Philip Jacob Spener’s Contribution to the Protestant Doctrine of the Church

Introduction

In 1666 a young pastor was called to become the head Lutheran pastor in Frankfurt am Main. He was well educated, holding the Doctor of Theology from the University of Strassbourg, and he had some strong notions that would soon galvanize Europe into another surge of reforming zeal—eventually reaching millions in every corner of the globe. The pastor’s name was Philip Jacob Spener.

Nine years into his first pastorate, Spener would set forth his call for reform in the Lutheran church in a forward to a collection of sermons by Johannes Arndt. The title of the introduction was Pia Desideria, (Pious Desires) and within weeks this remarkable little tractate set off an astounding reaction throughout most of Europe.1

Modern members of primitive New Testament-style churches will quickly recognize several important themes in this tract, which have stirred strong sentiments today, as they have throughout church history and still do. These ideas include the need for small meetings in the local church that will allow the re-introduction of the inter-active style of koinonia described in I Cor. 14, the need for the laity to learn the Bible and use it, the necessity of congregational review of the public teacher’s positions, a vigorous critique of the institutional church and others.

It is the purpose of this paper to identify the key themes of Spener’s theology, focusing in the area of ecclesiology. Then, a further attempt will be made to understand the connection between Spener’s ecclesiological position and those streams that gave rise to it, as well as those that flowed out from it.

Spener’s background

Born in 1635 in a practicing Christian home,2 Spener grew up in the aftermath of the Thirty Years War.3 It is hard to exaggerate the deadening effect that this international holocaust had on the view of the average person in Germany toward religion. Stoeffler says,

It is difficult to overestimate the catastrophic effect of the Thirty Years War upon the German people, The country being at the mercy of the (sic) Europe’s soldiery, the destruction was such that whole villages and even towns simply disappeared. 4

The thirty years war was only one manifestation of the unhealthy relationship between church and state at that time. In the sixteenth century the Reformers had turned to the German princes, as “the chief members of the church,” to take a hand in the reform of the church in their lands. This move was necessary because, at that time, divergent religious movements were routinely exterminated by armies loyal to the Roman Catholic Church. The fact is that if the leaders of the Reformation had not had the armies of European nobles on their side (especially in Saxony), they probably would have gone the way of previous dissident religious movements like the Albigensians and the Waldensians--genocide.5

It is hard for the modern reader to appreciate what life would have been like in a time when religious toleration was unheard of. Yet it was this fact that originally made partnership with the state indispensable.6 Unfortunately, while preserving the reformation church, this appeal for state assistance had led in time to a condition of permanent control. By the second half of the seventeenth century many of the rulers were members of the church only in a nominal sense, yet they held ecclesiastical legislation (rules for church discipline) firmly in their grasp. They also made the choice of who would hold offices in the church.

Church and state were united in such a way that the state controlled the church, and the ministers of the church became officials of the state.7

One example of state meddling in the church was the legal requirement that everyone attend church, and pay tithes.8 Not surprisingly, for most, this state of affairs tended to lead to a superficial involvement in the church. Another lamentable feature were the terrorizing heretic hunts and witch hunts which periodically engulfed and brutalized a given territory. 9

The Christian state concept had also removed the perceived need to convert the lost in society. It was assumed that most if not all those in church were authentic Christians. Here, the modern reader has less problem identifying with Spener’s world.

The unfortunate relationship between church and state was not the only factor leading to the growth of nominal Christianity. Lutheran theology and practice were both problematic at this time, as witnessed by many besides Spener.

In the seminaries, the students were trained to do theology in Latin, as they had been for hundreds of years. “Disputations” or debates with other schools of theology were the order of the day. These disputations were not only carried out against Reformed, Anabaptist, and Roman Catholic, but also against other Lutherans. They could be carried out in person, or in writing, and tended to become more and more vituperative.10 The clergy who had been trained this way also tended to bring these disputes into the pulpit. Many sermons were scathing sarcastic attacks on rival views, detailed often with latin quotations that the people did not understand or care about.11 This form of teaching—arid, non-biblical, and unapplied—was compared by some to the schul Theologie (scholastic, or school theology) that the Reformation had claimed to replace. 12

In church life, a rigid distinction between clergy and laity tends to be quite unmotivating for the laity, especially when it is not felt that the lay person can do anything of importance. Yet, not only was this distinction maintained as tightly as ever, but other class distinctions were evident as well. Tappert explains,

. . .class distinctions were manifest in the churches, where elevated and upholstered places were reserved for the upper classes and only the common people sat on hard seats in the nave.13

Stoeffler adds,

Some of the noble families of Saxony. . . would not not have their children baptized at church because this would involve baptism with the same water used for other children. 14

There would have been little enthusiasm for spiritual growth, let alone ministry for the average lay person during this period. Stoeffler summarizes the situation,

The popular idea within the territorial churches was that a Christian is anyone who has been baptized and who maintains some formal connection with the Church by making use at least occasionally of the means of grace [communion, the Word, and baptism] and who believes in general the truths laid down in the doctrinal symbols of his communion and adheres to its cultic forms.15

Naturally, with the flame of the church burning dimly, people became interested in other things. It is not clear whether the drinking bouts and “rioting” that Spener complained about were worse than usual, but there is no good reason to doubt that they were, especially since this part of Spener’s thesis was not questioned by his critics.

The overall situation then, in Germany and much of the rest of Europe, was general apathy on the spiritual level. Bickering between theologians had lost the interest of the people, and Christianity itself was discredited by the violence of the religious wars.

Yet even though the people were tired of murderous fanaticism, the nominal formalistic religion that was prevalent was not satisfying either. This fact is attested to by scores of written lamentations about the sorry state of the church from this period. As Noll has stated,

In fact, German pietism was but one chord in a symphony of variations on a common theme—the need to move beyond sterile formulas about God to a more intimate experience with him.16

Some of the cries for spiritual reality were radical and even unbiblical such as those of Valentine Weigel and Jacob Boehme who were theosophical mystics. Other mystical authors were more moderate in their position.

Spener’s favorite book while growing up was by one such author. The book, which was in Spener’s father’s library, was John Arndt’s True Christianity, the echoes of which are evident in virtually all of Spener’s writings. Pia Desideria itself was written as an introduction to a collection of Arndt’s sermons. Spener was also deeply affected by the religious views of one countess Agathe. Her Christianity has been characterized as “world-fleeing, quietistic, even mystical.”17 Spener also lists as a key influence, his parish pastor, Stoll, who was a strict Lutheran with a practical bent. Finally, there were several other devotional authors who influenced Spener during this period. Briefly, they are, Emmanuel Sothom’s Golden Crown-Jewels of the Children of God, (which was written that “those who are Christian in name might become Christian also in deeds and in truth,”) and Lewis Bayly’s The Practice of Piety. 18 Any student of Spener’s work will recognize the themes of these British quietists readily.

