Chapter 31 - Pietism

Pietism’s Place in the History of Theology

The Pietist movement, which penetrated Lutheran territory in the latter part of the 17th century and contributed to the diminution or the internal transformation of the orthodox Lutheran tradition, was not simply a reaction against certain weaknesses in the church life of the time; it was rather a new theological position, which was based on a new concept of reality and which bore within itself the seeds of the modern point of view. But how was Pietism related to the tradition that preceded it and that which followed? Scholars are still debating this question. Certain points of view shall be mentioned in the following.

To the extent that Pietism insisted on a living piety and revealed the insufficiency of objective theological knowledge, it had many precursors among the earlier Lutherans, such as Johann Arndt and Johann Gerhard at the beginning of the 17th century and Theophil Grossgebauer and Heinrich Müller (both in Rostock) in the latter half of the century. The fact of the matter is that the leading orthodox theologians were well aware of theology’s practical purpose, just as they also commonly insisted on the improvement of morals and manners. Many of the strictly orthodox also reacted in a positive way to the recommendations for reform which Spener set forth in his Pia desideria, 1675 (trans. Theodore G. Tappert; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1964).

At the same time, however, Pietism revealed a number of new tendencies which were contradictory to the fundamental presuppositions of orthodox theology. These new ideas gradually became more apparent. The violent and long-lasting controversies between the representatives of orthodoxy and the Pietists clearly reveal the profound disparity between these two points of view.

Where did Pietism’s new ideas come from? Various sources (even beyond Lutheranism) have been suggested, such as Roman Catholic mysticism, certain facets of Reformed theology, such as Grotius’ and Coccejus’ principles of Biblical interpretation, the preaching of Labadie, and the so-called precisianism of Holland. Another possibility, commonly overlooked, is Socinianism. But it ought to be remembered in this connection that a new trend of thought cannot always be entirely explained in the light of what has gone before. A trend may rather represent something basically new, whose origins are hidden.

What about the relationship between Pietism and subsequent tendencies? This question has often been answered by saying that in essence Pietism remained attached to the orthodox Lutheran position, while the Enlightenment denotes the breakthrough of the new age. In more recent years, however, scholars have emphasized the close connection between Pietism and the Enlightenment. In spite of the fact that it commonly rejected the new philosophical tendencies of the 18th century, Pietism itself helped to prepare the ground in many respects for the new ways of thinking. Pietism included a number of different tendencies, however; some of these were akin to rationalistic thought (e. g., radical Pietism), while others stood closer to the orthodox Lutheran tradition (e. g., the so-called Württemberg Pietism).

Spener’s Theology

Pietism’s foremost theologian, and its founder within Lutheran ranks, was Philipp Jakob Spener (1685–1705, from 1691 dean in Berlin). He transmitted the Pietist point of view only in a very modest form. He sought to retain the orthodox doctrinal basis without alteration. But the questions he dealt with, and not least of all his very method of presentation, manifested a new theological spirit and a new way of thinking.

In his book Pia desideria (1675) Spener set forth a number of recommended reforms designed to deal with the state of decay into which the church had fallen. He suggested, for example, that the Bible be studied more commonly. To serve this end, he recommended the organization of associations for the promotion of piety (collegia pietatis). The universal priesthood was to be exercised through mutual admonition and soul care. He also expressed a desire for a reform of the study of theology: the dialectical method should be replaced by the reading of the Bible and inspirational literature.

Lutheran Pietism appeared first of all as a reform movement with practical goals in view, but it gradually came to exert a transforming effect on theological activity and the general outlook as well. Spener published his theological point of view chiefly in the large collection entitled Theologische Bedenken, I–IV (1700 and the following years) and in Die evangelische Glaubenslehre in einem Jahrgang der Predigten (1688).

The new way of thinking was expressed in epistemology. According to Spener, experience is the ground of all certainty, both on the natural level and on the level of revelation. As a result the personal experience of the pious is the ground of certainty for theological knowledge. Only the regenerate Christian can be a true theologian and possess real knowledge of revealed truth. Spener distinguished between physical and spiritual knowledge. The former he looked upon as dead knowledge, which even the unregenerate can attain. The doctrine of faith is therefore accessible, without the aid of the Spirit, as sheer external knowledge; but if it is to be acquired in the true sense of the term, one must have a personal experience and be born again through the Spirit. These ideas are based on presuppositions which are completely different from those found among the orthodox. The latter believed that, under any circumstances, insight into revealed truth requires the illumination of the Holy Spirit. The Pietists answered that such knowledge could be acquired even by nonbelievers; since by the light of the Spirit the orthodox meant the light which is found in the Word itself, the true doctrine could therefore be proclaimed even by an unregenerate teacher.—In the light of the foregoing, it is not surprising that Spener was criticized by the orthodox for separating the Word and the Spirit, and that Pietism was sometimes looked upon as a recrudescence of Rahtmann’s position. (See above, pp. 307–308)

Spener’s new orientation with respect to the concept of faith and the doctrine of justification provides us with similar examples. As Spener understood it, faith is not simply knowledge and confidence (notitia, assensus, and fiducia); it is at the same time a living power, out of which the actual experience of renewal proceeds. One is certainly not justified by this power or virtue, but if it is not present, then faith cannot justify either, since it then is not a living faith. Between historical faith and justifying faith there is therefore a “dead faith” (fides mortua), which can receive the true doctrine but cannot justify.

