While I share your unease concerning Comer's work, I'd stop short of dismissing such a broad swathe of Church history. We've been handed down a plethora of wisdom both before and after the reformation, even in the long millennium between Augustine and Luther. To say, "Wanna read some more stuff on spirituality with me? Let’s go to the 17th century" veers too far into the waters of chronological snobbery that Lewis warns us of in Surprised by Joy.
What's more, it might work against the outcome we'd hope for.
The best outcome is what you suggest. The young man comes away from reading the great works you suggested and does so with a greater understanding of God, a full understanding of his sin, of the grace he's been provided, and invigorated to follow the great commission. The second—which I've seen far more often—is that the young man misunderstands this as proof of progressive theology. New equals better. Quite the opposite of what the reformers would have hoped for. The third—though surely not the final—I can think of, is the rising trend of young men who are finding solace in pre-reformation writings and finding no one in their church who will wisely walk through it with them, they go elsewhere to search it out, falling into the welcome arms of priests in greek and roman robes.
There is a great deal of wisdom in the years before the reformation, even in the writings of those we'd disagree with. To be clear, I have no issue with the books you chose, and I'd hasten to recommend your own book, Humble Calvinism, alongside them as I have many times before, but in our current cultural climate I think some nuance is needed here.
Thank you, brother. You are a constant encouragement. I agree with you! At the end, I was just giving a quick example of the variety of things I'd say. (I picked the Puritan era cause I love it!) In my post at the hyperlink "and more" (after I mention Augustine, Luther, etc.), that goes to a list of books that includes Basil, Patrick, Bernard, Aquinas, and Thomas a Kempis. I love those books! I The snobbery danger is real, and I was trying to keep my economy of words low. I think one reason why I'd still recommend folks to start with Augustine, Luther, Calvin, etc.—1) They are recognizable pillars 2) Their mass popularity has generated lots of easy to read translations of their works. Thanks for the kind engagement and encouragement.
I'm glad to hear it! I love the puritan era too. So much treasure to be discovered there. I also totally agree with you on the translation front. A few years ago I set out to try and understand why we don't read more from that era and translation is a huge part of that. As a result, I'm now two years into studying Latin at University to pursue translation over the next couple of decades. Going to University later in life was a tough call, but I trust it will be fruitful.
I agree with a bunch of your points and I fully accept your caveat that this is substack and you were being brief so you didn’t go into a ton of detail on this or that but I was still wanting you to explain *why* anything between say ~500-1600 is such a boogie man haha. I think I know why and I think I’d disagree (while still not being a Catholic). Essentially I’m 35 but in the stage of life where all the boogie men I was told as a kid to not even consider reading turns out weren’t so bad: patristics, Desert fathers, Eugene Peterson, John Calvin etc. In fact, I’ve come to believe that when we say “stay away from this entire swath or stream of Christianity” we’re coming from a place of fear of the other more than anything else. Instead I wish my parents or youth pastors or Bible college professors had read with me (not for me).
You are right about the brevity! This whole thing was originally a text message to a buddy : )
Now, I wouldn't say anything or everything from that era is suspect. No way! There are some incredibly helpful and edifying works in that era. In my post at the hyperlink "and more" (after I mention Augustine, Luther, etc.), that goes to a list of books that includes Basil, Patrick, Bernard, Aquinas, and Thomas a Kempis. I love those books! My shelves are full of 'em. I think one reason why I'd still recommend folks to start with Augustine, Luther, Calvin, etc.—1) They are recognizable pillars 2) Their mass popularity has generated lots of easy to read translations of their works.
And, man, I totally understand the "boogie men" idea. I grew up in a similar culture—some of it was taught (don't read x, y, z), and some was caught—it was just the culture. I didn't even hear of C. S. Lewis until seminary! I love Lewis now...and I'm still a Baptist lol.
I think there is a good desire to help people who aren't as discerning yet, and it can be tricky. But, yes, more reading together, especially in higher education.
This was one of the first few books that my pastor loaned to me (and I gobbled up) as I nudged toward becoming a Christian. I found the concept of “being a Christian” = “apprenticing to Jesus” novel and encouraging, having always had this idea previously of “Christians” as more of a voting bloc, and generally a close-minded, exclusive one at that. The idea that trying to imitate Jesus — his love, his humbling of himself, his generosity, etc. — is what’s actually at the heart of the faith, not a set of political or social beliefs, is part of what helped me get over myself and my preconceptions and get on board. So, there may be issues with this book, but it was an important step for me on my journey as someone desiring to believe but not being quite there yet.
I love hearing how Comer's writing helped you in your growth in Christ, Sarah. I felt like J. A. Medder's comment about how regeneration and atonement may not be emphasized as much by Comer was a good point, too. But for someone who already understands the message of salvation and regeneration, I can see where Comer's writings could be encouraging and helpful, too.
I will say regarding the critique about repentance, Comer speaks on repentance throughout his previous book 'Live No Lies.' From my engagement with his work and some friends from Bridgetown the past 7 years, 'Practicing The Way' has always been more of a guide for believers involved in a local church.
It is a strong and healthy critique! I thought it was odd too from my first read, but remembered his context and intended audience.
I am an almost 25 year old Christian who's read three of JMC's books and consumed a ton of his content in the last 6 years. Thank you for sharing your opinion and inviting dialogue. I appreciate the gentle tone of this article and the suggested reading list. I have my own opinions, hesitations, and concerns about his work, just as I do with almost everyone else's work that I read.
That being said, I must say that there are a few points in this critique that made me cringe very hard, and in the spirit of good faith dialogue, I would like to share a handful of thoughts.
1) I believe that all Christians should have a well-rounded reading list and a well-rounded understanding of each Christian tradition, so to discourage the Christian from reading Roman Catholic works just because they're... dun dun dun... "Roman Catholic" isn't going to do anybody any favors. I think Christians should read Luther, Calvin, and the Puritans. But Luther, Calvin, and the Puritans are not infallible. They get a lot right but they're not perfect.
2) "...he quotes a lot of unsavory mystics—the kind of stuff I wouldn't quote as it could be perceived as an endorsement or even a red carpet to read more. The Puritans offer a doctrinal and affectional spirituality. Go there!" ... Why not read both? Why an either/or? There is much to be gleaned about deep communion with Christ from the many traditions of Christianity. Also, might I ask, who exactly are these "unsavory" mystics he's quoting?