Spener was a sharp student, and by the age of just 16 he was urged to enter the University of . There he studied under well known Lutheran scholars, especially Dannhauer, who made him read the works of Luther. Spener was so taken by Luther that he would later claim that no other author since biblical times was as enlightened as he. It can fairly be said that Spener received his orthodox material (including his ecclesiology) from Luther through Dannhauer.19 As he moved toward completion of his education “he became increasingly biblically oriented and the theological writing which he engaged in becomes increasingly exegetical and practical. Grunberg notes that despite the fact that Spener was a contemporary of “Hobbes, Locke, Spinoza, and Leibniz . . .and Bacon, Herbert of Cherbury, and Descartes . . .[were] causing a philosophical revolution, Spener took almost no notice of their philosophical labors.” 20

After graduation from class work, Spener took the customary 2 years of travels. One interesting stop in his journeys was in Geneva, where he was exposed to the charismatic French mystic, Jean de Labadie.

Labadie later became a mystical extremist, and a separatist (i.e. revolutionary against the established church). His doctrinal influence on Spener will be considered later.

Spener was called to the pastorate in Frankfurt am Main in 1666. He immediately began to hold forth his views, which apparently remained relatively unchanged over the next 25 years. It was at Frankfurt that he began his collegia pietatis in 1670 and published the Pia Desideria.21

Within months, the Pia Desideria was known throughout the Lutheran church.

The elements of spener’s program

Spener was catapulted into fame, as already stated, by the publication of Pia Desideria in 1676. This little book has some very special qualities as described by Aland,

Spener stands altogether in the stream of a tradition, but with the means at our disposal it is not possible to demonstrate with certainty when he was actually dependent on it. This much is clear. But it is just as clear that he represents a unique phenomenon. Countless books were written on the same theme before and after Spener. None of them, however, even approaches the Pia Desideria in the conciseness and clarity of its thought and the grasp of its goal. . . All the ideas and all the proposals for a reform of existing conditions had been present again and again before him. . . Yet nobody but Spener was capable of putting them together in the way in which we find them in the Pia Desideria.22

The Pia Desideria contains the clearest summary of Spener’s theology. Here the parts of the book are mentioned with short representative statements which give the feeling, or flavor of the work.

Spener begins with an introduction that cautions the clergy that they will not have to answer to God for how proficient they were at winning debates,

“Instead, we shall be asked how faithfully and with how childlike a heart we sought to further the kingdom of God; with how pure and godly a teaching and how worthy an example we tried to edify our hearers amid the scorn of the world...23

Spener’s pattern of looking past the external and unimportant to the spiritual realities underlying the situation is immediately apparent.

After the introduction, the first section contains a lengthy lamentation over the condition of all three estates in German-Lutheran society. Of the first estate, the nobility, Spener complains that they do not use their governmental authority in the interest of building a Christian society.

How many of them there are who do not concern themselves at all with what is spiritual, who hold with Gallio that they have nothing to do with anything but the temporal!24

As already mentioned, the relation between the church and the state was a close one in Spener’s day, and he saw nothing wrong with this, except for the fact that the nobility were not holding up their end of the bargain.

Of the second estate, the clergy, his main critique is that they have replaced the simple and clear preaching of the gospel with a morbid interest in controversial nit-picking. One source of this is the one-sided impractical education that the clergy receive at seminary.

When men’s minds are stuffed with such a theology which, while it preserves the foundation of faith from the Scriptures, builds on it with so much wood, hay, and stubble of human inquisitiveness that the gold can no longer be seen, it becomes exceedingly difficult to grasp and find pleasure in the real simplicity of Christ and his teaching. This is so because men’s taste becomes accustomed to the more charming things of reason,25 and after a while the simplicity of Christ and his teaching appears to be tasteless. Such knowledge, which remains without love, “puffs up” (I Cor. 8:1). It leaves man in his love of self; indeed, it fosters and strengthens such love more and more. Subtleties unknown to the Scriptures usually have their origin, in the case of those who introduce them, in a desire to exhibit their sagacity and their superiority over others, to have a great reputation, and to derive benefit therefrom in the world. . .They can hardly be kept from taking to market what gives them the most pleasure, and they generally concentrate on something that is not very edifying to their hearers who are seeking salvation.”26

Finally, of the third estate, the peasants and the bourgeoisie, Spener deplores the lack of biblical morality. Examples that he focuses on include the presence of beggars and other poor who are ignored by the working Christians,27 heavy drinking and “riot,”28 and superficiality in the observance of church ordinances:

This leads many people to damnation and even strengthens a false and illusory conception of what constitutes true faith. There are many who think that this comprises all there is to christianity and thus they have done enough if they have been baptized, listen to the divine word in sermons, confessed, received the absolution, and gone to Holy Communion. 29

It is confusing to hear Spener argue against doctrinal wrangling and superficiality in a way very fit unto the modern fundamentalist church, and then turn around and attack drinking! One wonders whether he would reject or embrace modern fundamentalist churches.

Spener’s denunciation of all forms of sin is thorough. Yet he does not believe in perfectionism. In the next section of the Pia Desideria, he sets forward a vision of a reformed Lutheran church.

If one wants to seek perfection one must abandon this life for the next. There alone can one find perfection but prior to eternity we cannot hope to have it. 30

On the other hand,

Therefore he is never further away from the conceit of perfection than when he works the most zealously to achieve perfection.31

He summarizes what he would like to see,

We know full well that a wheat field can never be discovered which is so clean that not a single weed can be found in it. But rather we advance to the point that the church is nonetheless free of public scandal and no one expected with scandal is living is left in the church without grave misgivings and finally exclusion, and the true members of the church realize that the degree of perfection with much fruitfulness.32

How was the Lutheran church to correct these deficiencies? In answer to this question, Spener supplied a series of proposals in the third section of the Pia Desideria.

First, there should be more focus on knowledge of the word not only for the clergy, but also for the laity. They should be taught to read it privately, and the clergy should read it and explain it publicly.

It is in this connection that Spener brought forward two of his most dramatic and far-reaching proposals—that the church renew Luther’s emphasis on the priesthood of all believers, and that they do so through the initiation of collegia pietatis. These were small interactive meetings of lay Christians focusing on doing exposition of the Bible, admonition, and prayer. The meeting format described in I Cor. 14 was cited as the model for these meetings, which would meet in member’s homes.

. . .perhaps it would even be useful if we again brought in to being the ancient apostolic way of gathering the church together, which leads to mature thinking. In addition to the customary sermons other gatherings would be held in the same way Paul in I Cor. 13 describes them. Instead of just one getting up to teach, with will still be done at other times, others who are blessed with talents and insight would also contribute. They would present their pious thoughts which might be instructive to the rest concerning the matters discussed without disorderliness or quarreling. . .What each one contributed would be examined by the rest especially by those whose calling was teaching, as to the conformity with the intent of the Holy Spirit in the scriptures and thus the whole group would be edified.33

Spener argued that this kind of structure was necessary because the people were not learning the Bible through the customary Sunday meetings.

