2.5💫, had to round down with this one. Very very VERY long review, you’ve been warned - turn back now.
It’s probably obvious: I have extremely mixed opinions about this book. Definitely the least straight forward Comer book I’ve read/listened to thus far. There is one review that well articulates (and much more briefly) a portion of my grievances: see Avery’s review; it shows up as the first review for me so I assume that’s the same for everyone? He’s another 2 star review if not. But for my people, I will also explain on my own part, though my structure (and some of my comments) will be similar to Mr. Avery’s.
There is good, and there is bad. It’s a line down the middle quite unlike any book I’ve read in a long time. Comer has been a bit wave-y in my esteem since he rose to popularity back in the 2010’s, but when I started reading some of his stuff back in 2020-2021, I began to see a lot of the good he has to offer modern Christians (and skeptics). However, I’ve always been aware of some less than ideal views he holds, though I hadn’t read a book that articulated those views until this one.
So, the good and the bad.
I’ll start with the good:
1. God’s name is significant. “God” is not a name; it’s a title. The Christian God has a name, and it is important that we use, understand, and articulate it well. We learn from the Scriptures that our God’s name is Yahweh. I won’t dive into Hebrew or historical significance here; I’ll just say that I fully agree and champion Comer’s goal here in helping Christians come to grips with the fact that our God does indeed have a name, and articulating and calling Him by that name is important, especially in apologetic settings as well as just for the purpose of our own personal relationship with Him.
I honestly thought I had more to say regarding the good, but that’s about it. I could go into a lot more detail about that, but for brevity’s sake, I’ll stop there.
The bad:
1. The Trinity. I think Comer did a horrible disservice to readers of this book by not taking a deep dive (or any dive at all) into the Trinity as it relates to God’s name. This is an incredibly important piece to His very being; three Persons, one Being. It can serve as a linchpin argument that His one Being is manifested in His name, Yahweh. The Father is not the only one called Yahweh; the Son and the Spirit are also Yahweh. Yahweh is more Jesus’ name than “Jesus” is. Jesus was not an uncommon name at that time; in Hebrew it is Yeshua, which translated to English is Joshua. Yeah - there’s a whole book of the Bible called Joshua, and it’s not about Jesus. That Joshua’s name was the same name: Yeshua, or Jesus. Much of that language of “name above all names” comes from Isaiah, and Isaiah didn’t know he was writing about someone named Jesus Christ; he just knew he was writing about Yahweh who would send the Messiah - and then Paul quotes Isaiah in Philippians 2, saying that “God has bestowed on [Jesus] the name above all names” (Phil. 2:9-11). This is Paul straight-up saying, “Jesus is Yahweh.” There was plenty of opportunity for Comer to at least broach this topic, and I think it would have strengthened his argument greatly. But I honestly wonder at his stance on the Trinity as I’ve never heard it specified in any of his teachings or writings.
2. Chapter 2. I remember when this book came out, there was a lot of buzz (in my circle) about John Mark Comer being a polytheist. An old friend of mine told me this straight-up and directed me to a podcast where a reformed baptist preacher ripped Comer to shreds on his “belief” in other gods. I blindly adopted this view of Comer as I was in an extremely co-dependent and undisciplined season of life, touting him off as a polytheist who is dangerous and heretical.
After finally listening to the book for myself, I think I can confidently say he’s not a polytheist; to my understanding, the meaning of “belief” in the definition “belief in many gods” implies worship, not just belief in the existence of said gods. Maybe I’m wrong in this? Either way, Comer is definitely not championing the worship of many gods. However, I think his hermeneutic here is massively misleading and off base. I can’t necessarily support my argument with scholarly sources (and it is something I want to look into more), but from what I have read and understood up to this point, I would argue Comer’s interpretation misses the mark. He argues that the Scripture writers refer to other cultures’ and nations’ gods as just that: gods. He points out that they don’t say “false” gods, they say gods, plain and simple. He also cites the Egyptian magicians being able to reproduce some of the signs Yahweh performs through Moses. He argues that obviously something is behind those magicians being able to copy Yahweh, though they can’t repeat everything He does, implying that they are “weaker” gods. He uses a few other similar places in Scripture to basically make the point that other gods are very much so real, and that they are different from angels and demons (as he says those words aren’t used enough in Scripture to support their substituting for “gods”), and that they are cosmic forces that are essentially born out of the reality of evil, which Yahweh did not create or cause. We don’t know where they came from or how they got here, but they are here, cosmically opposed to and at odds with Yahweh and His people.
