John Mark Comer
The Master of Pseudo-Profundities and Really Bad Teaching
I read the book Practicing the Way because my daughter’s small group tossed around the idea of reading it. This was my introduction to John Mark Comer. Although I had heard about him from a few podcasts, I had to go to the horse’s mouth for information. And here we are. Do you have your coffee, a snack, and your wits? You are going to need them.
Introduction
Comer’s Practicing the Way is an attempt to offer a large and rather generalized way of following Jesus through so-called spiritual disciplines. Comer presents his work as a way of being a disciple, or “apprentice” of Jesus, as Comer phrases it, and uses the art of poetic and rhythmic writing. The content of Practicing the Way should be read with great caution and discernment and a believer should have the Bible on hand, ready to check his use of the text at any time.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to develop habits that would provide space to read the Bible, pray, think, and have times of rest. These are good and important. The idea of “spiritual disciplines” in their most basic forms is directly seen in Scripture such as prayer, being with other believers, taking communion, Bible study, worship, and others. On the surface, developing habits of following Jesus is quite biblical. However, this is not the direction Comer will take his reader.
Comer falls into the lineage of a few prominent voices dating back to the 70s like Dallas Willard, Richard Foster. These men know each other and consider one another friends and mentors. All of them promote what is called contemplative spirituality, different ways of connecting with God, mystical teachings of how humans think and connect to God, and other challenging views of God, salvation, maturity, etc. This belief system is vast and deep, full of teachers and teachings that fall outside orthodox Christianity and add layers of “spiritual” burdens to achieve so-called experiences with God. A quick Google search will fill your screen with website after website promoting the most prominent ideas and teachers and the dangers of this movement. However, this post does not deal directly with the theology around contemplative spirituality (but will in later posts) but rather looks at one of the rising stars in this mystical spiritualism - John Mark Comer.
So far… Not a Heretic, Maybe, Almost?
While I disagree with about 98% of Comer's writing, I must start by saying that I am slow to call him a heretic from this book. I would need to see if he clarifies some of his statements elsewhere. The term heretic should be reserved for those who teach things in direct contradiction to the orthodox teachings of the church regarding the deity of Jesus, the monotheistic belief of Christianity, the virgin birth, sin, salvation, etc. Comer biblically explains who God is, who Jesus is, what Jesus did for the sins of mankind, and what the Church is. This is clear.
However, I am on the fence about Comer’s view of salvation. On the one hand, he is clear and seems to hold an orthodox view of salvation. He is clear about the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus and the forgiveness of sin when one believes and confesses. On the other hand, he seems to hold it loosely, putting the staying power of salvation in the believer. I will show you this shortly.
Another place that makes me question his orthodoxy is found in his section called “The Trellis and the Vine”. He writes, “In his incarnation, Jesus laid down the pattern for how to flourish as a human being in God’s world. Jesus himself was an embodied soul, with the plasticity of a central nervous system” (181). Maybe I can give Comer the benefit of the doubt and he simply means Jesus was “like” us. However, I am not convinced based on the rest of the chapter. Jesus was not an embodied soul like us. Quite different, like He’s God different.
“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities, all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things and in him all things hold together” Colossians 1:15ff.
“He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature and he upholds the universe by the word of his power” Hebrews 1:1.
“Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he unbowed himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” Phil. 2:5-11.
With a statement like “Jesus has a soul” with no biblical evidence, I question Comer’s understanding of Jesus. [After a significant debate in the comments, I want to send you, dear reader, to a footnote about this comment I made. It is worth addressing, and I feel it is important to clear some things up.]1
There are other places in the book that seem to be orthodox, and then also seem to twist away from it. For some examples, see the top of 79, 89-96, and for a poor take on Jesus in relation to us, see 124-128. This theology is dealt with more in my fourth post on John Eldredge and his teachings on the authority Jesus has given us.
For this post, I will focus on three concerns:
The rampant issues of assertions, claims, and statements.
The mishandling and misinterpretation of the Scripture.
The freedom Comer feels to speak for Jesus.
If you would like a full critique of his book, I’m happy to email you a document. It was entirely too long for a post. Just send me a message with your email and I’ll send it to you.
