JOHN MARK COMER’S “GOD HAS A NAME” — IS THIS WHO GOD IS?

Share:

          John Mark Comer, a former pastor, directs Practicing the Way, an enterprise promoting the idea that in order to be like Jesus, one must engage in certain practices derived from monastic traditions and mysticism. For more about this, see CANA interviews and articles on Comer.
          This article discusses Comer’s book, God Has A Name: What You Believe About God Will Shape Who You Become, which is about Comer’s theology of who God is. Comer’s title is correct. That is why it is so disturbing to find that the God presented by Comer in this book, mainly in the first two chapters, is not like the God revealed in Scripture.
This book, first published in 2017, was republished by Thomas Nelson in 2024. The article refers to the 2024 edition.

God’s Attributes

           Comer bases this book on Exodus 34:5-7:
The Lord descended in the cloud and stood there with him as he called upon the name of the Lord. Then the Lord passed by in front of him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished,)visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.”
          Why this passage? Comer states, referencing Tim Mackie, that this is the “John 3:16” of the Old Testament quoted in numerous Bible passages. Comer uses this passage as a template for explaining who God is.
           While this does give good information about who God is, other passages of Scripture give other attributes, such as a few that Comer apparently disagrees with (more on that later).
          In a footnote, Comer states that this book is not about attributes such as God’s omnipresence, omnipotence, or omniscience. While agreeing with those traits of God, Comer writes that “all the omni’s come out of a Greek-influenced, Western way of reading the Bible” and that these are “Greek categories, not Hebrew categories” (282).
          This charge of a Greek or Western way of interpreting Scripture is not new with Comer; it was a popular cry from the Emergent Church  and is repeated by Progressive Christians.  Actually, the knowledge of God’s eternal attributes such as his omniscience, is derived solely from God’s word, no “Greek influence” necessary.
          Comer has used “Western” as a pejorative before, such as in his book, Practicing the Way.  In this, Comer is a lot like someone he admires and has quoted, heretic Richard Rohr, who is fond of making the West-East distinction in order to criticize the church.

God’s Name

         Comer discusses some names for God in the Bible, and then gets to YHWH, the name God revealed to Moses in the burning bush. After explaining how nobody really knows how to pronounce the name YHWH, which we say Yahweh, he points out that most English translations use “the Lord” for “Yahweh.”
         Using “Lord” for God is a problem, contends Comer, because it is a title, not a name. Relationships are all about using a name for each other, so using a title is undesirable. It is ironic that Comer says this in light of the fact that we do not really know God’s name in full since we only have the consonants “YHWH.”

The Imperfections of God

          In several instances, Comer affirms a biblical truth in one part of the book but then diminishes it with statements elsewhere. This causes cognitive dissonance that is misleading and confusing.
          Comer quotes Gerry Beshears’ statement about God and Moses’ conversation about destroying Israel after the Golden Calf incident, in which Beshears claims that “God was processing his feelings with a human partner.”
          Comer thinks this is a great assessment. On the contrary, this is an appalling idea. God does not “process feelings;” that is a human thing. God is impassible; his emotions are not like human emotions in reaction to circumstances nor are they shifting. God’s feelings are constant and part of who he is since God is not divided into parts (Divine Simplicity). God’s wisdom, feelings, patience, love, mercy, etc. are all one in God and perfectly balanced; God’s feelings are part of his character, not moods that come and go.