Now if one gathers together all the texts which have been presented in many years one after another to one congregation there will be only a small part of the scripture which has been expounded. The congregation does not hear the rest at all, or they hear only a few sayings or directives which are mention in the sermon without being able to understand their whole significance even though there is something important in them. . .The people have little opportunity to grasp the understanding of the scripture in any other way then from the text that are interpreted to them. That they even have less opportunity to use the scriptures themselves as their edification requires.34

It was also needed in order to establish what Luther had called the “Spiritual Priesthood” as a reality rather than a dead letter. This must be done because,

. . .one of the foremost reasons why the minister cannot accomplish everything and carry out what should be easy, is that he is too weak without the help of the universal priesthood of all believers. One man is not enough among so many since to just one is usually entrusted the accomplishment of everything necessary for the edification of the people under his care.35

The fourth proposal had to do with the moral lives of the people. Here, Spener calls for clear teaching and admonition regarding loving God, and one’s neighbor.

. . .when we awaken a fervent love among Christians—first for each other, then toward all mankind—both of which (love of bothers and love of mankind) must follow one another (II Pet. 1:7) - and bring it into practice. . .then almost everything we desire is accomplished.36

Changes in behavior when carrying out disputations was the fifth part of Spener’s program. He agreed with Arndt that not all disputing is useful,”37 but felt that leaders should not abandon the practice of debate altogether because,

. . .the defense of the pure truth and thus also the disputation which are part of its defense, must be maintained within the church just as much as other functions ordained for the edification of the church. Christ, the apostles, and their followers stand out as blessed examples who also disputed, powerfully refuted the opposing errors and defended the truth. On the other hand those who want to take away and condemn this necessary use of the spiritual sword of the divine Word would plunge the Christian church into the greatest danger, in as much as it should be used against false teaching.38

However, they should use loving demeanor, should give no offense, whether it be from name calling, or an unloving lack of desire to win the disputant. He thought they should realize the limitations of disputations, and should accept those from other confessions who are close enough to be Christians. Finally, the disputer should practice love and good works to back up his argument.39

The fifth proposal dealt with correcting the deficiencies in the clergy. Spener argued that the seminaries should choose only qualified students, that is, morally qualified. An effort should be made to find out what their lives were like before they were admitted. Once there, the professors should supervise the lives of students, insisting on piety in addition to scholarship.40 They should terminate partying, joking around and “rioting,” and should even give certificates from the seminary stating that the graduate was qualified to minister because of his godly life.41

He felt that disputing should be the focus of only the few in seminary, and that the others focus on knowing how to teach Christianity in German to their people. Thus, the focus of seminary would be to produce practical preachers, not idle, picky intellectuals.42

In order to school the private walk of the students, Spener recommends late medieval mystical books like Tauler, Theologica Deutsch and Thomas a Kempis, Imitation of Christ. These books, along with the Bible, are what in Spener’s mind probably made Luther who he was. Arndt’s own book is also of the sort desired.43

Finally, the sixth proposal is that existing clergy should preach sermons planned to further faith and fruit in the hearers. Like the sermons in Arndt’s Postille, for which Pia Desideria was an introduction, they should not be designed to show how knowledgeable the preacher was, but to edify. In other words, sermons should be practical, while focusing on inner change, as well as outer. No sermon should ever be devoid of application.44

At last, Spener gives a short literary and bibliographical introduction to the volume of Arndt’s sermons. He comments that, “In these spiritually enriching writings . . .he [Arndt] has directed everything to the true center, to the inner person.”45

SPENER’s Ecclesiological distinctives

When reading Spener one is confronted essentially with orthodox Lutheran ecclesiology, of the developed form then current. Spener manifests himself as a practical theologian first and foremost.46 The differences present in Spener consist primarily of different emphases and more willingness to carry doctrine further into practice than were most other Lutheran theologians of his day—further even than Luther.47

In the first place, it would be important to remember that Luther taught the definition of the true church as invisible, and made up of only true believers. At the same time, he taught that a visible church is to be recognized. The visible church is manifest through the regular gathering of the elect, and the proper administration of the ordinances—the preaching of the Word, communion, and baptism.48 At one moment Luther seems to stress the importance of the visible church over the invisible, and at another moment, the reverse.49 In the same way, Luther taught the priesthood of all believers, while also retaining a fairly sharp distinction between clergy and laity. Luther taught salvation by faith apart from works, but he retained a very strong view of infant baptism.50 Some would feel considerable contradiction is involved in these positions. Others would feel that the position reflects balance.

All of these same tensions and other kindred tensions are evident in Spener’s writings as well. Spener was concerned with the inward reality of Christianity, a concern he shared with late-medieval mystics. As such, one would expect that he would incline toward the invisible and spiritual side of Lutheran ecclesiology, but this is not strictly the case. It is likely that precisely because Spener was under fire for extremism on the side of spiritualism he stressed the importance of the visible aspects of the church, while also hammering on his own spiritualistic inward oriented agenda. Examples can be cited in each of the major areas of ecclesiology.

THE DEFINITION OF THE CHURCH

Regarding the definition of the church, Spener speaks of the preaching of the,

. . .precious and pure gospel...in which alone we must therefore recognize that the true church is visible. . .

Yet, he quickly goes on to contrast this point with his own emphasis, by pointing out that while the Lutheran church is the true visible church,

. . .we cannot turn our eyes upon it [the visible church] without having quickly to cast them down again in shame and distress. . .51

Even further, speaking of separatists who rejected the established visible church, and members of heretical churches—especially Roman Catholic—who were unwilling to join the Lutheran church because,

They consider ours to be no more the true church then any other but rather conclude all the churches are a Babylonian hodgepodge. These people conclude then, that, since no one church has any advantage over another, it would not be worth going to any one of them. Now it is true that we cannot excuse such people. . .52

On the contrary, the idea of Babylon,

. . .could be no other than Rome, the great city which has the sovereignty over the kings of the earth and indeed now with its ecclesiastical power seeks such power again in the spiritual realm since it lost its worldly power over the secular sphere.53

At the same time, he was not willing to say, as most of his contemporaries would, that such people were not Christian. He argues instead that,

. . .even in the Roman Churches, there are some who, incredible as it seems, actually recognized the Pope and his chair as the Antichrist proclaimed by God, and therefore at times let their hearts become downcast in melancholy lamentation.54

and later that,

This happens to those who hardly consider further that they would like to make a lot of Lutherans, but do not let themselves be reminded how also in other confessions there could be those who are essentially true Christians.55

Such pronouncements, harsh by today’s standards, were at that time suspicious for exactly the opposite reason. The fact was that Spener was far more liberal in his attitude toward those outside of his own confession than other theologians and church leaders of his day. Later radical Pietists tended to turn increasingly to a focus on the invisible church as the only “true” church, but Spener never turned away from the existing Lutheran definition of the church.