Assertions, Claims, and Pseudo-Profundities
Comer begins making assertions in chapter one, “Jesus was a Rabbi.” His assertions are mixed with logical fallacies like false dichotomies, straw man arguments, sweeping generalities, and others. For example,
“…saying that Jesus was a rabbi is about as insightful as saying that he was Jewish (although that’s another truth copious numbers of people forget). But sadly, very few people - including many Christians - take Jesus seriously as a spiritual teacher… To a large number of Western Christians, he is a delivery mechanism for a particular theory of atonement, as if the only reason he came was to die, not to live. As a result, many Christians don’t consider Jesus all that smart. Holy, sure. Kind, yes. Even divine. But intelligent? Not really” (5).
Did your eyebrows furrow?
This large quote shows multiple things Comer does throughout the book to sound profound and spiritual.
He builds a straw man by using generalities like “very few people”, “many Christians,” and “a large number of Western Christians”.2 With an assertion like that, it is easy to knock down the flimsy straw man of the Western ideas of Jesus that Comer says are prevalent.
He offers no evidence for this, making it simply an assertion with no legs to stand on and no reason for anyone to believe him.
He creates the idea that these are the only options. You either think Jesus is one thing or you don’t.
From here, Comer presents his ideas about how we should be apprentices. This is the point of his book - we are to be apprentices of Jesus. Does not sound like a bad idea, does it? Let’s take a closer look.
There are two major issues with Comer’s chapter on “apprenticeship”:
He doesn’t teach anything significant about the words “Christian” or “apprentice,” though trying to show their differences. He focuses on their uses in the New Testament. It seems to be a wasted effort. It would have taken a sentence to explain. However, he offers no biblical context, exegesis, history, or any other common and normal process of explaining terms. He tries to be profound by pointing out that the word “Christian” is only used three times in the NT while the word “disciple” or “apprentice” is used 269 times. His point is that the Bible does not use the word “Christian” but “apprentice,” and we should focus on being an apprentice and not a nominal Christian. This argument shows his lack of biblical knowledge and historical reasons why the word Christian is only used three times. A quick Google search would have saved Comer a chapter. There is nothing profound here.
This assertion sounds biblical, yet it isn’t. This is called a pseudo-profundity. He is saying something that sounds profound but is not. What is more, God is not looking for “apprentices in the kingdom of God”, as Comer claims on page 17. He is looking for those who would worship him in spirit and in truth (John 4:23).
I’ll provide two other examples of pseudo-profundities.
“For Jesus, salvation is less about getting you into heaven and more about getting heaven into you.” (21)
Two problems here. 1. Comer claims he knows that this is actually what Jesus thinks. 2. This makes zero biblical sense. There is nothing in the Bible that even suggests that Jesus wants to get heaven into you.
“Through deliberate practice, you can train your mind to come back to God. Eventually your mind, and through it, your entire body and soul, will anchor itself in God, and will abide” (44)
Says no verse anywhere. Comer has the opportunity to teach John 14-17 and does not.
If you read carefully, you will see time and time again where Comer makes a spiritual-sounding assertion, a pseudo-profundity, and supplies zero biblical evidence to make his assertion a claim. Once you see it, you cannot unsee it.
Assertions and Bad Theology
His section “But what are we saved to?” (18-24) is one of grievous concern and should be read with a great deal of discernment. Space doesn’t allow the line-by-line critique of this section, but a few things should be noted regarding the assertions made.
The first concern is a claim because he uses the Bible to back up his statement. He writes,
“There is no guarantee that you can be a Christian and not an apprentice of Jesus and still go to heaven when you die. Jesus warned us, ‘Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven’” (20).
Comer’s misuse of this text is ignorant at best, and deceptive at worst. If Comer had done his work to study the context in which Jesus said this, his claim would fall to pieces. However, since Comer is in the business of making assertions and claims to promote “the Way,” he will not follow the accepted rules of hermeneutics.
Matthew 7:21 is found in the Sermon on the Mount. This particular verse comes on the heels of Christ’s teaching to beware of false prophets. Jesus is saying those who are false prophets, those who make claims about what they did in the name of Jesus, will find themselves facing the grievous words of Christ, “I never knew you” (Matt. 7:23). This verse is not about what Comer claims it to be. His misuse of the text is a tactic to promote his bad teaching, and he twists the text to fit his narrative.
