Whenever I read about Christians in America and their genuine fear of “eastern mysticism” I wonder how much of that ideology is formed through genuine understanding of what true “eastern mysticism” is. I believe many American Evangelicals (I don’t know if you consider yourself as one), but folks like Challies (who I respect) probably have at the very least a lack of deep understanding of eastern mysticism and often use it as a straw man or a prop in their “apologetics.” To be frank, I wonder if some of that is rooted in a very passive form of discrimination or racism toward Asian people that has been deeply rooted in American culture (which has pervaded its way into the American Church).
That being said, I find it interesting that you write about this mysticism and you directly link it to “inward contemplation” as if contemplation was singularly an “eastern mystic” principle? Did not the Greek philosophers contemplate? Did not even Jesus contemplate in the times of prayer and reflection on the Word? Perhaps the conflation of Comer’s Practicing the Way to eastern mysticism and contemplation is not as accurate.
I agree with the comment above that Comer’s work is better categorized as neo-monastic or a blend of American Protestantism with a contemplative charismatic Catholicism — at best. I completely disagree that his work and theology is full blown Gnosticism. In all of my readings of Comer’s books and being a participant in Practicing The Way, never did I ever hear about “secret knowledge” or an individualistic way of attaining this knowledge. In fact, many times, I find him or others on his teaching team talk about doing these spiritual practices in community.
I for one, find Comer’s work invaluable to the body of Christ and find pieces similar to yours popping up on the internet fascinating because there is such a delayed allergic reaction. Why do you think this is?
Hi, Sorry I didn’t see the question part of your comment until someone else commented. I’m going to try to respond to each of your paragraphs in order since there seems to be multiple questions.
Unfortunately, I think I would have to turn the question in the first paragraph and ask it in return. What you seem to categorize as “genuine fear” and a lack of understanding of eastern mysticism seems to me like a lack of understanding of the exclusivity of Christianity. Following Jesus has never been syncretistic or inclusive of other religious practices. Whether those other practices consider themselves a “religion” or not. This exclusivity is what sets Christians apart and made Christianity offensive from the beginning. Jesus says that He is way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Him. The early Christians were called “atheists” and persecuted by the cultures they lived among, not because they didn’t believe in God, but because they didn’t believe in many gods and refused to practice their religious customs, which included mysticism. I think to suggest this is racism is actually the straw man argument considering the early Christians included every race in the region and explicitly state in their writing that every tongue, tribe, and nation will be represented. Practicing any form of mysticism would be considered syncretistic.
Syncretism is the blending of religions and practices, and the Bible is full of warnings about this in both the Old and New Testaments. The Israelites are warned repeatedly and are eventually sent into exile because of syncretism. They adopted practices from the religions around them. Paul writes his letter to the Colossians who lived in a hub for trade that brought in religious practices and philosophies from all over the world. The entire letter is warning them against syncretism. He writes in Colossians 2:8, “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.” John writes his letters warning about Gnosticism. The entire letter of Jude is a warning about false teaching infiltrating the church. So, concern over syncretisim is not an “American Evangelical” misunderstanding. It was the concern of Jesus and His disciples from the beginning.
In regards to contemplation, Comer proudly calls himself a mystic and calls his practice contemplative prayer, which he acknowledges isn’t new and comes from eastern and Catholic mysticism. So, I don’t think conflating them is inaccurate since he seems to do it himself. You almost address the issue of contemplation yourself when you say that Jesus contemplated on the Word. Notice it is not inward contemplation focused on self. It is outward contemplation on God’s Word. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” In other words, the Word is what we need for spiritual guidance, and it is sufficient. That is really the crux of the matter. When we lose the Scripture, we lose the gospel. When we lose the gospel, we revert to works-based righteousness, which is every other religion in the world. Contemplative prayer and all the other practices do not save us or change us. Only Christ can do that.
Comer does have a practice of community. Gnosticism and community are not at odds with one another. The gnostics were a community themselves. The individualism and secret knowledge of Gnosticism is the inward spiritualism. It is very inward and self focused. In our modern sense, this is the very popular notion of “just follow your heart” and “live your truth.”
I tried to be very careful not to say Comer’s work is “full blown Gnosticism.” I’ve read three of his books and have listened to probably hundreds of hours of his podcasts and sermons through the years. As I mentioned, I listened to This Cultural Moment, which is probably at least 10 years old now. I find him engaging, and he genuinely seems like he wants to be helpful. Rather, I hoped to convey as someone who found him helpful at one time that I’m concerned there are elements in his teaching that can lead to Gnosticism. To answer your last question, I imagine pieces like this are popping up because others are concerned as well. If multiple people are concerned, there may be reason to step back and do an objective analysis.
Here's my attempt to address what you've written in your response.
Firstly, I need to make it clear that in no way am I advocating for syncretism (because I share the same position as you), so it's a bit confusing as to why you'd make the assumption that I'm talking about that. I read through my initial comment multiple times to try and find where I would have even hinted at syncretism and can't seem to see what you're seeing. Also, your comment about my "lack of understanding of the exclusivity of Christianity" is incorrect because I believe that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only way to a redeemed life with our Triune God. That being said, I appreciate your initial two paragraphs detailing what syncretism is, your warning against it, and your concern that I may not believe the exclusivity of Christ, but as I was reading, I struggled to see how it addressed what I wrote because I never brought up syncretism nor alluded to it and nothing in my response communicated about there being a pluralistic path to salvation.
Regarding my comment on subtle racism from American Evangelicals toward Asian people, please don't think I'm calling you a racist. I'm definitely not saying that. I know what racism looks like and nothing in your post hinted that you are racist :) That's the only thing I'll say on that comment since I'm actually quite tired with having to explain how racism is baked into American Evangelicalism (I've been doing this for the last 5 years ...).
As I was reading your comment a few more times, I realized the point of disagreement you and I might have is found in this sentence you wrote -- "Practicing any form of mysticism would be considered syncretistic." In the context of our conversation here, if you believe all forms of contemplation is "mysticism" then again, I will have to reiterate my initial comment on your article, that I disagree.
You and I agree that eastern mysticism cannot mix with Christianity.
