Reclaiming Pietism Part 5 (Final)

Last updated on: August 18, 2011 at 7:31 pm by Roger E. Olson

Reclaiming Pietism Part 5 (Final) 2011-08-18T19:31:17-05:00 Roger E. Olson

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.

So what do I mean by “reclaiming Pietism?” To “reclaim” something is to take it back. In this case I aim to take Pietism back from those who unfairly criticize it. Like every movement, Pietism has had its faults. But whether one is talking about the original movement in Europe primarily among Lutherans (Spener, Francke, Zinzendorf, et al.) or the later, wider movement influenced by them Pietism does not deserve the its bad reputation.

I still read and hear people who should know better (viz., church historians and theologians) using the terms “Pietism” and “Pietist” as epithets synonymous with religious anti-intellectualism, subjectivism, quietism, legalism and a general holier-than-thou attitude.

In fact, a careful study of historic Pietism shows that leading spokespersons for the movement were and are different from that negative portrayal. Just to mention two examples from the past. August Hermann Francke was the most influential Pietist theologian and social reformer of Germany in the 1700s. He founded numerous charitable institutions and advocated on behalf of the poor. One of followers was Samuel Schmucker, the most influential Lutheran Pietist pastor and theologian in America before the Civil War (and perhaps ever!). Schmucker founded the Lutheran seminary at Gettysburg as well as the college there. He was a proponent of generous orthodoxy, conversion and evangelism and abolition. Because of his persistence in these matters he was harshly criticized by more conservative (i.e., traditionalist, orthodox Lutherans). (In his book The Rise and Fall of American Lutheran Pietism: The Rejection of an Activist Heritage Paul P. Kuenning argues cogently and convincingly that the main reason for Schmucker’s downfall as a leader of American Lutherans was his passionate commitment to abolition.) Schmucker cannot be accused of being anti-intellectual or quietist or subjectivist. An accusation that he was legalistic or had a holier-then-thou attitude can only be made to stick with regard to abolition. He abhorred slavery as a great sin.

Numerous other, similar examples can be given. For example, the 19th century German Pietist Christoph Blumhardt was a faith healer, exorcist, revivalist and social reformer, socialist and member of the Wurttemberg parliament.

Anyone who studies the history of Pietism knows how ignorant many of its critics are. They embarrass themselves when they slam the whole movement because of the excesses of a few and because of the reality of what I call “Pietism gone to seed.” It’s a situation analogous to Arminianism. Many who think they are Arminian are really semi-Pelagian and that has caused critics of Arminianism to smear all Arminians as that. The truth is that, historically speaking, true, classical Arminianism was never semi-Pelagian (as I have demonstrated in Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities). So it is that there is a phenomenon of Pietism gone to seed in American religious life. But it is not true, historic Pietism. Where are the true, historic Pietists today? I have mentioned some in earlier posts in this thread. But one who recently died was theologian Donald G. Bloesch.

There really isn’t a distinct Pietist movement anymore. Like most good movements, it filtered into the maintream leaving traces all over the place. My own seminary is one with its emphasis on spiritual formation and requirement that all faculty and students participate in “covenant groups” for prayer and Bible reading. Certain denominations especially hold traces of historic Pietism–the Evangelical Free Church of America, the Evangelical Covenant Church of America, the Baptist General Conference (now WorldConverge), the North American Baptist Convention, various Brethren churches that are offshoots of the Church of the Brethren, etc. Unfortunately, some of these are losing their Pietist flavor as they are being invaded by a fundamentalist spirit brought in by pastors who did not grow up in them and know little about their Pietist heritage. (An exception is the Covenant church which requires ministers to study for one year at its seminary–North Park in Chicago. I judge that a very wise move.) Pietism and fundamentalist are very different approaches to Christian faith. The former encourages a broad and irenic approach to doctrine whereas the latter emphasizes a narrow and harsh approach.

So why the unfair and sometimes vitriolic attacks on Pietism by critics (both liberal and conservative)? One reason is simple ignorance. People who should know better have simply not taken the time to study Pietism. They have only read others like themselves who have bought into the vicious calumnies against the movement. I have to say that, in my experience, anyway, many conservative Reformed evangelicals are guilty of this (as they are with regard to Arminianism).

Another cause, I believe, is fear of subjectivism. Some conservative evangelicals are overly nervous about anything that is not dogmatic. Pietists have tended not to specialize in systematic theology and have often been content with a generous, broad doctrinal statement that refuses to take strong stands on secondary issues such as predestination. Some conservative evangelicals (and others such as some in the Lutheran Church-Missiouri Synod) view Pietism as on a slippery slope down into doctrinal indifference. They should read Donald Bloesch! I know some who do and love him but don’t recognize him as a Pietist. (It’s the same phenomenon as some Calvinists who consider Wesley a “confused Calvinist” just because he doesn’t fit their stereotype of an Arminian!)

Another cause, I suspect, is resentment toward Pietism’s insistence that “true Christianity” is not synonymous with church membership or even participation in the sacraments. Pietists have always argued that God has no grandchildren and a person cannot simply grow up Christian. Every person has to have a conversion experience and then have a growing personal relationship with Jesus Christ. So-called mainline and liberal Christians are angry at Pietism for this alleged insult.

I want evangelicals of the Pietist tradition or with Pietist sympathies and leanings to take back the good name of Pietism; reclaim it and restore its good reputation. But that will take some study on their part. I hope to contribute to this by writing a book on the subject of Pietism and myths and realities about it.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

November 19, 2010

Reclaiming Pietism Part 4

Next Post

November 22, 2010 November 22, 1963

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Against Liberal Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 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 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

In Revelation, what is the correct sequence of events in the End Times?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Dragon cast to earth, beast rises from sea, false prophet rises from earth, mark of the beast given False prophet rises, dragon cast to earth, beast rises from sea, mark of the beast given Mark of the beast given, dragon cast to earth, beast rises, false prophet rises Beast rises from sea, dragon cast to earth, mark of the beast given, false prophet rises