Then he says,
“Even if you can [enter the kingdom], (and I am nothing but hopeful when it comes to the mercy of God), you remain trapped in a self-defeating cycle of sin and shame and you never experience the life with God and formation into a person of love that we all ache for in the marrow of our bones” (20).
You might want to read that again. I say to this, “What now?” If Comer is talking about heaven, as in heaven after you die, how could one be “trapped in a self-defeating cycle of sin and shame”? It begs the question, what does Comer mean by heaven? A straight reading of his book seems to indicate he thinks the kingdom of heaven is something other than redemption from sin forever and life eternal in the presence of God. His remarks about being trapped come on the heels of his assertion that not everyone will enter the kingdom of heaven. It is unclear and muddled. His inability to make a clear argument with any logical statements creates a dangerous theology and places a massive burden on those who read this book.
This chapter alone should prompt one to abandon John Mark Comer. Even if you like so-called spiritual disciplines and find them helpful, the theology Comer is teaching is egregious.
Comer also writes that salvation is about forming a whole new humanity and healing the cosmos. Here is his remark, “And it’s [salvation] not just about you and me as individuals but also about the formation of a whole new humanity and the healing of the cosmos itself” (22). Again, the Bible says this nowhere, and he doesn’t even try to substantiate this claim. Chances are he would refer to Romans 8:21-22 or Colossians 1, but he does not. Comer does connect salvation with the Kingdom of God, as he should. It sounds correct; however, he does not teach it in the way you would think. He asserts that regarding the kingdom of God, we need “serious training in order to know how to access this new society and enter the inner life of God that’s been made available through Jesus” (22-23). Apparently, we have to be trained to enter the “new society” and enter the “inner life of God,” which he does not explain or offer anything theological background for this.
Dear reader, before you get to page 24 of his book, you can sniff out bad theology, false theology, logical fallacies, flimsy assertions, weak claims, and cloaked hubris. The issues of Comer’s assertions and claims run rampant in the book and should be seen for what they are just Comer making stuff up and borrowing from John Ortberg and Dallas Willard.
Misuse of the Bible
The next major issue with Comer is his use of the Bible throughout the book. The main problems are using a verse or verses out of context, conflating ideas, misinterpretation, and misapplication. As you have already seen, this is a problem. Allow me to offer a few of the many.
The first is seen in his misuse of Matthew 7. Comer uses the Bible to make a point that the Bible does not make, and in doing so, he abuses, mishandles, misinterprets, and misapplies the text. Comer would fail the most basic hermeneutics class on day one.
Are You Sure You’re Saved?
Comer says we must understand the gospel. He writes, “Because how you understand the gospel is the linchpin of how you approach (or don’t approach) discipleship. ‘Saying yes to Jesus’ does not an apprentice make” (18-19). Next, he offers a full disclosure that what he is about to present is a “caricature designed to sharpen” his point (19). You may disagree. Comer is about to reveal what he thinks about the Gospel. What he does next shows that he has a rather low view of the full counsel of the Bible and presents a simplistic version of the Gospel. Thankfully, he offers his caveat by saying this is a summation of the gospel present in “many circles”. He actually admits that he is presenting a straw man argument and therefore shoots himself in the foot.
He describes the general gospel as “You are a sinner going to hell. God loves you. Jesus died on the cross for your sins. If you believe in him, you can go to heaven when you die” (19). He claims that this gospel “doesn’t sound anything at all like the gospel Jesus himself preached” (19). I agree because he purposefully truncated the biblical concepts and teachings about the Gospel. He goes on to say this has created its missing whole pieces of truth (agreed) and has created a kind of salvation by “minimum entrance requirements” (quote by Ortberg, 19). This is an important note. Ortberg will change the meaning of the Gospel by only focusing on what Jesus said the Gospel was. He does this by presenting a few verses, stringing them together out of context, ignoring the entirety of the Bible, and truncating the full message of Jesus.
Comer purposefully truncates the Gospel to knock down the tiny straw man he formed. The New Testament is replete with definitions of what the Gospel is, what Jesus said about it, and what the apostles said it was.3 Comer makes no mention of these.