3) I have to completely disagree with you that John Mark is impractical. In fact, in the three books I've read by Him (Live No Lies, The Ruthless Elimination Of Hurry, and God Has A Name), and the hours of other content I've consumed, I've always walked away feeling like there was something I could DO with what he taught. Seriously. He has whole sections in his books specifically about practicing what he teaches. It's kind of his thing. I have not read Practicing The Way, but I've watched some of his video content for it, and it was great. As for "being with Jesus" being a vague statement, I admit that that is a very mystical kind of thing to say... until you realize just how simple it is. It is just about being present as you would with any other person, and practicing silence, humility, and thankfulness, reflecting on His goodness in prayers of adoration.
4) I agree that repentance could explicitly be talked about more. But at the same, for what I understand, by turning to Jesus in all things and living life as Jesus did, you are repenting. It is not a one and done thing that you do. It is a life of submission to Christ. There is a moment that you choose to begin that life of repentance, but it is an active lifestyle of turning to Him from then on.
5) It is a modernist reformationist mindset that demands the atonement of Jesus to only be about transactionally paying for the laws we've broken. Jesus indeed pays for our sins, but not in the way that we're so used to thinking about it. N.T. Wright is obviously a huge inspiration for Comer in this area. Comer (as N.T. Wright does) opts for the ancient view that sin is a disease and power gripping mankind. So Jesus take the punishment that our sins deserve (the wrath of God) onto Himself on the cross, but He does so in order that sin's power can be destroyed in His body; and simultaneously He takes death (the power of satan, Heb 2:14-15) onto himself in order to render it useless over humanity. Therefore there is a penal substitution element and a Christus Victor element working together in the death of Jesus. The atonement is a mosiac; not just a transaction. This is obviously a huge topic, but I've done my best to articulate my thoughts at the moment.
6) JMC does not believe in "works-based righteousness." What he does believe and teach, as the Bible is very clear on, is that discipleship is the heart Christianity. "Go make disciples of all nations!" Obedience to Christ is essential for living a Christian life– there is no life with Christ without following after Him and being a disciple in submission to Him. We will either be formed by Christ or we will be formed by something else. We must choose one master. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer famously said, "Christianity without discipleship is always Christianity without Christ." JMC has done an amazing job of cutting through the majority of shallow, pop Christianity that teaches that you just need "accept Jesus into your heart" or simply "say a prayer" to be saved. Being a Christian is WHOLE LIFE commitment! This is a breath of fresh air for those of us who are sick and tired of "Christianity lite" in America! His teachings on discipleship have been incredibly formative for me and others around me to live a more joyfully obedient life in Christ.
7) “Hey, wanna read some more stuff on spirituality with me? Let’s go to the 17th century. You’ll love it.” ... Yikes. This is probably the point I winced at the most. It seems as though you are willing to largely ignore the first 1500 years of Church history. That is a very unwise move.
I think this was so helpful. And thanks for pointing us back to primary sources :)
The only thing I may add, as part of “apprenticeship” is to first start with the building blocks of spiritual theology and the puritans and others you mentioned.
At some point, engage w the mystics and discern through the errors and what’s helpful. But def not to start! I just see this as a great next step after a season of prolonged discipleship (a work I prefer to apprenticeship) :).
100%, bro. So true. There is so much to be said about utilizing discernment—a much needed word in our day with the plethora of information available to us. We need, as the writer of Hebrews says to have our "powers of discernment trained" (Heb 5).
Interesting take. I don’t know his work very well other than “The Ruthless Elimination of Hurry,” and I didn’t find that too problematic. But it’s also the kind of book that doesn’t require a strong theological foundation in order to follow the arguments or agree to the conclusions.
I think your approach makes a lot of sense—if someone’s reading Comer, their foot’s in the door and the invitation to read Luther et al may be well-received.
I really appreciate your pastoral heart Jeff! However, there’s a few things I think you’d might enjoy taking note of for clarity’s sake.
In regard to your “anti-grace” point:
“Entering into His kingdom” might have salvific undertones to your average modern Western evangelical – especially those coming out of a strict reformed ethos — but it doesn’t necessarily imply soteriological justification. In Comer’s thought (which he borrows from mostly Dallas Willard with a pinch of N.T. Wright) entering into His kingdom simply implies that one is entering into the “range of God’s effective will” (or “where what God wants done is done”). This is covered at length in the first four chapters of The Divine Conspiracy. Entering into His kingdom is — at least in these three’s minds — a reality that can be accessed now, not postmortem. It thus does not necessarily carry – again, at least in its usage in Comer and Willard’s theology — life-after-death salvific implications.
Same thing with “inner life of God.” It’s not a phrase used in the NT, and based on Comer’s inclusion of it in this sentence and larger book, seems to imply a similar idea as entering into the kingdom in the present reality, or simply the wholeness that comes through contemplating His glory.
Take this quote from under the heading “But what are we saved to?” in the book’s first section:
“In Jesus’ gospel, the call to become an apprentice makes perfect sense. If the kingdom of God is “near” but is not a kingdom with borders and passports—in fact, it’s been “hidden … from the wise and learned”—then it makes sense that we’d need some serious training in how to access this extraordinary new society and enter the inner life of God that’s been made available to us through Jesus. We’d need access to a new power to break off our old life habits (that belong to the kingdom of this world) and become who we were always meant to be: people of the new kingdom. We’d want to learn from the absolute best—Jesus himself. In short, we’d want to become his apprentices.”
You can see from both of these terms usages in this early section that Comer is employing both of these terms to describe the reality that life to the full or sanctification is accessed through following Jesus’ “way.” He is not employing either of these terms in such a way that should be construed to assume salvation is contingent upon one’s training. I think the best way to translate Comer’s line on page 136, if we’re using these semantics, would be essentially apropos of Matthew 11:28-29: that when we take on the yoke or lifestyle of Jesus, we will truly experience reality as if the burden is truly light and His way is easy (think also of how the kingdom is like a tiny mustard seed that grows abundantly in Matthew 13).
