spener- continuing the reformation (the covenant quarterly, 38 no 1 feb 1980, p 13-22)

7/26/2019 Spener- Continuing the Reformation (the Covenant Quarterly, 38 No 1 Feb 1980, p 13-22).

1/11

PHILIPP JAKOB SPENER: CONTINUING THE REFORMATION?

Wilda w. Morris, Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Chicago.

Philipp Jakob spener, the leader the severteenth-^enturyGerman peitist movement, has been quoted as having said:

I cnuld not permit myself the folly of appearing as areformer of the Church; 1 realize my own weakness and that 1 have not the wisdom or power. Let me be

satisfied that 1 may be among those who help en-courage the reformation which the Lord intends.Though Spener was well aware that reformation of Churchwas work of Lord and not of men,2 he did not considerhimself w o h y to be classified with ^ blessed instru-ment of God.3

Spener clearly thought that Lutheran Reformation had notbeen brought to completion as one might hope.4 Throughout his

Pi Desiderio he made it clear that Reformation had boggeddown. We are stuck fast in Babel as much as Roman Churchis, and therefore we cannot boast of our w^drawal from it.5Although Spener disclaimed

title of reformer, his followersearly began to view him as L e e r s successor,

man who wasto complete Reformation.^

Spener became leader of pietistic movement largely asa result of

publication, in 1675, of Pa Desiderio, stoefflerbelieves

this book adequately sums up

essence of whatSpener thought and hoped to accomplish.7. In it, Spener present-ed six proposals for changes in Church. The purpose of thispaper is to examine each of six proposals in light of claim that they aim at a continuation or completion of L^hers Ref-ormation.

The first suggestion which Spener made for effecting a need-ed reform of Church a more extensive use of Word ofGod among us.0 Already in his critique of Church he hadspoken of

need to let

Word penetrate life.

LUTHER SPENERSurely a person can preach Again, you hear Word of


2/11

Gods Word is hoiy and sancti- and out the other?

the torm-fies everything it touches.. . . er, then the words of the Lord

in Luke 11:28 appiy to you:Wherever, therefore, you hear Biessed are those who hear

or see this word preached, be- the word of God and keep it. Iflieved, confessed, and acted

latter, then the work ofupon,

^

do not doubt

hearing will not save you butthere must be a tri e ecclesia increase your condemsancta catholica.. . nation.. .

Despite

similarities in

potations, there are differ-enees in emphasis between

^ ^ and Spener. It would appear,for example, ^ Spener more nearly limited concept Wordof God to

Scrituresthan

did Ltiher.12Spener highlighted

importance of doing

Word. Thisidea is implicit in much of what Lu&er wrote, but ^ ^ did notpush it. B taught t Word of God which sanctifies musttouch heart and be acted upon.

The diligent use of Word of God, which consists not onlyof listening to sermons but also of reading, meditating, and dis-cussing (Psalm 1:2), must be chief means for reforming some-thing.. . In making this point, Spener ^oted , whoalso urged greater use of

Scripture.Spener believed he was calling for rintroduction of an

ancient and apostolic kind of church meeting when he made acautious recommendation (1 set this down for further and moremature reflection) for extension of concept of collegio pie-tatis, or conventicles, which he had already instituted at Frank-fort.15

Stoeffler understands

collegia pietatisin light of Spenerspresbyterial convictions. Spener, according to stoeffler, wasconvinced that early church had a more Presbyterian form of

government, and regretted &the -church had not reinstated it. He never d^red, however*, to advocate an actual change in L e e r n polity.*^ The collegia pietatis, which might be in parta substitute for presbyteries, Stoeffler believes, was borrowedfrom pietists of Reformed territories where Spener hadtraveled.1

Leonard traces

idea of conventicles ^

,^

Bucer.l It is ^ in 1526, wrote of an instituti^ which a truly Fvangelical Church Order should have, which

would meet in homes to pray, read, baptize, receive Sacra-ment, and do 0

Christian works. These groups would be com-d f l Ch i ti h f G l ith h d


3/11

ners collegia pietatis were not to baptize and receive the sac-raments, for he was adamant that they not repiace the institutional Church.

