| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
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
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
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.123 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.124 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. 125 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." 126
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. . .127
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. 128
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."129
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).130 Selections of his material can be read in translation in The Library of Christian Classics.131
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."132
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." 133
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. . ..134
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." 135 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." 136
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'" 137
Stoffer adds that "It was this critical attitude toward the external church that supplied Boehme and those influenced by him with the motivation for ecclesiastical separatism."138
Interestingly, Jones points out that Boehme wrote some portions using automatic handwriting. ". . .the portions of his voluminous writings which bear the mark of having been written as automatic script - by "this hand," as he often says - are the chaotic and confused portions, full of monotonous repetitions, of undigested and indigestible phrases and the dreary re-shufflings of sub-conscious wreckage."139
Most scholars feel that the Pietistic movement was influenced by Boehme (1575-1624), especially the later radical pietists. This is surprising, because Boehme went beyond mysticism to theosophy.140 We do know that Spener vigorously defended the right of some pietist preachers not to sign a denunciation against "False philosophers anti-scripturals, lax-theologians and other fanatics, namely Jacob Boehme. . . etc." that was issued by Mayer, an anti-pietistic theologian. 141 He also refused to condemn Boehme's material with the excuse that he had neither read him enough nor understood him sufficiently to give an opinion.142 This excuse seems implausible for one who took as much interest as Spener in what was happening in Christianity.143
Some scholars argue that the radical pietists had Boehme as their primary influence, and even even some of the churchly pietists were heavily influenced by Boehme. Although no scholars surveyed seriously resist this thesis, the actual evidence for the belief was not presented in translation, other than coincidental views on the church, and certain other mystical-spiritualistic themes.
Indeed, there seems to be a likely connection between Boehme's critique of the established church and the views of the radical pietists. But even here, unless a direct literary dependence is demonstrated, it seems possible that they may have arrived at the same position without much help from Boehme. There were certainly many others holding similar views to Boehme who did not depend on him at all.144 This goes as well for the mystical elements in Boehme's soteriology. In the first place, few of the distinctively Boehmist elements were demonstrated by Ensign in the writings of the radical pietists. The elements mentioned are also held in common with other sources. In fact, nature mysticism was a major undercurrent in Europe, in which Boehm stood just like the others.145 Some of his speculations seem even further from that of most of the radical pietists.
Stoeffler refers to these radical mystics of the sixteenth and seventeenth century as "proponents of the inner life." They are sometimes referred to as anabaptists, but this is incorrect according to both Stoeffler and Ozment. They all drew part of their inspiration from the same sources as Arndt--late medieval mysticism. 146
However, they all have in common the nature mysticism of their more influential colleague Boehme. Jones states that the sources for the nature mysticism of Weigel and Boehme are;
Weigel was a particularly interesting case. He lived as an apparently orthodox Lutheran pastor for his entire career, dishonestly signing the confessions of the church, although he did not believe them. Only after his death were his works published revealing that he was a theosophist!
Denck, Schwenckfeld, Franck and Weigel are important because Arndt and Spener were regularly accused of being disciples of these men. Indeed, Arndt included some of Weigel's material in his True Christianity. Orthodox pastors must have wondered whether Spener would also reveal his theosophical views after his death.148
Another controversial figure who may have influenced Spener is Jean de Labadie. Labadie was a French Jesuit trained scholar who defected to the Reformed church after studying the Institutes of Calvin. He was accepted into the reformed pastorate in 1650, and after two problematic appointments, eventually settled down in Geneva. There his fiery preaching, and his zealous call for reform in religion and morals resulted in substantial fame and notoriety. 149
Later, he moved to a reformed pastorate in Holland, first at Orange, and later at Middleberg. His reputation and his writings on asceticism, meditation, and contemplation were spread throughout Holland during this period. While pastor at Middleberg he published his Ecrit sur la prophetie (Amsterdam, 1668) [Concerning the Practice of Free Prophecy]. This was a book on the priesthood of all believers, and on the "spiritual" principle of interpretation of the Scriptures.