Also, this is somewhat of a fresher concept (though it’s very ancient in origins), but I would, if you’re interested, consult some contemporary scholarship on the concept of patronage. Particularly, John Barclay’s excellent Paul and the Gift, David deSilva’s Honor, Patronage, Kinship, and Purity, or, for a more fun and readable resource, Misreading Scripture with Individualist Eyes. These resources give a critical reassessment of the “no-strings attached” view of grace. Taken to its logical implications (which are still debated lightly in some circles), Comer’s insistence that “apprenticeship to Jesus allows one to enter into his kingdom and into the inner life of God” will not read as anything other than an appropriate response to one’s receiving of a gift within both Jewish or Greco-Roman 1st century culture. I have access to all of these materials online through my university, so if you’d like pdf copies or anything, I’d be more than happy to send them to you.
Thanks, Griffin. As I shared on another comment, my whole post started as text message to a buddy that I amplified a little and then posted.
As I read your thoughtful comment, paired with the other quotes from Comer, I still feel the same hiccup with the language of "entering" the kingdom apart from pistis/faith/allegiance/trust in Christ. My concern would be much alleviated if Comer would have used "experience" rather than "enter" the kingdom. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus is concerned with people who are "near" the kingdom, but not in—because they don't believe in him. I'd be interested to see Comer's ordo salutis.
A couple of passages in the NT raise the alarm for hitching discipleship—or Christ as example—with entrance into the kingdom. 1) Col 1:13 - God transfers us into the kingdom (now). 2) Hebrews 12:28 - we receive the kingdom (future). The entrance now and in eternity is one of grace, not works. I know this may seem like semantics to some, but perhaps the theology of justification and sanctification from the rest of the NT authors—Christ's first apprentices—would round out PTW. Even the quote you shared about having "access to a new power"—Comer's answer isn't union with Christ or the indwelling Spirit of God? It's discipleship? *thumbs down* It almost reduces Christ to a life hack. And we shudder at the thought!
And I want to amen the rejection of a “no strings attached” antinomianism. Yuck. The NT is clear that saving faith, genuine regeneration, real Christianity is more than a one time decision—it’s a million decisions to follow Christ, to hear these words of his and do them, and build on the rock (Matt 7).
Thanks for responding! I really appreciate these thoughts.
However, I would not fault Comer for using “enter” rather than “experience.” Jesus didn’t use the word “experience” (or any Greek equivalents to the word experience). He used “enter.” And he used “enter” in myriad contexts that do not necessarily imply salvific implications (Matt. 5:20, 18:3, 19:23-24, 23:13, Mark 9:47, 10:23-25, esp. Luke 9:27; the one decent exception, I think, being Matt. 7:21, which regardless of your interpretation of “kingdom” really does appear to have salvific implications). So I think faulting Comer for using similar language to imply (essentially) the same message that Jesus implied might be a bit unfair.
Take this passage about Paul after making disciples in Lystra: “strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying that through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God” (Acts 14:22 ESV). I’m not sure what implications could be drawn out of this, but just think about the strange way tribulations and faith are related to an entering into the kingdom.
Second, in Hebrews 12:28, you said it implies a “future” receiving of the kingdom. But the παραλαμβάνοντες is in present participle active, implying that it is present and ongoing — not future oriented. You could make a case for it being future oriented, but the Greek in the verse doesn’t seem to imply that.
And while entrance into the kingdom is a primarily a divine work of grace that is not contingent upon human works, to deny our response to this work does, at least in my opinion, imply antinomianism.
Comer has mentioned that his ethical framework is inspired by Glen Stassen’s Kingdom Ethics. In that book, he introduces his concept called “kingdom praxis.” These are temporal, active attempts to bring the kingdom of heaven more tangibly into our present reality, and includes things like justice, prayer, deliverance, community building, repentance, peacemaking, healing, and so on. But importantly, kingdom praxis is both a human and divine work. It is “not about what God does while humans stand by passively; nor is it about our effort to build the kingdom while God passively watches.” Kingdom praxis is both “performative and participative,” in that we are often witnesses to what the Spirit is performing while actively participating in His movements. This is why scholars Bruce Chilton and J. I. H. MacDonald, who lend their support to Stassen’s book, argue that the kingdom of God necessarily involves responses from its hearers, usually culminating in a reversal of worldly values as one is further devoted to servanthood and humility. Furthermore, Oliver O’Donovan argues that although cooperation between God and man is carried out mutually, this does not imply that there is an equality in the amount of power each partner brings to the cooperative act. Thus, God and man participate in kingdom praxis as partners, but the level of authority and degree of metaphysical strength added to each cooperative act, of course, lies on God’s part, who is doing the bulk of the heavy lifting in each instance, so to speak.
Further, your differentiating between union with God and the indwelling of God’s Spirit from discipleship is a bit confusing on my end. In my mind, I don’t think you can easily seperate these three components of Christian life. They seem to all run tandem together (though I suppose it might depend upon your definition of “discipleship.”
I think you might be happily surprised by Comer’s overarching philosophy if you dug into more of Comer’s content (via his old Bridgetown teachings, Practicing the Way content, or Art of Teaching series). I hope you’d find that he does not want to reduce discipleship or union with Christ to a life hack. It’s one of the messages he most frequently repeats.
I am more than happy to see you disagree with Comer’s opinion’s from your own denominational or theological leanings (because if we approach Comer from a strictly reformed, Calvinistic perspective, then it would be of course flawed), but I do think it’s unfair to fault Comer’s theology as if it is universally flawed for all Christians everywhere simply because certain aspects of it don’t line up with a specific perspective.
For example, I personally would not fault a Calvinist for having Calvinist leanings, and this is largely because most Calvinist-specific issues are of second and third tier importance.
Anyways, I’ve had a lot of fun discussing this, and I hope that I have not offended you in any way. I appreciate what you’re doing and saying and your heart behind all of this. To be honest, I almost left the faith about 6 years ago, and the only thing that reeled me back in to orthodox Christianity was Comer’s teachings. I have an immense amount of gratitude for the way his teachings and frameworks have helped my friends and family and I just hope other people could see the beauty in what he is doing as well.
Thanks, Griffin. What’s so great to see in Matt 19, is the disciples response about “entering” - who then can be saved? And then Peter follows with, “we’ve left everything to follow you.” This captures what I’m stressing. Comer seems to stress the entrance is learning/becoming like Jesus (progressive sanctification). Where I think the Bible stresses the entrance as Jesus—faith in Him (justification). Discipleship flows from here. Kingdom living is discipleship. My concern was never using entrance language. My concern was how one enters. I think PTW could use more refinement/care/clarity. Not faulting for using entrance language. Faulting for a faulty use. And you are doing the same to me, so lose-lose 😂
I think Paul is referring to the eternal kingdom, which reveals the already-not-yetness of kingdom language in the NT. Suffering is to be expected in our pilgrimage.
