A.W. Tozer - A Man of God

Twenty years ago or so, I encountered the writings of A.W. Tozer. Since that time I have read and collected most all of his books, listened to numerous hours of his preaching, and read the biography of his life, In Pursuit of God, at least four times. Tozer was a pastor, writer, prophet, and mystic. For over 3o years he pastored the Southside Alliance Church in Chicago (1928-1959), he became the spokesman for the Christian & Missionary Alliance and a prophetic voice to the evangelical world. Though he never traveled outside of the North American continent his ministry impacted the globe.

What do I find so appealing in the life and writings of Tozer? Tozer was so different from most of the evangelical leaders of our day. He did not care to be popular, in fact he had the audacity to challenge many of the popular trends in his day. As a conference speaker he was somewhat of a "loose cannon." You never knew what he might say. He never owned a car, refused salary increases from his church board, gave away the royalties from most of his books, and lived a non-materialistic, simplified lifestyle. Some thought him unfriendly and unloving, while others said he was simply arrogant. A few said he depressed them and was not happy enough. Still others thought that he was just “odd.” The last point might be in some sense true but only if you apply our typical social standards. (Tozer was not much for small talk and social events and as a consequence this annoyed some people.) As a pastor, he made it clear to his congregation that he did not do hospital visits or counseling, except in extreme circumstances. But rather his time was devoted to prayer and the study of the Word.

Tozer never attended Bible college or seminary, but he had a profound grasp of theological truth. He was not someone you could easily categorize. He was thoroughly evangelical doctrinally, in fact he was somewhat of a fundamentalist, but he read the Catholic mystics (Teresa of Avilia, St. John of the Cross, Bernard of Clairvaux, and Julian of Norwich). For a time he carried on a correspondence with Thomas Merton, the Trappist monk. He was not a Calvinist in the strictest sense, but neither did he fit well with the Arminians. He was not Pentecostal or Charismatic, but he was not a cessationist either.

As both a preacher and writer, Tozer spoke to both the mind and heart. He had a unique ability to stir the emotions, in a proper sense, and cause a passion for Jesus to arise in the listener. He was a man of prayer and deep intimacy with God that is reflected in both his spoken and written word. He did not try to appear "spiritual," but rather there was a genuineness and naturalness to his referencing his devotional life. He urged his listeners to know the Lord experientially. His preaching was often quite simple, and yet had a depth of understanding. His illustrations were often "homey" and often reflected his rural background. Though he addressed error and heresy, he never seemed to attack others personally.

If you have not read any of his books, I would recommend that you begin with The Pursuit of God. But of almost equal value in my opinion is Knowledge of the Holy. Some of the books of Tozer are transcripts of his sermons and provide a sampling of his preaching style. Others are taken from his editorials for the Alliance Witness, the denominational magazine of the Christian & Missionary Alliance.

A.W. Tozer died in 1963. The epitaph on his tombstone simply reads "A.W. Tozer - A Man of God."

The Drum Major Instinct

A few years ago my wife and I toured the National Civil Rights Museum in Memphis, Tennessee. It is located in the former motel where Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. As we followed the path laid out by the tour, we were struck with the awareness of the cruel injustice that racial segregation was in this nation. The photographs and the video presentations, along with the exhibits, impacted us. It was not that I was totally oblivious to this wickedness before visiting the museum, but the tour had a way of “bringing it home.” The tour concludes on the balcony where an assassin’s bullet took the life of Dr. King. A place we have all seen countless times in pictures.

As I stood there tears streamed down my face, as I thought about this man and the significant role he played in the civil rights movement. His weaknesses, frailties, and sins are well known. Not unlike that of many Bible characters. I also recognize that his theology was less than orthodox. Nevertheless, he was a “prophetic voice” to this nation, and the world, crying out against the sin of racism.

I have read, and in some instances listened to, several sermons by Dr. King. Most people are familiar with his famous “I Have a Dream” speech delivered in Washington, D.C., on August 28, 1963. You may remember the message he delivered the night before his death in Memphis entitled “I’ve Been To The Mountaintop.” But the sermon that has most impacted was one that is less known. It was entitled “The Drum Major Instinct.” It was delivered in the Ebenezer Baptist Church, in Atlanta Georgia, on February 4, 1968. The message conveyed in this sermon based on Mark 10:35-40 resonates with me.