Directly after this, Comer brings in the theology around sin (hamartia in Greek) and “missing the mark”. May I point out that Comer does not offer any biblical references for this term and uses one source for his “scholarly work” --bibletools.org (237).
He asks a rhetorical question, “What is the mark?” He then proposes more rhetorical questions rather than offering a balanced view of this word and phrase.
He asked,
“What if the mark is union with God? What if it’s the healing of your soul through participation with the inner life of the Trinity? What if it’s adoption into the father's new multi-ethnic family through the saving work of his son Jesus? What if it’s becoming the kind of person who is so pervaded by love, wisdom, and strength that we have developed the capacity to eventually rule with Jesus over the cosmos itself…If so, this gospel is an inadequate foundation on which to build the life of an apprenticeship that is conducive to deep inner healing and overall transformation of body and soul.” (20)
Comer is asking questions the Bible does not ask, and yet has already answered. He provides no scholars’ work to define the mark according to Scripture and the original languages. He just talks and talks.
To add to this, Comer’s spiritual advisor told him to “Sit in your sin and let God love you” (50). I’m sorry, what? He explains that we hold it [sin] before God in “utter vulnerability” and let God love us as we are. This isn’t what the Bible teaches. Then he says, “…let God love you into who you have the potential to become” (50) The Bible teaches we should confess our sins, not sit in them (see James 5:16). The Bible teaches we are to become like Christ (See 1 John 2:6; Romans 8:28-29;2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 2:20, 3:27; Ephesians 4:22-24).
Once you see the pattern, you will notice that Comer uses the Scripture to make his point rather than using the Scripture to build his point. He uses biblical words like “fallen short” yet gives no biblical meaning of those words whatsoever, or changes them altogether. He builds his own “what-if” theology and creates confusion about “missing the mark”. He does not even present Romans 3, where those words are found. A little red flag of context warning should be flying high. Let’s take a look at what Paul said:
“But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness because in his divine forbearance, he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” Romans 3:21-26 ESV.
As Comer has so weakly made his arguments about salvation, it is worth noting that this is his standard tactic used throughout the book. Comer presents an idea in a summarized fashion (a straw man) so he can knock it down with seemingly profound things to say. In response to his notion that this is a simplified gospel preached in most arenas, I would offer him some biblical reasons why people would present the gospel this way.
“For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” Rom. 10:13 ESV. It is quite simple.
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God” John.3.16-18 ESV.
Gazing at Jesus is All It Takes!
Are you ready for some Bible gymnastics, nay, Bible karate? Comer says the word “contemplation” comes from where Paul says we “contemplate the Lord’s glory” in 2 Corinthians 3. Then he gives the Greek word for contemplation. Well, he must be right then! But alas, using zero contextual or exegetical teaching, he says it means that “to contemplate the Lord’s glory is to direct the inner gaze of your heart at the trinitarian community of love” (48). But the Bible says, well, never mind, we can’t burden ourselves with biblical facts. See 2 Corinthians 3:1-18 for the full context.
Comer claims, “We become like what we gaze at, Jesus, with ever-increasing glory, meaning we become more and more beautiful, like Jesus, over time through simple, daily contemplation” (48). So no repentance, no mortifying the flesh, and no Holy Spirit. Got it. I’m just going to sit and gaze at Jesus, and poof! I’m like him! YAY! This will be easy.
He does offer a way to become like Jesus by abiding in the vine. But to get around actually teaching the text, he claims that it “would take a book,” so we are just going to skip past it and not take the time to read John 15. However, Comer says we become like Jesus “through contemplation.” We let God love us into people of love” (49). Comer needs to read 1 John.
Contemplation is the Name of the Game
Comer says that “to know this love that surpasses knowledge” in Ephesians 1 is about an experience. He says that Paul was aware of the limitations of the mind. We can’t just know about the love of God; we have to know the love of God, to experience it in our inner beings, if we are to be transformed into people of love (49). This conflates ideas by twisting Scripture, using eisegesis, and a man-first theology. Ironically, Comer is using his mind, his reservoir of knowledge about God, to tell us that there is something beyond knowledge when it comes to God. He skips over the first part of Paul’s letter where he wrote, “I do not cease to give thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers, that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him…” (Eph. 1:17). He then minimizes and changes Paul’s teaching by writing, “In Paul’s paradigm, this transformation happens as we ‘contemplate,’ as we gaze, as we look at God, looking at us, in love” (49). Nonsense.