I’m not differentiating union or indwelling. Just listing the sides of the coin. I think we may like passing ships here. That’s ok.
So glad God used Comer’s teachings in your life! Hallelujah!
In your first response comment you said, “I still feel the same hiccup with the language of "entering" the kingdom apart from pistis/faith/allegiance/trust in Christ. My concern would be much alleviated if Comer would have used "experience" rather than "enter" the kingdom.” But now you are saying, “My concern was never using entrance language. My concern was how one enters.”
And yet I still don’t see where you are faulting Comer for getting the “how” wrong when the examples you’re drawing from involve the disciples doing things and responding to the message of the kingdom (i.e., “We’ve left everything to follow you” is a responsive action). We’re not saved through works, but we enter into His kingdom by responding to His call to repent and believe.
It seems to be both a receiving and responding, which is what I was getting at in the long paragraph in the center of my second response. It is a both/and, of receiving and responding. This is where Comer is coming from — not that salvation is won by our own righteousness but that taking on the easy yoke of Christ and entering into the already-but-not-yet-ness of the Kingdom is made clearer through our seeking of this Kingdom and his righteousness.
I think we may be reading/writing past each other at this point. I may be misunderstanding, or I’m may not able to clearly articulate what I’m getting at in these comments. My deficiencies know no bounds—especially on my phone in the comments. Blessings.
I think there are some misunderstandings between the two of us in terms of semantics and the definitions that we’ve used, but that does not change the point of my initial comment.
Your paragraph about Comer’s line being “anti-grace” is not accurate. In Comer’s theology, entering into his kingdom does not have salvific overtones. It’s not anti-grace. It’s a healthy response to grace, and is not something that an “editor should have caught.”
Now, if Comer had started PtW with “I am a Reformed Protestant and thus submit to a Reformed Protestant theology over and above contemporary theological scholarship,” then yes, an editor should have caught that line, because it would have been fundamentally flawed. Yet, even though Comer has immense respect for the reformed Protestant tradition, he has criticized and disagreed with many of its features, especially their understanding of “kingdom of heaven.”
As it stands, I would greatly recommend that you at least add a footnote or something to your original paragraph to explain that Comer’s understanding of entering the kingdom does not necessarily carry salvific implications and thus might not imply what your concern insinuates.
And I do apologize that we have had this whole discussion while typing off phones in a comments section. It’s not a good way to communicate and I’m sure I’ve misunderstood many parts of what you’ve said. If you’d like, I’m more than open to a phone or zoom call if you’d like to talk:
Jeff, your review of Practicing the Way is thoughtful and pastorally sensitive, and I deeply appreciate your concerns about theological clarity and practical application. These are valid points that deserve careful consideration. However, I would suggest that Comer’s work can be seen as an attempt to recover ancient spiritual practices that have often been neglected in modern evangelicalism. By engaging with the patristic tradition and supplementing Comer’s work with deeper theological reading, young Christians can benefit from both his insights and the rich heritage of the Church.
In the spirit of your pastoral approach, I would encourage young Christians to read Comer both critically and charitably, pairing his work with the writings of the early church fathers and Reformers. This would provide a balanced framework for spiritual formation—one that is deeply rooted in Scripture while also attentive to the transformative power of Christ’s presence. As Augustine so beautifully wrote, “You have made us for yourself, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you.” Comer’s call to “be with Jesus” is, at its core, an invitation to that rest. It’s an invitation worth pursuing, but as you rightly emphasize, it must be done with discernment and in community. Thanks for shepherding young believers so well in this conversation. Love you, brother.
I appreciate your thoughts here on JMC and Practicing The Way. I remember loving the Ruthless Elimination of Hurry, and diving into Practicing the Way, when it came out. I was so baffled. There are great, poignant thoughts in the book. However, as a Christian looking at the theology he’s expressing behind those beautifully framed paragraphs, I would find myself questioning whether he was advocating for works based salvation. I don’t think he does, but the language around it was confusing, at best. And I know JMC is an intentional and gifted communicator, so if it was vague, it seems likely to be purposeful.
I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, and think that it has to do with how he is ministering in spaces like the west coast of the US, which has been culturally post-Christian for some time now, so maybe he is trying to paint with a broader brush, as a way of guiding people toward Jesus, who would reject a more explicit gospel presentation.
All in all, I agree with your overall take, and appreciate your shepherding heart, in regards to the young man who’s reading. “Fill his shelves, fill his heart. Shepherd him.” The best advice I’ve heard on discipleship.
I love reading your thoughts on this. Being an Oregonian, I have to say I think you make a really good point. Our state has so many liberal people who might be pretty resistant to hearing more direct communication at times, and perhaps Comer is communicating in ways that he hopes will reach them more gently. From a relational spirituality standpoint (Dr. Todd Hall's work), I hope that the gospel message of regeneration and atonement will still be clearly communicated, even here in Oregon! I loved this article's point that God's Word will be crucial in the discipleship and growth of every believer.
I read Mark Comer’s book and I agree with you that we should read it critically.
You said a lot of good things, but I want to discuss your thought on salvation through Grace versus discipleship/ apprenticeship.
Your assumption is that they are not the same. Why is that? I find Jesus‘s discourse with the disciples about them becoming his friends as the path to intimacy through discipleship. When does “salvation” happen for the disciples?
It seems to me you are interpreting Jesus through Paul when you should be interpreting Paul through Jesus. Jesus’ soteriology is 1. Believe in me. 2. Keep my commands.
We cannot overlook Matthew 25 where Jesus makes it clear on judgment day who is saved and who is not. Those who are blessed by the father and did unto the least of these as if they were doing it to Jesus.
Let us also remember the thief on the cross who did nothing to earn salvation, but will be with Jesus in paradise.
We believe and are saved, but we must become his disciples to truly know Jesus as a friend, to be intimate and to know the Father.
While I share your unease concerning Comer's work, I'd stop short of dismissing such a broad swathe of Church history. We've been handed down a plethora of wisdom both before and after the reformation, even in the long millennium between Augustine and Luther. To say, "Wanna read some more stuff on spirituality with me? Let’s go to the 17th century" veers too far into the waters of chronological snobbery that Lewis warns us of in Surprised by Joy.
