Thread by @tyler_austin55

🧵1/ Every 7 years or so, a new theological guru pops up to write a popular book to explain how Western Christians have gotten everything wrong for centuries. The masses cheer it on as some new divine revelation from someone who claims to have the "ancient way" that "transforms the way we think," but almost always ends up being just some novel progressive ideology couched in ancient spiritual language.

Whether it's Rob Bell's Velvet Elvis or even David Platt's Radical, the pattern is the same: stir discontent with historic Christianity, repackage trendy ideas as timeless truth, and sell it as a spiritual awakening.

Enter John Mark Comer: the new and improved Rob Platt.

A lot of guys more qualified than I have already engaged with his latest book, Practicing the Way. I'll try not to rehash what's been said. But here are some brief notes about this book that stood out to me.

A Thread:

2/ Comer acts as though he has uncovered a forgotten truth about following Jesus, harkening back to an "ancient way." Curiously, the ancient way Comer promotes sounds strikingly similar to modern, 21st-century progressive new-age liberalism. Who would have thought that the path trod by desert fathers just so happens to align perfectly with the tastes and sensibilities of affluent urbanites in the Pacific Northwest?

I'm being a bit tongue-in-cheek, sure, but don't miss the point. There is good reason to doubt that Comer is reading the Scriptures with an eye toward the cultural and historical context of the ancient Mediterranean world. Much of what he says is modern spiritual consumerism dressed as ancient practice. And his tendency to frame his approach as a rediscovery of true Christianity dismisses centuries of biblical and theological wisdom.

3/ Comer's chapter on evangelism is narrow, cowardly, and, frankly, already outdated.

Comer spends time ranting about those who boldly share the Gospel with others, even admitting that he feels "anxious" when he hears someone "preach the Gospel even in a loving, culturally sensitive way" and that he has an "allergic reaction" to the phrase (all his words). Ignoring the baffling admission to "anxiety" from a grown man about Christians proclaiming the Gospel, Comer seems to have forgotten Paul's words in Romans 1:16, saying, "I am not ashamed of the Gospel for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes..." Reading Comer, you wouldn't think that he believes this at all. There's no urgency, no stakes, no sense that anything eternal hangs in the balance. His version of evangelism feels more like a branding exercise than a spiritual rescue mission, stripped of the boldness and clarity that defined the early church’s witness.

Comer throws the baby out with the bathwater. For him, sharing the Gospel is having a meal with someone. A good thing to do, for sure. But at some point, you have to, you know, say stuff.

Comer says that he has "no desire to be associated with Christians like this." He means those who boldly proclaim the Gospel, not just the extreme IFB types, but ordinary believers like you and me. It makes me wonder: if Comer were a first-century listener, would he also have had no desire to be associated with Christ and the apostles themselves when he heard the hard truths they preached?

4/ Comer regularly misuses Christ's words to emphasize a lifestyle apprenticeship approach, emphasizing habit over heart change. And while I do appreciate the rejection of antinomianism, Comer turns the imperative of following Jesus into lifestyle coaching.

One example of this is quoting Christ in John 14:6 saying, "I am the way, the truth, and the life." He explains that Christians mistake this to mean he's referring to those who are in and out, and what Christ really meant is "the marriage of his truth (his teaching) and his way (lifestyle) is how to get the life God offers." But a careful reader will note that Comer left out the rest of the verse. Jesus concludes the verse with "No one comes to the Father except through Me." It’s no wonder Comer omits that final clause, because it makes clear that Jesus is not offering a therapeutic lifestyle upgrade, but new life in him that demands repentance and faith, not just new habits.

While he critiques legalistic approaches to Christianity, his solution often replaces them with structured self-improvement rather than genuine spiritual renewal. Comer wants people to have new habits, but is not concerned with them having new hearts.

5/ Comer also has a minimal focus on Christ's identity. Comer presents Jesus primarily as a model for living rather than as the incarnate Son of God. He downplays Christ's divine nature, atonement, and resurrection, emphasizing instead Jesus' teachings as a lifestyle framework. While he acknowledges Jesus’ role in salvation, his primary concern is not who Christ is but how one can imitate him.

There is a hint of truth here, but he (as he does often) throws the baby out with the bathwater.

6/ Comer also greatly diminishes the role of the church in the lives of Christians, even at one point chastising Christians for going to church rather than going to therapy (no, seriously).

He sees the church as secondary, if not irrelevant, to discipleship. He dismisses baptism and the table and has nothing to say about them being life-giving means of grace. He dismisses church leadership and authority, and certainly the preaching of the Word, as essential to Christian formation. In fact, for Comer, the Word is just one of the many "pathways to God" alongside walking dogs or spin classes. For Comer, everything is a spiritual discipline.

Comer's view of spiritual growth leans towards an individualistic, therapeutic model rather covenantal one rooted in a Christian, apostolic tradition. Ironic for a guy who consistently criticizes Western individualism.

7/ But perhaps the most glaring issue with Comer's presentation of Christianity and the Gospel is its lack of offense. There is no way that the sanitized, culturally accommodating version of Christianity that Comer presents would have provoked the violent opposition that led to the martyrdom of the early apostles. A Christianity stripped of its sharp edges and prophetic confrontation with sin and injustice would have been far more palatable to the ruling classes and religious establishments of their time, hardly warranting the extreme persecution that became the hallmark of early Christian witness.

And the same is true for our Lord, who consistently claimed the same authority as God, preached repentance from sin as the prerequisite for entering His kingdom and confronted the religious and political establishments of His day with such uncompromising truth that they conspired to have Him crucified. This same Jesus who said "I am the way, the truth, and the life" and warned of eternal judgment for those who reject Him would be utterly unrecognizable in Comer's sanitized version of Christianity, where the edges have been so smoothed that the cross becomes merely a symbol of God's love rather than the necessary payment for human sin and rebellion against a holy God.

Until 7 years from now, thanks for reading.

Related, Comer tries to be a conglomeration of Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant, but leans heavily into Eastern Mysticism (something I didn't mention). But before my Eastern Orthodox friends get excited, Comer resembles a far more New Age mysticism than what they would be accustomed to. As one EO friend mentioned, it's just another brand.

At the end of the day, he's Eastern Orthodox for those who don't like Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholic for those who don't like Rome, and Protestant for those who don't like Protestantism. Just kind of everything and nothing at the same time.