I take issue with this perspective for a couple of reasons: first, I think that he is missing the tone of the ancient Hebrew writers and NT Scripture writers when they refer to their fellow cultures’ gods. If a Christian and a Hindu are having a conversation about their god(s), the odds are one of them will refer to the other’s as just that: “your god(s).” Calling someone’s personal deity “god” is not an admission of belief in the actual existence, authority, or power of that god… it’s merely conversational respect and decorum. I personally think this is what the Scripture writers and even Yahweh Himself does in Scripture when they and He refer to the gods of the Canaanites, Amorites, Hittites, and all the other -ites. I am not denying the existence of spiritual opposition to Yahweh; I believe in spiritual warfare. I just think Comer takes it to an unnecessary and unhelpful place due to a shoddy hermeneutic on his part, all for the sake of proving a point when he had many other directions he could have gone in - the name of the chapter is Why Does God Need a Name Anyway? Again, the Trinity would have been great ground to unpack here. Idk, maybe I’m wrong and just nitpicky, maybe I’m just pushing back because it’s inconsistent with what I was raised believing (as Comer points out as a very real possibility for readers of this book). If so, I invite push-back! But unfortunately, this is not the last problem with this book for me.
3. Theological laziness at the expense of being John Mark Comer. Everyone who knows anything about Comer knows that he’s “not your typical pastor/Christian author.” Comer has a charisma, charm, and, at least conversationally if not aesthetically, approachability to him that is rare in Christian authorship. (On the last one: seriously… his “relatable” moments are sometimes wincingly Northwest-bougie-chic.) However, it’s precisely these reasons, in addition to a few others, that I carry (and encourage) a wariness towards him, even though I wholeheartedly embrace some of his ideas and books (Ruthless Elimination is truly a great and timely book).
That said, other books I have read by him have been more in the realm of Christian living than in biblical exposition. Ruthless Elimination and Live No Lies, and I assume Practicing the Way (the book), all deal with what it looks like to live as authentic Christians in an increasingly post-Christian era. As such, Comer was able to avoid (to some extent) overly heady, exegetical, hermeneutic content in those books (again, can’t speak to Practicing the Way yet).
That is not the case with God Has a Name. This book acts explicitly as an in-depth exegesis of Exodus 34:6-8, and some of it is well done, but a lot of it is careless. Comer approaches deep theological topics in this book, and he does so in the context of interpreting/expositing Scripture itself. He (at least as of when this book was written) demonstrates a disconcerting amount of willy-nilly-ness in some of his claims. The aforementioned Avery does a good job explaining some of this. For my own review’s purpose, though, I would argue that Comer has a very inconsistent doctrine of God. This is actually helpful to see and point out though, because believe it or not, his doctrine of God is pretty indicative of many Christians’ doctrine of God.
What do I mean when I say “doctrine of God?” Essentially, Comer makes multiple, almost on every page, claims about who God is, how God acts, and what God does throughout this book. Some of the claims are great, talking about God’s mercy as well as His justice, His love and faithfulness, and His ultimate revelation of His character in Christ on the Cross (key term: revelation). However, Comer makes many lazy statements about God as well, such as: God’s heart is MORE merciful than it is just, or God is at odds with evil and therefore NOT in control of it, etc. He makes so many claims like these that ultimately contradict other orthodox views of God.
For example, to claim that God is more merciful than He is just/righteous is to imply that His attributes are divided; He is 80% merciful and 20% just/righteous. This is an extremely humanoid understanding of Him. If we believe He is infinite, immutable (unchanging), and eternal, then we must ascribe those attributes to every other attribute of Him as well. If He is infinite, then His mercy is infinite, but so is His justness. If He is immutable, then to say He is more one thing than another at any given time (“He was merciful here, but he exercised judgment there”) implies that He actually does change, because sometimes He’s merciful and sometimes He enacts justice. Essentially this all boils down to the belief that God’s attributes do not “comprise” God (as in, you don’t add up all the attributes of God and then, voila! you have God), but rather that He ~is~ His attributes, and His attributes ~are~ Him (a belief I don’t think Comer would hold). So He does not “have” grace and mercy to dish out; He ~is~ gracious and merciful in His very nature. He does not ~suspend~ His justice in order to enact His mercy; He is both at the same time forever and always. This is an essential starting point to our (albeit, infinitely limited) comprehension of God, and Comer seems to throw it out the door in God Has a Name.
This is already an unbelievably long review, but my point is this: Comer is lazy in his language about the Being of God in this book. He shares a lot of great quotes from other, better theologians than himself, but he himself holds the enclosed topics of this book loosely and with too much cultural wiggle room in my opinion. All in all, Comer should stick to Christian living/Rule of Life content, and stay out of the pulpit/exegetical topics.
In summary: this book prods a great question and idea. We ~should~ know our God’s name, and we ~should~ call Him by it. We should consider the implications of His name, especially as it relates to Trinitarian theology.
But ultimately this book is presented in too light of a tone, with a too devil-may-care attitude, and with too much of Comer’s typical disarming charm and wit (that genuinely makes me cringe sometimes). It also exposes quite a lack of scholarly and exegetical capacity in Comer. As I said, he quotes a lot of the “right” people. It just doesn’t seem that he has adopted many of the skills and tools of those people.