Church order

Probably the most radical departure in Spener’s ecclesiology had to do with the emancipation of the laity to do real ministry in the church. Spener did not challenge the Lutheran doctrines in the area of church order. Regarding the stature of the clergy he said, “I gladly acknowledge the holiness of our divine calling. . .,”56 and in The Spiritual Priesthood, which is written in the form of questions and answers, question 26 reads:

Are they [lay people] then all Christian preachers and are they to exercise the preaching office? No. To exercise the office publicly in the congregation before all and over all requires a special call. Hence, if anyone were to arrogate this to himself as a power over others, or were to encroach upon the office of the ministry, he would commit sin (Rom. 10:15; Heb. 5:4). For this reasons some are teachers and others hearers (I Cor.12:28-30), his respective duties towards each other are treated in the Table of Duties [in the catechism]. 57

In the same treatise, he explains who may administer the sacraments,

As to Baptism,. . . in a case of necessity when no minister can be had, any pious Christian may perform the Baptism. . .but as to the Lord’s Supper, no case of necessity can ordinarily arise. . .therefore this sacrament is not of the same necessity. 58

Based on these statements one would think that Spener was of the old guard—intent on preserving the prerogatives of the clergy from any encroachment by the laity. But alongside these statements are the following.

As the [Old Testament] priests were occupied with the law of God (Mal. 2:7) so also it is the office of spiritual priests [i.e. all Christians] to let the word of God dwell richly among them (Col. 3:16). This is also called their prophetic office. . . Is it proper for all christians to diligently to read the scriptures? Yes. Since they are the letter of the heavenly father to all his children, no child of God can be excluded from them, but all have both the right and command to read them (John 5:38). But would it be not better to simply believe what they hear from their preachers? No. They also are to search the scriptures, so that they may test the teaching of their preacher, in order that their faith may not be founded upon the reputation and the faith of a man, but on divine truth (Acts 17:11). Are not the scriptures too difficult for the uneducated to understand? No. For already in the Old Testament the divine word was given to instruct the simple (Ps. 19:7, 119:130), and fathers were required to teach it to their children (Deut. 6:6,7). Now the New Testament is still more clear (Rom.13:12; I John 2:8). Christ thus did not direct his doctrine to the wise and intelligent of this world, but to the simple (Mt. 11:25,26). Indeed, he who would understand Jesus must put aside all worldly wisdom and become a child (Mt. 18:3; Luke 18:17). Paul likewise, and all other apostles went forward not with high words but with the power of God which is hidden from the wise but is revealed to babes according to the inscrutable wisdom of God, who through foolish preaching put to shame the wise of this world (I Cor. 1:18-24; 2:1-5; II Cor. 1:12; 10:4,5). So also the apostles wrote their epistles for the most part to uneducated and plain people who could not have understood them by heathen science and philosophy, but who by the grace of God understood them for their salvation without these (I Cor. 1:2, 2:6-10). 59

Thus Spener argues that there are three bases for lay access to the Bible and ministry.

1. Direct biblical command.

2. The fact that the Bible is addressed to all.

3. The fact that all Christians have the Holy Spirit, who alone can interpret the Scriptures. 60

The excuse that the laity are too ignorant is rejected because if “The learned are not deterred from searching . . .although they must confess that in many places they often miss the meaning,” neither can the uneducated “be prohibited from the word,” especially since “the principle points of doctrine and rules of life are given in the scriptures so clearly and according to the letter that each uneducated person can learn and comprehend them as well as the learned.” 61

These statements would have grated hard on the average clergyman of Spener’s day. This is because such statements, along with the conventicles he started in order to actuate them, constituted a blueprint for later radical revolution. Yet, Spener was able to point out that,

Whoever wants to examine and read in detail the intent of our teacher [Luther] concerning this and what the priestly duties are should read his writing to the Bohemians on how one should choose and install the servants of the church. There one sees how splendidly it is shown that all spiritual functions are the duty of all Christians without distinction even though their usual and public performance is put into the care of those servants appointed for that purpose. In the case of need they might also be carried out by others. Those to whom the public functions do not belong always should especially be urged by all to carry out privately their priesthood at home and in the common life. 62

This is one reason Spener’s stand on lay ministry was militant. He felt that the revolution founded by Luther had been betrayed on this point. In another section of Pia Desideria he said,

Indeed a special bit of cunning of the accursed devil was that he brought into popedom the practice of giving all such spiritual functions to the clergy alone.. . .just as if it were not obligatory for all diligently to study the Word of God, much less instruct, warn, discipline, console others beside themselves. . .63

But Spener was not so radical as to remove entirely the distinction between laity and clergy. To him, the dividing line was the public versus the semi-private forum. The laity were to,

. . .do those things privately which if done publicly belong to the ministry of the church [clergy]. But it is precisely on such pure and simple things that the office of the laity depends. 64

We see here that Spener had the same aberration in his thinking that afflicted the rest of Lutheranism regarding the distinction between the assembled versus the scattered church. When scattered, different rules apply. This distinction does not square well with his attempt to introduce I Cor. 14 as the model for assembly of the church. In that passage there is no distinction between clergy and laity, but “each one” (vs. 26) or “anyone” (vs. 27) who wanted to contribute should do so. Thus, Spener’s ecclesiology was inconsistent on this point.65 Nevertheless, it is important to remember that there were definite limits to how far one could go in this direction before incurring ecclesiastical or even civil prosecution.66 His detractors saw too clearly that the door he had opened partially would be pushed open the rest of the way by radicals. The radicals saw that Spener had not gone far enough, and that his idea would be swallowed up by the established church unless a more realistic basis in the theology of the church under-girded the practice of lay ministry. The outcome of this dialectic will be covered later.

We see that Spener argued that he was teaching nothing new, and he was right. On the other hand, these were truths that were supposed to be talked about, not enacted. This set the stage for a vigorous reaction to this part of Spener’s agenda.

Spener, for his part argued that,

. . .where such teaching is unknown or not emphasized everyone is lulled into security and indolence. No one considers that this effects him, but rather everyone imagines that just as he is called to his office, trade, profession and the like, to which the minister is not called, and with which he does not occupy himself, so also the minister alone is called to the spiritual functions of handling the word of God. 67

Therefore, Spener was able to argue this part of his case practically, biblically, and from Luther’s teachings. Stoeffler claims that this part of the pietistic agenda stemmed directly from their biblicism,

It was this implicit, somewhat naive, trust in the Word, rather than in man’s words about the Word, which is also responsible for the fact that Pietists really trusted the religious opinions of theologically untrained laymen. The theory was, of course, that the Spirit of God is able to commend the truth of the Bible to men’s minds and hearts without the tortured interpretations of the professionals. Hence, to the consternation of the representatives of orthodoxy and ecclesiastical institutionalism, laymen were permitted to testify, to exhort, and even to preach. The doctrine of the priesthood of all believers was thus rescued once again from being a mere dogma and set free to exert its influence in the Church. The only requirement was that lay testimony must be Biblically based and supported in him who testifies by a life which exhibits the New Testament ethic. 68

CHURCH RITUAL

Spener was not anti-sacramental at all. Of baptism he says,

. . .I know how to praise Baptism and its power highly enough. I believe that it is the real “washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit” (Tit. 3:5), or as Luther says in the Catechism, “it effects forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and grants” (not merely promises) “eternal salvation.” 69

and of communion,

Not less gladly do I acknowledge the glorious power in the sacramental, oral, and not merely spiritual eating and drinking of the body and blood of the Lord in the Holy Supper. On this account I heartily reject the position of the Reformed when they deny that we receive such a pledge of our salvation in, with, and under the bread and wine, when they weaken its power, and when they see in it no more than exists outside the holy sacrament in spiritual eating and drinking. 70

These formulations are straight out of the standard Lutheran doctrinal literature. They constitute an assurance to Spener’s colleagues that he is an orthodox Lutheran. His point in bringing these rituals up, however, is not to affirm that they are means of grace (a position accepted by all Lutherans) but to deplore, “the shameful illusion of an opus operatum.”71 Spener’s main concern was that the Lutheran’s strong view of the sacraments was leading many to think that they were Christians, when in fact they were not.

