Chambers v. Tozer

Although its not all really that clear to me yet, I have seen obvious differences in the outlooks of some of my favorite Christian authors. I have found a great example of these contrasts almost daily lately, and it have given me a starting point from which to make some observations. Although I like both types, I see one as something I can completely latch onto while the other feels more burdensome. I honestly don't know if that's personal preference or some inherent truth I just happen to feel more comfortable in. I assume a cooperation of the two to some degree.

The two authors I have contrasted in my mind are Oswald Chambers and Aiden Wilson Tozer. I want desperately to put a disclaimer down stating that I greatly respect both of these men beyond most comparisons, but I do see a difference in their overall approaches.

Now I think most people, Christian and non, would have a hard time stomaching either author. And as either author would tell you, (actually, that's probably what the text that you couldn't stomach would be discussing) that's to be the expected nature of things. Both spend much time dissecting the human condition, both pre- and post-redemption. Both spend a great deal of time in very lofty thoughts that bring conclusions that none of us are comfortable with on the majority. However, I see major differences in their direction and therefore the effect they're messages have on myself.

I don't mean to make any strict lines for either, or put words in these authors mouths, there is nothing that would more greatly upset me than to have misinterpreted one of these men whom I so highly regard. I have found, however, that Chamber's generally seeks to provide truth for specific circumstance types, while Tozer seeks a more hearty fulfillment in Christ in all situations.

Now to read either of these authors is almost a sure promise of great spiritual revelation, and neither is wrong in general, but it becomes obvious that this is a question of focal points. Unlike in the world of visual aesthetics, a life can only have one prominently. I would say that between the two, my alliance is with Tozer.

Now Chambers is a great man, a man who dissects verses piece by piece, using personal experience and vast scriptural knowledge to point to God's ways for working in the Christian's life. He is most frequently found pointing out situational truths in the lives of Christians. There is little or no reference to emotion in his work, and if searching for it one generally comes up cold, with a tone that places no importance on this topic. In a way, we can summarize his work as circumstantially focused and giving specific perceptions of general situations, with little or now emotional emphasis. It appears that Chambers is always trying to show his reader what the Bible says is a proper attitude and reaction in any variety of circumstances.

Tozer appears a stark contrast when views upon these lines. He is a man continually utilizing truth and knowledge, both Biblical and intellectual, to show how emotional and epic the truth is when viewed in proper perspective. It seems Tozer has almost no concept of circumstance, instead looking for blanket truths that in turn create proper circumstantial reactions. Tozer looks to Scripture and history to continually find reason to praise! I would summarize Tozer as being universally focused on truth that applies constantly in any circumstance, without even finding the need to discuss or address individual circumstances. It seems always that Tozer's main goal is to make God bigger and create a bigger reaction in his reader to this truth.

I think that perhaps the entirety of John Piper's ministry started as an attempt to cliff notes Tozer's work.

Of course, these are generalizations. It is not as if Chambers never sees God's glory and rejoices therein. It is not as if Tozer never comments on how different circumstances should be handled. Both prove to be proper at a time. My bias towards Tozer is made most apparent in the excitement I find in reading him.

I don't nod off as easily.

Given that my brain is just as weak as my biceps are it has become obvious to myself that no matter how much I understand a deep author or even can use his work to think deeper on tough subject matter, reading heavy material drains me almost before I have cracked a cover.

That's why I have switched over to soft back books.

But seriously, I am easily worn out intellectually if I am only inputing knowledge. I think some of the reasons for my personal bias are obvious. Tozer's point is to explain in detail everything that makes the truth logical, but it all comes back to simplicity in the end. Its like showing you all the work to prove the math is right, then going back and simply dwelling on the answer itself. I like that, being a person who loves simplicity. I also find myself feeling more and more that a proper response is often circumstancial. While there are foundations and boundaries which shouldn't be flexed, it seems a better working and easily conducted policy to think correctly and use that to evaluate a particular circumstance.

While I have my bias, and perhaps there may be some real tangible truth in the mix, I believe there is Biblical reasoning that Tozer is better. Chambers' basic idea is here's how you should handle these situations, this is what the Bible points to. Tozer's message is here is God and this is what that means, enjoy this and let it form you. Chambers tries to understand the Bible and let it transform him, while Tozer tries to know the God and let Him transform him.

Chamber's model teaches us to deal with the fall. Giving "My Utmost for His Highest."

Tozer's model shows us how to try to live like there was no fall. A life consumed in "The Pursuit of God."

I would suggest both.