Dr. King begins by laying out the situation as James and John ask to be “seated on Jesus’ right and left in glory” (vs. 37). He then points out that James and John were expressing a common desire for all of us. The desire to be in front leading the parade – the drum major instinct. He then uses this metaphor to describe the negative manifestations it can produce such as racism and class oppression. But he goes on to show that this desire – the drum major instinct – can be properly directed for good. Here is the conclusion of his message:

“If any of you are around when I have to meet my day, I don’t want a long funeral. And if you get somebody to deliver the eulogy, tell them not to talk too long. And every now and then I wonder what I want them to say. Tell them not to mention that I have a Nobel Peace Prize—that isn’t important. Tell them not to mention that I have three or four hundred other awards—that’s not important. Tell them not to mention where I went to school.
I'd like somebody to mention that day that Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to give his life serving others.
I'd like for somebody to say that day that Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to love somebody.
I want you to say that day that I tried to be right on the war question.
I want you to be able to say that day that I did try to feed the hungry.
And I want you to be able to say that day that I did try in my life to clothe those who were naked.
I want you to say on that day that I did try in my life to visit those who were in prison.
I want you to say that I tried to love and serve humanity.
Yes, if you want to say that I was a drum major, say that I was a drum major for justice. Say that I was a drum major for peace. I was a drum major for righteousness. And all of the other shallow things will not matter. I won't have any money to leave behind. I won't have the fine and luxurious things of life to leave behind. But I just want to leave a committed life behind. And that's all I want to say.
If I can help somebody as I pass along,
If I can cheer somebody with a word or song,
If I can show somebody he's traveling wrong,
Then my living will not be in vain.
If I can do my duty as a Christian ought,
If I can bring salvation to a world once wrought,
If I can spread the message as the master taught,
Then my living will not be in vain.
Yes, Jesus, I want to be on your right or your left side, not for any selfish reason. I want to be on your right or your left side, not in terms of some political kingdom or ambition. But I just want to be there in love and in justice and in truth and in commitment to others, so that we can make of this old world a new world.”

It is my prayer that the desire in all of us to be the “drum major,” out front leading the parade, be properly directed by the Holy Spirit for Christ’s honor and glory.

Judgment and Compassion

How should we, as Christians, respond to the devastating earthquake in Haiti? Was it the judgment of God? If it was God's judgment, as some have said, should our response be to simply turn away and let them receive "what they deserve?" Are we giving "aid and comfort" to the enemies of God that are being judged by showing them compassion? What is the proper response to this situation and others that arise? What about famine in Africa, or the spread of AIDS?

Albert Camus attempted to address this dilemma as he saw it for the Christian, in his existentialist novel The Plague. He dramatically illustrates the problem through his character of Father Paneloux, an elderly priest who seeks to come to terms with the suffering and death he sees around him. Especially troubling to him is the agony of children. Theologically, he knows that he can not deny the sovereignty of God. He knows that all things ultimately come to pass because of God’s will. So if God ordained it, it must be right. To lift so much as a finger to prevent it is to act against the "ordained sovereign will of God." The only way to honor God is by a full acceptance of His will. This is the conclusion that Father Paneloux comes to. (A young deacon in the novel summarizes the position of the priest in the statement: "It is illogical for a priest to call in a doctor.")

Father Paneloux’s logic is understandable. If God is sovereign and nothing happens apart from His will, and if He is good and cannot will what is evil, therefore all things are good. We cannot fight a plague, because it is God-ordained; and we have the duty to "love" the plague because it is one of God’s good works.

Here is the question: Should we say that we must not fight this "plague", not only because it is the will of God, but also because many of its victims are sinners who have brought it upon themselves? Is it wrong to try and help those under judgment?

The answer to those two questions is of course – NO! In fact the dilemma is a false dilemma. It is true that God is sovereign, this is shown to us throughout the Scriptures. It is also true that God judges sin – sin has consequences – this is shown to us throughout the Scriptures. No, the reason that this is a false dilemma lies in the fact that it ignores the revelation of God’s Word. It ignores the way God has revealed Himself in the Gospel. It fails to take into account that all suffering is because of disobedience, for as the Scripture declares: "through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned" (Rom. 5:12). All of us, every last one of us deserves God’s judgment. On the basis of this false dilemma we should never resist death, never seek to postpone it, because it is simply God’s righteous judgment for sin. Yet, Jesus reveals through word and deed a completely different perspective.

As Francis Schaeffer pointed out in his book, The God Who Is There: "The Christian never faces the dilemma posed in Camus’ book La Peste [The Plague]. It simply is not true that he either has to side with the doctor against God by fighting the plague, or join with the priest on God’s side and thus be much less than human by not fighting the plague. If it were an either/or choice in life, it would indeed be terrible. But the Christian is not confined to such a choice. . . . Jesus, standing in front of the tomb of Lazarus, was angry at death and at the abnormality of the world – the destruction and distress caused by sin. In Camus’ words, Christ hated the plague. He claimed to be God, and He could hate the plague without hating Himself as God."