What's more, it might work against the outcome we'd hope for.
The best outcome is what you suggest. The young man comes away from reading the great works you suggested and does so with a greater understanding of God, a full understanding of his sin, of the grace he's been provided, and invigorated to follow the great commission. The second—which I've seen far more often—is that the young man misunderstands this as proof of progressive theology. New equals better. Quite the opposite of what the reformers would have hoped for. The third—though surely not the final—I can think of, is the rising trend of young men who are finding solace in pre-reformation writings and finding no one in their church who will wisely walk through it with them, they go elsewhere to search it out, falling into the welcome arms of priests in greek and roman robes.
There is a great deal of wisdom in the years before the reformation, even in the writings of those we'd disagree with. To be clear, I have no issue with the books you chose, and I'd hasten to recommend your own book, Humble Calvinism, alongside them as I have many times before, but in our current cultural climate I think some nuance is needed here.
Thank you, brother. You are a constant encouragement. I agree with you! At the end, I was just giving a quick example of the variety of things I'd say. (I picked the Puritan era cause I love it!) In my post at the hyperlink "and more" (after I mention Augustine, Luther, etc.), that goes to a list of books that includes Basil, Patrick, Bernard, Aquinas, and Thomas a Kempis. I love those books! I The snobbery danger is real, and I was trying to keep my economy of words low. I think one reason why I'd still recommend folks to start with Augustine, Luther, Calvin, etc.—1) They are recognizable pillars 2) Their mass popularity has generated lots of easy to read translations of their works. Thanks for the kind engagement and encouragement.
I'm glad to hear it! I love the puritan era too. So much treasure to be discovered there. I also totally agree with you on the translation front. A few years ago I set out to try and understand why we don't read more from that era and translation is a huge part of that. As a result, I'm now two years into studying Latin at University to pursue translation over the next couple of decades. Going to University later in life was a tough call, but I trust it will be fruitful.
I agree with a bunch of your points and I fully accept your caveat that this is substack and you were being brief so you didn’t go into a ton of detail on this or that but I was still wanting you to explain *why* anything between say ~500-1600 is such a boogie man haha. I think I know why and I think I’d disagree (while still not being a Catholic). Essentially I’m 35 but in the stage of life where all the boogie men I was told as a kid to not even consider reading turns out weren’t so bad: patristics, Desert fathers, Eugene Peterson, John Calvin etc. In fact, I’ve come to believe that when we say “stay away from this entire swath or stream of Christianity” we’re coming from a place of fear of the other more than anything else. Instead I wish my parents or youth pastors or Bible college professors had read with me (not for me).
You are right about the brevity! This whole thing was originally a text message to a buddy : )
Now, I wouldn't say anything or everything from that era is suspect. No way! There are some incredibly helpful and edifying works in that era. In my post at the hyperlink "and more" (after I mention Augustine, Luther, etc.), that goes to a list of books that includes Basil, Patrick, Bernard, Aquinas, and Thomas a Kempis. I love those books! My shelves are full of 'em. I think one reason why I'd still recommend folks to start with Augustine, Luther, Calvin, etc.—1) They are recognizable pillars 2) Their mass popularity has generated lots of easy to read translations of their works.
And, man, I totally understand the "boogie men" idea. I grew up in a similar culture—some of it was taught (don't read x, y, z), and some was caught—it was just the culture. I didn't even hear of C. S. Lewis until seminary! I love Lewis now...and I'm still a Baptist lol.
I think there is a good desire to help people who aren't as discerning yet, and it can be tricky. But, yes, more reading together, especially in higher education.
This was one of the first few books that my pastor loaned to me (and I gobbled up) as I nudged toward becoming a Christian. I found the concept of “being a Christian” = “apprenticing to Jesus” novel and encouraging, having always had this idea previously of “Christians” as more of a voting bloc, and generally a close-minded, exclusive one at that. The idea that trying to imitate Jesus — his love, his humbling of himself, his generosity, etc. — is what’s actually at the heart of the faith, not a set of political or social beliefs, is part of what helped me get over myself and my preconceptions and get on board. So, there may be issues with this book, but it was an important step for me on my journey as someone desiring to believe but not being quite there yet.
How wonderful! Thank you for sharing, Sarah. Thrilled to hear how God worked in your life!
I love hearing how Comer's writing helped you in your growth in Christ, Sarah. I felt like J. A. Medder's comment about how regeneration and atonement may not be emphasized as much by Comer was a good point, too. But for someone who already understands the message of salvation and regeneration, I can see where Comer's writings could be encouraging and helpful, too.
Great stuff, Jeff!
I will say regarding the critique about repentance, Comer speaks on repentance throughout his previous book 'Live No Lies.' From my engagement with his work and some friends from Bridgetown the past 7 years, 'Practicing The Way' has always been more of a guide for believers involved in a local church.
It is a strong and healthy critique! I thought it was odd too from my first read, but remembered his context and intended audience.
Hearing about his intended audience is so helpful. Thanks.
I am an almost 25 year old Christian who's read three of JMC's books and consumed a ton of his content in the last 6 years. Thank you for sharing your opinion and inviting dialogue. I appreciate the gentle tone of this article and the suggested reading list. I have my own opinions, hesitations, and concerns about his work, just as I do with almost everyone else's work that I read.
That being said, I must say that there are a few points in this critique that made me cringe very hard, and in the spirit of good faith dialogue, I would like to share a handful of thoughts.
1) I believe that all Christians should have a well-rounded reading list and a well-rounded understanding of each Christian tradition, so to discourage the Christian from reading Roman Catholic works just because they're... dun dun dun... "Roman Catholic" isn't going to do anybody any favors. I think Christians should read Luther, Calvin, and the Puritans. But Luther, Calvin, and the Puritans are not infallible. They get a lot right but they're not perfect.
2) "...he quotes a lot of unsavory mystics—the kind of stuff I wouldn't quote as it could be perceived as an endorsement or even a red carpet to read more. The Puritans offer a doctrinal and affectional spirituality. Go there!" ... Why not read both? Why an either/or? There is much to be gleaned about deep communion with Christ from the many traditions of Christianity. Also, might I ask, who exactly are these "unsavory" mystics he's quoting?
