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.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In