# A.W. Tozer the Mystic?



## heartoflesh (Apr 1, 2005)

A group of us, led by our pastor and the assistant pastor, have been meeting at a restaurant on Wednesday evenings going through A.W. Tozer's "The Pursuit of God". I really like Tozer, and although I assume he was Arminian in his theology, he seemed to have a great grasp of the glory of God. 

I've been told that Tozer was a "modern-day mystic", but I'm not sure what is meant by this. His writings do sometimes appear to be like those of a man who possesed some sort of extra-biblical, subjective revelation. Is this what is meant?

Our next book is going to be Brother Lawrence's _Practicing the Presence of God_, which I've been told was one of Tozer's favorite reads. I really don't know anything about this fellow, Brother Lawrence, only that he was a monk. 

To be honest, I'm starting to smell a rat. I've recently become aware of the subject of Contemplative Prayer, and how it is sweeping the church. I'm afraid I'm going to get a little bit punchy if the discussion starts to veer in the direction of special prayer practices-- breath prayers, breathing exercises, "quieting the mind", "palms up/palms down", etc. Nothing has been brought up yet, but I'm ready to put in my 2 cents if it does.

Anyway, back to Tozer. I've never read anything by him where he suggests any such techniques, or claims any special mystical knowledge, so I guess I'm trying to figure out why he would be classified as a mystic. 

Any ideas?


----------



## openairboy (Apr 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> A group of us, led by our pastor and the assistant pastor, have been meeting at a restaurant on Wednesday evenings going through A.W. Tozer's "The Pursuit of God". I really like Tozer, and although I assume he was Arminian in his theology, he seemed to have a great grasp of the glory of God.
> 
> I've been told that Tozer was a "modern-day mystic", but I'm not sure what is meant by this. His writings do sometimes appear to be like those of a man who possesed some sort of extra-biblical, subjective revelation. Is this what is meant?
> ...



Rick,

To my knowledge, Tozer doesn't promote any such techniques. He, especially early on in my Christian life, was instrumental in helping me love God through "Knowledge of the Holy" and "The Pursuit of God". Another article that is a must read, I believe, is his "The Old Cross and the New". He says in a page and a half what others try to say in books. It is a stroke of genius.

The mystic? Yes, he is a bit of mystic due to his readings and influences, but I don't believe in a negative way. The following is a quote from Snyder's "In Pursuit of God": 

Tozer's hunger for God led him to study the Christian mystics. Their know-ledge of God and absorbing love for him profoundly attracted Tozer. They were spirits kindred to his own. 'These people know God, and I want to know what they know.' But at the same time, the Bible remained absolutely central. 

'Once', Martyn Lloyd-Jones recalled, 'Dr. Tozer and I shared a conference years ago, and I appreciated his ministry and his fellowship very much. One day he said to me: 'Lloyd-Jones, you and I hold just about the same position on spiritual matters, but we have come to this position by different routes.' 'How do you mean?' I asked. 'Well,' Tozer replied, 'you came by way of the Puritans and I came by way of the mystics.' And, you know,' said Lloyd-Jones, 'he was right.'

With anyone there are caveat's, but I stongly recommend Tozer for the simple fact of his love for God and how his works stir that in my soul and those I know that have spent time with him.

openairboy


----------



## heartoflesh (Apr 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by openairboy_
> 
> Rick,
> 
> To my knowledge, Tozer doesn't promote any such techniques. He, especially early on in my Christian life, was instrumental in helping me love God through "Knowledge of the Holy" and "The Pursuit of God". Another article that is a must read, I believe, is his "The Old Cross and the New". He says in a page and a half what others try to say in books. It is a stroke of genius.



I know what you mean-- his words almost seem to be electrified. 



> The mystic? Yes, he is a bit of mystic due to his readings and influences, but I don't believe in a negative way. The following is a quote from Snyder's "In Pursuit of God":
> 
> Tozer's hunger for God led him to study the Christian mystics. Their know-ledge of God and absorbing love for him profoundly attracted Tozer. They were spirits kindred to his own. 'These people know God, and I want to know what they know.' But at the same time, the Bible remained absolutely central.