3) I have to completely disagree with you that John Mark is impractical. In fact, in the three books I've read by Him (Live No Lies, The Ruthless Elimination Of Hurry, and God Has A Name), and the hours of other content I've consumed, I've always walked away feeling like there was something I could DO with what he taught. Seriously. He has whole sections in his books specifically about practicing what he teaches. It's kind of his thing. I have not read Practicing The Way, but I've watched some of his video content for it, and it was great. As for "being with Jesus" being a vague statement, I admit that that is a very mystical kind of thing to say... until you realize just how simple it is. It is just about being present as you would with any other person, and practicing silence, humility, and thankfulness, reflecting on His goodness in prayers of adoration.
4) I agree that repentance could explicitly be talked about more. But at the same, for what I understand, by turning to Jesus in all things and living life as Jesus did, you are repenting. It is not a one and done thing that you do. It is a life of submission to Christ. There is a moment that you choose to begin that life of repentance, but it is an active lifestyle of turning to Him from then on.
5) It is a modernist reformationist mindset that demands the atonement of Jesus to only be about transactionally paying for the laws we've broken. Jesus indeed pays for our sins, but not in the way that we're so used to thinking about it. N.T. Wright is obviously a huge inspiration for Comer in this area. Comer (as N.T. Wright does) opts for the ancient view that sin is a disease and power gripping mankind. So Jesus take the punishment that our sins deserve (the wrath of God) onto Himself on the cross, but He does so in order that sin's power can be destroyed in His body; and simultaneously He takes death (the power of satan, Heb 2:14-15) onto himself in order to render it useless over humanity. Therefore there is a penal substitution element and a Christus Victor element working together in the death of Jesus. The atonement is a mosiac; not just a transaction. This is obviously a huge topic, but I've done my best to articulate my thoughts at the moment.
6) JMC does not believe in "works-based righteousness." What he does believe and teach, as the Bible is very clear on, is that discipleship is the heart Christianity. "Go make disciples of all nations!" Obedience to Christ is essential for living a Christian life– there is no life with Christ without following after Him and being a disciple in submission to Him. We will either be formed by Christ or we will be formed by something else. We must choose one master. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer famously said, "Christianity without discipleship is always Christianity without Christ." JMC has done an amazing job of cutting through the majority of shallow, pop Christianity that teaches that you just need "accept Jesus into your heart" or simply "say a prayer" to be saved. Being a Christian is WHOLE LIFE commitment! This is a breath of fresh air for those of us who are sick and tired of "Christianity lite" in America! His teachings on discipleship have been incredibly formative for me and others around me to live a more joyfully obedient life in Christ.
7) “Hey, wanna read some more stuff on spirituality with me? Let’s go to the 17th century. You’ll love it.” ... Yikes. This is probably the point I winced at the most. It seems as though you are willing to largely ignore the first 1500 years of Church history. That is a very unwise move.
I think this was so helpful. And thanks for pointing us back to primary sources :)
The only thing I may add, as part of “apprenticeship” is to first start with the building blocks of spiritual theology and the puritans and others you mentioned.
At some point, engage w the mystics and discern through the errors and what’s helpful. But def not to start! I just see this as a great next step after a season of prolonged discipleship (a work I prefer to apprenticeship) :).
100%, bro. So true. There is so much to be said about utilizing discernment—a much needed word in our day with the plethora of information available to us. We need, as the writer of Hebrews says to have our "powers of discernment trained" (Heb 5).
Good word, Jeff!
Interesting take. I don’t know his work very well other than “The Ruthless Elimination of Hurry,” and I didn’t find that too problematic. But it’s also the kind of book that doesn’t require a strong theological foundation in order to follow the arguments or agree to the conclusions.
I think your approach makes a lot of sense—if someone’s reading Comer, their foot’s in the door and the invitation to read Luther et al may be well-received.
Great work. I’m in the same boat. Part of the drive for JMC is that people are re-discovering discipleship. But I too have concerns.
Good word, brother. Thanks for taking the time to write!
Thanks Jeff. I appreciate your link to Wyatt Graham's article where he lays out JMC's view of God. It is a big concern.
This is helpful!
I really appreciate your pastoral heart Jeff! However, there’s a few things I think you’d might enjoy taking note of for clarity’s sake.
In regard to your “anti-grace” point:
“Entering into His kingdom” might have salvific undertones to your average modern Western evangelical – especially those coming out of a strict reformed ethos — but it doesn’t necessarily imply soteriological justification. In Comer’s thought (which he borrows from mostly Dallas Willard with a pinch of N.T. Wright) entering into His kingdom simply implies that one is entering into the “range of God’s effective will” (or “where what God wants done is done”). This is covered at length in the first four chapters of The Divine Conspiracy. Entering into His kingdom is — at least in these three’s minds — a reality that can be accessed now, not postmortem. It thus does not necessarily carry – again, at least in its usage in Comer and Willard’s theology — life-after-death salvific implications.
Same thing with “inner life of God.” It’s not a phrase used in the NT, and based on Comer’s inclusion of it in this sentence and larger book, seems to imply a similar idea as entering into the kingdom in the present reality, or simply the wholeness that comes through contemplating His glory.
Take this quote from under the heading “But what are we saved to?” in the book’s first section:
“In Jesus’ gospel, the call to become an apprentice makes perfect sense. If the kingdom of God is “near” but is not a kingdom with borders and passports—in fact, it’s been “hidden … from the wise and learned”—then it makes sense that we’d need some serious training in how to access this extraordinary new society and enter the inner life of God that’s been made available to us through Jesus. We’d need access to a new power to break off our old life habits (that belong to the kingdom of this world) and become who we were always meant to be: people of the new kingdom. We’d want to learn from the absolute best—Jesus himself. In short, we’d want to become his apprentices.”
You can see from both of these terms usages in this early section that Comer is employing both of these terms to describe the reality that life to the full or sanctification is accessed through following Jesus’ “way.” He is not employing either of these terms in such a way that should be construed to assume salvation is contingent upon one’s training. I think the best way to translate Comer’s line on page 136, if we’re using these semantics, would be essentially apropos of Matthew 11:28-29: that when we take on the yoke or lifestyle of Jesus, we will truly experience reality as if the burden is truly light and His way is easy (think also of how the kingdom is like a tiny mustard seed that grows abundantly in Matthew 13).