We cannot deny—on the contrary, daily experience convinces us—that there are not a few who think that all that Christianity requires of them . . .is that they be baptized, hear the preaching of God’s Word, confess and receive absolution, and go to the Lord’s Supper, no matter how their hearts are disposed at the time, whether or not there are fruits which follow, provided they at least live in such a way that the civil authorities do not find them liable to punishment. 72

But when this is the case he warns,

It will be in vain that you comfort yourself in your Baptism and in its promise of grace and salvation if for your part you do not also remain in the covenant of faith and a good conscience or, having departed therefrom, return to it with sincere repentance. Accordingly if your Baptism is to benefit you, it must remain in constant use throughout your life. 73

and,

This is also true of confession and absolution, which we hold to be an effective means of evangelical comfort and the forgiveness of sins. It is this, however, to none but believers. Why is it then, that so many, who do not have the slightest bit of that aforementioned true faith, confess and have themselves absolved even while they remain unrepentant, as if their confession and absolution would be of benefit to them simply because they have performed an act, spoken a confession, and received an absolution? 74

Regarding taking communion without true faith,

. . .they hardly consider whether their spiritual life may be strengthened thereby, whether they proclaim the Lord’s death with their hearts, lips, and life, whether the Lord works in and rules over them or they have left the old Adam on his throne. 75

From these statements, it is already clear that Spener’s complaint was not that people were denying the efficacious power of the sacraments. He rather felt that the sacraments were being looked to in a superstitious way, and that the need for personal faith in the worshiper either was not understood, or was not emphasized. As we shall see later, however, the pietistic movement later tended to move toward resolution of the tension between formalism and experientialism at the expense of the sacraments.

CHURCH DISCIPLINE

Much of what Spener called for was connected to the idea of church discipline. His desire to see the church deal with the presence of gross sin in its membership implied that discipline would be necessary. However he felt that the church was not in a strong enough position to practice discipline, because certain prerequisites would have to first be met.

Primarily, it was the leadership of the church that needed to clean their own house, before trying to clean other’s.76 Even after the clergy were living right, it would be necessary to embark on a massive teaching offensive, to re-orient the people’s thinking before any pressure would be appropriate. To accomplish this, he supplies his usual practical suggestions for strategy.

[We should]. . .begin by putting ourselves at the disposal especially of those who are still willing to accept what is done for their edification. If everybody in his own congregation makes provision for these above all others, they may little by little grow to such a measure of godliness that they will be shining examples to others. In time, then, by God’s grace we may also gradually attract those who at present seem to be lost in order that they, too, may finally be won. All of my suggestions are aimed quite exclusively at first helping those who are tractable, at doing all that is needful for their edification. Once this is accomplished and made the foundation, sternness toward the disobedient may bear more fruit.77

Therefore, Spener does not advocate any action in the area of church discipline other than the positive appeal mentioned.

If problems were to arise in the collegia pietatis, the clergy would need to assert their disciplinary control;

And if meddling, quarrelsomeness, self glorification, and that sort of thing would creep in [to the small group meetings], they must be warded off and carefully cut out especially by the ministers who are the ones who retain the direction of these meetings. 78

It is important to remember that Lutheranism did not have a clearly spelled out doctrine in the area of church discipline, and therefore, Spener’s lack of clarity on this issue is within the tradition for which he wrote.79 On the other hand, Spener had matriculated at Strassbourg and Geneva, and scholars believe that he (and Francke after him) admired the reformed provision for church discipline.80

CHURCH FINANCE

Spener had little to say on the subject of finance in the literature available in translation. He did wonder however, whether communal sharing might not be the answer to the presence of poor in society.

Although the community which the Christians established in the early Jerusalem church was not commanded, who considers that perhaps another kind of Community of goods may not be necessary? Since I must acknowledge that I have nothing which is my own, but that everything belongs to God, and I am appointed to be a steward over it, I am not at all free to keep what is mine when and as long as I please. . .81

This suggestion takes on added importance when it is seen that the later radical pietists frequently formed Gemiende or communities, that were communal. Spener did not however try to implement this idea.

Pre-reformation sources of pietistic ecclesiology

The question of the sources of Spener’s theology has been disputed heavily, beginning in his own day. Spener himself tells us (jokingly) that anyone who tried to teach, “an earnest inner godliness would be called a secret papist, a Weigelian, and a Quaker.”82 For the most part, Spener considered himself in the mainstream of Lutheran theology. Yet most scholars see an added element in Spener’s teaching. Stoeffler states,

Early Pietism was usually content to find its place within the territorial churches, but it was invariably critical of those churches. Whether this was in Britain, the Low Countries, Germany, or elsewhere the ecclesiasticism, theologism, and sacerdotalism, the moral and spiritual superficialities which are apt to find room in all churches were uniformly deplored by the Pietists.. . .Always and everywhere these people set themselves resolutely against an easy accommodation of the Church to the world,. . .83

What element set the Pietists apart from the rest of the state churches, and gave them their critical attitude? Already it is clear that Spener and the tradition that grew out of his work consistently focused on inward spiritual reality, and deplored external “going through the motions.” This seems natural enough to any student of Scripture. However, it is important to realize that Spener learned this perspective from others.

The inward focus of Pietism, along with its insistence on recognizing authentic versus superficial practice of religion are part of the message of a school of Christianity that goes back hundreds of years before the time of Spener. It is important to understand this interpretive tradition, generally lumped together under the name “mysticism” in order to understand Spener. Spener stands for the confluence of late-medieval mysticism and orthodox Lutheran theology. 84

Mysticism is usually defined as an outlook that believes in personal direct contact with God. It is generally known by its other-worldly values, and sometimes includes a negative view of the material world. It always is unwilling to settle for plain truth—it insists on experience as well.

