| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
Go back to the Spener table of contents
Read on to the next section in "Spener"
Ask Dennis a question or share a comment.
Go back to the Xenos home page