Also, this is somewhat of a fresher concept (though it’s very ancient in origins), but I would, if you’re interested, consult some contemporary scholarship on the concept of patronage. Particularly, John Barclay’s excellent Paul and the Gift, David deSilva’s Honor, Patronage, Kinship, and Purity, or, for a more fun and readable resource, Misreading Scripture with Individualist Eyes. These resources give a critical reassessment of the “no-strings attached” view of grace. Taken to its logical implications (which are still debated lightly in some circles), Comer’s insistence that “apprenticeship to Jesus allows one to enter into his kingdom and into the inner life of God” will not read as anything other than an appropriate response to one’s receiving of a gift within both Jewish or Greco-Roman 1st century culture. I have access to all of these materials online through my university, so if you’d like pdf copies or anything, I’d be more than happy to send them to you.
Blessings!
Thanks, Griffin. As I shared on another comment, my whole post started as text message to a buddy that I amplified a little and then posted.
As I read your thoughtful comment, paired with the other quotes from Comer, I still feel the same hiccup with the language of "entering" the kingdom apart from pistis/faith/allegiance/trust in Christ. My concern would be much alleviated if Comer would have used "experience" rather than "enter" the kingdom. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus is concerned with people who are "near" the kingdom, but not in—because they don't believe in him. I'd be interested to see Comer's ordo salutis.
A couple of passages in the NT raise the alarm for hitching discipleship—or Christ as example—with entrance into the kingdom. 1) Col 1:13 - God transfers us into the kingdom (now). 2) Hebrews 12:28 - we receive the kingdom (future). The entrance now and in eternity is one of grace, not works. I know this may seem like semantics to some, but perhaps the theology of justification and sanctification from the rest of the NT authors—Christ's first apprentices—would round out PTW. Even the quote you shared about having "access to a new power"—Comer's answer isn't union with Christ or the indwelling Spirit of God? It's discipleship? *thumbs down* It almost reduces Christ to a life hack. And we shudder at the thought!
And I want to amen the rejection of a “no strings attached” antinomianism. Yuck. The NT is clear that saving faith, genuine regeneration, real Christianity is more than a one time decision—it’s a million decisions to follow Christ, to hear these words of his and do them, and build on the rock (Matt 7).
Thanks for responding! I really appreciate these thoughts.
However, I would not fault Comer for using “enter” rather than “experience.” Jesus didn’t use the word “experience” (or any Greek equivalents to the word experience). He used “enter.” And he used “enter” in myriad contexts that do not necessarily imply salvific implications (Matt. 5:20, 18:3, 19:23-24, 23:13, Mark 9:47, 10:23-25, esp. Luke 9:27; the one decent exception, I think, being Matt. 7:21, which regardless of your interpretation of “kingdom” really does appear to have salvific implications). So I think faulting Comer for using similar language to imply (essentially) the same message that Jesus implied might be a bit unfair.
Take this passage about Paul after making disciples in Lystra: “strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying that through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God” (Acts 14:22 ESV). I’m not sure what implications could be drawn out of this, but just think about the strange way tribulations and faith are related to an entering into the kingdom.
Second, in Hebrews 12:28, you said it implies a “future” receiving of the kingdom. But the παραλαμβάνοντες is in present participle active, implying that it is present and ongoing — not future oriented. You could make a case for it being future oriented, but the Greek in the verse doesn’t seem to imply that.
And while entrance into the kingdom is a primarily a divine work of grace that is not contingent upon human works, to deny our response to this work does, at least in my opinion, imply antinomianism.
Comer has mentioned that his ethical framework is inspired by Glen Stassen’s Kingdom Ethics. In that book, he introduces his concept called “kingdom praxis.” These are temporal, active attempts to bring the kingdom of heaven more tangibly into our present reality, and includes things like justice, prayer, deliverance, community building, repentance, peacemaking, healing, and so on. But importantly, kingdom praxis is both a human and divine work. It is “not about what God does while humans stand by passively; nor is it about our effort to build the kingdom while God passively watches.” Kingdom praxis is both “performative and participative,” in that we are often witnesses to what the Spirit is performing while actively participating in His movements. This is why scholars Bruce Chilton and J. I. H. MacDonald, who lend their support to Stassen’s book, argue that the kingdom of God necessarily involves responses from its hearers, usually culminating in a reversal of worldly values as one is further devoted to servanthood and humility. Furthermore, Oliver O’Donovan argues that although cooperation between God and man is carried out mutually, this does not imply that there is an equality in the amount of power each partner brings to the cooperative act. Thus, God and man participate in kingdom praxis as partners, but the level of authority and degree of metaphysical strength added to each cooperative act, of course, lies on God’s part, who is doing the bulk of the heavy lifting in each instance, so to speak.
Further, your differentiating between union with God and the indwelling of God’s Spirit from discipleship is a bit confusing on my end. In my mind, I don’t think you can easily seperate these three components of Christian life. They seem to all run tandem together (though I suppose it might depend upon your definition of “discipleship.”
I think you might be happily surprised by Comer’s overarching philosophy if you dug into more of Comer’s content (via his old Bridgetown teachings, Practicing the Way content, or Art of Teaching series). I hope you’d find that he does not want to reduce discipleship or union with Christ to a life hack. It’s one of the messages he most frequently repeats.
I am more than happy to see you disagree with Comer’s opinion’s from your own denominational or theological leanings (because if we approach Comer from a strictly reformed, Calvinistic perspective, then it would be of course flawed), but I do think it’s unfair to fault Comer’s theology as if it is universally flawed for all Christians everywhere simply because certain aspects of it don’t line up with a specific perspective.
For example, I personally would not fault a Calvinist for having Calvinist leanings, and this is largely because most Calvinist-specific issues are of second and third tier importance.
Anyways, I’ve had a lot of fun discussing this, and I hope that I have not offended you in any way. I appreciate what you’re doing and saying and your heart behind all of this. To be honest, I almost left the faith about 6 years ago, and the only thing that reeled me back in to orthodox Christianity was Comer’s teachings. I have an immense amount of gratitude for the way his teachings and frameworks have helped my friends and family and I just hope other people could see the beauty in what he is doing as well.
Blessings, Jeff!
