean I don’t have concerns but it calmed some fears. I think we all tend to buck whatever system we came out of because of whatever faults they had, but it is dangerous when we throw the baby out with the bathwater.
But God exists outside of time, and so he does push domino one at Time A into domino two at Time B. Zeus may work that way, but not the God of the Bible.
Wyatt, thank you for this charitable piece. I'm 25, and have been deeply influenced by Comer over the past 5 or so years. I read his 'The Ruthless Elimination Of Hurry' a couple of years ago and it was deeply helpful (for a distracted/anxious 20 year old trying to understand the easy yoke of Jesus). I grew up in a PCA church (that I was not very fond of for a long time), and have found much solace in people like Comer who have preach what I find to be a deeply practical theology.
That being said, I had a bit of a pit in my stomach while reading this. That is what happens I think when someone has a thoughtful critique of one of your heroes!
On immutability, I wonder if this is an issue of definitions? I have been confused by immutability because it seems to be a favorite for reformers, but scripture seems to raise questions for it.
I feel frustrated with how loudly folks brandish immutability without also affirming the other moments of God's responding to his children.
Ie.
Genesis 18 Abraham pleading with God for Sodom and Gomorrah
2 Kings 20 where Hezekiah pleas directly against God's word to him, and God grants him his wish.
Or even Mark 6 where Jesus intends/wills (Abbott-Smith, 204) to pass by the disciples then decides to meet them.
I bring those examples up all as moments where the scriptures do not seem to be prioritizing God's immutability. Again, I am advocating for a both/and that you mentioned, and have benefitted much from people delving into these moments of God's seemingly pliability. Maybe this is an issue of nature vs expression. I don't know if those are the right terms, for instance, God is love in his essence. He cannot not be love. He is unchangeable. But he can change His mind how He is responding to particular moments without ever weakening his unchanging essence?
I suppose the place where I take most exception in your piece is when you said, "In other words, the word relation refers to the ineffable relation between the Father and Son through a relation of eternal generation that has no psychological meaning."
I may just need your help understanding this because this to me is where you most misunderstand Comer too. I guess to be incredibly blunt, to say that the eternal relationship of the trinity has "no psychological meaning" is denying the imago dei in humanity. I think for Comer it is the fact that God is relational within himself that so greatly informs how we relate to him and to one another. Though I do see where it seems he takes an almost casual approach to how we can participate in this "inner life of God" which your examples made a strong case for.
Okay, those are some thoughts, I'd love to hear from you, and I hope I have reflected the same charity you humbly showed in your article.
All from a young student,
William
This is a great post. I have a tendency to look at this from the perspective of trying to say too much. Comer tries to say way more than can be (or should be said) given the tradition and scripture. But I also find John Piper doing the same thing. I don't take your essay as a defence of Piper but isn't his theology (and others like him) quilty of overstating things that can be said with a robust understanding of tradition and scripture?
A really helpful critique respectfully written. It seems that defining God's personhood through the categories of human personhood is the root issue? Having taken this primary step, any theology and practice that then flows out of this becomes skewed, which is precisely the point I guess that Comer is intending to underline...
This is excellently written well argued. I appreciated the irenic tone. No straw man detected.
Thank you. Yes, irenicism was my intent.
Great article, thank you
This is excellent, sir! Thank you so much.
Really good stuff, Wyatt. I’m tempted to do a close reading on Comer’s definition of the gospel from this sermon of his: https://practicingthewayarchives.org/teaching/the-four-american-gospels
Maybe you’ll get to it before I can.
Absolutely excellent. Wow. I’ve spent a few years now thinking and writing about this exact topic (the problem of human and divine agency). I usually tend to defend Comer against a certain sort of Reformed critique. And, generally, I tend to think the agency problem—in the Bible and in the fathers—is more complex than modern popular shorthand Reformed notions of “sovereignty” and “monergism” make it out to be. But you have tackled the nuances so well. I’d love to talk with you more about this sometime.