Thus, Stoeffler is able to say,

From the days of the apostles we find running through the history of the Church what we might call an experiential tradition. During the Middle Ages it has expressed itself in a mystical approach to the Christian life, both as that approach was found in the monasteries and in the familiar protest movements of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. In the turbulent days of the Reformation this experiential tradition exerted itself with perfectly tremendous force. 85

The thrust of mystical ideology is the idea of drawing closer to God through various devotional exercises and meditations, until a level of union with God is attained which renders the things of this world pointless and distasteful. According to Ozment,

Gerson said that “mystical theology draws its doctrine from experiences within the hearts of devout souls, just as the other two theologies [natural and scholastic] proceed from extrinsic effects.

and further that,

mystical theology, the way of love, is absolutely superior to scholastic theology, a way traversed only by those with university education. . .it is also a knowledge in which even young girls and simpletons can excel. 86

Because of the emphasis on experience, the mystical writers were often expressly anti-intellectual. Thus Vincent of Auggsbach (d. 1460) writes,

“In the practice of mystical theology, to ascend in ignorance. . .is the unique and definitive foundation of this art.” 87

The early Christian mystics included many in the Monastic movement. Indeed, the monastic movement has always been rich in its contribution to mystical theology. In this connection, it is important to realize that monasticism itself has usually been a form of protest against the worldliness of the established church. The early impetus to monasticism was the incorporation of Christianity into the Roman state. With 80% of the population of the empire “converting” within just a few years, it was easy to feel that the true practice of Christianity was impossible among such a sea of nominal so-called Christians.88

Toward the end of the medieval period, other protest groups began to appear with increased frequency. Peters describes these movements,

Valdes and Saint Francis at the end of the twelfth century are the archetypes of the Reform heretic and the Reform saint; the Waldenians, the Apostolics, the Lollards, the many other sects, bear the marks of Reform Dissidence, as of course do Luther and Zwingli. . . Reformists from the eighth to the twelfth century shared certain common characteristics. First was their emphasis upon simplicity and purity and their desire to return to the virtuous life of the golden age of apostles and martyrs. With this went a belief that purity was a sign of authority. Authority derived from God, particularly from God the Holy Spirit , and the presence of the Holy Spirit was evidenced by the cleanliness of the temple [body] in which He dwelt. Sectaries who lead a pure life, therefore, much more clearly possessed authority than did the often corrupt hierarchy. The marks of such authority were poverty, simplicity, and purity. The authority of the Spirit was thus raised over visible authority. . . 89

Protest has so frequently been associated with mysticism that one realizes there must be a reason within the genius of the idea itself that leads to protest and dissent. It is true that once the individual believes he/she has direct access to God, compliance with human authority can no longer be guaranteed. According to Ozment, the mystical writings, “set forth what can fairly be called the latent revolutionary possibilities of the Christian religion.” This is because mysticism “fed on the de facto possibility of the exceptional, on God’s freedom to communicate immediately with men. . ..” 90 As a result, medieval mystical writings uniquely contain the raw material of dissent. . ..” 91

Peters gives similar reasons:

Devotion to the Holy Spirit has often not occupied a central position among Catholics, perhaps for the very reason that the emphasis upon internal illumination which it involves is so dangerous to the church. With their emphasis upon the internal illumination of the Spirit, the Reformists were, ironically enough, moving away from the practice of the primitive Church, with its strong sense of community, and toward the Protestant ideal of the individual alone with his god (sic). Both the medieval dissidents, and later the Protestants frequently labored under the misconception that the earliest Church preferred individual to community worship.

The individualism of the dissenters, however, together with the courage of their refusal to conform to the norms of society, led them in their simple way back in the direction of a true understanding of Pauline faith. As the Church had developed, it had confounded two concepts that originally had had different denotation, faith and belief. Whereas to Paul faith was essentially an action, an affirmation of the whole being, and existential throwing of oneself upon God with abandon, to the Church it gradually became an unqualified affirmation of certain intellectual proposition. Thus faith came to mean a degree of belief, of intellectual assent. Lack of sophistication is certainly not to be praised in itself, but the simple courage of the dissidents which enabled them to feel an “ultimate concern” put them close to a Pauline idea of faith which had been somewhat neglected. 92

Anyone who has read Spener quickly recognizes some of these motifs. Indeed, Spener himself believed that the late medieval mystics needed to be re-introduced into the theology of the church.93 It is the acknowledged added element present in Spener’s theology.

In his treatise “On Hindrances to Theological Studies,” he explains his view of the mystics.

Earnest and upright men complain that philosophical errors, particularly Platonic errors, have entered into mystical treatises and that these errors have contaminated a matter which in itself is praiseworthy. I am assured that in the dark ages of the papacy there was present in mysticism, however, more power and light than in the thorny polemic scholastic theology which spoke little to the heart. I doubt that Luther owed as much to any scholastic as he did to Tauler and similar writers. . . .in their speculations, the mystics many times fell into a certain enthusiasm, that is, the fantasy of direct divine revelation. But, just as one does not cast aside gold, silver, or precious stones if they are covered with filth, but cleanses them and according to the proverb does not throw the baby out with the bath water, in a like manner according to this principle one ought not to move against mystical theology. . . .Dogmatics is customarily directed to designate what is true and correct. . .Mysticism, on the other hand, is not satisfied with mere knowledge. It takes the whole mind and all the powers of the soul into its realm and, in these, wishes to establish once again the divine image. It stresses practical purification, illumination, and union with God.. . .the teacher of dogmatics is preeminently and always concerned with the formation of understanding, whereas the mystic is concerned more with the formation of the will. . . A pious reader will discover thoughts, counsels, and observations in the works of Tauler, Kempis, Gerson, the author of the German Theology, and other writers of this kind of book. Their style of writing, in spite of its simplicity and even if it is not especially learned and sophisticated, does move and grasp the heart. . . Anything that is in these books which arises out of the the papal filth and the errors ascribed to Platonism can be noted and avoided without difficulty by anyone who understands our true doctrine.94

Here we see a very positive point of view toward even the pre-Lutheran mystics. This should not be surprising, since he says later, “The person who wishes to travel this path will find, among others, a preeminent guide in Johann Arndt.”95

Arndt represents the ideal that Spener consciously followed. Therefore Stoeffler is able to say, “The father of Lutheran Pietism is not Spener but John Arndt.”96 It is likely that one person who would not argue with this verdict is Jacob Spener. Aland says Spener’s “entire Pia Desideria breathes the spirit of Arndt.”97

Spener’s effort to draw the best from mystical theology without the life-denying platonism can be seen in his “Meditation on the Suffering of Christ.” He rejects the medieval notion of so empathizing with the suffering of Christ that, “. . .he must suffer and empathize with Christ in his great suffering or weep over him and his suffering.”98 Instead, he urges the hearer to consider the reason for the suffering of Christ (one’s own sin) and feel sorrow for that. He says one should reflect on the sufferings of Christ through the Scriptures, baptism, and communion, while considering the meaning of each.99 These suggestions would have been viewed as carnal and earthly by most of the radical mystics.