Major emphasis was placed on regeneration, which Spener thought of as the granting of a new life. Justification is the fruit of regeneration. The doctrine of imputation was therefore replaced by the idea that justification and sanctification form a unity. This unity is expressed by the term “regeneration” (or “new birth”), which no longer—as in the older tradition—coincides with the concept of the forgiveness of sins but designates an inner transformation which in turn is the source of the new life that characterizes the Christian man.

The same thing can also be expressed in this way, that according to Spener justification is directly related to the indwelling Christ. Faith is thus not simply the acceptance of the merits of Christ; it must also cause Christ to dwell in the believer’s heart. Some Pietists began to say of themselves, as a result, “I am Christ”; Spener himself did not approve of this, however. The idea of a personal union with Christ was not new, of course—orthodoxy spoke of the unio mystica as a fruit of faith—but what was new here was that Spener conceived of this inner transformation as the essential basic aspect of faith and expanded the concept of justification to include the inner new creation as well.

The contrast between orthodoxy and Pietism has often been described as a contrast between doctrine and life. Even though this is rather misleading and scarcely touches upon the actual differences, it is correct to the extent that Pietism did place strong emphasis on the sanctified life as a testimony to the true faith. This was in accord with the teachings of orthodox Lutheranism, but a new feature was expressed in terms of a negative attitude toward life in this world. Dying to the world was to manifest itself in the avoidance of all worldliness, of all pleasure and amusement. Spener did not hold that a Christian could live a perfect life in this world, but he did believe that there are those who could attain freedom from all intentional sin. As a rule the Pietist point of view led to a more or less bifurcated ethic: stricter demands were made on Christians than on men in general.

Spener’s sharp criticism of the unsatisfactory state of the contemporary church was combined with an optimistic view of the church’s future. He did not share the belief of the more radical, millenarian Pietists concerning a future 1,000-year earthly kingdom, but he did foresee a period of great success for the church, in which the Jews would be converted on a universal scale and the papacy would fall. Spener deviated sharply from the older tradition in holding these views, for the latter anticipated the imminent end of the world, plus a progressive degeneration of and an increasing opposition to the Christian church.

Characteristics of Pietism

In spite of Spener’s conservative attitude and his basic adherence to the orthodox Lutheran doctrinal tradition, a profound reorientation revealed itself on many points.

The theology of Pietism concentrated on the question of salvation. Most interest was given to those questions which are directly related to the order of salvation and to the individual’s conversion or conduct of life. The metaphysical questions were written off, as well as the traditional philosophical substructure. Spener was critical of Aristotelian philosophy, and he rejected its use in the field of theology. The canonical authority of the Old Testament was clearly acknowledged, but the Old Testament was subordinated to the New Testament, because the truth revealed in the former was thought to be of a more peripheral nature. The Halle Pietists even began to criticize certain parts of the Old Testament as being contrary to morality.

Another characteristic was that subjective events were taken to be the point of departure. The role of experience as the ground of certainty has already been emphasized. Inner spiritual phenomena and individual experiences elicited the greatest interest and provided the focus for theological discussion.

Here we can see a new attitude toward theological questions. Orthodoxy had proceeded on the basis of objective reality and grounded the certainty of theological knowledge on the Scriptural principle, which was thought of as self-evident and, so to speak, self-creative of the knowledge that theology deals with. Pietism, on the other hand, proceeded on the basis of experience; it looked upon the experience of the individual as being fundamental to religious knowledge or insight. Pietistic theological exposition came to deal primarily with empirical religious events, just as it was assumed that theological knowledge could not be acquired apart from the experience of regeneration (the new birth).

Thus it was that conservative Pietism inaugurated, in a variety of ways, the modern way of thinking in the field of theology and ecclesiology. In its subjective concept of knowledge and in its interest in morality and the empirical facts of religion, Pietism bore within itself tendencies which came into full bloom in the thought world of the Enlightenment, in the secular area as well as in the theological sphere.

