The story left off with Hus in a prime position as an ordained priest and rector of the University of Prague. Meanwhile, the Archbishop of Prague’s importance was lessening and, in 1411, he died. Religious dissent was growing with many citizens wishing for a return to the type of worship and polity they had under the Eastern Orthodox Church, which has Christianised them. Helping further fan the flames were renegade priests such as Conrad Waldhauser (Steikna), John Milicz, of Kremsier in Moravia; and Matthias of Janow.  Waldenses had also established themselves in the area, having fled Strasbourg some years before.  All were promoting a theology which was Waldensian and pietist.

Bohemians, Hus and schism

John Wycliffe‘s writings became increasingly important in northern Europe. Wealthy Bohemian and German travellers to England — yes, there were some — were able to bring back copies of Wycliffe’s works to Bohemia.  Wycliffe’s theology, being oriented to Scripture and prayer, became increasingly important to people living in the region as an antidote to the excesses of the papacy, indulgences and clergy.

Hus (shown at left, courtesy of Wikipedia) borrowed heavily from Wycliffe’s teachings in his speeches and writing. In 1412, some theologians from the University of Prague opposed Hus’s support of Wycliffe.  Successive popes had issued papal bulls forbidding mention of or belief in Wycliffe’s teachings.  A group of his followers took it upon themselves to burn the papal bulls, insisting that Hus — not the Pope — was their spiritual leader.

Then, three men from the lower class openly denounced indulgences. The authorities arrested and beheaded them. They are considered to be the first Hussite martyrs.

Hus’s teachings were then officially forbidden, although, by then, the University of Prague theologians ignored the edict and asked that any objections be proven scripturally. The conflict between Church and State against Hus had escalated. Meanwhile, everyone in or near Prague was aware of it. Hus and his followers also wanted tensions to calm down and asked for freedom in ecclesiastical matters — a teaching borrowed from Wycliffe.

By then:

Bohemian Wyclifism was carried into Poland, Hungary, Croatia, and Austria.

In 1413, Rome declared that Wycliffe’s works must be burnt.

Hus’s final months

The following year, King Wenceslaus’s brother — Sigismund of Hungary (heir to the Bohemian crown) — promised Hus safe passage if he would attend the conference at Konstanz (Constance) in order to resolve the schism.

Hus agreed and wisely got his personal affairs in order before leaving home.  For a few weeks, he was free in Konstanz as Sigismund had promised, until his opponents hunted him down and eventually imprisoned him in a Dominican monastery. Sigismund was angry upon hearing the news, but Church authorities replied that promises made to a heretic (Hus) could not be guaranteed.

Hus was transferred to the Archbishop of Konstanz’s castle on the Rhine River and imprisoned for 73 days under brutal conditions.  In June 1415, he was transferred to a Franciscan monastery before he went on trial. During his trial, Church authorities asked him to recant Wycliffe’s teachings. Hus replied that he wished to debate with them Wycliffe’s teachings versus those of the Church, using Scripture. He said that should the clerics prove him wrong, he would be glad to recant. They refused his offer and he refused to recant.

He was burnt at the stake, with these words:

God is my witness that the things charged against me I never preached. In the same truth of the Gospel which I have written, taught, and preached, drawing upon the sayings and positions of the holy doctors, I am ready to die today.

The aftermath – conflict

In 1457, a group of Hus’s followers organised themselves as the Bohemian Brethren, or the Unity of the Brethren — Unitas Fratrum being the original name.  Ten years later, the Waldensians ordained the Brethren’s bishop.

Hus’s movement spread to the extent that 90 per cent of those living in Czech crown lands — including the nobility — became Protestant.  They opened their own schools, many of which had more than one teacher — unusual for that period in history. Also unusual were their schools for girls. The University of Prague was also Protestant.

To counter this, the Holy Roman Emperors invited the Jesuits to establish Catholic schools in the region, which they did, beginning in 1566.  By 1622, with the backing of the Holy Roman Empire, the Protestant schools were forced to close. The Protestants had rebelled a few years earlier in the Bohemian Revolt, which occurred when the Emperor Matthias attempted to instal a Catholic as King of Bohemia, but were defeated in 1621.  Not only had Protestant education and civil authority had come to a close, but the Holy Roman Emperor forbade the use of the Czech language, including the reading of books in that language.

Consequently, the Brethren had to flee or go underground. One community went to Poland and the other dispersed into smaller groups in Moravia.  This latter group became known amongst them as the Hidden Seed.

The Hidden Seed and Count von Zinzendorf

Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf und Pottendorf, Imperial Count of Zinzendorf and Pottendorf, (1700 – 1760), German pietist and bishop of the Moravian Church, was born in Dresden. He was known as Ludwig.

The Zinzendorf family were Lutheran pietists and among the longstanding nobility of Lower Austria. Despite its name, Lower Austria is actually in the northeastern corner of the country. Young Ludwig’s godfather was Philipp Jakob Spener, one of the foremost Lutheran pietists. As I mentioned previously (emphases mine):

Spener studied theology in Strasbourg … then moved on to see what the Calvinists and the Waldensians were doing in Geneva. There he met a number of professors and pastors who deeply impressed him …

In 1686, Spener became a royal chaplain and was transferred to Dresden. He mentored a group of young theologians in Leipzig in a society he formed there for devout application and practice of biblical principles. Later, he ended up founding the University of Halle, which was based on pietistic theology. Not all went smoothly; a number of pastors in Leipzig opposed his pietism and made a stance for orthodox Lutheran doctrine and practice.