Spener was in agreement with Luther that church member-

ship does not make true Christians.20 Luther distinguished thepurely external Church from the natural, essential, real andtrue one . . . a spiritual, inner Christendom.2* Spener insistedthat the Luthe^n church was a true church, and even its teach-ing was pure,22 but declared that there were many even amongthe clergy who neither understood nor practiced true Christian-ity.23

Nevertheless, the collegia pietatis were not meant ta be ameans to separate true Christians from others and of imbuing theformer with a Pharisaical self-image. They were meant ta be2the leaven in the loaf, the source of reformation, recalling all mem-bers of the Church to true Christianity. The purposes of the col-legia pietatis,as Spener outlined them, would be (1) to allow for anexchange of insights (even laymen can sometimes instruct the pas-tor); (2) to encourage the asking of questions; (3) preachers couldlearn to know members of their congregations as persons and thusbe better able to perform pastoral functions; and (4 the pedplecould experience personal growth and be better prepared to givereligious instruction to their children and servants.25

Luther was not inclined to push for the development of con-venticles or house churches because he lacked manpower to or-ganize and administer such a program. There is also implicit in hiscomments a distrust of the common man, which may have been fos-tered by the ?easants Revolt. Luther wrote of the conventiclescheme:

If 1 should begin it by myself, it may result in a revolt.For we Germans are untamed, crude, boisterous folkwith whom one ought not lightly start anything except

under the compulsion of a very great need 20Spener was perhaps less distrustful of the masses, although hewas quite disappointed with some of the results of the conventicleihovement. It was especially distressing to him that some membersof his conventicle in Frankfurt became, for a time, separatists.

Spener was well grounded in Luthers writings. It seems un-likely that he knew of Luthers discussion of the ^ouse church,since he makes no reference to it. He did, however, tael that theconventicle would be an appropriate means of accomplishing

some of the goals of Luthers Reformation which had not yet been achieved.


4/11

first proposal; the collegia pie tat is can be seen as a means to imple-ment the priesthood of believers.

The presumptuous monopoly of the clergy, alongside theaforementioned prohibition of Bible reading, is one of foe principal

means by which papal Rome established its power over poor Chris-tians. . .29 Here Opener clearly reflected Luthers attack on foewalls of foe Romanists, in which foe reformer argued againstfoe supremacy of the spiritual estate and papal infallibility,which made the pope sole authority on foe interpretation of Scrip-ture.30 spener was careful, as was Luther, to point out that al-though all Christians are priests, certain officii actions should beperformed only by those appointed fo do S0.31 Either man couldhave said, 1never wanted more than that all Christians should be

priests. It was perhaps not surprising that the Lutheranchurch was in dire condition when foe so-called laity ^as been made slothful in those things that ought to concern it. Spenerwas truly calling for a completion of Luthers work in urging thatthis concept be given hfo and reality in foe churches.

I llThe third element in Speners reform program was a call to a

life of brotherly love. The people must have impressed upon themand must accustom themselves fo believing that it is by no meansenough to have knowledge of the Christian faith, for Christianityconsists rather of practice.34 Luther probably would not havebeen pleased with foe way foe dichotomy was worded. For him,Christianity consists not in knowledge of the Christian Faith(though it had largely become that for Lutherans of the seven-teenth century}, but in faith itself. Christianity for Luther did notconsist primarily of practice, for that would smack of salvationby works. Nevertheless, good works issue from faith. Luther couldhardly conceive of true faith, rightly understood, not bearing fruit

in practice, Unlike Spener, he felt that the true Christian wouldautomatically respond fo foe occasion by daing what w^s calledfor, and thus had no need of a teacher of good works.33

Spener was aware of a divergence between Luthers thoughtand his own at this point. He is quoted as having said that, due tofofferences between sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, weneed not speak so much against works. Lutherans of his daydid not believe they could be saved by their works; the temptationwas rather in the opposite direction.