Comer claims that contemplation will change us in ways that bible study cannot. “This simple, uncomplicated act has the potential to transform our inner lives and heal our deepest wounds in ways that more Bible study, church attendance, and even therapy (as good as those are) cannot possibly touch” (49). And there it is — the insufficiency of Scripture, of prayer, of faith, and of the Spirit’s ability to do what He promised in the Word.
He downplays petitionary prayer and says contemplative prayer is not looking to “get anything from God; it’s just looking at God” (50). This means nothing. The Bible says, “You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe, and shudder” (James 2:19).
Contemplation is saying “Yes to God with my whole being, but without words” (51). Then how do you say yes? I can say yes with my whole being and not have to do this. It’s called faith.
“It’s just that you reach a point in any relationship, but especially with God, where words and even thoughts no longer carry you forward toward intimacy. They bring you so far, but not all the way, and may even hold you back” (51).
I want to remind Comer that God chose to reveal Himself through the minds of His people with words. He is called “The Word” in 1 John 1. What is more, John wrote, “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:30-31).
Promoting the idea that we must experience something other than faith that prompts an emotional response is unfounded. It is more New Age than Christian. Contemplative spirituality opens the door to radical subjective spiritism and mysticism based on our senses and feelings rather than our common sense and feelings in response to the truth found in God’s Word.
I hope you’re seeing the issues now. Comer is showing his non-biblical, made-up theology mystic stripes.
Speaking For Jesus
The Scripture gives us all we need for life and godliness. The Hebrew writer wrote, “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world” (Heb. 1:1-2). In light of this, we should be slow to write or speak anything that would suggest we know what Jesus really meant or that he has spoken through us for everyone else. This is a dangerous practice and Comer has no issue with it.
When someone characterizes the text by using updated forms of language to try and communicate the message of the text, we call that contextualizing. We might hear someone preaching a message using the words in the Bible and then say something like, “In other words…” giving it a spin without messing with the intended meaning. I am not a fan of supposing God meant something or speaking for God flippantly, but Comer seems to see no problem with doing so.
The first time it stands out is on page 26. Comer mentions that Jesus said he was the Way, the Truth, and the Life, but claims,
“people misread this as a statement about who’s in or out, who’s going to hell, and who’s in route to heaven. But that’s not likely what Jesus meant. It’s far more likely that he was saying that the marriage of His truth, his teaching, and His way, his lifestyle, is how to get to the ‘with God’ life he offers” (26).
This is simply unacceptable. Saying that it is “far more likely” that Jesus meant something else is a bad approach to teaching the Bible. Comer does zero exegetical work here nor does he use any scholarly references to back up this assertion. Comer is offering you the Bible, chopped up, spun around, and calling it good. What he does with this text is simply offensive.
Comer writes, “In John 1, Jesus said to a few potential disciples, ‘Come and See’ [John 1:39 NLT]. Meaning ‘Come and live the way with me for a while and see whether life together in the kingdom of love is not far better than any other kingdom. Whether this path is not better than any other path. Come and see” (63).
Saying “meaning” and then speaking for Jesus is never a good way to exegete the text and propose the true meaning. He literally changed the meaning of the text, and he just gets away with it. He also misuses the text. John 1:39 is in the context of the disciples asking Jesus, “Rabbi, where are you staying?” To which Jesus replies, “Come and see.” All Jesus was saying was “Come and see” where he was staying while there in Jerusalem. Comer made all this up.
My dear furrowed brow reader, I cannot begin to show you all the faulty theology, wild claims, mystic beliefs, the rest of the assertions, claims, and pseudo-profundities, so like I did with Eldredge, I would suggest you read it for yourself.
What to look for:
Mysticism and mystics he quotes and follows.
More Scriptures abuses and misuses.
His “training” method.
More pseudo-profundities and basic nonsense.
His low view of his reader (see pages 81-84).