Here Spener demonstrates that he, like Arndt, stands on the reformation side of the issue. As Oberman explains,

The deep chasm between a medieval mysticism intent to mobilize all human resources for the ascent to God and Luther’s discovery of the priority of the descent of God, overcoming man’s highest aspirations and received by faith, is not to be denied. But the fascination with Johann Arndt and the lasting significance of his [book] True Christianity are due to the harvest of medieval spirituality so staunchly harnessed by the insights of the Reformation. . . 100

Instead of man attaining union with God through discipline, Arndt and Spener held that man’s role was to appropriate the union that already existed. Stoeffler says, “The central theme of Arndt was not that of union. For that reason he ought not to be referred to as a mystic. [His emphasis] was that of the new life, an emphasis which is of the very essence of Pietism.”101 Yet he goes on to describe Arndt’s contribution as, “the fusion of a dynamic kind of Christ mysticism with a profound moral concern within the Lutheran tradition.” 102 Ensign disagrees,

Arndt’s works are essentially mystical. His great indebtedness to Tauler, [Thomas a Kempis’] The Imitation of Christ and the German Theology is clearly evident. He strove, however, to remain ecclesiastically acceptable, and characterized himself as being content with the mediocre in the mystical realm. 103

Another key distinction that should be kept in mind is the relation of the mystic to revelation. One watershed and litmus test for allowable mysticism according to Spener is the question of whether mystics were interested in adding mystical experience to Bible study as a means of knowing God, or whether they were trying to replace the Bible with experience as the final authority.104 These latter, Spener would refer to as “enthusiasts” and would have rejected. So too would most (but not all) of the leaders in the later radical pietistic movement.

In Spener’s case, it was not his intention to subsume the Scriptures under the higher standard of mystical religious experiences. Rather it was the Holy Spirit that he wanted to add to the study of the Scriptures. Citing Luther with approval he wrote,

The Scripture. . .is a book which is not given over solely to reading, but also to the proper exegete and revealer, namely the Holy Spirit. Where the Spirit does not open the Scripture, the Scripture is not understood even though it is read. 105

Thus the modern critic must admit that many of the most serious complaints raised against mystical theologians, including some of those who believed themselves to stand in Spener’s tradition (like Schleiermacher) do not apply to Spener.

This still does not rule out the possibility that Spener was himself an enthusiast. Heyd explains what enthusiasts were:

. . .‘enthusiasm’ was primarily a derogatory label, not a neutral designation of any homogeneous group in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries. It was applied to a broad and diversified spectrum of movements and individuals: to radical sectors such as the German Anabaptists, the English Quakers or the Dutch collegiants, to Millenarian movements like the Fifth Monarchy Men in England to the French Huguenot Prophets who spread in Europe from Southern France after 1700, but also to more loosely defined movements like the Puritans in England or the Pietists in Germany. . . .The most common connotation of ‘enthusiasm’ had to do with claims to direct divine inspiration, prophetic power or special revelations. Such claims, whose individualistic and private character was often stressed, were set against the values and verities passed down by sacred texts (Scripture), tradition and institutions (the Church). 106

When Spener put the question of the presence of enthusiastic elements in mystical literature squarely, his response is indirect. At one point he calls it a “fantasy”, as already noted. Later though, he does not respond directly to the question of enthusiasm, but rather says,

One must only note that our formula of concord rejects the enthusiastic doctrine. It states “ancient as well as modern enthusiasts have taught that God converts a person through his spirit and brings him to saving knowledge of Christ without any created means of instrument, that is, without external proclamation and hearing of the Word of God. . .Further, “enthusiasts are those who await a divine revelation of the Spirit and despise the preaching of the divine Word.”

But, he adds,

[it is not wrong if one]”. . .reads the mystical writings and according to their counsel he observes, . . .and endeavors to fulfill those actions which the divine Spirit brings forth in his heart through the Word. . . .An enthusiast is the person who wishes to uphold, out of his own inner revelation, this or that dogma which is not to be found in the Holy Scripture. 107

Here Spener’s definition of enthusiasm is much more narrow than that which would have been acceptable to most orthodox at that time. In the view of most, it would not be necessary for the enthusiast to try to establish a new dogma. It would also be considered enthusiasm if a Christian claimed to have been given a direct word regarding what he should do that day for instance. Here it seems likely that Spener did accept certain kinds of enthusiasms.

We note that he does not directly state his own position on the question in the quote cited above, he merely quotes the Formula of Concord.

Ensign points out that The practice of Daumeln, (Thumbing) became a favorite one in Pietist circles, Spener himself having determined God’s will this way when he moved to Dresden. 108 In one of his letters, he counselled a friend not to make mention of his views about “the inner speaking of God with the soul,” for those pearls should “not be thrown before swine, which step on them and seek to tear us apart because of them.”109

Ensign affirms that Spener would not deny the possibility of “special revelations,” but only insisted that they must be conformable to scripture.110 This, according to the use of the word then current, made Spener an enthusiast. Given such a position, it is not surprising that “enthusiastic” occurrences “became acute, if not epidemic, from 1691 on in the collegia pietatis.”111

This raises the very important question of German mystical sources that both Spener and Arndt refer to often and themselves depended on. We will survey the main pre-reformation sources acknowledged by them, and the post reformation mystical sources which may have been used to a greater or lesser degree.

Pre-Reformation mystics:

Thomas a Kempis--

Kempis was born near Dusseldorf in 1379 or 1380. He may have been the author of the famous devotional book, The Imitation of Christ.112 He was an Augustinian monk who was involved in developing what historians refer to as the ‘New Devotion’ in Germany during the fourteenth century. Although he wrote on many subjects, all of his writings were “pervaded by the devotional spirit.”113 Spener does not cite Kempis in the works in translation, but he does refer favorably to several times, as seen. Tauler, Theologia Deutsch, and Arndt definitely depend on the Imitation to varying extents.

Meister Eckhard--

He was a benedictine teacher who eventually went to pantheistic extremes in his speculations. Eckhard was born around 1260, and was friar preacher in Strassbourg from 1314 to 1320. It is clear that Tauler (see below) must have been influenced directly and indirectly by him. Eckhard was condemned after his death in 1329 by Pope John XXII in the Bull In Agro Dominico.114 There is little evidence that Spener or Arndt depend directly on him to any great degree. However, they drew heavily on Tauler. In Eckhard’s writings one can find both the admirable and the bizarre. For instance, his answer to the question of whether one who prefers living in isolation would not be better off in the church was,

No.. . .Those who do well, do well wherever they are, and in whatever company, and those who do badly do badly wherever they are, and in whatever company. But if a man does well, God is really in him, and with him everywhere, on the streets and among people just as much as in church, or a desert place or a cell. . .

but, he adds,

The more he regards everything as divine—more divine than it is of itself—the more God will be pleased with him. . .115

Johannus Tauler--

Tauler seems at times to be second only to Luther in the thinking of both Arndt and Spener. He stands squarely in the center of the late medieval German mystical tradition. Tauler was a native of Strassbourg, born about 1300. He became a Dominican friar, and would have heard Eckhard lecture during his student days. He was a strong preacher who was usually in distress over the moral life of the people, including the clergy. He became so disillusioned by the 1350’s that he said “If I had known what I now know I should have lived on my inheritance and not on alms.”116 Erb points out that, “Long before scholars decreed the mutual exclusion between “Reformation” and “mysticism”, Luther himself had ingested and incorporated into his own thinking the sermons of Bernard of Clairvaux, the biblical piety of his spiritual director Johannes Staupitz, and the meditations of Johannes Tauler. . .” _ Some examples of typical sentiments expressed by Tauler in his sermons are:

Man must do his part and rise from every thing that is not God, away from himself and all created things. And as he rises, the depth of his soul is seized by a powerful longing to be denuded and freed from everything that separates it from God. . .They have to abandon their presumptions and arrogant ways and begin the strenuous work of self-denial. . . 117

They [The truly spiritual] are raised to a supernatural, a divine level, and none of their work is ever done without God. And if one may dare to utter it, they themselves no longer work, but God works in them. How blessed they are! They are the lofty pillars of the universe, on whom rests the weight of the whole world. To find oneself in such a state - what a glorious and joyful thing that would be.