God Relents

          Comer believes that God changed his mind about destroying Israel, being persuaded by Moses (58-59). However, God “relented” only from the human viewpoint. That is the biblical way to understand God’s action since other passages tell us God does not change and knows the end from the beginning.
          In a footnote (289) related to the account of Jonah, Comer writes that he believes in God’s omniscience and does not think Yahweh changes his “knowledge.” But God changed his “attitude or relationship” toward Nineveh, says Comer. But did he? God’s message gave a time period for Nineveh to repent, which they did. God’s message gave them impetus to repent  .
          The statement that God “relented” from his plan to destroy Nineveh when he saw their repentance (v. 10) is from man’s point of view. God is in not in time; he is not going from moment to moment, merely “seeing” the future before it comes about. For God, past, present and future exist as one. It is something we as creatures cannot imagine. For God, Nineveh’s repentance was a done deal but for those in Nineveh, for Jonah, and for those reading the account, God’s action of not destroying Nineveh was in time. As said in Barnes’ Notes on the Bible:
“As God is unchangeable in nature, so is He unchangeable in will. For no one can turn back His thoughts…<snip>…It is said that He repented, because He changed that which He seemed about to do, to destroy them. In God all things are disposed and fixed, nor doth He anything out of any sudden counsel, which He knew not in all eternity that He should do; but, amid the movements of His creature in time, which He governeth marvelously, He, not moved in time, as by a sudden will, is said to do what He disposed by well-ordered causes in the immutability of His most secret counsel whereby things which come to knowledge, each in its time, He both doth when they are present, and already did when they were future.”
          God often stated if a kingdom turned from its wickedness, he would not bring judgment on them. God’s anger on sin never changes and his mercy at repentance also does not change. God did not destroy Nineveh but this action was not a change in God, it was a change in Nineveh.

God Persuaded?

         What would it mean if somebody like Moses could actually talk God out of something, as Comer contends?
1. It would mean that Moses had a better idea than God since God gave up his plan due to Moses’ persuasion.
2. It would mean God made a mistake in his decision, since Moses allegedly showed God a better way. In other words, God was wrong and Moses had a superior thought.
3. It would mean that God does not know everything, since God did not know he would do what Moses suggested.
          So we see that what Comer writes has grave consequences on who God is. A god who is bested in his decisions by a man and who cannot foresee outcomes is not the God of Scripture. It is the god of Open Theism and Process Theology.
          In footnote 51, pages 287-288, Comer recommends a book, God at War, by Open Theist Greg Boyd and states:
 “I’m not an Open Theist, but I think that the mild version that Boyd advocates does have some great things to say and needs to be given a fair hearing…”
          I doubt there is a “mild version” of Open Theism. Moreover, there are so many red flags with Greg Boyd in addition to his Open Theism, that to recommend Boyd is deeply unsettling.
          Comer writes that
“God can be moved, influenced, who can change his mind at a moment’s notice.” (61)
          God would “be less of a God” if he could not change his mind, contends Comer; or if he could not
 “be open to new ideas from intelligent, creative beings he’s in relationship with.”
          This is impossible because there is no such thing as a “new” idea to God. God’s omniscience means he knows everything, including any ideas anyone might have at any time. That statement indicates to this writer that Comer does not understand  the character of the biblical God is; yet here he is, writing a book about who God is.
          If what Comer writes is true, it means that God does not know the future (so he moves moment to moment in time), that humans can have ideas new to God, and that these ideas can even be better than God’s (or else why would God be “open” to them?). This sounds very much like both Process Theology and Open Theism, and I have noted Comer’s interest in Open Theist Greg Boyd. Although Comer claims he is not an Open Theist (footnote 51, 288), these statements are compatible with Open Theism.
God’s infinite mind knows all from eternity. There is no limiation on infinity or on God. Those like Comer who refashion God into more of a super-man are degrading God and misleading those who listen to them.

Junk Food

        Comer quotes his friend, Skye Jethani:
“We are active participants with God in the writing, directing, design, and action that unfolds…..In prayer, we are invited to join him in directing the course of his world.” (65)
          To add insult to injury, Comer writes:
“From the beginning of human history, God…has been looking for friends, for free, intelligent creative partners to collaborate with him on running the world.” 
          This is astounding, and I only quoted a few statements among several in the book that say the same thing. Where is the biblical evidence for this idea? God has aseity, also known as self-sufficiency. God has no need for any collaboration on “running the world.” If he did, he would be imperfect and lacking in something and would not be God. How could the Creator of everything that exists need something, much less need help in running the world? It is illogical as well as unbiblical.
          As one writer puts it:
“To begin with, if God is self-sufficient, then He is also self-divine, for a God who is self-existent cannot receive His deity from anything or anyone outside Himself. If God is self-sufficient, then He is also self-wise, for if others could inform God of what is wise or what wise choices He should make, then He would be less than perfect in His wisdom.”
         These remarks on God by Comer are a mischaracterization of God, and in the views of some, would even be heretical. The character of God is supremely important, and Comer has just handed his readers a platter of junk food instead of the real thing.
          This section of the book is enough to warn against the whole book, and renders anything that might be sound in the book irrelevant. The giant shadow of this weak and vulnerable god is too large not to swallow up any possible bits of good content.
           [Others more qualified than this writer have written extensively on these attributes of God. Please see the links at the end.]