However, your understanding (and even Comer's understanding) of eastern mysticism, and mine, are entirely different and my initial comment was to say you may need to clarify your understanding about what eastern mysticism is.
Do you have people in your life that practice eastern mysticism? I do.
Do you have people in your life who used to practice eastern mysticism but ultimately left its practices for the Way of Jesus? I do.
Let me tell you, true eastern mysticism (as opposed to these shallow understandings of it from American Evangelicals), is far more sinister than your fear of people contemplating and focusing on the inner-self. Which is why I don't understand people ringing this weird alarm when American Christians bring up meditation and contemplation in their discipleship to Christ. That is not eastern mysticism! Praying to your dead ancestors, conjuring the dead to give you strength and healing, giving money to shamans for good fortune, and so much more -- THAT is true eastern mysticism. So please stop conflating contemplation as "eastern mysticism" when you (and other American Evangelicals) don't really know what it is.
Here is my response to your thoughts on contemplation:
Let me clarify what I meant when I wrote, "Did not even Jesus contemplate in the times of prayer and reflection on the Word?" Jesus contemplated on the Old Testament writings and found Himself to be the One who fulfilled the Scriptures of old. Meaning, Jesus meditated and contemplated on the Word and also contemplated on His inner self. Did He not have to come to know who He was (Luke 2v52) and the will of the Father for Him (Luke 22v42)? Do we not contemplate the very things when we wrestle with the infallible and inerrant Word of God -- the will of the Father for our own lives? You quote 2 Timothy 3v16-17 and I appreciate that, but I think you truncate the process of contemplating on the Scriptures if you simply end it at saying, "the Scripture is what we need for spiritual guidance, and it is sufficient." The other half I believe you are missing is addressing how one comes to understand where the Scriptures are needed for one's own spiritual guidance. Yes, the scriptures are sufficient for guidance -- we need not tarot cards, psychics, astrology, and the like to direct our lives -- but how do you, Tom, or any of us ever come to understand the depth of depravity of sin in our lives? To simply say, "I am a sinner and I need the Gospel of Jesus to redeem my life" is all we need for salvation. But to deeply experience and understand the work of the Spirit's sanctification in our lives -- to locally and microscopically address the wounds in our hearts caused by the sin of others and this world -- requires some form of self-awareness and self-reflection, or in this case, contemplation. It is through this type of contemplation that the all sufficient Word of God comes alive in a richer way. It is through this type of contemplation that what the writer of Hebrews says about the living Word is experienced: as it separates "soul and spirit, joints and marrow" and judges "the thoughts and intentions of the heart." As the Word of God reveals to us who we are, what we struggle with, what our corrupt desires are, what our godly desires are -- do we not reflect on this? Is this not contemplation?
I will not address your comments on "works-based" righteousness because similar to your thoughts on syncretism, I don't know where that came from as a response to my initial comment...
Lastly -- I hear you, Tom. I can see your concern that some of Comer's teachings can lead to Gnosticism. He's definitely on the "other end" of the spectrum from, say, your popular neo-Reformed teaching. IF that is where you are coming from, I can see how you'd feel compelled to raise the alarm. Much of the other articles on concerns regarding Comer come from people who lean more Reformed in their theological formation. Which I find funny because I too am Reformed and don't find Comer to be a threat. Most days, I'm a 4 point Calvinist, but some days when I'm feeling spicy, I'm a 5 pointer, hahaha :)
Comer is not infallible nor inerrant. He's like any other Bible teacher and human on this earth. Me coming to defend him is not because I herald him to some great height. But I think pieces like yours and others can be more helpful by writing how Comer's approach to discipleship can be tweaked to fit a broader range of Christians, rather than criticizing it. Why? Because he addresses what lacks in much of the American Church, discipleship to Jesus Christ. In many Reformed circles and churches, a deep call to discipleship is often labeled as legalism or a modern form of Gnosticism, which is a shame. Antinomianism, or cheap grace, is probably an even greater threat in the American Church; many tout their faith as a golden ticket to heaven and have a shallow, non-existent apprenticeship to Jesus Christ. You are in your rights to critique Comer, but as I've written in similar feedback to articles such as yours, I wish there was more of an address to how his teachings on discipleship are much needed in our American Churches that have atrophied discipleship muscles.
Thank you for taking the time to read through my comment here. It turned out much longer than what I thought and hope it explains more of my position on things. I don't expect to change your mind (rarely does that happen in online comment sections), but I do appreciate you writing back to my comment, Tom! Cheers!
Ah, I see now. I think we have a misunderstanding of definitions. When I refer to eastern mysticism, I’m not talking about Shinto or other forms of ancestor worship. I am talking more in line with what is defined here: https://www.britannica.com/topic/mysticism
I would refer to ancestor worship, conjuring the dead, giving money to shamen for various things, etc. generally as idolatry or occult practices, which I agree is insidious and evil. I’ve worked in Africa where some of these practices are prevalent and also know several missionaries serving in parts of Asia where these practices are common. However, witchcraft, shamanism, and the like are also practiced in the United States. I think what you would call eastern mysticism, I would likely call occult practices.
The main reason I mentioned syncretism is your opening paragraph regarding “Christians in America and their genuine fear of eastern mysticism” and that it is used as a straw man. When I read that first paragraph, it seems to me you were saying eastern mysticism is okay in Christianity and is just misunderstood, maybe because of racism. Most people who support Comer would say incorporating what I and Comer define as mysticism into Christianity is ok. You can even see that in some of the responses to my post. That’s syncretism. I appreciate you explaining that’s not what you meant.
I mentioned works-based righteousness simply as a result of syncretism and elevating mystic practices over scripture. Sorry, I probably wasn’t clear.
In regards to contemplation, I think it is another misunderstanding of definitions. For the most part, I think we are in violent agreement. I’m not speaking of natural self-awareness or self-reflection in response to scripture. I am speaking of specific contemplative practices in mysticism, not general self-reflection.