Halle Pietism

Of decisive importance for the development of Pietism was the fact that the newly formed university in Halle filled several of its faculty positions with men of the Pietist persuasion. August Hermann Francke (d. 1727) came there to teach in 1692, for example, and he went on to become the leader of Pietism in his era and the founder of the famous orphanage in Halle. Other theologians with the same convictions were Joachim Justus Breithaupt, Johann Anastasius Freylinghausen,and Joachim Lange, all of whom taught at Halle. Johann Jakob Rambach (d. 1735), who was active in Giessen, exerted great influence as a preacher and interpreter of the Bible.

The science of theology was thoroughly altered by the Halle Pietists. Theological activity in Halle was dominated by a study of the Bible which was designed to serve practical, inspirational goals. To accomplish this, the very method of interpretation was simplified. The older concept of a single, literal meaning of a given passage of Scripture was gradually abandoned; it was supplanted by a double or sometimes a triple meaning—literal, spiritual, and mystical (Rambach). This system made it easier to explain those parts of the Old Testament which were considered offensive. Dogmatic studies were reduced to insignificance. The men of Halle were satisfied with a concise reiteration of the orthodox doctrinal system, qualified by the deviations introduced by Spener. The philosophical conceptual apparatus was rejected.

The Halle Pietists diverged from Spener’s position in certain distinctive ways, particularly with respect to their teaching about the repentance struggle and their legalistic attitude toward the world. While Spener held that God dealt with different men in different ways in conversion, Francke asserted the rule that the Christian should be able to point to a distinct, demarcated conversion experience, preceded by an inner crisis (the repentance struggle) evoked by the preaching of the Law. In this condition, man is brought to the point where he decides to break with the world and begin a new life. Then it is that the gift of faith is bestowed on him, and it is through this faith that he receives forgiveness of sin.

The new conduct of life, which is the fruit of faith, is characterized by stringent self-examination and the suppression of natural affections. Every detail of life is to be directed by the Holy Spirit, or by the new affections of faith. That which is natural is looked upon, as a result, as being intrinsically sinful. The pious Christian will avoid worldly pleasures and amusements. Dancing, playing, and going to the theater were considered sinful.—On this point, too, Spener had refrained from providing legalistic instructions.

Radical Pietism

Conservative Pietism was followed by a radical trend which was related to the enthusiasts of the Reformation period as well as to Socinianism. Here, as often elsewhere, a fanatic, mystical religiosity was combined with a rationalistic critique of church doctrine. The influence of Jakob Boehme’s theosophical philosophy is readily discernible in certain instances (e. g., Dippel; see below).

Johann Wilhelm Petersen (d.1727) represented the pronounced chiliastic point of view. The reference to Christ’s 1,000-year reign in Rev. 20 was not interpreted, as in the older tradition, by referring to the church’s domination of the world from the time of Constantine to the papacy of Gregory VII. Petersen rather interpreted this, in the Jewish manner, as a prophecy concerning a future kingdom—in which the faithful shall reign with Christ for 1,000 years. Spener did not reject the millennial point of view altogether, but (as noted above) he had his own somewhat different interpretation.

Gottfried Arnold (d. 1714) can also be included among the radical Pietists. He wrote the well-known Unparteyische Kirchen- und Ketzergeschichte (1699–1700), in which he set himself above all confessions (unparteyisch—“impartial”) in his description of church history and criticized them in a supercilious manner. As he saw it, true Christianity was almost always preserved and passed on by the sects.

The most distinctive of the radical Pietists was Johann Konrad Dippel (d. 1734). He was particularly critical of the orthodox doctrine of the Atonement. According to Dippel, satisfaction is contrary to God’s love, which simply overlooks sin and re-creates the heart. Every facet of religion is immanent, or subjective, said he. As was true of Boehme, Dippel taught that all things will be restored. He also accepted the chiliastic position. The 1,000-year reign appeared to him as a release from the domination of church and state. Dippel’s point of view, which was published in Vera demonstratio evangelica (1729), evoked violent controversies, even in Sweden, where he lived for a time.

Herrnhutism

While radical Pietism usually appeared in the form of temporary fanatical movements or privately held ideas, the “United Brethren” organization, founded by Count Nikolaus von Zinzendorf in 1727, developed into a permanent group. In contrast to radical Pietism, the Herrnhut movement thought well of the church. It was based on the Augsburg Confession, but its supporters did not feel that the distinctions made between the various communions were essential. As a result, one did not have to be a Lutheran to be welcome in Herrnhut; members of other confessional groups were also received.

Von Zinzendorf centered his entire theology around one point: the feeling of fellowship with Christ, achieved through contemplation of the cross. As far as he was concerned, theology had no connection with philosophy or with general education; neither did he accept any natural knowledge of God. Knowledge of God comes only from the Crucified One. All the rest is heathen speculation. This theology of the cross was completely subjective and highly emotional. By virtue of one’s contemplation of the cross, of the blood and the wounds, one comes to feel that Christ’s struggle and suffering release us from punishment and unite us with Him who was sent to be our Savior, who is also Father and Creator.