His low view of Scripture.
His lack of biblical and scholarly work and citations.
His strange ideas about petitionary prayer.
The erroneous teaching in his section “Jesus the Prototype” - this might be worth a post!
How would this teaching work around the world? Spoiler alert! It wouldn’t.
And there you have it, my summary of John Mark Comer’s book Practicing the Way. It is by no means an exhaustive look, and there is much to avoid. His teachings are by far some of the wildest I’ve ever read, and his audience is growing exponentially.
Again, if you want my exhaustive look at this book, please contact me below.
Stay discerning, my friends.
I had a reader concerned about my comment where I accused Comer of not understanding Jesus. After rounds of trying to convince this reader that I do not deny the hypostatic nature of Jesus, I pushed back on the concept of Jesus having a “soul” as primarily understood by Dallas Willard and John Ortberg, both major influences in Comer’s life.
There is a specific framework for this idea that we get from the Bible. There is no doubt in my mind that Jesus was both 100% God and 100% human. Therefore, in the Biblical sense of the word “soul”, then yes, Jesus could be considered having a “soul”. This concept originates from the Hebrew word nephesh, which can mean many things, but in this context, it refers to the full and whole person, encompassing thought, feeling, emotion, decision, will, and body. Everything about a person is considered nephesh. Therefore, when Jesus chose to enter into humanity, he experienced what he had created and given to humans - the nephesh. This is good, holy, and quite astounding (Matt 1:23; Jn 1:1-14; 1 Tim 3:16; Col 2:9; Heb 4:15 and others).
Now, we must view this idea of “soul” from what Comer teaches. I would contend that Comer fashioned at least some of his ideas about the “soul” from John Ortberg and Dallas Willard. I’m going to 1. Give you the context of the issue. 2. Share the ideas of “soul” as described by Willard and Ortberg. Obviously, I am willing to address these things multiple times, and while the discussion with the reader in the comments was difficult, I am grateful for it.
To begin with, let me give you the context of my contention with Comer’s words. He writes, “In his incarnation, Jesus laid down the pattern for how to flourish as a human being in God’s world. Jesus himself was an embodied soul, with the plasticity of a central nervous system. His time-tested practices show us the Way; they attune us to God and allow the Spirit to heal and save us” (181, emphasis mine). This is where I am struggling to agree with Comer. Comer does not deny that Jesus was both God and man (see pages 124-128), but the Bible does not teach that Jesus was an “embodied soul”. It teaches that Jesus was God in the flesh. I think this is an important distinction. This is tricky language because in the context of the human design, most of us view ourselves as souls within a body. There is the duality of the human, both spirit and body. We were created by God/Jesus (Col. 1) and given a nephesh. We indeed are humans as nephesh. Jesus is described in Col 2:9 as the “fullness of the deity” dwelling in the body. This is why I made the comment I did. I’m leaving it up there as-is because I want to be honest about my original post.
The second thing I want to address is the idea of the “soul,” particularly where Willard and Ortberg land on this idea.
Willard, in his book “Renovation of the Heart,” goes to great lengths to try to explain the aspects of human life. He categorizes them as follows: Thought, Feeling, Choice, Body, Social Context, and Soul (30). There is no denying that we think in this way. We reference our feelings, consider our thoughts, make our choices, react to and inform our social context, and have what we would call the entirety of these things: a soul. I agree with Willard so far. Here is where we begin to separate. Willard writes, “The ideal of the spiritual life in the Christian understanding is one where all of the essential parts of the human self are effectively organized around God, as they are restored and sustained by him” (31). Willard then proceeds to write about how one organized these “essential parts” around God. In one place, regarding our soul and our inner self, Willard contends that there is a “hidden dimension” of ourselves “not visible to others, nor is it fully graspable even by ourselves. We usually know very little about the things that move in our own soul, the deepest level of our life, or what is driving it. Our ‘within’ is astonishingly complex and subtle - even devious. It takes on a life of its own” (17). One could rationalize quoting how the heart is deceitful above all things, and how we can wrestle with the sin we do not want to commit, but this is not where Willard goes. If anything, if our soul is devious, it does not need to be integrating the rest of me. It (if we’re going with Willard’s ideas here) needs to come under the authority of Jesus and His Word.