I would disagree with you that Jesus “came to know who He was and the will of the Father for Him.” The fulness of deity was in Christ (Col 2:9). He was omniscient and didn’t have to come to know, but that’s a conversation for another day. ;)
I agree Comer has some valid points on issues within the American church. Tim Challies also pointed that out. Cultural Christianity is definitely a problem, and Comer’s comments on that in This Cultural Moment were some of what I initialed found engaging and appealing about him. Again, I think we’re in violent agreement on that. At the end of my post, I pointed to some resources that address the spiritual disciplines from a more biblical perspective. I agree the goal is to deepen biblical discipleship.
I appreciate the exchange of ideas. It looks like you are planting a church. I pray the Lord blesses you and your family for His honor and glory.
I haven’t personally read many books by Comer yet, so I am going to read one soon. I think you make an important point. I personally grew up in Protestant churches and non denominational churches who emphasized God’s Word as the basis of unity and as having authority and infallibility. We never want to lose sight of the gospel of His grace and His redemption.
I believe His Word is all that and I also was exposed to the desert fathers in my twenties as a friend shared writers that she had learned from. I think we can learn from other believers who have gone before us, and I have read quotes by Comer that I appreciated. The writers often called the mystics can sometimes enrich our walk with God, but only when they don’t conflict with His Word and the truth found in His Word. I personally have appreciated reading some of their work.
I am interested in learning more about Comer’s work, but I also appreciated reading the perspective shared by this writer.
I hope that in learning from Christ people don’t forget why He came, why He died and rose again. As long as people don’t lose sight of the gospel or lead people away from the basic tenets of His Word, we can often be enriched by a writer or leader who causes us to value our relationship with Him and live it out through time in His Presence.
Human nature tends to lead people to move away from His gospel message and fashion their own interpretation. But as I said, I need to understand and read more to form my own opinion.
this was really helpful. But the gnostic bit feels like “overstating the data” as Heiser used to say. Do I see what you’re saying? Yes. Do I think it’s an 100% accurate depiction of Comer’s theology and thoughts? Not really.. Just thought I’d share my perspective
Appreciate the comment. That’s where the concern comes in. I don’t think Comer is full blown gnostic, but there seem to be elements that could lean that way or lead people that way.
I agree with this. As I heard it said from an old mentor, “State the other individual’s position so accurately, strongly, and clearly that the only thing they can say in response is, ‘You’ve understood what I’m saying perfectly,’ before moving on to a critique.” That’s proven invaluable time and again (in my own misunderstandings) at actually moving the needle forward with others in our pursuit of right faith and right living, even when we disagree.
I’ve come to characterize Comer’s work as neo-monastic, not necessarily applicable to every Christ follower but deeply relevant for every Christ follower. I’m currently doing Practicing the Way and I guess I just fundamentally disagree with your read on the matter. Mysticism in and of itself is not an evil, nor does a surrender to mystery = Gnosticism. PTW in my mind is almost a Protestant articulation of the Orthodox idea of theosis, and in many ways is the natural culmination of Comer’s work and writing over the past 10 years. I think it’s totally fine to disagree with his loose and mystic characterization of certain theological principles, but to call it heretical seems silly. It’s more post-dogmatic than heretical IMO
I appreciate your reassessing and sharing your perspective, Tom. I also participated in Practicing the Way. Personally, as a born-and-raised non-denominational evangelical, I found it refreshing as I've become hungry for more spiritual practice of the sacraments—like those I see emphasized in Catholicism and Orthodoxy. My own opinion is that we (Protestants/evangelicals) have elevated the Bible, adopting Sola Scriptura to an extent that we've undervalued the other spiritual practices demonstrated by Jesus and His followers (meditative prayer, fasting, listening to the power and voice of the Holy Spirit).
Perhaps Comer is trying to rebalance this, and perhaps there are elements of overcorrection—I appreciate that you are being cautious. I don't see it as false teaching. My Orthodox friend once said, "Protestants get so hung up on the faith vs works argument. In reality it's not either/or. It's both." (Goes into a deeper topic, of which I'd like to write more about, on the lifelong sanctification process. But-that's for a future piece!)
Thank you for your thoughtful writing on the topic, and the thought-provoking discussions you've inspired here in the comments! God bless you.
Interesting read. I appreciate reading various viewpoints on the Christian leaders/pastors/writers of our time. Although I am not super familiar with Comer, I have listened to a few of his teachings. But I listen to John Eldredge sometimes, and I've heard similar critiques of his work. Always a good reminder to study the Bible for ourselves, remain humble, and welcome the conviction of the Holy Spirit as we all seek to live in the truth.
Having read your piece, I must respectfully disagree with your interpretation of Comer’s work. From what I understand, your focus appears to emphasize the fundamentalist position that salvation and grace are received solely through the acceptance of Jesus, without fully acknowledging that this grace and salvation also initiate an inner transformation. Comer, as I understand him, describes this transformation as involving daily reflection and the practical application of what he terms “the way of Jesus.”
Scripture itself supports this view. Consider Titus 2:11-15 and 3:4-8, which highlight the dual purpose of salvation—not just as a means to eternal life, but also as a call to sanctification. Specifically, these passages state:
“For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people. ¹² It teaches us to say ‘No’ to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in this present age, ¹³ while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, ¹⁴ who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good. ¹⁵ These, then, are the things you should teach.”
And:
“But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, ⁵ he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, ⁶ whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, ⁷ so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. ⁸ This is a trustworthy saying. And I want you to stress these things, so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good. These things are excellent and profitable for everyone.”
These passages suggest that the grace of God does not simply bring salvation but also trains believers in godliness, enabling them to reject ungodliness and live a Christlike life. Salvation, therefore, is not an end in itself but a starting point for daily, intentional spiritual growth through the practice of spiritual disciplines.
Given this, I struggle to see how Comer’s work can be categorized as Gnostic or influenced by Eastern mysticism. His teachings seem consistent with the biblical framework of grace leading to transformation and sanctification. Could you clarify your perspective further?