My addition to the conversation, which you were already implying, would be a framework I call “Mixed Agency” or “Stacked Agency,” where God is not seen as an agent among agents but the Agent of/over agents.
“In the beginning, God did not create things. He created agents, that is, choosers/actors/governors. Like Shakespeare, he is the author and conductor of the play. But unlike Shakespeare, God is the only playwright whose characters are actually real.”
https://open.substack.com/pub/rossbyrd/p/the-spirit-or-the-kick-drum?r=c2xi0&utm_medium=ios
Okay, so I read Wyatt Graham’s long article criticizing John Mark Comer, and honestly, I’m not really buying it. Graham acts like he’s got the whole Christian tradition on his side, but he comes off as super one-sided. He makes it sound like there’s only one “correct” way to talk about God, and if Comer doesn’t line up perfectly with Augustine or Calvin, then he’s basically out to lunch. But that just seems unfair. There’s been a lot of different voices in Christianity over the centuries, not just these old dudes. Comer is trying to make sense of a real problem—why there’s evil in the world and what that means about God—and he’s doing it in a way that might help normal people who are struggling. I’m not convinced Graham understands that Comer’s trying to connect people with God on a personal level, not just give them a theology lecture.
Also, Graham keeps going on about “classical theology” and “the tradition,” like that automatically wins the argument. He doesn’t admit that “classical theology” itself came from people wrestling with Scripture in their own times and places. Theology isn’t frozen in the past; it can grow, develop, and learn from different perspectives. Comer is reading the Bible and dealing with modern thinkers like Greg Boyd and N.T. Wright, who are part of today’s conversation. Just dismissing their ideas as “unorthodox” doesn’t prove anything. All it does is show that Graham wants to stick to one narrow viewpoint.
And honestly, Graham’s approach feels way too academic, as if the best way to fix people’s spiritual struggles is to bury them under a mountain of old theological terms. Comer is trying to reach ordinary people who are hurting. Sometimes Christians want to know that it’s okay to question or struggle with stuff like evil, chaos, and suffering. Comer says God’s not pulling every single string to crush you, and that resonates with people who feel crushed. Graham might have fancy answers, but does he remember that believers also need empathy and a God who feels near, not just a perfect “first cause” outside of time?
In the end, I think Graham’s critique misses what Comer is doing. Comer’s not trying to burn down two thousand years of theology. He’s just trying to help people see that following Jesus means engaging with tough questions and trusting that God is good, even when the world isn’t. Sure, Graham has his points, but being so rigid about “the right doctrine” makes it sound like there’s no room for new perspectives within a solid Protestant Christian faith. Comer is on a mission to make faith feel real and personal, and people clearly appreciate that. Isn’t that something worth taking seriously before tossing his ideas aside?
I have enjoyed Comer’s “Practicing the Way” disciplines. What I have found with him is that, like many modern day Preachers, he does in fact seemingly stay in a comfortable place theologically, as far as how the world views us. And why I think that is, because of his normal Sunday audience. He is trying not to “chase away” potential converts. He also is trying to reach a lot of practicing Buddhist’s. At one point because he was being very vague about sexuality and other high topic concerns in modern church, I thought he was going progressive. So I attended one of his Pastors conferences online and got some clarity. Doesn’t mean I don’t have concerns but it calmed some fears. I think we all tend to buck whatever system we came out of because of whatever faults they had, but it is dangerous when we throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Typo?
God the Word of the Father suffers impassibility in his own flesh. That is how God can suffer.
That’s correct. I have an article coming out soon that explains this with Logos coming out soon
Should it say that he suffers impassibly? Not that he suffers impassibility?
Oops, yes. I totally missed that! Ha.
Typo?
But God exists outside of time, and so he does push domino one at Time A into domino two at Time B. Zeus may work that way, but not the God of the Bible.
Yes, needed the NOT