Signed up for Comer's rule of life but just found myself facing the same frustrations. I've read a ton of books on what Comer is trying to cover there - Richard Foster, Dallas Willard, and others - and have repeatedly found it wonderful in theory but eventually too burdensome for my OCD. Honestly, I keep finding the most relief in Luther's approach to this.
Perhaps I would summarize Luther's approach as revolving around faith as the key ingredient that lets you both enter union with Christ but also stay in that union. Faith is enriched, grown and solidified objectively through the gospel preached and proclaimed to you ongoingly (interestingly, Luther defines "the Word of God" as the gospel in particular, and I think he is right) and through the giving of the sacraments (baptism; communion), which is done in fellowship.
That's it. There's nothing else to it.
The beauty of it in my opinion is it places objectivity over subjectivity - so whether you're 'feeling' spiritual or not; whether you're 'seeing' growth or not; these means are being effective. In fact, trying to measure your growth is a sure-fire way into going back into self-righteous justification. This is why imputed righteousness was so important to him.
However, he describes the spiritual life in several ways. Firstly, he describes it as consisting of many seasons of "anfechtung", which is a strong word that is difficult to translate but speaks of trial, terror, despair and religious crisis. These are times where faith is tested, and faith is the gold being refined. So whether you fall, fail, sin, or what, so long as you still trust Jesus, you are in the right place.
To be honest, I resonate more strongly with this than the other models. If I were to describe my spiritual life, I can say that most of it has been spent in "anfechtung", although there have been times of breakthrough, and those are very sweet times.
He speaks of this in more detail through the Latin words "Oratio", "Meditatio", and "Tentatio", which is the cycle for training in the Christian life, and really refers more to how to develop a good theology. Basically, he gets it from Psalm 119. "Oratio" refers to prayer - being in communion with God. So you are discussing theology with God, asking questions. "Meditatio" refers to meditation on the scriptures, which is done with prayer. "Tentatio" is the testing time - the "assaults of Satan". So after prayer and meditation, where God may have revealed something, there is always a testing of your faith afterwards, where Satan wants to snatch the truth away, makes things miserable, and tempts you to give up on God and rather rely on human virtue or carve your own way forward.
This really describes things very well, in my view. I think I resonate with this strongly because it keeps things simple and doesn't make the spiritual life as one full of tasks, but more one that just requires time. As soon as I see a list of things to do (like what Comer's site was giving me), I immediately feel overwhelmed because I know I can't do those things perfectly. My scrupilosity kicks in, and given some very difficult experiences and frustrations in the past, I don't want to go back there. My anxiety kicks in straight away. I think Luther had the same experience.
Hahahaha about CDO - yes it must be in alphabetical order!!
I'm trying to articulate these ideas more in something I'm working on called "Holy Sin", which looks at holiness and sanctification and what it means to grow in the Christian life. I'm experimenting with a different format for that, initially through a musical podcast audiobook format which I'm calling "Lo-fi theology", which is over at my Substack. I'm still experimenting with it, as I think there are a few elements I'm missing in the production - but the whole idea is to keep it 'lo-fi'. :)
I think there are a number of things you raise here. Firstly that there is a degree of maturity required to operate at a certain depth of practice which is true. This is developed over time and there is no avoiding that.
I think I have followed a similar approach to you over the years. It has an organic feel to it that has appeal.
I think the fact that you're quoting Luther and I am talking about spiritual disciplines speaks to us having done some of this stuff, right?
However, I think there is also a realization for me that perhaps the approach isn't getting me to where I want to go as fast as I want to get there. There is the above argument that you can't rush it, but I think there is also the question of what intentionality looks like in our relationship with God.
That doesn't have to result in check lists and programmes, but more effort into our relationship with God does invariably lead to more depth.
I think the point I am fumbling towards is that if I consider those who have applied rigour to their relationship with God without being legalistic and driven by religion then I see a fruit I find appealing.
Comer's analogy of apprenticeship to Jesus is a good one. And the work of Willard, Bonhoffer and co all speak to the need and results of spiritual discipline. I'm just trying to figure out how I practically do more of it.
Lastly I think there is the issue of personality. Comer is a Enneagram 1. Tyson is an Enneagram 4 and this clearly reflects in the way they seek Jesus.
While Comer wants to start a monastery, Tyson is off at art galleries, photography exhibitions and reading voraciously across a wide range of issues to revel in the depth of creativity the world offers.
So when we understand our personality and how we are wired, we can also understand how we are mostly likely to thrive in seeking God - from a head, heart or gut perspective to begin with and the integration of those things.
In the end, more active engagement in different ways with God leads to more fruit. I am just grappling with the parts of me I need to overcome to do that.
Signed up for Comer's rule of life but just found myself facing the same frustrations. I've read a ton of books on what Comer is trying to cover there - Richard Foster, Dallas Willard, and others - and have repeatedly found it wonderful in theory but eventually too burdensome for my OCD. Honestly, I keep finding the most relief in Luther's approach to this.