There are implications of the need for what Americahs termpiety in this third proposal, and certainly spener did emphasize th d f ifi l f d i it l i b t


5/11

IV

Spener considered his fourth proposal to be closely related tothe third, because it also rests on love. We must beware howwe

conduct ourselvesin religious controversieswith unbelievers andheretics.39 Christians owe to erring 8 prayer, good exam-pie, moderation, and even love. To insult or wrong an unbelieveror heretic on account of his religion would be not only carnal zeal but also a zeal is calculated to hinder his conversion.^9 Luihers caustic sarcasm and name-calling reflect a less-gentlemanlyapproach! Even Luther, however, pointed out that truth islost ...by disputing,and he recognized that disputation wasnot always helpful. Speners opposition to such disputation may

well reflect not only virulent na^re of much Lutheran-Calvin-ist conflict, but also fact such polemic was so f lu e n t ly brought into the pulpit.

Spener and 0 ^ Lutheran pietists tended to feel a strongsense of w ^ pietists in 0 traditions, which, as?ietism gained strengt helped to soften bitterness between

^ and Reformed. While Spener was a determinedopponent of Roman ero tic is m , he considered in^vidual 0 -0 believer to be a member of invisible church.43 In many re-

spects his hfo, Spener was hurt more by his followerstaking his view to extremes (a problem which Luther also had)than by attacks of his opponents. Neve^eless, he remain consistent, and recommended a gentle handling of radicals.^3

Here Spener was confronting problems like and unlike thoseof L ^ e r . Both were engaged in controversy, but 0 na^reof controversies and of opponents were different. If Spe-ners position was not 1 /it certainly was Christian.

V

The fifth platform of Pia is aplea forreform of theologicaltraining.45 Tlie central thrust of argument is thatpiety is evenmore essential study (though^ latter is also important).Ambition, tippling, carousing, and brawling should be elimi-nated from schools in which pastors are trained. As minis-ters must take lead in reforming churches, so profos-sors should take lead here, setting a good example, exercisingdiscipline regarding students, and, where necessary, admon-ishing . Devotional books such as Theoiogia Germanica should

be recommended to sedente, and * kinds of exercises of aspiritual type should be instituted.45


6/11

and teaches the beys te understand, te sing and topractice Geds Word and the true faith, and hoidsthem te Christian discipline, then . . . schoels areyeung and ever lasting councils, which do more thanmany great councils.4'

Spener approvingly quoted Luthers statement that a man be-comes a theologian not by comprehending, reading, or speculatingbut by living and indeed dying and being damned.4

Spener further suggested the use of German in place of Latinin theological education.4We are informed that in seventeenth century Germany it was common for preachers to quote theol^gians in Latin ( other foreign with no attempt totranslate for the congregation. Spener suggested that it is difficult

for one who has had no practice in discussing theological issues inGerman to make the transition when he is preaching. This was cerâinly a worthy furtherance of Luthers work in translating theScripture into the vernacular and urging its use in that form.

Finally, Spener was distinctly modern in proposing field edu-cation. He recognized the neeôr practice in teaching, minister-ing to the sick, and preaching.

In his sixth proposal, Spener dealt directly with the sermon.Too much of preaching, he said, was an intellecfaal showcase.Our whole Christian religion consists of the inner man the newman, whose soul is faith and whose expressions are the fruits oflife, and all sermons should be aimed at this.1 This does not mean that Spener never preached on doctrinal matters,^ but heemphasized those doctrines which were relevant to the everydaylife of the Christian, not theological dispute, anti-Calvinist polemic, trivia.

Here again, Speners interests are akin to Luthers. Even be-fore 1521, Luthers preaching differed from that which was typi-cal for his age, for he put less emphasis on learned prolixity, de-pended biblical authority, and tended toward simpliity inform. After 1521, Luther put an even stronger emphasis on theBible^ with everything he said serving to expound and explain thetext. He pointed out pastoral and practical implications. The goalis always that God may speak his Word to the congregationthrough the sermon.4 It was unfortunate that Luthera^ pêacnS bod lost the vitality and relevance of Luthers sermons, spener was recalling preachers of his day to kind of relevancewbich Lu ehad exhibited, though w more emphasis on regen-