I actually re-perused my copy of "The Pursuit of the Holy" today to see if I could find anything that matched up with blatant mysticism, of the type I've been studying about in today's Contemplative Prayer movement. The only thing that I found minutely questionable was when he quotes from the author of "The Cloud of Unknowing" on pg. 19:

"Again, he recommends that in prayer we practice a further stripping down of everything, even of our theology. _"For it sufficeth enough, a naked intent direct unto God without any other cause than Himself....lapped and folden *in one word*, for that thou shouldest have better hold thereupon, *take thee but a little word of one syllable:* for so it is better than of two, for even the shorter it is the better it accordeth with the work of the Spirit. And such a word is this word GOD or this word LOVE"_

Of course, the Contemplative Prayer movement takes it lead from just this very practice--- repeating a word such as "love" or "Jesus" over and over until one enters into "the Presence". Even the title of the work "The Cloud of Unknowing" betrays the mystical intent of the writer. The gist is that we must enter the presence by UN-knowing, as opposed to meditating on an objective reality, i.e., the Scriptures.

I don't believe Tozer practiced this, in fact, on pg. 76 he writes:

"It is important that we get still to wait on God. And it is best that we get alone, *preferable with our Bible outspread before us*.....Then the happy moment when the Spirit begins to *illuminate the Scriptures,* and that which had been only a sound, or at best a voice, now becomes an intelligible word, warm and intimate and clear as the word of a dear friend".


To summarize: I can only assume that Tozer had an appreciation for the mystics, for their devotion, but that this appreciation didn't translate into his following their practices. 




> 'Once', Martyn Lloyd-Jones recalled, 'Dr. Tozer and I shared a conference years ago, and I appreciated his ministry and his fellowship very much. One day he said to me: 'Lloyd-Jones, you and I hold just about the same position on spiritual matters, but we have come to this position by different routes.' 'How do you mean?' I asked. 'Well,' Tozer replied, 'you came by way of the Puritans and I came by way of the mystics.' And, you know,' said Lloyd-Jones, 'he was right.'



That's classic! Where did you find that?




> With anyone there are caveat's, but I stongly recommend Tozer for the simple fact of his love for God and how his works stir that in my soul and those I know that have spent time with him.
> 
> openairboy



 

[Edited on 4-3-2005 by Rick Larson]


----------



## openairboy (Apr 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Rick,

That is from Daniel Snyder's book "In Pursuit of God". I read it a number of years ago and found it descent, but not great. I remembered that quote, b/c of my respect for Lloyd-Jones. Snyder provides a list of books that were influential on Tozer and that he would recommend to others. They are largely by 'mystics'. 

One thing I really enjoyed about Tozer is that he is largely self-educated and Snyder provides a list of books that Tozer used to help him grasp language, grammar, and anything related to writing. I can't remember the authors, but (for example) he would read Keats for certain things, Whitman for others, and Shakespeare for others. I also remember reading that he would read these authors on his knees, asking the Lord to learn appropriate things from their writings.

I see that you are CMA. I used to read a lot of A.B. Simpson early on as a Christian due to Tozer. 

openairboy

________________________

A.W. Tozer "The Old Cross and The New"


All unannounced and mostly undetected there has come in modern times a new cross into popular evangelical circles. It is like the old cross, but different: the likenesses are superficial; the differences, fundamental. 

From this new cross has sprung a new philosophy of the Christian life, and from that new philosophy has come a new evangelical technique-a new type of meeting and a new kind of preaching. This new evangelism employs the same language as the old, but its content is not the same and its emphasis not as before. 

