Featured A.W. Tozer's Mystical Influences: Julian of Norwich

I didn't want to seem like I was just being uncharitable and curmudgeon-like when I made my recent comments concerning AW Tozer, so I thought I should post this article on this topic of Tozer's indebtedness (to a large and verifiable dgree) to mystics, like Julian here, who clearly are not only extra-Biblical but counter-Biblical. Of course, to be one is to be the other.
​

I wish Tozer would have seen it the same way.
​

A.W. Tozer's Mystical Influences: Julian of Norwich​

INTRODUCTION
The writings of A.W. Tozer seem to have two currents running through them. One current is the frequent references to the Bible. But the other - and these are often mixed right in with the first - are the enthusiastic endorsements of the mystical experiences and writings of those whose life and doctrine are quite contrary to the Bible.

He endorses both.
He sees no conflict between those two currents.

In order for us to both disclose Tozer's indebtedness to unbiblical sources and, at the same time, to demonstrate this conflict in his teaching we need to look more closely at just a few of these "super-saints" that Tozer often alludes to. In the next few articles different mystics who figure largely in Tozer's devotional writings will be examined.

​

JULIAN OF NORWICH: A CLOSER LOOK
This article deals with Julian of Norwich, an English Mystic (1342 - 1416). When she was thirty years old she had a severe health crisis. At this time she had a series of visions purportedly from God. When she regained her health she published her account of this vision - rather, a series of visions - in two separate accounts. These accounts became the basis for the published work, "Sixteen Revelations (or, Showings) of Divine Love", c. 1393.

A.W. Tozer, in his book "Knowledge of the Holy" alone, quotes three or four times from Julian of Norwich. Before we get to Tozer's comments, here are a few excerpts from Julian's visions:

"Highly ought we to rejoice that God dwelleth in our soul, and much more highly ought we to rejoice that our soul dwelleth in God. Our soul is made to be God's dwelling-place; and the dwelling-place of the soul is God, Which is unmade. And high understanding it is, inwardly to see and know that God, which is our Maker, dwelleth in our soul; and an higher understanding it is, inwardly to see and to know that our soul, that is made, dwelleth in God's Substance: of which Substance, God, we are that we are.

"And I saw no difference between God and our Substance: but as it were all God; and yet mine understanding took that our Substance is in God: that is to say, that God is God, and our Substance is a creature in God. For the Almighty Truth of the Trinity is our Father: for He made us and keepeth us in Him; and the deep Wisdom of the Trinity is our Mother, in Whom we are all enclosed; the high Goodness of the Trinity is our Lord, and in Him we are enclosed, and He in us. We are enclosed in the Father, and we are enclosed in the Son, and we are enclosed in the Holy Ghost. And the Father is enclosed in us, and the Son is enclosed in us, and the Holy Ghost is enclosed in us: Almightiness, All-Wisdom, All-Goodness: one God, one Lord."

...

"And thus was my understanding led of God to see in Him and to understand, to perceive and to know, that our soul is made-trinity, like to the unmade blissful Trinity, known and loved from without beginning, and in the making oned [as in "make into one"] to the Maker, as it is aforesaid. This sight was full sweet and marvellous to behold, peaceable, restful, sure, and delectable.

"And because of the worshipful oneing that was thus made by God betwixt the soul and body, it behoveth needs to be that mankind shall be restored from double death: which restoring might never be until the time that the Second Person in the Trinity had taken the lower part of man's nature; to Whom the highest [part] was oned in the First-making. And these two parts were in Christ, the higher and the lower: which is but one Soul; the higher part was one in peace with God, in full joy and bliss; the lower part, which is sense-nature, suffered for the salvation of mankind."

​

TOZER'S COMMENDATION
A.W. Tozer wrote this of Julian:

​

"Julian of Norwich, who lived six hundred years ago, saw clearly that the ground of all blessedness is the goodness of God. Chapter six of her incredibly beautiful and perceptive little classic, Revelations of Divine Love..."

However this "classic" is more beautiful than "perceptive". It is nothing less than the message of a deceived soul having duped been by an angel of light. This becomes apparent later in her writings.

It is understandable that readers might take Tozer's praise at face value, since they had no access to her writings - or to the many other mystics he lauds. Until the Internet these "Classics" were hard to find. But now you can read this one, for instance by going here:

http://www.ccel.org/j/julian/revelations/cache/revelations.txt

Wonderful Internet. Makes honest scholars of us all.

​

BUT WHERE IS ANY OF THAT IN THE BIBLE?
The poor reader, reading Tozer's "Knowledge of the Holy", taking the author's assessment on Julian at face value will assume a greater respect for her than is merited.