Thank you for sharing your concerns. It's very alarming to read that people think that contemplative practises are a way to get closer to God. I have never read Comer, but I was in the new age, and it raises alarm bells for me. I read a quote from the The Ruthless Elimination Of Hurry, that says '“All the spiritual masters from inside and outside the Jesus tradition agree on this one (as do secular psychologists, mindfulness experts, etc.): if there's a secret to happiness, it's simple - presence to the moment. The more present we are to the now, the more joy we tap into.” -- This is so disturbing as he does not explain the Biblical meditation is a completely different thing
Thank you for sharing! I’m finding that people who aren’t familiar with new age and Gnosticism have trouble making the connection with Comer, but people who are familiar with those things clearly see it.
John Mark was my pastor prior to starting PTW. So interesting how big everything has gotten and seeing critiques of it (which is not bad). As someone who sat in his congregation and got this information in a somewhat different format, his teachings and kind of reintroducing these practices (I personally don’t feel like his ideas are “new”, they feel biblical and retaught for modern times.) brought life and joy back to my relationship with Jesus! Growing up I felt like I was told to do things (pray, fast, read scripture) without any guidance on what it looks like or deep teaching in it and have found the way he teaches it to be helpful. I think it’s totally valid to evaluate any and all teachers. It’s interesting reading your article and seeing another perspective!
Lots of interesting discussion here! Appreciate the perspective, though it differed from my own. I too, like many of the commenters, do not see Comer as a Gnostic or sliding into Gnosticism. I see him walking a difficult place, a third place, advocating that practices from several different traditions, approaches to faith, or “streams” as Richard Foster calls it, have a place in the Christian life. I have found this makes many more reformed thinkers uncomfortable. I am curious why that is.
I guess it depends on what you mean by reformed thinkers. The reformed tradition includes a wide variety of “streams” and traditions— Lutheran, Anglican, Presbyterian, Baptist, Dutch Reformed, Congregationalist Christian, etc. Within those traditions there are a wide variety of beliefs, practices, and strong personalities, like Sam Storms who is charismatic, John McArthur who is cessationist, Doug Wilson who is fundamentalist, R.C. Sproul who is intellectual, J.I. Packer who tried to create bridges between Catholics and Protestants, Matt Chandler who is engaging and modern, etc. The reformed tradition is very broad and generally well-read.
I think anything that goes outside the five solas will make reformed folks uncomfortable: scripture alone, Christ alone, faith alone, grace alone, glory to God alone. I’ve seen some people mention that Comer seems to be sliding towards charismatic Catholicism, which would not only make reformed folks uncomfortable, but Protestants in general. As I mentioned in the post, I found Comer helpful even though I knew I didn’t agree with him on everything theologically, but there seems to me to be a drift that makes it more difficult to reconcile those differences.
Thanks for writing this! I wrote a summary of my critique of JMC’s book and I’m glad to see I’m not the only one concerned. I’m grateful for your examination and thoroughness.
I listened to JMC for the first time today and his teaching has me greatly concerned. He seems to use large ambiguous metaphors to push forward his experiential understanding of theology and how it works, instead of using scripture. He is certainly the new thing in many small groups around me, and I am seeing “his” teaching being used instead of scripture. This clearly delineates a false teacher to my understanding. He has moved people away from the Word, towards his understanding of the word mixed with his and other theologies. The Bible is sufficient. It must be, and to add words to Gods word is a dangerous path
Yes, my concern is the movement away from the sufficiency of scripture and to the felt need of something more for “training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work,” as Paul writes in 2 Timothy 2:16-17. That’s the modern version of Gnosticism. My concern is if you lose the sufficiency of scripture, you lose the gospel. If you lose the gospel, you lose true salvation in Christ, “for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes.” You start looking for salvation in something else, primarily self and works, which is every other belief system and worldview outside Christianity.
In a Christian culture that has preached belief as a cognitive function, I find Comer’s writing much more faithful to the teachings of scripture than many of our mainline denominations. I’m sure you know that in biblical understanding, to hear and to heed or obey were expressed with one word: shema. He is not saying that we are saved by anything but faith in Christ; his critique would be our modern understanding of that faith. If it doesn’t permeate your life and lifestyle, it’s probably not real. Jesus engaged all of these practices. I will admit that I find more interest in reading his predecessors Dallas Willard & Stephen Foster, but Comer appeals to a younger generation who might not read the other two.
I don’t ever do this, I appreciate your view points here. Though I also respectfully disagree with your view point of Comer’s theology and that he is leaning towards Gnosticism. He himself has described the dangers of Gnosticism and teaches the opposite. Union with God is the gospel. I would be curious to know what your definition of mysticism is and why you are against it? I am a follower of Jesus and proudly call myself a mystic—one who deeply encounters and knows God because of the gift of salvation He won for us on the cross. The entire ancient faith of Christianity is rooted in the mystics. The disciples themselves are mystics.
I have heard someone say that the greatest mission field in America is the evangelical church. Of course it was spoken with tongue in cheek... but there is apparently some truth to it.
The gospel is a very specific message, delivered once and for all - and let any variations be anathema. Yet many seem to think the gospel can be molded and shaped with the times and our felt needs in the present.
Paul says the gospel is 'the power of God unto salvation', and this is usually all we need to remember in examing counterfeit concepts... if anything else is pointed at and called the 'power' of salvation, let it be anathema. This surely and certainly includes any practices we might embrace. Whether any such practice might feel helpful to us is beside the point - unless all we are looking for is therapy and self-improvement. But then, these, of course, have no need of a cross.
Interesting read! I find Comer’s leaning towards spiritual discipline extremely helpful in our overly-secularized culture.
As of now, I don’t find his books to lean too hard into Gnostic doctrine, but I can certainly see how it isn’t a stretch to go from “spiritual practices” to “do this to be even more spiritual, and buy my books to show you how.”Something to be wary of as Christian culture takes a pendulum swing.
Yes, we definitely need spiritual disciplines in our secularized culture. I think the challenge is not letting the secular influence the supernatural work of spiritual formation in Christ by the Holy Spirit. It’s so easy to fall into pop psychology, sociology, and “five steps to change your life.”