Other Gods?

          The second major error is that Comer advocates the idea that there are many gods, but that there is only one God like Yahweh (this is probably supposed to redefine polytheism). Comer cites several passages such as this one referring to “gods” to say that there really are other gods.
          Comer writes that some gods are called by name, as in the passage about Solomon worshiping the gods of his foreign wives, and points out that the passage does not say they are not real. Comer concludes they must be real if they are named and the passage does not deny their existence.
          This is poor reasoning and poor exegesis. One needs to compare scripture with scripture and use logic. First of all, naming the gods as they were called by pagan worshipers does not mean they exist as the pagans viewed them. It is simply a record of those gods’ names and who worshiped them. In fact, it demonstrates the historical accuracy of God’s word and his attention to detail, as well as emphasizing God’s denouncement of each god.
          Secondly, there are unequivocal verses where God makes it clear there are no other gods  such as
So that you may know and believe Me
And understand that I am He.
Before Me there was no God formed,
And there will be none after Me. Is. 43:10b
This and other passages are not saying that other gods exist but are just not like Yahweh. It means there are no other actual creatures who are gods.

The “gods” are Demons

          Comer writes about the fact that several passages indicate there is a real spiritual power behind these supposed gods, and I agree. But God calls these spiritual powers behind the false gods demons.
           One article, responding to the idea that the gods are not real, makes the point that while they are real, they are not gods, but rather are demons:
“’They did not destroy the peoples, as the Lord commanded them, but they mixed with the nations and learned to do as they did. They served their idols, which became a snare to them. They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons; they poured out innocent blood’ (Psalm 106:34-38).
Note here that many of the psalms are written in a poetic manner. But here the poetic structure is based on the correspondence of the thoughts, not the similarity of the sounds. Thus the parallel in this psalm is between “They served their idols” and “They sacrificed their own children to demons.” The gods of the peoples and nations around them are called demons.
‘They stirred him to jealousy with strange gods; with abominations they provoked him to anger. They sacrificed to demons that were no gods, to gods they had never known’ (Deut 32:16-17).
The attestation here is pretty straightforward: the strange gods are demons.
‘What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?’ (1 Cor 10:20-22)
Paul says here that the idols and gods of the pagans are no gods at all but are in fact demons. The sacrifices that the pagans think they are directing to their gods are really being directed to demons.” * [Bolded sections are mine for emphasis]
           There are several articles agreeing with this, such as this one:
“Formally speaking, the pagans were not worshiping Zeus, Artemis, or any of the other dozens of pagan gods to whom temples were dedicated in the first century, for no such gods have ever existed. However, the pagans were worshiping beings that had a real existence—namely, demons (10:19–21). This comment has ramifications for how we understand non-Christian religions. Apparently, worship takes place in these religions, but this worship is really the worship of demons no matter how it may appear to the contrary. Furthermore, Paul’s statement in 2 Corinthians 11:14 that Satan sometimes disguises himself as an “angel of light” implies not only that demons are the true objects of worship in false religions but that these false religions were given to their adherents by the demons themselves, at least in some cases.”
          The use of the term “gods” simply acknowledges that the pagans believed these were gods. The Bible does not affirm that they were actual gods. After all, what is a “god” other than being an idol? It is a spiritual being that is either the true God or is a false god. A false god means it is not a god, just as the term “false teeth” means they are not real teeth.
           This writer has referred multiple times to the New Age god, the Mormon god, and the gods or deities of Tibetan Buddhism without ever believing they are actually real gods. It is simply a term referring to the beliefs of some who hold that these spiritual beings are god or are gods. My use of the term “god” or “gods” does not mean they exist or that I believe they exist as god/s. In my view, this is just common sense, and it is exasperating to have to explain such a simple concept.