Can we have mercy and compassion on those who suffer under the righteous judgment of God? I believe that we can and should. Is that not what Jesus demonstrated in His earthly ministry for us? For example, in one of the final discourses of His ministry, He pronounced a devastating judgment on first-century Israel for her apostasy and the rejection of their Messiah. But at the same time, He was able to weep over her, saying: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!" (Matt. 23:37).

Does God save us on the condition that we are not guilty, or at least on the condition that we haven’t committed any really bad sins? Absolutely not, God saves sinners – He justifies the ungodly. He reconciles His enemies to Himself.

The ministry of the Church is to be redemptive; a ministering to the world of the redemption brought about by the Lord Jesus Christ. We are called to follow His example, showing forth both the love and holiness of God. There is no philosophical dilemma here, because God Himself has resolved it, demonstrating His love and His holy righteous judgment at the Cross. "Mercy and truth have met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other" (Ps. 85:10).

Knowing God or Knowing Yourself?

The ancient Greeks called upon man to take the journey of self-discovery. The goal being "self-actualization" and a total awareness of ourselves. They urged us to "Above all, know thyself." The assumption being that through introspection and courageous soul-searching one could come to the realization of who he is, and his purpose in life. Most of western civilization for the past one hundred years have followed the ancient Greeks down this road, seeking to "find ourselves" and thus achieve personal fulfillment and happiness. The problem is that this road never reaches its intended goal, and rather than leading us to personal fulfillment and happiness, it brings us to disappointment and depression.

The goal of "knowing thyself" is rooted in humanistic thinking that places man at the center of his own narcissistic world. The journey of self-discovery is destined to fail because it was never God's intended journey for man. The true journey is to "know God." In the pursuit of knowing God, I will discover many things about myself, but that is not my aim. To aim at knowing yourself is to aim at the wrong target.

The reality is that modern man in his quest for self realization and ignoring his Creator, finds himself in a quagmire of disillusionment. His life appears purposeless and he becomes, more and more self-centered, and as a result depressed and suicidal. He actually becomes more detached from himself and reality.

Jesus said in John 17:3, as He speaks to the Father, "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." The ancient Greeks had it wrong. Jesus points us away from inward focusing to focusing on knowing the Father and the Son.

House Churches - The New Reformation

If you were asked to name the top three church groups in the U.S., most of you could probably guess the first two. They are Roman Catholic and Southern Baptist, no surprise there. But number three is the surprise - its the "house church." According to some statistics, 7% of Americans are in a house church. George Barna, the Christian researcher views the growth of the house church as a leading trend within the American evangelical world. This week Brit Hume, who was in the news for his statement about Tiger Woods needing to turn to Christ, mentioned that he is part of a house church. Time, Newsweek, and Christianity Today all made reference to the growth of this movement over the past week.

Though some may prefer the term "organic church" or "simple church," all of these labels (and a number of others) are a way of identifying Christians who gather together for worship outside of the traditional church building, often meeting in homes, following the pattern of the New Testament church. What distinguishes these groups from "cell groups" or "home groups" which are affiliated with a traditional church, is that these groups have no such affiliation and are self-governing. I lead one such group in the Kansas City area. We meet in homes (though we have met in other facilities), not as a prelude to eventually moving into a building of our own, but because we believe that this is the Biblical model.

Ern Baxter, almost twenty years ago, referred to the house church "movement" as the "New Reformation." The Protestant Reformation primarily addressed soteriology (the doctrine of salvation), the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement, which began in the 20th century and has changed the shape of Christianity in most of the world, addressed pneumatology (the doctrine of the Holy Spirit), while this "New Reformation" addresses ecclesiology (the doctrine of the church). I could frame it this way and say that it addresses the nature of the "wineskins" (Matt. 9:17).

Now allow me to make it clear, lest I incur the wrath of many of my friends, that I am not at war with the more traditional church institutions. I am involved with an Evangelical Free Church in our community, and I am not leading a revolution against non-house churches. I am merely expressing my own convictions concerning what I believe is the New Testament pattern that Christ is restoring to the Church. In addition, I understand the various concerns that some leaders have about house churches and I believe that some of these concerns are legitimate. Nevertheless, my counsel (for whatever it is worth), would be to follow the advice of Gamaliel to the council concerning the sect of Jews following Jesus, "If this plan or action is of men, it will be overthrown; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against God."

I'm sure I'll be writing more about this in the future, but that's enough for now. Your comments are welcome.