Whenever I read about Christians in America and their genuine fear of “eastern mysticism” I wonder how much of that ideology is formed through genuine understanding of what true “eastern mysticism” is. I believe many American Evangelicals (I don’t know if you consider yourself as one), but folks like Challies (who I respect) probably have at the very least a lack of deep understanding of eastern mysticism and often use it as a straw man or a prop in their “apologetics.” To be frank, I wonder if some of that is rooted in a very passive form of discrimination or racism toward Asian people that has been deeply rooted in American culture (which has pervaded its way into the American Church).
That being said, I find it interesting that you write about this mysticism and you directly link it to “inward contemplation” as if contemplation was singularly an “eastern mystic” principle? Did not the Greek philosophers contemplate? Did not even Jesus contemplate in the times of prayer and reflection on the Word? Perhaps the conflation of Comer’s Practicing the Way to eastern mysticism and contemplation is not as accurate.
I agree with the comment above that Comer’s work is better categorized as neo-monastic or a blend of American Protestantism with a contemplative charismatic Catholicism — at best. I completely disagree that his work and theology is full blown Gnosticism. In all of my readings of Comer’s books and being a participant in Practicing The Way, never did I ever hear about “secret knowledge” or an individualistic way of attaining this knowledge. In fact, many times, I find him or others on his teaching team talk about doing these spiritual practices in community.
I for one, find Comer’s work invaluable to the body of Christ and find pieces similar to yours popping up on the internet fascinating because there is such a delayed allergic reaction. Why do you think this is?
Hi, Sorry I didn’t see the question part of your comment until someone else commented. I’m going to try to respond to each of your paragraphs in order since there seems to be multiple questions.
Unfortunately, I think I would have to turn the question in the first paragraph and ask it in return. What you seem to categorize as “genuine fear” and a lack of understanding of eastern mysticism seems to me like a lack of understanding of the exclusivity of Christianity. Following Jesus has never been syncretistic or inclusive of other religious practices. Whether those other practices consider themselves a “religion” or not. This exclusivity is what sets Christians apart and made Christianity offensive from the beginning. Jesus says that He is way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Him. The early Christians were called “atheists” and persecuted by the cultures they lived among, not because they didn’t believe in God, but because they didn’t believe in many gods and refused to practice their religious customs, which included mysticism. I think to suggest this is racism is actually the straw man argument considering the early Christians included every race in the region and explicitly state in their writing that every tongue, tribe, and nation will be represented. Practicing any form of mysticism would be considered syncretistic.
Syncretism is the blending of religions and practices, and the Bible is full of warnings about this in both the Old and New Testaments. The Israelites are warned repeatedly and are eventually sent into exile because of syncretism. They adopted practices from the religions around them. Paul writes his letter to the Colossians who lived in a hub for trade that brought in religious practices and philosophies from all over the world. The entire letter is warning them against syncretism. He writes in Colossians 2:8, “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.” John writes his letters warning about Gnosticism. The entire letter of Jude is a warning about false teaching infiltrating the church. So, concern over syncretisim is not an “American Evangelical” misunderstanding. It was the concern of Jesus and His disciples from the beginning.
In regards to contemplation, Comer proudly calls himself a mystic and calls his practice contemplative prayer, which he acknowledges isn’t new and comes from eastern and Catholic mysticism. So, I don’t think conflating them is inaccurate since he seems to do it himself. You almost address the issue of contemplation yourself when you say that Jesus contemplated on the Word. Notice it is not inward contemplation focused on self. It is outward contemplation on God’s Word. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” In other words, the Word is what we need for spiritual guidance, and it is sufficient. That is really the crux of the matter. When we lose the Scripture, we lose the gospel. When we lose the gospel, we revert to works-based righteousness, which is every other religion in the world. Contemplative prayer and all the other practices do not save us or change us. Only Christ can do that.
Comer does have a practice of community. Gnosticism and community are not at odds with one another. The gnostics were a community themselves. The individualism and secret knowledge of Gnosticism is the inward spiritualism. It is very inward and self focused. In our modern sense, this is the very popular notion of “just follow your heart” and “live your truth.”
I tried to be very careful not to say Comer’s work is “full blown Gnosticism.” I’ve read three of his books and have listened to probably hundreds of hours of his podcasts and sermons through the years. As I mentioned, I listened to This Cultural Moment, which is probably at least 10 years old now. I find him engaging, and he genuinely seems like he wants to be helpful. Rather, I hoped to convey as someone who found him helpful at one time that I’m concerned there are elements in his teaching that can lead to Gnosticism. To answer your last question, I imagine pieces like this are popping up because others are concerned as well. If multiple people are concerned, there may be reason to step back and do an objective analysis.
Wow! Thanks for the thorough response, Tom.
Here's my attempt to address what you've written in your response.
Firstly, I need to make it clear that in no way am I advocating for syncretism (because I share the same position as you), so it's a bit confusing as to why you'd make the assumption that I'm talking about that. I read through my initial comment multiple times to try and find where I would have even hinted at syncretism and can't seem to see what you're seeing. Also, your comment about my "lack of understanding of the exclusivity of Christianity" is incorrect because I believe that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only way to a redeemed life with our Triune God. That being said, I appreciate your initial two paragraphs detailing what syncretism is, your warning against it, and your concern that I may not believe the exclusivity of Christ, but as I was reading, I struggled to see how it addressed what I wrote because I never brought up syncretism nor alluded to it and nothing in my response communicated about there being a pluralistic path to salvation.
Regarding my comment on subtle racism from American Evangelicals toward Asian people, please don't think I'm calling you a racist. I'm definitely not saying that. I know what racism looks like and nothing in your post hinted that you are racist :) That's the only thing I'll say on that comment since I'm actually quite tired with having to explain how racism is baked into American Evangelicalism (I've been doing this for the last 5 years ...).
As I was reading your comment a few more times, I realized the point of disagreement you and I might have is found in this sentence you wrote -- "Practicing any form of mysticism would be considered syncretistic." In the context of our conversation here, if you believe all forms of contemplation is "mysticism" then again, I will have to reiterate my initial comment on your article, that I disagree.
You and I agree that eastern mysticism cannot mix with Christianity.
However, your understanding (and even Comer's understanding) of eastern mysticism, and mine, are entirely different and my initial comment was to say you may need to clarify your understanding about what eastern mysticism is.