The Herrnhuters did not refer to the repentance struggle induced by the Law, as did the older Pietists. The entire conversion experience was replaced by the experience of the cross and the Atonement. The preaching of the cross in the evangelical manner was the one and only thing that mattered. An antinomian attitude characterized this position.

But in spite of their hyperevangelical tendency, there was no talk in Herrnhut (as there was among the radical Pietists) about abolishing the orthodox doctrine of the Atonement. Christ’s substitutionary suffering and His redemption from sin was to be found, on the contrary, at the very center of the Herrnhut faith.

The way in which the Atonement was set forth by the Herrnhuters was quite different, however, from the older tradition. The emphasis was placed on the emotional experience of Christ’s suffering. Subjectivism was carried to an extreme. The relationship of the Christian to God and Christ was described in terms of human intimacy, frequently in a way we find distasteful and offensive today.

At the same time that the Herrnhut movement undoubtedly sought to do justice to one of Lutheranism’s basic ideas, it was, through its subjective emphasis, strongly conditioned by the era in which it appeared. Its piety was of an effeminate and sentimental nature. The Herrnhut movement was opposed not only by the orthodox but by the conservative Pietists (e. g., Bengel) as well.

Württemberg Pietism

Johann Albrecht Bengel (d. 1752) and Magnus Friedrich Boos (d. 1803), both well-known in Sweden as authors of inspirational literature, were the leaders of the Württemberg branch of Pietism. This group was closely related to the church, and it clung more faithfully to the orthodox heritage than other branches of Pietism.

Bengel’s greatest contributions were made in the field of Biblical studies. His publication of the Greek New Testament, in which he divided the manuscripts in groups according to their place of origin, provided the basis for modern textual criticism. The commentary which became his most extensively used work, Gnomon Novi Testamenti, is distinguished for its acute observations and a profound analysis of textual details. The ideal for which Bengel strove was a concrete, historical interpretation free from all philosophical or doctrinaire formalism. In his exegesis of the Book of Revelation he attempted to set forth a prophetical interpretation of history. He even asserted that the end of the world could be expected in the year 1836.

Roos was a member of the Bengel school with respect to Biblical exegesis, and he was essentially orthodox in doctrine. His position was also influenced by the basic principles of Pietism, as well as by the struggle against contemporary rationalism. The best known of his writings is Christliches Hausbuch, which, together with several more of his books, was translated into Swedish. These books were particularly popular among the Swedes who were followers of Henrick Schartau.

The Controversy Over Pietism

It was not long after its appearance that the Pietist movement encountered the violent opposition of orthodox theologians. Pietism was criticized for nourishing all kinds of heresy and for watering down the pure doctrine as a result of its indifferentism. A great number of polemical treatises were exchanged in the decades just before and after the year 1700. Among those who attacked the Pietist position were several members of the faculty in Wittenberg, as well as Benedikt Carpzov of Leipzig and Johann Friedrich Mayer of Greifswald (d. 1712, held in high regard by King Charles XII of Sweden). These critics found in Pietism a Platonic tendency, aschwärmerisch attitude toward the Word and sacraments, plus an “Osiandrian” doctrine of justification. Many other controversial questions were discussed. We have referred to some of the major points in previous sections: the questions of the efficacious power of the Word, of the relation between the Word and the Spirit, of theologia regenitorum, offides mortua, of the legalistic concept of sanctification (the negative attitude toward nature and toward adiaphora). The so-called terministic dispute was elicited by the fact that a number of Pietists set forth the idea that in the case of certain ungodly men the period of grace or the possibility of conversion could cease even before they died (terminus gratiae). The millennial hope entertained by some Pietists was also included in the list of controversial questions.

The most incisive confrontation between the Pietist and the orthodox points of view was the doctrinal dispute between Valentin Ernst Löscher (d. 1749, general superintendent in Dresden) and the Halle theologian Joachim Lange. The former, in his Timotheus Verinus (1711–17), presented a searching criticism of Pietism from the orthodox vantage point, but he also extended the hand of reconciliation at the same time. Lange replied with a vehement and factually inferior polemic. Löscher did not feel, however, that he was simply fighting against a temporary phenomenon, whose defects one could easily establish; he rather believed that Pietism represented a new spirit of the times, whose tendencies in the direction of “enthusiasm” and indifferentism threatened to destroy the very assumptions of orthodox thought from within. His critique did not achieve the intended goal.

Pietism’s subjective, anthropocentric attitude dissolved the objective concept of reality as expressed in the old scholastic philosophy and in orthodox Lutheran theology. Or as Löscher put it in his judgment of Pietism: the external practice of religion (habitus religionis) was transformed into religion and salvation itself.