# Pietism



## Myshkin (Nov 10, 2005)

I thought I'd move this for discussion.

From another thread...



> _Puritansailor_
> 
> "But perhaps we do need to hammer out some definitions regarding where the thread has now turned. I view "pietism" and "wesleyism" more in their historical origins and definitions. They focused on actual holiness and righteousness, though often caught up in some man-made rules. It would appear others here are using much looser definitions. I don't see how there is any concern for holiness in the modern church. Even in what's left over of fundamentalist circles, there is a huge emphasis on "grace" meaning anti-nomianism, than legalism. Yes they both exist together, but often one is more emphasized than the other. So I don't understand where others are coming from here when they are afraid of "pietism" or "wesleyism" at least as traditionally understood. Perhaps others could clarify how they are using these terms."









[Edited on 11-10-2005 by RAS]


----------



## Vytautas (Nov 10, 2005)

The Pietism of one generation becomes the materialism of the next. Once you disallow what God allows, then you will allow what God disallows.


----------



## turmeric (Nov 10, 2005)

In the modern church it seems that there is an antinomian notion that one does not actually have to practice Christianity unless one wants to be a "super-Christian", this notion came from 19th Century perfectionism, but it backfired. However, instruction on how to be a super-Christian continues in the popular Christian press, re-packaged as marriage & family tips: it's just that many people feel free to ignore it, not because of its confusion of law & gospel, most folks aren't even worried about that, but just because one of the tenets of this teaching is that you can safely ignore personal holiness and still get out of hell free.

I don't think the proper response to this is legalism, but re-evangelization. We must be reminded who God is, what our chief end is, what we have become, and what God has done about it. This should be presented as compellingly and accurately as God permits and empowers us to do. And this time, let's skip all the imported mysticism and gnosticism, and hold fast to the Head, who is Christ.

The problem experienced by those of us who keep harping on pietism & Wesleyanism is that we wanted to be super-Christians and couldn't. We have found that "letting go & letting God" is actually a "work", which we were led to believe has an almost "congruent merit", which causes God to bless & sanctify us. This is what we keep resisting; the idea that there is some reward attached, even if it's assurance, to trying to do right. This isn't about not wanting to have to do right, this is about wanting it to be the real thing, not some "congruent merit" thing. Most who have deliberately taken the "carnal Christian option" probably aren't well-represented on this board. My


----------



## cupotea (Nov 11, 2005)

Question:

If Wesleyanism is pietism, does that mean that Methodism more generally is Pietistic, and if so, does this make the Welsh Calvinistic Methodists (Whitefield, Lloyd-Jones [yes, I know he wasn't, strictly speaking, a Methodist, but he was certainly formed by them]) in some sense pietistic as well?

[Edited on 11-11-2005 by Steadfast]


----------



## Larry Hughes (Nov 11, 2005)

One of the best definitions of pietism I"ve ever read, not mine but excellent:

The Definition: 


"Pietism is making our love for God the main focus of Christianity, instead of His love for us." 

Exposition:

"œIt (pietism -ldh) doesn't say, "Never mind God's love," of course, nor does it deny that "We love Him because He first loved us." It's a matter of , of . It says rather, "Yes, yes, of course God loves you. That's a given. But do YOU love HIM?" It views salvation as the spark that starts the Christian eruption, the pot in which the Christian is planted so that he might start growing--but not as the continuing focus of the Christian life. It (salvation/justification/Gospel -ldh) becomes something too basic to think about, something assumed, and all the energy of the Christian life comes to be focused on growing, on perfecting ourselves, on showing God how grateful we are--and inevitably, on keeping up spiritually with the Joneses."

"œThe insidious thing, of course, is that Christian growth is good. "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed." BUT when we make "œprogress" and "œtriumph" in the Christian life our main goals, and treat the Gospel as nothing more than something we needed back at the beginning to get us launched on the Christian adventure (even if we would never "œsay" such a thing!), we unavoidably start approaching Christian growth as something we do for God--with His help of course!--instead of something that He does for us."

"œAnd then you get "œThe Purpose-Driven Life", a book that mentions salvation in one or two chapters, but whose whole purpose is to psyche you up to get out there and live triumphantly! It's no coincidence that Rick Warren explicitly says in that book that sanctification is a 50/50 proposition: us and God working together, with God willing to match us dollar-for-dollar, so to speak--to keep putting gas in the tank as long as we keep it floored."

"œAnd along with this Pietistic emphasis comes, often, a cavalier carelessness about doctrine. Christianity is about DOING, about GROWING! If you've believed on Christ at some point, you already have the faith-content part down, so what use could there be to debating Soteriology? Or understanding the Sacraments? What you lack is perfection! Get out there and start perfecting!"

"œBut Pietism isn't always careless about doctrine. Historically, the word "Pietism" refers to the kind that denigrates doctrine in favor of devotion, but contemporary Pietists quite often feel the need to learn this or that "secret of Christian living"--some new illuminating interpretation, or prayer of special value, that will help them live triumphantly (think: The Prayer of Jabez). And some people who are the most dismissive of "Pietists," and the most maniacal about understanding all doctrine just perfectly, are actually approaching Christianity in a very Pietistic way for all that, because all their focus is on perfecting their own knowledge, on making themselves more acceptable to God intellectually."

Conclusion: 

"œChristianity is about sin and redemption. It's about death and new life. It's about Good Friday and Easter. It's the news that Christ has died for us that we might live in Him. That's the essence. You can grow in Christianity, but you won't grow by leaving these things behind and going on to more advanced or more "spiritual" things. Nothing is more advanced or spiritual than that. The meat that St. Paul exhorts us to seek, leaving the milk behind, isn't something different than what came before, BUT a deeper understanding of the same thing, and of its implications for our lives. We grow by returning always to the center, owning ourselves sinners, and gratefully receiving Christ's incredible pardon. Sanctification isn't our project. He changes us. That doesn't mean we should spurn opportunities to serve and witness, or eschew spiritual disciplines. It means, rather, that we should regard all such things as medicine for our own sick souls, not as training programs designed to make us SuperChristians--or worse, forums in which to prove that we are SuperChristians already. If you're confronting your sinfulness and receiving Christ's forgiveness on a regular basis, always revisiting the Gospel, keeping THAT as your focus, it's really hard to start thinking of yourself as SuperChristian material."

Ldh


----------



## turmeric (Nov 11, 2005)

Larry, that's extremely helpful, who did you quote?


----------



## Larry Hughes (Nov 11, 2005)

Meg,

Some guy from a Lutheran/reformed board named Eric Phillips. I read it and said, "Yes, that is EXACTLY the best I've heard." I've fumbled with being able to express it so, but that captured perfectly I thought. You know how it is when you know the idea you are trying to express but you just can't find the words to make "sing". When I read his exposition of the definition I said, "YES! That's IT!"

Larry


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 12, 2005)

I looked up pietism in the _New Dictionary of Theology_, here are a few tidbits:



> ..._Pietismus_, the German nickname given to the reform movement within Lutheranism by its enemies. The name possibly surfaced in response to the title Philip Jacob Spencer (1635-1705) gave to his introduction of a book of sermons by Johann Arndt (1555-1621) in 1675, _Pia Desideria_ (_Pious Wishes_, tr. Th. Tappert, Philadelphia, 1964).
> 
> Spencer is commonly regarded as the father of pietism. In German-speaking circles his religious significance is judged second only to Luther....
> 
> ...


----------