Tozer conveniently hides much about Julian's life and theology: ​

That she was well within the Roman Catholic belief-boundaries.
Or that she prayed for stigmata and a fatal illness in order to suffer like Christ.
Or that she received as an "answer" to her prayer fourteen visions of Christ and Mary where she was pointedly taught much that is counter to what us more ordinary Christians have to be content with in the ordinary Bible. Where, in our Bibles, for instance, do we find that Christ is "our Mother"? (More on this later).
​

WILL THE REAL TOZER PLEASE SPEAK UP?
Once again, we get into the Tozer vs. Tozer theme, where he speaks well of the Bible on the one hand ... only to build up credibility, it seems, for his speaking even better of those whose teachings and pronouncements are contrary to that blessed Bible. But don't take my word for it. Let us continue. Julian wrote the following:

"The Showings of Divine Love"
The Eleventh Revelation [Showing]

Continued in next post
​

 

(Second Part of previous post)

CHAPTER XXV
[These are the words of "Jesus" in Julian's vision]:

AND with this same cheer of mirth and joy our good Lord looked down on the right side and brought to my mind where our Lady stood in the time of His Passion; and said: Wilt thou see her? And in this sweet word [it was] as if He had said: I wot well that thou wouldst see my blessed Mother: for, after myself, she is the highest joy that I might shew thee, and most pleasance [pleasure] and worship to me; and most she is desired to be seen of my blessed creatures. And for the high, marvellous, singular love that He hath to this sweet Maiden, His blessed Mother, our Lady Saint Mary, He shewed her highly rejoicing, as by the meaning of these sweet words; as if He said: Wilt thou see how I love her, that thou mightest joy with me in the love that I have in her and she in me?

[Note: This Jesus said "Mary is the most desired to be seen of His creatures". Also see how that Jesus' love for Mary is on a higher plain than the other saints. In fact, even here being called "Saint Mary" distances her from the many other Christians who, in Roman Catholic theology, are not so called. This is all typical doctrine from Rome, of course, and wouldn't have even be worth mentioning except to remind the reader that this is the writing that Tozer calls "perceptive". My purpose in this article is not to discuss the teaching is of the Roman Catholic Church, but to show that many of Tozer's saints are well within this belief-system and, in light of this, Tozer ought to have been more transparent on this point.]

And also (unto more understanding this sweet word) our Lord speaketh to all mankind that shall be saved, as it were all to one person, as if He said: Wilt thou see in her how thou art loved? For thy love I made her so high, so noble and so worthy; and this pleaseth me, and so will I that it doeth thee.

[Julian may or may not have taught Universalism: The belief that all mankind will be saved eventually. Because the language of Julian can be taken two ways, however, this charge cannot be insisted on.]

For after Himself she is the most blissful sight.

[This is wrong on many levels, not the least of which is the fact that God will not give His glory to another.]

But hereof am I not learned to long to see her bodily presence while I am here, but the virtues of her blessed soul: her truth, her wisdom, her charity; whereby I may learn to know myself and reverently dread my God. And when our good Lord had shewed this and said this word:

Wilt thou see her? I answered and said: Yea, good Lord, I thank Thee; yea, good Lord, if it be Thy will. Oftentimes I prayed this, and I weened to have seen her in bodily presence, but I saw her not so. And Jesus in that word shewed me ghostly sight of her: right as I had seen her afore little and simple, so He shewed her then high and noble and glorious, and pleasing to Him above all creatures.

And He willeth that it be known; that [so] all those that please them in Him should please them in her, and in the pleasance [pleasure] that He hath in her and she in Him. And, to more understanding, He shewed this example: As if a man love a creature singularly, above all creatures, he willeth to make all creatures to love and to have pleasance in that creature that he loveth so greatly.

[Why bother having the Incarnation or death and resurrection of Christ if all this is true of Mary? How is it possible that Tozer did not see this Mary-mediatrix theology? Or did he pass it over as being a minor issue? In all of Tozer's commendations of these mystics, I have not yet come across any cautionary disclaimers on his part.]

And in this word that Jesus said: Wilt thou see her? methought it was the most pleasing word that He might have given me of her, with that ghostly [spiritual] Shewing that He gave me of her. For our Lord shewed me nothing in special but our Lady Saint Mary; and her He shewed three times. The first was as she was with Child; the second was as she was in her sorrows under the Cross; the third is as she is now in pleasing, worship, and joy."

[End of Julian's 11th vision]

Aah! At least the Goddess is worshiping. Such blatant blasphemy throughout this one vision! Now, here is the question that I have: What were Tozer's thoughts about this book?

Had he read it through? He most probably did.
Does he believe these teachings: An elevated Mediatrix Mary?

But there is more in the writings of Julian that we need to touch on. Notice especially the underlined phrases:

​

"For he is our Mother, Brother and Saviour. And in our good Lord the holy Ghost we have our rewarding and our yielding, for our living and our travail, and endless overpassing all that we desire in his marvelous courtesy of his high plenteous grace.