7/11

phasis on regeneration, he departed from Luthers steps. He was,neverthetess, concerned to he faithful to the tradition of the great Reformer. At one point Spener listed sixteen areas of agreement

between Luthers thought and his own.55 It ^^ be true that onsome subjects the agreement is more verbal than real, but Spenerfelt that he owed the best of my theology to Luther.55 At the same time, he did not consider Luther infallible, nor believe that hemust be blindly followed,5^ a view in which Luther would have concurred.58

As we have seen, Spener was aware of a considerable differ-ence in emphasis regarding workspiety. This he attributedto a change in the si^ation. Had Luther been living in the seven-

teenth century, he might not have gone as far as Spener did at thispoint; but spener is probably correct in suggesting that Luthprwould have stressed the fruits of faith more than he did.

Had Luther been around to critique Speners work, he mightalso have taken issue with the collegiapietotis as a means to imple-ment the priesthood of believers and the study of the Word. Especi-ally by the time that radical Pietism was resulting in separatism,Luther would likely have been ready to retract at that point, in away that Spener was not willing to do.

In other respects, Speners six proposals reflect concerns Sim-ilar to those of Luther, and probably would have won the supportof the latter had be been living.

Even in the areas where Spener separated most sharply fromLuthers thought, his proposals are not wholly inappropriatemeans for continuing (if not completing) the Lutheran Reformation.Historians are in agreement that toe Reformation had boggeddown, and toe Lutheran Church had lost its vitahty. Aland has saidthat in the lito of toe church there remains really no area whichwas not substantially advanced by Pietism.55 stoeffler suggeststhat Protestantis^ as it functions today is * apartfrom this legacy.55 It was to a large extent through toe auspicesof Spener and his followers that the laity received toe Bible, toepriesthood of believers was taken seriously, and ethics was re-stored to a respectable place in Protestant theology. Preachers be-came pastoral, sermons became relevant, and toe emphasis wasput on a vital, personal faith. In each of these ways, spener helpedto continue toe Reformation which Luther began.

ENDNOTES


8/11

4. Quoted by F. Ernest Stoeffler, The Rise o/EvangelicalPietism (Leid

en: E. j.Brifi, 1965), p. 235.

5. Spener, op. cit.,p. 69.

6. Stoeffler. op. cit.,p. 234.

7. Ibid.,p. 232.

3. Spener, op. c

, p. 37.

9. Hugh T. Kerr, ed.,A CompendofLuther's (Fhiladelphia: ?tress Press, 1947), pp. 11-12.

10. Works ofMa rtinLuther(The Philadelphia Edition, six volumes. Phila-delphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1915-1932), Vol. V, pp. 270-271. (Hence-forth, abbreviated WML.)

11. Spener, op. cit,p. 66.

12. See for instance, Luther's Works (American Edition, fifty-five vol-umes. Philadelphia: Fortress Press and Saint Louis: Concordia Pub-lishing House, 1955-1%8), Vol. 51, p. 183. (Henceforth abbreviatedLW.) In other places, Luther seems to make the same e(}uivalence,which stands behind the doctrine that the Scripture is the sole authori-ty of faith; cf. LW, Vol. 39, pp. 236 f. This limiting of the definition of

Word of Cod in the Lutheran tradition may in part be a reactionagainst the view that Jesus Christ, as Word of God, can affect faith and sanctification without the written Word. See Robert Preus, The

Inspiration of Scripture (London: Oliver and Boyd Ltd., 1955) p. 46.The Hebrew word dabar, from which the concept originally stems, hasa much broader meaning, and can be translated as word, deed, thing,matter, affair, etc.; it may refer as well to an action as to a written spoken word.

13. Spener, op. Cl*, p. 91.

14. WML, op. Cl*, Vol. I, pp. 7-9.

15. Spener, op.ct*, p. 89.

16. Stoeffler, op.ct*, p. 236.

17. Ibid.,p. 237.

18. And even before Luther, from Carldstadt via Muntzer. See Emile G.Leonard,A History of Protestantismtrans. Joyce M. H. Reid (Lon-don: Thomas Nelson. Ltd, 1965). Vol. I, pp. 78-79,197 f.