Elvis, Music, and Cultural Change

Elvis Presley was born 75 years ago today. Now I must admit that I have never been a big fan of Elvis' music. Nevertheless, my brother lived in Memphis for a time and we visited Graceland while on vacation. (For sake of full disclosure, I've actually been there twice.) Visiting his home, in some strange sort of way, caused me to have a certain appreciation for Elvis. No doubt, he was a greatly flawed individual. He had demons that he never conquered. But, at the same time, he appears to have held on to a faith in Christ, that goes back to his childhood. He had grown up in the Assemblies of God, and it was there that he first sang in the choir. He had a passion for gospel music all his life. After his concerts, he would often go back to his hotel and sing gospel music with his friends until daybreak.

But I think that Elvis' greatest contribution to bringing about cultural change has often been missed. Elvis played a major role in breaking down the racial barriers between blacks and whites in America. Elvis took the music of the black culture and brought it to white America. This was no small thing. Though Elvis certainly never intended to bring about a societal shift. He simply liked the music. His impact upon the youth of America was a catalyst in bringing down the wall of separation. He created a bridge across a cultural divide.

Now I do not mean to imply that Elvis was alone in this. There were many others that came along around the same time that were doing a similar thing. Nevertheless it was Elvis who was the most popular and carried the greatest influence. Elvis was not a prophetic voice for his generation, in the way that Bob Dylan was, nor did he launch the revolution that the Beatles did. But Elvis played a part in the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's, without ever marching or writing protest songs. He did it by singing the songs of black America. I find it ironic that both Martin Luther King and Elvis died in Memphis. They were joined together in changing the racist fabric of our nation.

This brings me to an important point. One cannot separate cultural change from the music of the culture. For example, you cannot separate the cultural shift of the 60's from the music of that generation. It was the musicians who became the voice of change. The songs of that era were the anthems of cultural change. Woodstock was not merely a musicial event, it was a cultural "earthquake." At that point in time, at least with a generation, Jimi Hendrix was more influential in the shaping of our culture than Lyndon Johnson was. As I see it, the music not only reflected culutural change, it propelled it.

Such are my thoughts on this cold January morning. I think I'll go put on my blue suede shoes and get a second cup of coffee.

Speaking the Truth in Love

As a pastor of a doctrinally orthodox, theologically-focused church, I had for many years placed a great emphasis upon having what I could call the correct theological "plumbline." I saw myself as not only a guardian against heresy, but as a restorer of sound theology to the people I was called to shepherd. I saw the theological errors and the shallowness of thinking, that many were being exposed to and I sought to counter act that trend. Having studied Church history and theological development, I recognized that virtually all the heresies that arose within the first three centuries of the Church are present with us once again. (If you doubt this just turn on Christian television.)

Now, before I move on to my next statements, allow me to assure you that I still feel that same way today. I believe in the importance of sound theology. I have not in any way drifted from orthodoxy, nor have I diminished in my desire to see God's people delivered from the various heresies that prevail. I value the study of theology and church history.

Nevertheless, I recognize that at times I allowed my zeal for doctrinal correctness to overshadow the importance of maintaining an attitude of love for God's flock, some of whom may have strayed ignorantly into heresy. The context for the Apostle Paul writing, "speak the truth in love," was in regards to correcting theological error (see Ephes. 4:14-15). Truth and correction is to be given in an atmosphere of love. I have at times presented truth in an atmosphere of pride, contention, and self righteousness. Not unlike the Pharisees of Jesus' day. Jesus affirmed at least certain aspects of the Pharisees' teaching when He said, "Do as they say, but not what they do" (see Matt. 23:3). Therefore, it is possible to right in terms of what we say, but wrong in terms of our application. Even as it is possible to speak the truth, but not act in love. The issue is not simply to espouse correct theological doctrine, but to reflect the character of the One who is the source of truth.

Jesus said in John 13:34-35, "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you love one another. By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you love one another." Given that this is a command, to violate it, is sin.

Francis Schaeffer wrote: "Upon His authority He (Jesus) gives the world the right to judge whether you and I are born-again Christians on the basis of our observable love toward all Christians." In other words, if the world questions our faith because we do not show love to other believers, it must be understood that they are only exercising the prerogative that Christ has given them. Schaeffer goes on to say, "We must not get angry. If people say, 'You don't love other Christians,' we must go home, get down on our knees, and ask God whether or not they are right. And if they are,then they have a right to have said what they said."

Let us bear this in mind as we go forth to correct those believers that have strayed into error. May we use the sword of the spirit with the gentleness of the surgeon using a scalpel, rather than like a butcher wielding a meat-clever.