For all our life is in three.In the first we have our being. And in the second we have our increasing. And in the third we have our fulfilling. The first is nature.The second is mercy. The third is grace. For the first, I saw and understood that the high might of the Trinity is our Father.

And the deep wisdom of the Trinity is our Mother. And the great love of the Trinity is our Lord. And all this we have in nature and in our substantial making. And furthermore I saw that the second Person who is our substantial Mother, that same dearworthy Person is now become our sensual Mother. For we are double of God's making, that is to say, substantial and sensual. Our substance is the higher part, which we have in our Father God Almighty.And the second Person of the Trinity is our Mother in nature in our substantial making, in whom we are grounded and rooted.

And he is our Mother in mercy in our sensuality taking flesh. And thus our Mother is working to us in diverse ways in whom our parts are kept undivided. For in our Mother Christ we profit and increase."

This last section is all that is needed to show that Julian of Norwich has nothing to teach a Christian, that she is herself deceived. Anyone who quotes her, whether selectively - as Tozer is in the habit of doing - only confuses the truth of Christ.​

 

Thanks for the comments, Rick. Yes, by all means, reserve judgment until you have had time to study this out on your own. If you want to see other articles that I have written on Tozer feel free to check out my Xanga and look for the Tozer tags. There also a few other writers who have written very well and thoroughly on this same subject. A quick search should bring them up.

For me the interest in Tozer is because I had invested much of my earlier years in Tozer's writings, having "graduated" to him from Hal Lindsay and such.

 

Very good advice. But also don't assume that both sides of any story are equally valid. To treat them as equal at first is necessary - and I did in the case of Tozer. In fact, I was at first more to defend than to criticize him.

But now I am quite adamant in being critical of his works, and on his influence in modern Christianity.

I underlined the works above because I believe that, if anyone has doubts on my basic contention here - that the message of these writers (almost all of them, at least) is far from the Christian message.

Secondly, Tozer does indeed put his stamp of approval on their contents. If not entirely, then, 95% of it. For proof of this you need only read what he himself has written. These can all be seen in my own articles. Especially my first one, which was the product of much study.

It is understood that she does not give a biblical assessment. There can be no positive biblical assessment of that which refuses to stay within the guidelines of the Bible. Mysticism, for all of its popularity now, is nothing but revamped gnosticism.

 

This is not guilt by association. This is guilt by quotation - plenty of them. In my seven or eight articles I painstakingly looked up, and double-checked where I could, all of these quotations.

Your last sentence makes no sense. I am dealing with what he believes and teaches.

 

But do you not see the difference between these apples and those oranges? Calvin and Luther did not actively promote those people that they, on unguarded occasion, showed affinity for.

Tozer, by sad contrast, most certainly does promote their writings. And he bemoans that their voice is lost in today's world.

And now, thanks to the Internet, their writings are now available for everyone. But this is both good and bad.

It is good for those with discernment. As they read what, say, Julian actually wrote, or what Teresa of Avila wrote, or Hildegard of Bingen, they should be able to say, "Where is any of this in the Bible? Some of this is contrary to Scripture."

It will be bad, of course, for those who end up reading these "masters of the inner life" with as little discernment as Tozer had.

 

[Sniff. Sniff] Its a trap!

Love believes all things.

But it isn't blind.

 

It is much better for us, most of all, to search the Scriptures diligently as if we were searching for gold, which is what it is. The Puritans, also, had their own baggage. However, they were a definite improvement over their contemporaries

If I understand the reason for your giving that verse, what you deem to be a plank I consider foundational.

 

Refomed dogma? Among many of the Reformed I get very low marks for some of my articles. They even called me "pietist", "Arminian, etc. It is quite amusing.

And, by the way, a quick check of my articles at Xanga would bring up several things I wrote that were quite critical of those heroes of the Reformed camp. This is not that I don't appreciate good qualities in Christians of several stripes. It is just that I believe that too many Christians think too highly of their leaders, allowing them to do their thinking for them.

"I believed and therefore have I spoken." What we believe is what we write. Only hypocrites do otherwise. At any rate, the main thrust on my OP was the effect of his quote. Thirdly, the problem for Christians today is not the private thoughts of Tozer, but the published words of Tozer.

His context is his life and writings. I took the pains to quote large sections of his writings to show I am doing exactly what you are implying that I am not doing, showing Tozer in context.

But if you want more context, I will oblige with a later post.

How can a quote from Tozer be second-hand? And, yes, those infant baptism beliefs can be very dangerous. But this is not a case of either/or, but neither/nor.

 

Thank you. And I am not insisting that everything I say should be accepted just like that. But if people would just examine in a more critical - Berean - spirit Christianity today would be much more robust, less susceptible to worldly whims and winds of doctrine, as is too often the case.