I read an excerpt from A.W. Tozer the other day that really impacted my outlook on the Christian life. Here is the excerpt: "God will not hold us responsible to understand the mysteries of election, predestination and the divine sovereignty. The best and safest way to deal with these truths is to raise our eyes to God and in deepest reverence and say, 'O Lord, Thou knowest.' Those things belong to the deep and mysterious profound of God's omniscience. Prying into them may make theologians, but it will never make saints."
It never had occurred to me that there is a distinction between a saint and a theologian. The more I thought about it the more the realization hit me (harder and harder and harder and......you get the picture). I then began to question what it was that made a saint. Obviously a theologian is one who contemplates those things which deal with the nature of God's sovereignty and of Faith, but what was that distinct feature that separated the saints from the others? Tozer outlined what constituted a saint as someone who was not only sensitive to the Holy Spirit but most importantly fulfilled those desires of the spirit. It is the mark of someone who satisfies those yearnings towards "Godliness". This obviously cannot be done through selfish ambitions/motives, but through a sincere love towards Christ and His work on the cross. It is through this that theology falls into place. When we are in constant communion with God, all of our thoughts and ideas will be centered around Him. If your eyes are constantly on the Father, how can one go wrong? This of course seems like the ideal way of living, unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world. There is the problem of sin and the fact that we aren't "good" enough to make it on our own.
Paul who warned us against getting the Law and the Gospel mixed up, did not meta cognitively come up with such a profound distinction through monologue. Rather through his constant communion with God and his constant pursual to satisfy those yearnings within his spirit. To easily can one get so caught up in his/her own mind that they grey up all that which was once black and white. Paul (as well as the other apostles) sought to be holy just as Christ was holy. Seeking fellowship as a means to help grow and strengthen each other in the Faith, not as some sort of social gathering where everyone catches up on all the gossip (I am as guilty of it just as much as the next person).
People wonder why there is no revival among the Church....how can there be? Either we are so caught up in our theology that fulfilling the desires of the spirit does not matter or we are so busy with "ministry" that we forget what we are doing and why.
In conclusion, it all comes back to our relationship with God the Father. How can we Love creation if we do not Love the creator? How can we understand if we do not commune? And how can we satisfy the yearnings of the spirit if we are not willing to cultivate them? It seems that a Saint would encompass theology; however, much to often are the two separated.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Let me put a disclaimer saying, that I do not intend for this post to come across as fact. Rather an idea that could use some molding!!!!! :~)
Yes, but all of what you were saying was so true.Because alot of people in the church get caught up more in the theology than they do in the minisrty.
Sorry I missed spelled ministry,but anyway I messed up there.What I meant is that :
Like you were saying they get caught up in the theology and loose sight of what the ministry is really about,Bringing people to God.
well anyways sorry.ttyl.
-Dalynn
Nice disclaimer; I’ve been placing pretty much the same one on pretty much everything I say these days. :o)
I think I agree with what Tozer was meaning, although from hearing only an excerpt I’m not quite sure that I fully understand it; plus the subject can get very muddy without common definitions of the words. I realize that you presented some kind of definition for both “saint” and “theologian”, but for the sake of discussion, and to better understand your point, could you perhaps define both of them more intricately?
I’m curious of your (or Tozer’s) definition of a saint being “Someone who was not only sensitive to the Holy Spirit but most importantly fulfilled those desires of the spirit. It is the mark of someone who satisfies those yearnings towards ‘Godliness’”. Are “yearnings towards ‘Godliness’” desires to fulfill the Law? Do we “satisfy” them by obeying the Law?
From what I understand, the Catholics consider “saints” to be those believers who produce miraculous and spiritual good works whereas the Protestants considered them to be just believers; on the one hand the name “saint” being given to super-believers whereas the other would use it to describe any True believer (fruit being a separate issue from what defines a saint). Would you say that fruit does or does not determine sainthood? Do you ascribe to either of these definitions, or do you have another that I haven’t considered?
I agree that there is a danger in placing theology above love for our neighbor, and if love is how you’d define ministry, then I can see how that problem does exist. But I find it prevalent these days that the “Church’s” sway leans much more in the direction of “ministering” without the slightest clue of the theology of the Gospel; the very thing that is supposed to be what we’re trying to share. Maybe both problems are prevalent simultaneously but we all just see different sides of the Church.
I am also questioning if one can truly be a saint without theology, or a theologian without being a saint (that question however goes out to the void, you don’t have to answer it because I haven’t answered it either :~).
P.S. Just for fun…I’m curious what you think. Do you think that we can be holy just as God is holy? And, if it is true that if we love Christ we will keep His commandments, then would you say that we actually love Christ? :-}
Post a Comment