There is a sense within us that we might feel like our “inner self” is waging war against us. However, the Scripture calls that sin, and it’s something we die to. Also, the Word of God exposes everything in us, leaving us corrected, trained, equipped and complete (2 Tim. 3:16). What is more, the grace of God trains us to renounce ungodliness and wordly passions and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age” (Titus 2:11). We do not have to believe there is something “other” in us that is “devious” or that can take on a “life of its own.”
Jesus has already redeemed us and purified us by his mercy “by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior” (Titus 2:14, 3:5-6). Willard teaches that spiritual formation is “the process leading to that ideal end, and its result is love of God, with all of the heart, soul, mind, and strength, and of the neighbor as oneself. The human self is then fully integrated under God” (31). This seems backwards to the Word of God. John teaches that it is not that we have loved God, or that we go through spiritual formation to get to the result of loving God, but that God loved us “and sent his Son to be the proptiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10). Our love is the response to the love of God! Not the result of spiritual formation. Our love and obedience are in response to the great love of God, and because of that, we work to reject sin, to live rightly, to pray faithfully, and to humble ourselves to more transformation by the Spirit.
Willard also argues that “obedience is an essential outcome of Christian spiritual formation” (23) and cites John 13:34-35, 14:21. I would argue that obedience is a prerequisite to being formed in Christ. John 13:34-35 says, “A new commandment I give to you that you love one another just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this, all the people will know that you are my disciples if you have love for one another.” I’m not exactly sure where Willard makes the connection here. Obedience to Christ is a command from the get-go, and is exemplified in the very text Willard cites, “Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him” (John 14:21).
Now, to Willard’s ideas about the soul. I am just going to quote straight out of the book, so there is no confusion:
“The soul is that dimension of the person that interrelates all of the other dimensions so that they form one life. It is like a meta-dimension or higher-level dimension because its direct field of play consists of the other dimensions (thought, body, and so on), and through them it reaches ever deeper into the person’s vast environment of God and his creation. It has been said that each soul is a star in the spiritual universe - or so it was meant o be (Matthew 13:43). And there can be no doubt that this is the biblical view, understanding that “soul” here is a term that refers to the whole person through its most profound dimensions” (37).
“Because the soul encompasses and ‘organizes’ the whole person, it is frequently taken to be the person. We naturally treat persons as ‘souls.' But of course, the soul is not the person. It is, rather, the deepest part of the self in terms of overall operations; and like the body, it has the capacity to operate (and does, largely, operate) without conscious supervision” (37 emphasis mine).
“The soul is somewhat like a computer that quietly runs a business or manufacturing operation and only comes to our attention when it malfunctions or requires some adaptation to new tasks. It can be significantly ‘reprogrammed,’ and this too is a major part of what goes into the spiritual formation (re-formation) of the person” (37).
Willard has an illustration with five concentric circles. The “spirit” or will is the center, the Mind is the next circle, then the body, social, and finally the soul. The soul is the outer circle because it is “interfacing it with an infinite environment” (39). It [the soul] is the most inclusive dimension of the self, foundational to all others, but also that access to it may be achieved directly from sources entirely outside the person - from God, certainly, but possibly other forces as well, benign as well as dreadful” (39).
If all of these things are “properly aligned with God and what is good - our action will simply be the good fruit of the good tree. If they are not so aligned, they will be the inevitable bad fruit of the bad tree” (39).
“When the proper ordering of the human system under God is complete - which no doubt will ever fully occur in this life because of the social dimension of the self and our finitude and the total spiritual environment surrounding us - then we have people who ‘love God with all their heart, and with all their soul, and with all their strength, and with all their mind; and their neighbor as themselves… When we are like this, our whole life is an eternal one…Once the spirit comes alive in God, the lengthy processes of subduing all aspects of the self under God can begin. This is the process of spiritual formation viewed in its entirety” (41).
“The soul is that aspect of your whole being that correlates, integrates, and enlivens everything going on in the various dimensions of the self. It is the life-center of the human being. It regulates whatever is occurring in each of those dimensions and how they interact with each other and respond to surrounding events in the overall governance of your life. The soul is ‘deep’ in the sense of being basic or foundational and also in the sense that it lies almost totally beyond conscious awareness” (199).