Do you have people in your life that practice eastern mysticism? I do.
Do you have people in your life who used to practice eastern mysticism but ultimately left its practices for the Way of Jesus? I do.
Let me tell you, true eastern mysticism (as opposed to these shallow understandings of it from American Evangelicals), is far more sinister than your fear of people contemplating and focusing on the inner-self. Which is why I don't understand people ringing this weird alarm when American Christians bring up meditation and contemplation in their discipleship to Christ. That is not eastern mysticism! Praying to your dead ancestors, conjuring the dead to give you strength and healing, giving money to shamans for good fortune, and so much more -- THAT is true eastern mysticism. So please stop conflating contemplation as "eastern mysticism" when you (and other American Evangelicals) don't really know what it is.
Here is my response to your thoughts on contemplation:
Let me clarify what I meant when I wrote, "Did not even Jesus contemplate in the times of prayer and reflection on the Word?" Jesus contemplated on the Old Testament writings and found Himself to be the One who fulfilled the Scriptures of old. Meaning, Jesus meditated and contemplated on the Word and also contemplated on His inner self. Did He not have to come to know who He was (Luke 2v52) and the will of the Father for Him (Luke 22v42)? Do we not contemplate the very things when we wrestle with the infallible and inerrant Word of God -- the will of the Father for our own lives? You quote 2 Timothy 3v16-17 and I appreciate that, but I think you truncate the process of contemplating on the Scriptures if you simply end it at saying, "the Scripture is what we need for spiritual guidance, and it is sufficient." The other half I believe you are missing is addressing how one comes to understand where the Scriptures are needed for one's own spiritual guidance. Yes, the scriptures are sufficient for guidance -- we need not tarot cards, psychics, astrology, and the like to direct our lives -- but how do you, Tom, or any of us ever come to understand the depth of depravity of sin in our lives? To simply say, "I am a sinner and I need the Gospel of Jesus to redeem my life" is all we need for salvation. But to deeply experience and understand the work of the Spirit's sanctification in our lives -- to locally and microscopically address the wounds in our hearts caused by the sin of others and this world -- requires some form of self-awareness and self-reflection, or in this case, contemplation. It is through this type of contemplation that the all sufficient Word of God comes alive in a richer way. It is through this type of contemplation that what the writer of Hebrews says about the living Word is experienced: as it separates "soul and spirit, joints and marrow" and judges "the thoughts and intentions of the heart." As the Word of God reveals to us who we are, what we struggle with, what our corrupt desires are, what our godly desires are -- do we not reflect on this? Is this not contemplation?
I will not address your comments on "works-based" righteousness because similar to your thoughts on syncretism, I don't know where that came from as a response to my initial comment...
Lastly -- I hear you, Tom. I can see your concern that some of Comer's teachings can lead to Gnosticism. He's definitely on the "other end" of the spectrum from, say, your popular neo-Reformed teaching. IF that is where you are coming from, I can see how you'd feel compelled to raise the alarm. Much of the other articles on concerns regarding Comer come from people who lean more Reformed in their theological formation. Which I find funny because I too am Reformed and don't find Comer to be a threat. Most days, I'm a 4 point Calvinist, but some days when I'm feeling spicy, I'm a 5 pointer, hahaha :)
Comer is not infallible nor inerrant. He's like any other Bible teacher and human on this earth. Me coming to defend him is not because I herald him to some great height. But I think pieces like yours and others can be more helpful by writing how Comer's approach to discipleship can be tweaked to fit a broader range of Christians, rather than criticizing it. Why? Because he addresses what lacks in much of the American Church, discipleship to Jesus Christ. In many Reformed circles and churches, a deep call to discipleship is often labeled as legalism or a modern form of Gnosticism, which is a shame. Antinomianism, or cheap grace, is probably an even greater threat in the American Church; many tout their faith as a golden ticket to heaven and have a shallow, non-existent apprenticeship to Jesus Christ. You are in your rights to critique Comer, but as I've written in similar feedback to articles such as yours, I wish there was more of an address to how his teachings on discipleship are much needed in our American Churches that have atrophied discipleship muscles.
Thank you for taking the time to read through my comment here. It turned out much longer than what I thought and hope it explains more of my position on things. I don't expect to change your mind (rarely does that happen in online comment sections), but I do appreciate you writing back to my comment, Tom! Cheers!
Ah, I see now. I think we have a misunderstanding of definitions. When I refer to eastern mysticism, I’m not talking about Shinto or other forms of ancestor worship. I am talking more in line with what is defined here: https://www.britannica.com/topic/mysticism
I would refer to ancestor worship, conjuring the dead, giving money to shamen for various things, etc. generally as idolatry or occult practices, which I agree is insidious and evil. I’ve worked in Africa where some of these practices are prevalent and also know several missionaries serving in parts of Asia where these practices are common. However, witchcraft, shamanism, and the like are also practiced in the United States. I think what you would call eastern mysticism, I would likely call occult practices.
The main reason I mentioned syncretism is your opening paragraph regarding “Christians in America and their genuine fear of eastern mysticism” and that it is used as a straw man. When I read that first paragraph, it seems to me you were saying eastern mysticism is okay in Christianity and is just misunderstood, maybe because of racism. Most people who support Comer would say incorporating what I and Comer define as mysticism into Christianity is ok. You can even see that in some of the responses to my post. That’s syncretism. I appreciate you explaining that’s not what you meant.
I mentioned works-based righteousness simply as a result of syncretism and elevating mystic practices over scripture. Sorry, I probably wasn’t clear.
In regards to contemplation, I think it is another misunderstanding of definitions. For the most part, I think we are in violent agreement. I’m not speaking of natural self-awareness or self-reflection in response to scripture. I am speaking of specific contemplative practices in mysticism, not general self-reflection.