Ryan Peter what is Luther's approach?
I found it daunting too. I think there's no way to go about spiritual practises which aren't hard.
Did you look at Praxis Labs? Simpler but more a guiding principle than something actionable.
I did a personal one which turned into more of a timetable. I think we need to combine with habit formation and other things.
And it's CDO BTW…
Perhaps I would summarize Luther's approach as revolving around faith as the key ingredient that lets you both enter union with Christ but also stay in that union. Faith is enriched, grown and solidified objectively through the gospel preached and proclaimed to you ongoingly (interestingly, Luther defines "the Word of God" as the gospel in particular, and I think he is right) and through the giving of the sacraments (baptism; communion), which is done in fellowship.
That's it. There's nothing else to it.
The beauty of it in my opinion is it places objectivity over subjectivity - so whether you're 'feeling' spiritual or not; whether you're 'seeing' growth or not; these means are being effective. In fact, trying to measure your growth is a sure-fire way into going back into self-righteous justification. This is why imputed righteousness was so important to him.
However, he describes the spiritual life in several ways. Firstly, he describes it as consisting of many seasons of "anfechtung", which is a strong word that is difficult to translate but speaks of trial, terror, despair and religious crisis. These are times where faith is tested, and faith is the gold being refined. So whether you fall, fail, sin, or what, so long as you still trust Jesus, you are in the right place.
To be honest, I resonate more strongly with this than the other models. If I were to describe my spiritual life, I can say that most of it has been spent in "anfechtung", although there have been times of breakthrough, and those are very sweet times.
He speaks of this in more detail through the Latin words "Oratio", "Meditatio", and "Tentatio", which is the cycle for training in the Christian life, and really refers more to how to develop a good theology. Basically, he gets it from Psalm 119. "Oratio" refers to prayer - being in communion with God. So you are discussing theology with God, asking questions. "Meditatio" refers to meditation on the scriptures, which is done with prayer. "Tentatio" is the testing time - the "assaults of Satan". So after prayer and meditation, where God may have revealed something, there is always a testing of your faith afterwards, where Satan wants to snatch the truth away, makes things miserable, and tempts you to give up on God and rather rely on human virtue or carve your own way forward.
This really describes things very well, in my view. I think I resonate with this strongly because it keeps things simple and doesn't make the spiritual life as one full of tasks, but more one that just requires time. As soon as I see a list of things to do (like what Comer's site was giving me), I immediately feel overwhelmed because I know I can't do those things perfectly. My scrupilosity kicks in, and given some very difficult experiences and frustrations in the past, I don't want to go back there. My anxiety kicks in straight away. I think Luther had the same experience.
Hahahaha about CDO - yes it must be in alphabetical order!!
I'm trying to articulate these ideas more in something I'm working on called "Holy Sin", which looks at holiness and sanctification and what it means to grow in the Christian life. I'm experimenting with a different format for that, initially through a musical podcast audiobook format which I'm calling "Lo-fi theology", which is over at my Substack. I'm still experimenting with it, as I think there are a few elements I'm missing in the production - but the whole idea is to keep it 'lo-fi'. :)
I think there are a number of things you raise here. Firstly that there is a degree of maturity required to operate at a certain depth of practice which is true. This is developed over time and there is no avoiding that.
I think I have followed a similar approach to you over the years. It has an organic feel to it that has appeal.
I think the fact that you're quoting Luther and I am talking about spiritual disciplines speaks to us having done some of this stuff, right?
However, I think there is also a realization for me that perhaps the approach isn't getting me to where I want to go as fast as I want to get there. There is the above argument that you can't rush it, but I think there is also the question of what intentionality looks like in our relationship with God.
That doesn't have to result in check lists and programmes, but more effort into our relationship with God does invariably lead to more depth.
I think the point I am fumbling towards is that if I consider those who have applied rigour to their relationship with God without being legalistic and driven by religion then I see a fruit I find appealing.
Comer's analogy of apprenticeship to Jesus is a good one. And the work of Willard, Bonhoffer and co all speak to the need and results of spiritual discipline. I'm just trying to figure out how I practically do more of it.
Lastly I think there is the issue of personality. Comer is a Enneagram 1. Tyson is an Enneagram 4 and this clearly reflects in the way they seek Jesus.
While Comer wants to start a monastery, Tyson is off at art galleries, photography exhibitions and reading voraciously across a wide range of issues to revel in the depth of creativity the world offers.
So when we understand our personality and how we are wired, we can also understand how we are mostly likely to thrive in seeking God - from a head, heart or gut perspective to begin with and the integration of those things.
In the end, more active engagement in different ways with God leads to more fruit. I am just grappling with the parts of me I need to overcome to do that.