| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
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.
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:
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. . .
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).
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).
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.
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
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.
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
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 Gemeinde or communities, that were communal. Spener did not however try to implement this idea.