First Corinthians 8:5

          Comer uses many of the arguments for other gods used by the late Dr. Michael Hieser.  Comer cites First Corinthians 8:5 to claim that even Paul struggled with this idea of other gods:
 “For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords…”
          However, this does not reveal any struggle by Paul. In fact, he is making a hypothetical argument. 
          Other commentaries agree.
[as there be gods many, and lords many] The Apostle does not say there are many gods or lords, but only that the gods of the heathen are called so. 
We know from 1 Corinthians 10:20 that he did not allow that the gods as such existed at all, but held those beings regarded as gods to be demons.
          Barnes writes:
As there be gods many – ὥσπερ hōsper, etc. As there are, in fact, many which are so called or regarded. It is a fact that the pagans worship many whom they esteem to be gods, or whom they regard as such. This cannot be an admission of Paul that they were truly gods, and ought to he worshipped; but it is a declaration that they esteemed them to be such, or that a large number of imaginary beings were thus adored. 
          Commentators explain this passage with the understanding that the Scriptures teach there is only one God. It has never been held in the historic church that the Bible teaches that the false gods are actual gods, much less that gods are serving on a pagan type of “Divine Council.”

The Divine Council, “Gods,” and Jesus

          Comer interprets Psalm 82:1 as referring to gods instead of human judges and even misunderstands Jesus’ reference to it in John 10 (see this article addressing John 10 and this article  about the problem of adapting pagan theology into the Bible, which is what both Heiser and Comer do).
          Comer ties Psalm 82:1 in with Jesus, stating that Jesus was answering the prayer of Psalm 82:1, coming to “put an end to the gods’ injustice” (95). But when Jesus uses Psalm 82:1, he interprets the “gods” as human judges. So why then would Jesus be the answer to a “prayer” of that passage if Jesus did not even give it that meaning? Comer fails to interpret Jesus’ allusion to that Psalm correctly (286, footnote 31).
           This issue of the Divine Council and many gods is discussed in the CANA article on Michael Heiser’s The Unseen Realm  which is where one can read about it in more detail, as well as check out links in and at the end of the article.

Substitutionary Atonement

          Writing more about the death of Jesus on the cross, Comer calls substitutionary atonement  a “metaphor” (96). Although he states he agrees with it, he goes on to claim that Christus Victor view was the dominant
“metaphor” in the church for the atonement for much longer. Even if that is the case, it does not matter what view was dominant. What matters is what Scripture teaches, and substitutionary atonement could not be more clear. In fact, it stares you in the face from most of the Old Testament all the way up to John calling Jesus the “Lamb of God.”
          This article  examines the references to penal substitutionary atonement by the church fathers to show that it was a strong view in the early church. (Also see this article ).
          The word “metaphor” for penal substitutionary atonement is cringeworthy because penal substitutionary atonement is not a metaphor . A metaphor is figurative language. The term penal substitutionary atonement is a literal description of what Jesus accomplished on the cross.
          Unfortunately, Comer strongly recommends a chapter by Greg Boyd in a book on the atonement (The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views, 287, footnote 44). This is yet another indication of Boyd’s influence and that Comer has no qualms in recommending Boyd. Even apart from his Contemplative teachings, this renders Comer a dangerous teacher in the church.

The Pitch for Mysticism

          In chapters 3 to 6, Comer makes some good points about the compassion and mercy of God. I did not agree with all of Comer’s points, including about punishment (which he seems to confuse with consequences and with God’s discipline); however, for the most part, it is not problematic.
          But whatever good material may be found in those chapters is not enough to redeem the content of chapters 1 and 2, nor redeem the very last section of the book which follows the 6 chapters.