However, more problems arose as Labadie grew increasingly radical. He refused to follow the reformed liturgy, preferring extemporaneous prayers. His ardent circle of followers eventually became a separatistic sect. He was described as capricious and self-willed. Theologians in Utrect called him "an irresponsible visionary"150
He set about planting underground conventicles or communes devoted to pure worship of God. "Thus," says Stoeffler, "he became the father of separatistic Pietism on the Continent." 151
These groups became known as Labadists. We can place Labadists in many of the cities where later radical pietist movements sprang up. 152
It is also interesting to note that beginning in 1659 Spener spent 2 years traveling in Basil, Bern Lausanne, Geneva, Freiburg, and Tubingen. While at Geneva, he sat under Labadie. He "often went to hear him," met him personally, and later had one of his French tracts published in German. 153
Scholars debate how much influence Labadie had on Spener. Even during Spener's life his critics charged that the idea of house meetings had come from Labadie. This was an embarrassment by that time, because Labadie was already teaching radical separatism. Spener denied that Labadie had had much influence, and Kurt Aland has argued effectively that the extent of influence wielded by Labadie has been exaggerated.154 This is certainly the case when those like Schmidt, who believed that Spener "had [his book] at hand as he wrote Pia Desideria." Spener admitted that he talked to Labadie a number of times and that he, "found much that was good and edifying" in Labadie's early works. Even Deeter reluctantly admits that "it is certainly possible that Spener had imbibed some of his ideas from Labadie."155 He points out that Spener had not read any of the later separatistic Labadist literature (dating later than the time Labadie left France) but this is somewhat beside the point. More importantly, Spener stated that Labadie was not holding any home meetings during the time he knew him in Geneva.156
The quietistic groups current in Europe and England bore a remarkable similarity to Pietism in most areas, except for their anti-sacramentalism. Spener knew about the Quakers and George Fox, although he was apparently not influenced by them at all.157 Later in his life, he adopted a more favorable view toward the Quakers because of their quietistic attitude and good works.
On the other hand, critics of Spener's own time, such as pastor Roth of Liepzig wrote that the Pietists, ". . .opposed the authority of the church and that their zealous conventicles turned people away from the public worship of the church so that they even despised the preachers. This amounted to descending to the level of Quaker sectarianism." 158 Spener seemed to resent these accusations of Quakerism more than most accusations.
It seems clear that Spener did not understand Quakerism in his early days, because he thought they believed that one should follow every impulse, even if it led to sin. He also thought they had no use for the Scriptures. 159
Later, he came to have a more or less favorable view of the Quakers, but this was well after his own views were fully developed and published. Nevertheless, both his critics, and the Quakers gleefully claimed that he was one of theirs. 160
Stoeffler comments that the writings of successors to Arndt such as Stegmann and Lassenius "exhibit an excessive sweetness, a religious eroticism which tends to nauseate the modern reader." These amorous motifs, he feels, go back to the worst elements of medieval mysticism, which drew its inspiration from an allegorical reading of Song of Solomon.
He thus identifies the later followers of these thinkers as "erotic Pietism," which can be differentiated from normal Pietism because it, "had as its major aim pleasant feeling states rather than a reformed life. . ." 161
They issued in a whole tradition of eighteenth century erotic Pietists writing treatises and hymns "whose dominant theme was erotic love for Christ." 162
There is no evidence that Spener followed this strain exactly, although it would have been hard for him not to have been influenced by it at all. Some of the radical pietists may have been more influenced by this school of thought.
While at Geneva, Spener befriended the Waldensian minister Antonius Legerus, who persuaded him to study Waldensian history and teaching. This may have added to the toleration theme that Spener later evinced.
Leger's version of Waldensian history is inaccurate, claiming that they can be traced back to the time of Pope Sylvester. 163 This may have confirmed Spener's view that value could be found in the period before Luther.
By considering the available evidence--connections that Spener had while growing up, his own statements, and circumstantial evidence--we find that he was a moderate mystic-Lutheran theologian, more aware than most of other theological options then current, with all that implies. The pietistic movement that grew up around him universally bears the marks of this origin, but interpreted it differently.
Arndt and Spener stood for the confluence of the two streams of reformation theology and late-medieval mysticism. Their followers and spin-offs would tend to see those streams weighted differently--sometimes with one in ascendancy, sometimes the other. However, in most cases, little new was added.
While noting the similarities with the earlier medieval mysticism, it is essential to note the differences as well. Stoeffler notes correctly,
While in its experientialism and religious idealism it bore a certain affinity to medieval mysticism it differed sharply from that movement in its Biblicism.164
And somewhat less accurately,
What early evangelical Pietism actually endeavored to do was to preserve the experiential element in Protestantism which was so obvious in Luther as well as in Calvin. Its theology was wholly centered in the written Word, that Word having to be inwardly appropriated through the Spirit in the fellowship of the Church. Thus the tension between the subjective and the objective was resolved very much as it was in the theology of the reformers. 165
Actually, it is likely that the Pietists were substantially more subjective than the reformers were. Although Luther may have started out in a highly subjective tradition, not unlike that of Spener, he tended to grow away from that background to a greater extent than Spener. It is doubtful that Spener would have approved of Luther's life-style. Luther was guilty of fun-loving ribaldry and sometimes ate and drank to excess in a way Spener would have found difficult to justify. In short, the difference was not one of doctrine, but rather in the fact that Arndt, Spener, Francke and their followers were more restrictive than Luther was.166
One thing Spener never had in common with Luther was the actual experience of a life of ascetic self-discipline such as that lived by Suso. Luther had also indulged in considerable self flagellation and kindred disciplines. These probably would have enabled him to develop a more thorough critique of those thought systems than Spener.