19. WML, op.ci, Vol. VI, p. 137.


9/11

23. 45

. But note that the double negative in Tapperts translation literally gives the opposite meaning to that intended, when he says,there are fewer than may at first appear who do not really under-stand and practice true Christianity. Cf. the translation by ^llen c.

eeter, in the Appendix to his dissertation: . . there are many fewertân it would appear at firstglance who properly understand and pract

ce

true Christianity. Since this wording accords with the overallthrust of Speners message it is safe to assume that Deeters transa-tion is preferable at this point. An Historical and Theological Introducti^ Phillip Jakob SpenersPia Desiderio,:A Study in Early Ger-man Pietism (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Princeton Univers

-ty, 1963), p. II, p. 19.

24. Stoeffler, op. cit.,p. 33?.

25. Spener, op. cit.,pp. 89 f.

26. WML, op. cit.,Vol. VI, p. 1?3.

27. Spener, op. ,. p. 92.

28.

f. Carlîrbt, Pietism, The New Schaff-HerzogEncyclopedia ofRe-ligious Knowledge (êw Funk and Wagtails Company, 1911),Vol. IX, p. 55.


30. WML, op. ' .Vol. II, pp. 65-76.

31 DW, op. cit.. Vol. 39, p. 233. Spener, op.' , p. 94.

32. LW, op. Cl

., Vol. 39, p. 233.

33. Spener, op. p. 93.

34. / , p. 95.

35. LW, op. .Vol. 44, pp. 23-26.

36. Deeter, op. .p. 73.

37* Spener,

. cit , especially pp. 57-62; cf. WML, op. .Vol. V, pp.287-288, where Luther urges a pious life.

38. Spener, op. } . .p. 71

39. / .p. 96

40. / p. 99.

41 Ib d 100


10/11

44. Especially h

s interest in converting Jews and treating them as neigh-bors.

45. spener, op. cit.,pp. 103-115.

46. Probably similar to the listings 0such exercises common in the Puri-tan Pietistic movement. See Stoeffler, op. cit.,pp. 58 ff.

47. WML, op. cit.,Vol. 5, pp. 297 f.


49.Ibid., pp. 109 f.

50. Tapperts translation includes this as part 0 the sixth proposal,

whereas Deeter considers it the end of the fifth. This suggests that thechapter subdivisions in both were added by the translators, and arenot part of the original, spener, op. cit.,p . 5 )eeter, op. cit.,p.II, p.98.

51. Spener, op. cit, p. 116.

52. Thus his 67 sermons on regeneration. See Martin Schmidt, Pietism,The Encyclopedia / the Lutheran Church (Minneapolis, Minnesota:Augsburg Publishing House, 1965), Vol. Ill, p. 1899.

58. John w. Doberstein, Introduction to Volume 51, LW, op. cit, Vol.51,p . XV11.

54. Ibid.,p. xviii.

55. Deeter, op. cit.,pp. 69-71.

56. Ibid.,p. 68.

57. John T. McNeill, Modern Christian Movements (Philadelphia: TheWestminster Press, 1954), p. 55.

58. WML, op. cit.,Vol. V, pp. 7 f.

59. Quoted by F. Ernest Stoeffler, Pie tism -It s Message, Early Mani-Gestation, and Significance, Covenant Quarterly, XXXIV (Febru-ary/May, 1976), p. 15.

60. Ibid.,p. 16.


11/11

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may priut, dow nload, or send artieles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international eopyright law and asotherwise authorized under your respective ATT,AS subscriber agreement.

No eontent may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without thecopyright holder(s) express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be aviolation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS eollection with permission

from the eopyright holder(s). The eopyright holder for an entire issue

ajourna!

typieally is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,

for certain articles, tbe author ofthe article may maintain the copyright in the article.

Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific

work for any use

covered by the fair use provisions o f tbe copyright laws or covered

by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the

copyright hoider(s), please refer to the copyright iaformatioa in the journal, i f available,

or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions o f previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS

collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association

(ATLA) and received initia

funding from Liiiy Endowment !)

.

The design and final form ofthis electronic document is the property ofthe American

Theological Library Association.

spener- continuing the reformation (the covenant quarterly, 38 no 1 feb 1980, p 13-22)

Documents