External works are of no avail to them, of none whatsoever, Does not the word “surge” mean arise? That indeed is a work. It is the one work necessary, and they should perform it without ceasing as long as they live. A man can never reach perfection unless he wishes to arise, lift up his spirit to God, and free his innermost ground. 118

But what it is that He does in those depths of the soul which have been touched by Him directly, no one can say. Nor can any man tell another, and even he who has experienced it must remain silent. For where God truly takes possession of the soul, all external activity ceases, but the interior perception of God mightily increases. 119

The imatatio Christi motif are evident, “And furthermore, since God, Our Sovereign Lord and Father, suffered such great indignities and so many torments, all those who would like to be counted among His friends should be glad to suffer with Him. . .120

The theme of union, and the use of paradoxes are common, “No one can understand these distinctions better than those who have gone beyond distinctions and have attained unity. This state is called and indeed is an unfathomable darkness, and yet it is the essential light. It is and is said to be an incomprehensible and solitary wilderness, for no one can find his way there, for it is above all ways, above all modes and manners.” 121

Theologia Germanica (German Theology)

This anonymous work dates from the fourteenth century. The treatise quotes Tauler, although some continued to believe that Tauler was actually the author. Certainly, the thinking is similar. The themes of the work are the same as all late medieval mysticism, “Reinigung, Erleuchtung, Und Vereinigung” (purification, illumination, and union). It calls for the removal of Adam’s “ich und sein mich und sein myr (sic) und sein mien” (Adam’s “I” his “myself” his “me” and his “mine.”). The book was published with an introduction by none other than Martin Luther in 1515 and again in 1518. It will be seen that two years before the 95 theses were posted, as well as after, Luther was deeply affected by this tractate.122 It was used and praised by Karlstadt, Hanz Denck, Sebastian Castillio, and Valentin Weigel, all important players in the sixteenth century. It was a basic and widely used document for Anabaptist theology and ethics.124 John Calvin condemned it as the poison of the Devil, and Pope Paul V placed it on the Index of Forbidden Books, where it remains today.125 Spener and Arndt both mention it often, as do Francke and later pietists. Luther said in his 1515 edition of the German Theology that the work, “does not drift on the surface like foam on water but is issued forth from the depths of the Jordan. . .” He also speculates that the author could be none other than Tauler himself. 126 Spener quotes Luther’s comment that “. . .neither in Latin nor in German have I found theology purer and more beneficial, which also agrees with the gospel.” 127 In a typical passage the author prays, “that we may thus deny and renounce ourselves, and forsake all things through God, and die to our own self-will, and live unto God alone and to his Will. . .128 One can see some of the problems with this kind of work from the section on what the ultimate goal for the believer is;

“But what is that one thing? I answer: It is the Good—or that which has become good—and yet neither this good nor that, which we can name, or know, or show; but it is all good, and above all good. Moreover, it need not to enter the soul, for it is there already, only it is unperceived. When we say we should come to it, we mean that we should seek it, feel it, and taste it. And now since it is One, unity and singleness is better than manifoldness. For blessedness lies not in much and manifoldness, but in One and oneness. 129

Heinrich Suso--

Heinrich Suso illustrates some of the difficulties that a mystical outlook can lead to. He was born around 1300 and entered the Dominican monastery at the age of 13. During a ten year period of strict seclusion in the Dominican friary, Suso practiced severe bodily discipline. “He wore a hair shirt and an iron chain. His under-garment had leather straps and iron nails with sharp points. He had a girdle round his neck to which his hands were fastened so that he could not scratch his sores at night. He put on leather gloves studded with spikes. He fixed a wooden cross to his back with iron nails in it. An old disused wooden door served as his bed and he had no bed-clothes except in winter when he threw an old coat over himself. For a long time he ate only once a day; he abstained from wine and at times drank nothing all day, suffering tortures of hunger and thirst.”130 His first work, The Book of Truth, was a defense of Eckhard’s teachings, which he knew well. He was prior of the Dominicans in Constance for many years. At the age of 40, he gave up asceticism for good, and entered the state of Gelassenheit (resignation).131 Selections of his material can be read in translation in The Library of Christian Classics.132 The villain in the sixth chapter of his The Little Book of Truth, reminiscent of so much of Spener and Arndt’s criticism, is the “wildman” who is “skilled in words, but unpracticed in works, puffed up with pride and vanity.”133

Post Reformation Sources of Pietistic Ecclesiology

We are not as sure about the post reformation sources on the mystical side. Luther, through Dannhauer and Arndt have already been mentioned as influences for Spener. On the mystical side, there are several others who may have contributed to Spener’s thought.

Jacob Boehme--

Boehme was an unlearned, but intelligent cobbler. In his youth he often fell into trances, sometimes for days, in the manner strikingly similar to shamans in oral societies. Then as a young man, he had a decisive vision in which he was enlightened once and for all. During his enlightening vision His own personal spirit united, “with the innermost Birth in God and stood in the Light.” He discovered that “God goes clean another way to work” than by the way of reasoning or of sense experience - “instead of waiting for man to climb up to Him, He climbs up into man’s soul.” 134 Jones says of Boehme, “His Way of Salvation [focused] . . .upon the native divine possibilities of the soul, . . .and upon the necessity of personal and inward experience as the key to every gate of life. . .Christianity, [is]. . . not “history” . . .it is an experience in which the soul finds itself “at the top of Jacob’s ladder,” and feels its life in God and God’s Life in it in an ineffable Love-union. . ..135 According to Ensign, Boehme conceives God, in Himself, as being the Ungrund (non-reason). Faith is not a mere assent to certain “opinions” (Meinungen) much less accepting an “imputed” righteousness, while remaining a “brute.” Boehme “never tires of insisting that the restoration can come only by a process of Life, not by a ‘scheme’ of theology. . .Heaven and hell are present everywhere.” 136 A man, he says, must die wholly to self-hood, forsake it and enter again into the original Nothing, - the eternal Unity in which nothing is willed in particular,- before God can have His way with him; only then, “Christ is born and lives in our Nothingness.” 137 Regarding ecclesiology, Stoffer explains that, “Boehme was dissatisfied with Lutheran Orthodoxy and its bias toward ex opere operato interpretations of the efficacy of the Word and Sacraments. He felt that such traditional theological formulations were actually obscuring the Christian message. Jones says, “He dislikes, as much as did the English Quaker, George Fox, the custom of Calling “stone houses” churches. . .His attitude toward outward sacraments consistently fits in with all his central teachings. The outward, for Boehme, . . .can always be used as a parable or symbol of something inner and eternal. But the outward is at best only temporal, only symbolic, and it becomes a hindrance if it is taken for the real substance of which it is only the outward ‘signature’” 138 Stoffer adds that