The old cross would have no truck with the world. For Adam's proud flesh it meant the end of the journey. It carried into effect the sentence imposed by the law of Sinai. The new cross is not opposed to the human race; rather, it is a friendly pal and, if understood aright, it is the source of oceans of good clean fun and innocent enjoyment. It lets Adam live without interference. His life motivation is unchanged; he still lives for his own pleasure, only now he takes delight in singing choruses and watching religious movies instead of singing bawdy songs and drinking hard liquor. The accent is still on enjoyment, though the fun is now on a higher plane morally if not intellectually. 

The new cross encourages a new and entirely different evangelistic approach. The evangelist does not demand abnegation of the old life before a new life can be received. He preaches not contrasts but similarities. He seeks to key into public interest by showing that Christianity makes no unpleasant demands; rather, it offers the same thing the world does, only on a higher level. Whatever the sin-mad world happens to be clamoring after at the moment is cleverly shown to be the very thing the gospel offers, only the religious product is better. 

The new cross does not slay the sinner, it redirects him. It gears him into a cleaner and jollier way of living and saves his self-respect. To the self-assertive it says, "Come and assert yourself for Christ." To the egotist it says, "Come and do your boasting in the Lord." To the thrill-seeker it says, "Come and enjoy the thrill of Christian fellowship." The Christian message is slanted in the direction of the current vogue in order to make it acceptable to the public. 

The philosophy back of this kind of thing may be sincere but its sincerity does not save it from being false. It is false because it is blind. It misses completely the whole meaning of the cross. 

The old cross is a symbol of death. It stands for the abrupt, violent end of a human being. The man in Roman times who took up his cross and started down the road had already said good-by to his friends. He was not coming back. He was going out to have it ended. The cross made no compromise, modified nothing, spared nothing; it slew all of the man, completely and for good. It did not try to keep on good terms with its victim. It struck cruel and hard, and when it had finished its work, the man was no more. 

The race of Adam is under death sentence. There is no commutation and no escape. God cannot approve any of the fruits of sin, however innocent they may appear or beautiful to the eyes of men. God salvages the individual by liquidating him and then raising him again to newness of life. 

That evangelism which draws friendly parallels between the ways of God and the ways of men is false to the Bible and cruel to the souls of its hearers. The faith of Christ does not parallel the world, it intersects it. In coming to Christ we do not bring our old life up onto a higher plane; we leave it at the cross. The corn of wheat must fall into the ground and die. 

We who preach the gospel must not think of ourselves as public relations agents sent to establish good will between Christ and the world. We must not imagine ourselves commissioned to make Christ acceptable to big business, the press, the world of sports or modern education. We are not diplomats but prophets, and our message is not a compromise but an ultimatum. 

God offers life, but not an improved old life. The life He offers is life out of death. It stands always on the far side of the cross. Whoever would possess it must pass under the rod. He must repudiate himself and concur in God's just sentence against him. What does this mean to the individual, the condemned man who would find life in Christ Jesus? How can this theology be translated into life? Simply, he must repent and believe. He must forsake his sins and then go on to forsake himself. Let him cover nothing, defend nothing, excuse nothing. Let him not seek to make terms with God, but let him bow his head before the stroke of God's stern displeasure and acknowledge himself worthy to die. 

Having done this let him gaze with simple trust upon the risen Saviour, and from Him will come life and rebirth and cleansing and power. The cross that ended the earthly life of Jesus now puts an end to the sinner; and the power that raised Christ from the dead now raises him to a new life along with Christ. 

To any who may object to this or count it merely a narrow and private view of truth, let me say God has set His hallmark of approval upon this message from Paul's day to the present. Whether stated in these exact words or not, this has been the content of all preaching that has brought life and power to the world through the centuries. The mystics, the reformers, the revivalists have put their emphasis here, and signs and wonders and mighty operations of the Holy Ghost gave witness to God's approval. 

Dare we, the heirs of such a legacy of power, tamper with the truth? Dare we with our stubby pencils erase the lines of the blueprint or alter the pattern shown us in the Mount? May God forbid. Let us preach the old cross and we will know the old power.


----------