I would disagree with you that Jesus “came to know who He was and the will of the Father for Him.” The fulness of deity was in Christ (Col 2:9). He was omniscient and didn’t have to come to know, but that’s a conversation for another day. ;)
I agree Comer has some valid points on issues within the American church. Tim Challies also pointed that out. Cultural Christianity is definitely a problem, and Comer’s comments on that in This Cultural Moment were some of what I initialed found engaging and appealing about him. Again, I think we’re in violent agreement on that. At the end of my post, I pointed to some resources that address the spiritual disciplines from a more biblical perspective. I agree the goal is to deepen biblical discipleship.
I appreciate the exchange of ideas. It looks like you are planting a church. I pray the Lord blesses you and your family for His honor and glory.
I haven’t personally read many books by Comer yet, so I am going to read one soon. I think you make an important point. I personally grew up in Protestant churches and non denominational churches who emphasized God’s Word as the basis of unity and as having authority and infallibility. We never want to lose sight of the gospel of His grace and His redemption.
I believe His Word is all that and I also was exposed to the desert fathers in my twenties as a friend shared writers that she had learned from. I think we can learn from other believers who have gone before us, and I have read quotes by Comer that I appreciated. The writers often called the mystics can sometimes enrich our walk with God, but only when they don’t conflict with His Word and the truth found in His Word. I personally have appreciated reading some of their work.
I am interested in learning more about Comer’s work, but I also appreciated reading the perspective shared by this writer.
I hope that in learning from Christ people don’t forget why He came, why He died and rose again. As long as people don’t lose sight of the gospel or lead people away from the basic tenets of His Word, we can often be enriched by a writer or leader who causes us to value our relationship with Him and live it out through time in His Presence.
Human nature tends to lead people to move away from His gospel message and fashion their own interpretation. But as I said, I need to understand and read more to form my own opinion.
this was really helpful. But the gnostic bit feels like “overstating the data” as Heiser used to say. Do I see what you’re saying? Yes. Do I think it’s an 100% accurate depiction of Comer’s theology and thoughts? Not really.. Just thought I’d share my perspective
Appreciate the comment. That’s where the concern comes in. I don’t think Comer is full blown gnostic, but there seem to be elements that could lean that way or lead people that way.
I agree with this. As I heard it said from an old mentor, “State the other individual’s position so accurately, strongly, and clearly that the only thing they can say in response is, ‘You’ve understood what I’m saying perfectly,’ before moving on to a critique.” That’s proven invaluable time and again (in my own misunderstandings) at actually moving the needle forward with others in our pursuit of right faith and right living, even when we disagree.
I’ve come to characterize Comer’s work as neo-monastic, not necessarily applicable to every Christ follower but deeply relevant for every Christ follower. I’m currently doing Practicing the Way and I guess I just fundamentally disagree with your read on the matter. Mysticism in and of itself is not an evil, nor does a surrender to mystery = Gnosticism. PTW in my mind is almost a Protestant articulation of the Orthodox idea of theosis, and in many ways is the natural culmination of Comer’s work and writing over the past 10 years. I think it’s totally fine to disagree with his loose and mystic characterization of certain theological principles, but to call it heretical seems silly. It’s more post-dogmatic than heretical IMO
I appreciate your reassessing and sharing your perspective, Tom. I also participated in Practicing the Way. Personally, as a born-and-raised non-denominational evangelical, I found it refreshing as I've become hungry for more spiritual practice of the sacraments—like those I see emphasized in Catholicism and Orthodoxy. My own opinion is that we (Protestants/evangelicals) have elevated the Bible, adopting Sola Scriptura to an extent that we've undervalued the other spiritual practices demonstrated by Jesus and His followers (meditative prayer, fasting, listening to the power and voice of the Holy Spirit).
Perhaps Comer is trying to rebalance this, and perhaps there are elements of overcorrection—I appreciate that you are being cautious. I don't see it as false teaching. My Orthodox friend once said, "Protestants get so hung up on the faith vs works argument. In reality it's not either/or. It's both." (Goes into a deeper topic, of which I'd like to write more about, on the lifelong sanctification process. But-that's for a future piece!)
Thank you for your thoughtful writing on the topic, and the thought-provoking discussions you've inspired here in the comments! God bless you.
Interesting read. I appreciate reading various viewpoints on the Christian leaders/pastors/writers of our time. Although I am not super familiar with Comer, I have listened to a few of his teachings. But I listen to John Eldredge sometimes, and I've heard similar critiques of his work. Always a good reminder to study the Bible for ourselves, remain humble, and welcome the conviction of the Holy Spirit as we all seek to live in the truth.
Having read your piece, I must respectfully disagree with your interpretation of Comer’s work. From what I understand, your focus appears to emphasize the fundamentalist position that salvation and grace are received solely through the acceptance of Jesus, without fully acknowledging that this grace and salvation also initiate an inner transformation. Comer, as I understand him, describes this transformation as involving daily reflection and the practical application of what he terms “the way of Jesus.”
Scripture itself supports this view. Consider Titus 2:11-15 and 3:4-8, which highlight the dual purpose of salvation—not just as a means to eternal life, but also as a call to sanctification. Specifically, these passages state:
“For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people. ¹² It teaches us to say ‘No’ to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in this present age, ¹³ while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, ¹⁴ who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good. ¹⁵ These, then, are the things you should teach.”
And:
“But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, ⁵ he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, ⁶ whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, ⁷ so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. ⁸ This is a trustworthy saying. And I want you to stress these things, so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good. These things are excellent and profitable for everyone.”
These passages suggest that the grace of God does not simply bring salvation but also trains believers in godliness, enabling them to reject ungodliness and live a Christlike life. Salvation, therefore, is not an end in itself but a starting point for daily, intentional spiritual growth through the practice of spiritual disciplines.
Given this, I struggle to see how Comer’s work can be categorized as Gnostic or influenced by Eastern mysticism. His teachings seem consistent with the biblical framework of grace leading to transformation and sanctification. Could you clarify your perspective further?
Thank you for sharing your concerns. It's very alarming to read that people think that contemplative practises are a way to get closer to God. I have never read Comer, but I was in the new age, and it raises alarm bells for me. I read a quote from the The Ruthless Elimination Of Hurry, that says '“All the spiritual masters from inside and outside the Jesus tradition agree on this one (as do secular psychologists, mindfulness experts, etc.): if there's a secret to happiness, it's simple - presence to the moment. The more present we are to the now, the more joy we tap into.” -- This is so disturbing as he does not explain the Biblical meditation is a completely different thing
Thank you for sharing! I’m finding that people who aren’t familiar with new age and Gnosticism have trouble making the connection with Comer, but people who are familiar with those things clearly see it.