Thanks, Griffin. What’s so great to see in Matt 19, is the disciples response about “entering” - who then can be saved? And then Peter follows with, “we’ve left everything to follow you.” This captures what I’m stressing. Comer seems to stress the entrance is learning/becoming like Jesus (progressive sanctification). Where I think the Bible stresses the entrance as Jesus—faith in Him (justification). Discipleship flows from here. Kingdom living is discipleship. My concern was never using entrance language. My concern was how one enters. I think PTW could use more refinement/care/clarity. Not faulting for using entrance language. Faulting for a faulty use. And you are doing the same to me, so lose-lose 😂
I think Paul is referring to the eternal kingdom, which reveals the already-not-yetness of kingdom language in the NT. Suffering is to be expected in our pilgrimage.
I’m not differentiating union or indwelling. Just listing the sides of the coin. I think we may like passing ships here. That’s ok.
So glad God used Comer’s teachings in your life! Hallelujah!
In your first response comment you said, “I still feel the same hiccup with the language of "entering" the kingdom apart from pistis/faith/allegiance/trust in Christ. My concern would be much alleviated if Comer would have used "experience" rather than "enter" the kingdom.” But now you are saying, “My concern was never using entrance language. My concern was how one enters.”
And yet I still don’t see where you are faulting Comer for getting the “how” wrong when the examples you’re drawing from involve the disciples doing things and responding to the message of the kingdom (i.e., “We’ve left everything to follow you” is a responsive action). We’re not saved through works, but we enter into His kingdom by responding to His call to repent and believe.
It seems to be both a receiving and responding, which is what I was getting at in the long paragraph in the center of my second response. It is a both/and, of receiving and responding. This is where Comer is coming from — not that salvation is won by our own righteousness but that taking on the easy yoke of Christ and entering into the already-but-not-yet-ness of the Kingdom is made clearer through our seeking of this Kingdom and his righteousness.
I think we may be reading/writing past each other at this point. I may be misunderstanding, or I’m may not able to clearly articulate what I’m getting at in these comments. My deficiencies know no bounds—especially on my phone in the comments. Blessings.
I think there are some misunderstandings between the two of us in terms of semantics and the definitions that we’ve used, but that does not change the point of my initial comment.
Your paragraph about Comer’s line being “anti-grace” is not accurate. In Comer’s theology, entering into his kingdom does not have salvific overtones. It’s not anti-grace. It’s a healthy response to grace, and is not something that an “editor should have caught.”
Now, if Comer had started PtW with “I am a Reformed Protestant and thus submit to a Reformed Protestant theology over and above contemporary theological scholarship,” then yes, an editor should have caught that line, because it would have been fundamentally flawed. Yet, even though Comer has immense respect for the reformed Protestant tradition, he has criticized and disagreed with many of its features, especially their understanding of “kingdom of heaven.”
As it stands, I would greatly recommend that you at least add a footnote or something to your original paragraph to explain that Comer’s understanding of entering the kingdom does not necessarily carry salvific implications and thus might not imply what your concern insinuates.
And I do apologize that we have had this whole discussion while typing off phones in a comments section. It’s not a good way to communicate and I’m sure I’ve misunderstood many parts of what you’ve said. If you’d like, I’m more than open to a phone or zoom call if you’d like to talk:
griffingooch97@gmail.com
Jeff, your review of Practicing the Way is thoughtful and pastorally sensitive, and I deeply appreciate your concerns about theological clarity and practical application. These are valid points that deserve careful consideration. However, I would suggest that Comer’s work can be seen as an attempt to recover ancient spiritual practices that have often been neglected in modern evangelicalism. By engaging with the patristic tradition and supplementing Comer’s work with deeper theological reading, young Christians can benefit from both his insights and the rich heritage of the Church.
In the spirit of your pastoral approach, I would encourage young Christians to read Comer both critically and charitably, pairing his work with the writings of the early church fathers and Reformers. This would provide a balanced framework for spiritual formation—one that is deeply rooted in Scripture while also attentive to the transformative power of Christ’s presence. As Augustine so beautifully wrote, “You have made us for yourself, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you.” Comer’s call to “be with Jesus” is, at its core, an invitation to that rest. It’s an invitation worth pursuing, but as you rightly emphasize, it must be done with discernment and in community. Thanks for shepherding young believers so well in this conversation. Love you, brother.
I appreciate your thoughts here on JMC and Practicing The Way. I remember loving the Ruthless Elimination of Hurry, and diving into Practicing the Way, when it came out. I was so baffled. There are great, poignant thoughts in the book. However, as a Christian looking at the theology he’s expressing behind those beautifully framed paragraphs, I would find myself questioning whether he was advocating for works based salvation. I don’t think he does, but the language around it was confusing, at best. And I know JMC is an intentional and gifted communicator, so if it was vague, it seems likely to be purposeful.
I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, and think that it has to do with how he is ministering in spaces like the west coast of the US, which has been culturally post-Christian for some time now, so maybe he is trying to paint with a broader brush, as a way of guiding people toward Jesus, who would reject a more explicit gospel presentation.
All in all, I agree with your overall take, and appreciate your shepherding heart, in regards to the young man who’s reading. “Fill his shelves, fill his heart. Shepherd him.” The best advice I’ve heard on discipleship.
I love reading your thoughts on this. Being an Oregonian, I have to say I think you make a really good point. Our state has so many liberal people who might be pretty resistant to hearing more direct communication at times, and perhaps Comer is communicating in ways that he hopes will reach them more gently. From a relational spirituality standpoint (Dr. Todd Hall's work), I hope that the gospel message of regeneration and atonement will still be clearly communicated, even here in Oregon! I loved this article's point that God's Word will be crucial in the discipleship and growth of every believer.
Couldn’t agree more!!
“Anti-grace?”
I read Mark Comer’s book and I agree with you that we should read it critically.
You said a lot of good things, but I want to discuss your thought on salvation through Grace versus discipleship/ apprenticeship.
Your assumption is that they are not the same. Why is that? I find Jesus‘s discourse with the disciples about them becoming his friends as the path to intimacy through discipleship. When does “salvation” happen for the disciples?
It seems to me you are interpreting Jesus through Paul when you should be interpreting Paul through Jesus. Jesus’ soteriology is 1. Believe in me. 2. Keep my commands.
We cannot overlook Matthew 25 where Jesus makes it clear on judgment day who is saved and who is not. Those who are blessed by the father and did unto the least of these as if they were doing it to Jesus.
Let us also remember the thief on the cross who did nothing to earn salvation, but will be with Jesus in paradise.
We believe and are saved, but we must become his disciples to truly know Jesus as a friend, to be intimate and to know the Father.