The soul is me, but not me.
I have to let it do all the integrating, but I’m not conscious of it, aware of it, and it could be devious.
It does all this work so I am transformed into Christ’s likeness, all without my help. But I do help.
“In the person with the ‘well-kept heart,’ the soul will be itself properly ordered under God and in harmony with reality” (199).
I have to have a well-kept heart so my soul can be itself and be properly ordered under God and in harmony with reality. Got it. Also, what is reality?
For Willard, all of this work, all of this integrating, is so that a person will be prepared for and capable of responding to the situation of life in ways that are good and right. “For such a person, the human spirit will be in correct relationship to God. With his assisting grace, it will bring the soul into subjection to God and the mind (thoughts, feelings) into subjection to the soul” (199).
But, there could be a problem.
“There is a developmental order in the soul, such that if it does not receive what it needs to receive within appropriate periods of time as it grows, its further progression toward wholeness is permanently hindered. It will never be what it might have been. Sometimes, horrible events of later life, such as being tortured or cruelly betrayed, have similar effects. from which the soul may never recover” (201).
He does not explain how one is supposed to know when the soul is in need and what one is supposed to give the soul to keep it from being “permanently hindered.” Willard then reassures the reader that one must not overgeneralize such things, and the soul can be healed.
“Our soul is like an inner stream of water, which gives strength, direction, and harmony to every other element of our life. What that stream is as it should be, we are constantly refreshed and exuberant in all we do, because our soul itself is then profusely rooted in the vastness of God and his kingdom, including nature, and all else within us is enlivened and directed by that stream. Therefore, we are in harmony with God, reality, and the rest of human nature and nature at large” (204).
“When we speak of the human soul, then, we are speaking of the deepest level of life and power in the human being” (205)
**Next paragraph**
“That this is the meaning of the soul in the Christian understanding can, I think, be seen from what the Bible says about God’s soul” (206).
Willard makes some references and even talks of the nephesh, then says that when the “true meaning” of when soul is used in reference to God, it is “always made to the deepest, most fundamental level of his being” (206).
All of this I have laid out for you from Dallas’ own words. I have not made a commentary because I truly believe his words speak for themselves and show just how exhausting his view of the soul is. For Willard and Ortberg, the soul is something that is you but not you. Working in you but supposedly working for you, before God and the soul, has to be healthy before God, so it can integrate all your other aspects.
How are we to do this? I do not know.
I know that Ortberg believes our souls are always before God (see “Soul Keeping: Caring for the Most Important Part of You” page 91). But a few pages later, Ortberg say when we “reach out to God, we are lifting our souls up to be nurtured and healed” (104). But, according to Ortberg, “it is much harder than it sounds to keep our souls centered on God” (104). This is not good news.
Ortberg says the soul “seeks God with its whole being. Because it is desperate to be whole, the soul is God-smitten and God-crazy and God-obsessed” (116). But, your soul is also “vulnerable because it is needy” (81). Your soul “cries for attention” (93). Also, your soul has to have a center. … but I thought my soul was before God. How can my soul be before God and needy and vulnerable and all the other things?
There is so much more, but I hope you’re getting the picture. This is why I flinched when Comer spoke of Jesus having a soul. If he means a soul as Willard and Ortberg describe it, then no. If he means what my friend in the comments and I discussed, then yes.
See Luke 4:16-22, 8:1; Matthew 24:14; Mark 1:14-15, 10:29; Acts 13:26-29; Romans 1:16-17; 1 Corinthians 15:1-11; 2 Corinthians 5:17-21; Galatians 1:8-9; Ephesians 3:7-8.
I have this book, but haven’t started reading it. Thank you for your insight….I will now throw it in the trash and not even bother reading it. Last week I threw out Get your life back by Eldridge. I am really enjoying your Substack!
Really strong case for discernment in filtering gunk and glitter from Biblical truth. Thank you for a thoughtful and clearly presented exposure of Comer's mile-wide, inch-deep theology. To all of you contemplative, mystical, mantra muttering, dark night of the soulers, Rohr and Monk-Kidd groupies ... not buying it.