John Mark was my pastor prior to starting PTW. So interesting how big everything has gotten and seeing critiques of it (which is not bad). As someone who sat in his congregation and got this information in a somewhat different format, his teachings and kind of reintroducing these practices (I personally don’t feel like his ideas are “new”, they feel biblical and retaught for modern times.) brought life and joy back to my relationship with Jesus! Growing up I felt like I was told to do things (pray, fast, read scripture) without any guidance on what it looks like or deep teaching in it and have found the way he teaches it to be helpful. I think it’s totally valid to evaluate any and all teachers. It’s interesting reading your article and seeing another perspective!
Lots of interesting discussion here! Appreciate the perspective, though it differed from my own. I too, like many of the commenters, do not see Comer as a Gnostic or sliding into Gnosticism. I see him walking a difficult place, a third place, advocating that practices from several different traditions, approaches to faith, or “streams” as Richard Foster calls it, have a place in the Christian life. I have found this makes many more reformed thinkers uncomfortable. I am curious why that is.
I guess it depends on what you mean by reformed thinkers. The reformed tradition includes a wide variety of “streams” and traditions— Lutheran, Anglican, Presbyterian, Baptist, Dutch Reformed, Congregationalist Christian, etc. Within those traditions there are a wide variety of beliefs, practices, and strong personalities, like Sam Storms who is charismatic, John McArthur who is cessationist, Doug Wilson who is fundamentalist, R.C. Sproul who is intellectual, J.I. Packer who tried to create bridges between Catholics and Protestants, Matt Chandler who is engaging and modern, etc. The reformed tradition is very broad and generally well-read.
I think anything that goes outside the five solas will make reformed folks uncomfortable: scripture alone, Christ alone, faith alone, grace alone, glory to God alone. I’ve seen some people mention that Comer seems to be sliding towards charismatic Catholicism, which would not only make reformed folks uncomfortable, but Protestants in general. As I mentioned in the post, I found Comer helpful even though I knew I didn’t agree with him on everything theologically, but there seems to me to be a drift that makes it more difficult to reconcile those differences.
Thanks for writing this! I wrote a summary of my critique of JMC’s book and I’m glad to see I’m not the only one concerned. I’m grateful for your examination and thoroughness.
I listened to JMC for the first time today and his teaching has me greatly concerned. He seems to use large ambiguous metaphors to push forward his experiential understanding of theology and how it works, instead of using scripture. He is certainly the new thing in many small groups around me, and I am seeing “his” teaching being used instead of scripture. This clearly delineates a false teacher to my understanding. He has moved people away from the Word, towards his understanding of the word mixed with his and other theologies. The Bible is sufficient. It must be, and to add words to Gods word is a dangerous path
Yes, my concern is the movement away from the sufficiency of scripture and to the felt need of something more for “training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work,” as Paul writes in 2 Timothy 2:16-17. That’s the modern version of Gnosticism. My concern is if you lose the sufficiency of scripture, you lose the gospel. If you lose the gospel, you lose true salvation in Christ, “for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes.” You start looking for salvation in something else, primarily self and works, which is every other belief system and worldview outside Christianity.
In a Christian culture that has preached belief as a cognitive function, I find Comer’s writing much more faithful to the teachings of scripture than many of our mainline denominations. I’m sure you know that in biblical understanding, to hear and to heed or obey were expressed with one word: shema. He is not saying that we are saved by anything but faith in Christ; his critique would be our modern understanding of that faith. If it doesn’t permeate your life and lifestyle, it’s probably not real. Jesus engaged all of these practices. I will admit that I find more interest in reading his predecessors Dallas Willard & Stephen Foster, but Comer appeals to a younger generation who might not read the other two.
I don’t ever do this, I appreciate your view points here. Though I also respectfully disagree with your view point of Comer’s theology and that he is leaning towards Gnosticism. He himself has described the dangers of Gnosticism and teaches the opposite. Union with God is the gospel. I would be curious to know what your definition of mysticism is and why you are against it? I am a follower of Jesus and proudly call myself a mystic—one who deeply encounters and knows God because of the gift of salvation He won for us on the cross. The entire ancient faith of Christianity is rooted in the mystics. The disciples themselves are mystics.
The quote he used by Rahner always rubbed me the wrong way. Imo, he used lots of quotes as authoritative directives without a more biblical framework.
I can get behind the practices for sure but I, like some, feel like the pendulum is swinging the other direction.
I have heard someone say that the greatest mission field in America is the evangelical church. Of course it was spoken with tongue in cheek... but there is apparently some truth to it.
The gospel is a very specific message, delivered once and for all - and let any variations be anathema. Yet many seem to think the gospel can be molded and shaped with the times and our felt needs in the present.
Paul says the gospel is 'the power of God unto salvation', and this is usually all we need to remember in examing counterfeit concepts... if anything else is pointed at and called the 'power' of salvation, let it be anathema. This surely and certainly includes any practices we might embrace. Whether any such practice might feel helpful to us is beside the point - unless all we are looking for is therapy and self-improvement. But then, these, of course, have no need of a cross.
Interesting read! I find Comer’s leaning towards spiritual discipline extremely helpful in our overly-secularized culture.
As of now, I don’t find his books to lean too hard into Gnostic doctrine, but I can certainly see how it isn’t a stretch to go from “spiritual practices” to “do this to be even more spiritual, and buy my books to show you how.”Something to be wary of as Christian culture takes a pendulum swing.
Yes, we definitely need spiritual disciplines in our secularized culture. I think the challenge is not letting the secular influence the supernatural work of spiritual formation in Christ by the Holy Spirit. It’s so easy to fall into pop psychology, sociology, and “five steps to change your life.”
Kyle Strobel has written some good stuff on this recently. https://substack.com/@kylestrobel?r=1hzuhp&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=profile