Contemplation

          Following the last chapter and a small section titled “Jealous” (explaining God as a jealous God), Comer offers a section called Contemplation. Since this is now his main teaching, it is not unexpected that he would include it in this book.
          Comer quotes several problematic theologians and mystics. One is Gerald May (1940-2005), a psychiatrist and theologian who was a staff member of the interfaith Shalem Institute for Spiritual Direction, the same institution that trained contemplative influencer and teacher, Ruth Haley Barton (see links at end on Barton). Reflecting the Buddhist influence at the Shalem Institute, May said:
“Some Buddhists say that if you strip away all the mental clutter, you discover that the world is made of compassion.” – From Shalem website
          Comer quotes mystic Robert Mulholland (d. 2015), a contemplative who wrote a book with Ruth Haley Barton. Barton, who had a Buddhist mentor at the Shalem Institute, was influenced by Mulholland and has incorporated some of his teachings at her Transformation Center. Mulholland defined contemplation this way:
“the practice of stilling ourselves before God, moving ever deeper into the core of our being, and simply offering ourselves to God in totally vulnerable love.” (Mulholland, The Deeper Journey: The Spirituality of Discovering Your True Self, p. 97), as quoted in Comer (269)
          Comer then quotes Ignatius of Loyola (1491-1556), a mystic, key figure in the Counter-Reformation, and founder of the Society of Jesus (Jesuit order) (271). Comer has essays in a publication called The Ignatian Journey, including this essay where Comer uses heretic Richard Rohr’s definition of sin. Ignatian Journey promotes contemplative practices such as Centering Prayer, Breath Prayer, Imaginative Prayer, Spiritual Direction, and books by leading contemplatives. .
          Comer has a Jesuit spiritual director, so his essays in this journal should be no surprise.

Lectio Divina and Imaginative Prayer

          Comer himself includes Lectio Divina (274) and Imaginative Prayer (276) in this section of his book. Lectio Divina, a mystical, subjective method of reading Scripture not found in the Bibe, is a favorite method of contemplatives (See section on Lectio Divina in CANA article on Dallas Willard).
          Imaginative Prayer is a growing practice due to the Contemplative teachings that have increasingly been rolling into the church. Imagination can be “leveraged” as “a pathway to God,” claims Comer. He makes a false dichotomy between experiencing feelings via images versus “mere ideas and linear thought,” and asserts that feelings can “unlock trapped parts of ourselves and open them to God’s emancipation” (277).
          This is another hallmark of Contemplatives: they make a false distinction between heart (feelings) and mind (thinking), implying that methods need to be used to open or stir the so-called heart. The mind or thinking is often put down or misrepresented. This writer has observed this in all written materials by Contemplatives that she has read.
          The Bible makes no such distinction. The Hebrew and Greek words translated as “heart” refer to the whole person: will, mind, feelings, moral conscience, and soul. All aspects of who a person is is the “heart;” mind and feelings and will operate together.
          Yet another Contemplative trait is when Comer subtly puts down thinking by saying “mere ideas and linear thought.” I have noted this tendency in Contemplatives.
          Comer refers to these practices as “ancient,” as though that gives them legitimacy. This is yet another typical Contemplative tactic. A practice being ancient does not mean it is valid or biblical. No such practices are taught or modeled in Scripture.

Conclusion

          This book is as disturbing as Practicing the Way. Comer’s view of God as open to “new ideas” and wanting collaboration to help him direct the world are so far from the Bible that they must be classified as not only unbiblical but anti-biblical.
          Also significant is the fact this book was first published in 2017, which means that Comer has had these ideas for awhile, and has been influenced by Greg Boyd for a number of years.
         That this book is recommended and used in churches that promote Comer’s teachings is distressing. But if those recommending it do not see the issues with Comer’s god, then perhaps it is useful to know that.
          God will purify his church and perhaps that involves exposing unbiblical teachings:
So that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. Ephesians 5:26-27
…be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness, but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen. 2 Peter 3:17-18
* The article is on a Roman Catholic site but that does not mean I endorse Roman Catholicism. I quoted it because it demonstrates a good explanation of those verses using sound hermeneutics.

Recommended

All That Is In God and God Without Parts, both by James Dolezal
The Doctrine of God, by Dr. Norman Geisler, short but meaty ($5.49 on Amazon)
Videos
God’s Impassibility
God’s Immutability
Divine Simplicity
Dr. James Dolezal discusses his book, All That Is In God
Blog
See articles on Classic Theism blog site by Dr. Brian Huffling, Southern Evangelical Seminary such as this one on Divine Impassibility

The Issue of Many Gods

John Mark Comer has a view he calls “creational monotheism” which is similar to Heiser’s view regarding many gods. There are 3 videos with Pastor Chris Rosebrough responding to Comer’s view.

Creational Monotheism is Polytheism in Disguise

 

Critique of John Mark Comer’s Polytheism

 

Response to John Mark Comer’s Clarification Re Creational Monotheism

Articles, “Does God Change His Mind?”
From Got Questions
From Ligonier Ministries
Short link: https://shorturl.at/9mDGF