Don’t Blame Spener

Last updated on: February 21, 2015 at 12:06 pm by Jordan Cooper

Don’t Blame Spener 2015-02-21T12:06:05-06:00 Jordan Cooper

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I’ve recently been reading up on the history of Pietism, the forgotten aspect of Lutheran history. The most recent work I read on this subject is An Introduction to German Pietism: Protestant Renewal at the Dawn of Modern Europe by Douglas Shantz. This 500 page tome is a very detailed and comprehensive history of Pietism within Germany, stretching from the “proto Pietists” through the development of radical Pietism in the New World. The author also includes some great primary-source material at the end of the book. When reading this work, along with others, it has become apparent that the errors of the Pietist movement which orthodox Lutherans rightly fight against, come not from Spener himself, but from the second generation Pietists.

Pietism can roughly be placed into three separate categories: Spener’s Pietism, Francke’s Pietism, and radical Pietism. To lump all three of these movements together is far too simplistic, as each has their own distinctive emphases. There were some theologians, such as Arndt, Gerhard, and Spener, who argued that there was a necessity for moral and spiritual reform within orthodox Lutheranism. These figures did not view themselves as deviating from Confessional Lutheran doctrine. Spener is often called the “father of Pietism.” In some ways, this is true, as Spener’s Pia Desideria served as a catalyst for various reform movements in Germany. However, it is not really fair or accurate to lump Spener in with Francke or the radical Pietists, who deviated from Lutheran orthodoxy in a way that Spener himself did not.

Spener’s most notable contribution to the rise of Pietism was his promotion of conventicles, or Bible studies led apart from the regular church service. Spener argued that, along with the catechism, laity should be encouraged to study Scripture. Thus, he promoted the utilization of small groups called “conventicles.” For Spener, these groups met to discuss the sermon of that Sunday, and the pastor led these discussions. Though these groups met in homes, they were not viewed as something done apart from the institutional church. Abraham Calov and other orthodox Lutherans approved of Spener’s proposal. However, there were some groups who started to meet with only laity, wherein they began condemning the state church, arguing that the “pure church” was to meet separately from the traditional Lutheran service. After such developments, Spener got blamed. Spener continually had to defend his orthodoxy while condemning these sectarian groups. Spener quickly moved his meetings to the church building, emphasizing the continuity between the church and conventicles. Eventually, Spener ceased leading conventicles altogether.

What is usually described as “Pietism” really begins with August Hermann Francke. Francke was influenced by Spener’s work, along with Arndt, and after studying theology for some time, experienced a radical conversion. Due to his conversion experience, Francke expected that other Christians needed to experience a similar conversion as a testament to their faith. The emphasis one finds on a time of conversion within the Pietist movement–and contemporary evangelicalism along with it–arises, not from Spener, but from Francke. Along with the conversion experience, Francke argued that one needs to look for signs of conversion. Without these signs of conversion, salvation should be doubted. In this way, Francke fell into the same error of some American Puritans by barring people from the Lord’s Supper for not showing proper signs of conversion. This barring from the table would sometimes last for years. This, again, differentiates Spener from Francke. Spener himself expressed horror at the fact that Francke barred someone from the Supper for serving alcohol on Sundays. Though a friend and mentor to Francke, Spener condemned such strict practices.

In some ways, Francke adopted errors of Anabaptism. He wanted a pure church of only the converted. He also allowed for the modern day use of the gift of prophecy in conventicle meetings. However, Spener eventually convinced Francke to distrust modern-day prophets. Now, not everything that Francke promoted was necessarily bad. He helped reform education, and promoted the helping of the poor and orphans. He also wrote some helpful works on exegesis. However, it is Francke’s ideas that would eventually hurt the assurance of many Christians, and led in some ways to experientialism in the church.

We need to be careful when blaming Arndt or Spener for some of the missteps in Pietism. It was Francke, not Spener or Anrdt, who emphasized the personal conversion experience. It was Francke, not Spener or Arndr, who fought for a church of only the converted. It was Francke, not Spener or Arndt, who de-emphasized traditional Lutheran dogmatics. Spener and Arndt may very well have their theological issues as well, but lets stop blaming the entire development of Pietism on these two men.

Previous Post

February 19, 2015

Rob Bell and the Rejection of Sola Scriptura

Next Post

February 22, 2015 Justification is Not Simply a Stepping Stone to the "Real Business" of Sanctification

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category American Lutheran Classics Blog Posts Book Review Christian Dogmatics Course Church Resources Curtis Leins Dogmatic Theology Ethics FAQs Historical Theology Just & Sinner Publications Luther Quotations Podcast Sermons The American Lutheran Theological Journal The complete works of Revere Franklin Weidner Theology Proper Uncategorized Videos

Select a Month October 2019 September 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

This shortest book in the Old Testament prophesies judgment on Edom for violence against Judah. How many verses does it contain?

Select your answer to see how you score.

21 verses 30 verses 15 verses 12 verses