Like Spener, the Zinzendorfs — along with a number of other Lutherans — believed that Lutheranism had lost its way since the days of Martin Luther. They did not believe the clergy engaged people enough to pursue a holy and righteous life.

When Ludwig was only six weeks old, his father died. The child was raised by a pietist grandmother and aunt. His grandmother did much to bring him into the Christian faith — and pietism.  He attended school in Halle, a pietist stronghold, thanks to Spener’s influence. Note that Spener’s earlier royal chaplaincy had based him in Dresden, where Ludwig was born.

In 1716, Zinzendorf studied law at the University of Wittenberg in preparation for a diplomatic career. He also travelled to the Netherlands, France and Germany. Like his godfather, he, too, visited a variety of Protestant churches and was careful to seek out the holiest of men as his friends.

He married whilst young, but not to his first love, whose family disapproved of the proposed union.  Scholars believe that this disappointment brought him into an even closer pursuit of holiness.  Although Spener died when his godson was only five years old, his teachings must have had a profound influence on the Zinzendorf family, because the young count was determined to further his godfather’s pietism. However, Zinzendorf was also concerned about the excessive rationalism emerging from the new Age of Enlightenment, which would eventually give rise to atheism and deism.

Although Spener never intended to separate from the Lutheran Church, Zinzendorf believed that a true practice of Christianity could come about only through free associations of believers committed to a knowledge and love of Jesus Christ.

When the young Count was 22 years old, a small group of the Hidden Seed from Moravia arrived on  his estate. Their leader asked the Count whether he would countenance accommodating them on part of it. The Count granted permission to these refugees, whose faith was now illegal in their native Moravia and Bohemia, to construct the village of Herrnhut, two miles from the Count’s residence.

Herrnhut still exists today, by the way, as the centre for the Moravians in Germany.

Herrnhut, a refuge for persecuted Protestants

As the established village of Herrnhut became more widely known as a centre for freedom of Christians, a number of other persecuted groups settled there. In time, conflicts about belief arose amongst them.

Nonetheless, Zinzendorf continued putting money and support into the settlement. He was also deeply attached to it and in 1727, compiled the unifying Brotherly Agreement, which the settlers adopted. After that, the village’s popularity increased even further.  Moravian historians note what took place from that point into the early 19th century:

1. Setting up a watch of continuous prayer that ran uninterrupted, 24 hours a day, for 100 years.
2. Originating the Daily Watchwords.
3. Establishing more than 30 settlements internationally on the Herrnhut model, which emphasised prayer and worship, and a form of communal living in which simplicity of lifestyle and generosity with wealth were held to be important spiritual attributes. The purpose of these communities was to assist the members resident there in the sanctification of their lives, to provide a meeting place for Christians from different confessional backgrounds, to provide Christian training for their own children and the children of their friends and supporters and to provide support for the Moravian Mission work throughout the world. As a result, although personal property was held, divisions between social groups and extremes of wealth and poverty were largely eliminated.
4. Being the first church body to begin missionary work; and
5. Forming many hundreds of small renewal groups operating within the existing churches of Europe, known as “diaspora societies”. These groups encouraged personal prayer and worship, Bible study, confession of sins and mutual accountability.

All those points certainly characterise the main tenets of pietism: a close watch on one another, small groups, personal accountability within those groups, evangelism, mission work and personal sanctification — sometimes in a radical pietist commune.

Zinzendorf’s Brotherly Agreement, incidentally, still exists today as ‘The Moravian Covenant for Christian Living’.

Radical pietism and lovefeasts

Some time after he established the Brotherly Agreement, Zinzendorf obtained a copy of the Ratio Disciplinae, which was the behavioural guide for the early Unitas Fratrum. He was amazed to see how closely the two aligned.

He proceeded to organise the Herrnhut inhabitants into families. These, however, were not what we call nuclear families today, but ones which he called ‘choirs’, organised by sex, marital status and age. The Count explained that at every age, people need something different from Christ and what better way to obtain it than by impartial group segregation. The concept sounds awful, but similar Moravian communes were established in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania (later known for its steel), and in Salem, North Carolina (the other half of which is Winston).  Two positives to note about the American settlements: escaped slaves there were on a par with all the other members and the wealthy occupied the same living quarters as the poorest.

As we know from previous posts on pietism, it is a religion of the ‘heart’, deeply rooted in emotionalism and personal experience rather than a more detached, cerebral exegesis of Scripture. The notion of ‘love’ was — and still is — also emphasised. The Moravian communities were no different.

To this end, at certain times of year, a ‘lovefeast’ was performed. This ritual was also part of other Brethren and Primitive Methodist services on special occasions.  All these groups are pietist. The Primitive Methodists’ lovefeasts featured a potluck — ‘bring a dish to pass’ — which is also part of today’s Alpha groups, originating in the Anglican Church. Alpha also revolves around small groups in many parishes and involves experiential sharing and, to some extent, personal accountability.

Back to the Moravian and Brethren denominations which undertake lovefeasts. Wikipedia describes them as being:

based upon the Agape feast and the meals of the early churches described in the Bible in the Acts of the Apostles, which were partaken in unity and love. It is not, however, to be confused with or serve as a replacement for Communion. Traditionally for European, Canadian, and American Lovefeasts, a sweetened bun and coffee (sweetened milky tea in Germany, Holland and England) is served to the congregation in the pews by dieners (from the German for servers); before partaking, a simple table grace is said. The foods and drinks consumed from congregation may vary tremendously at the Lovefeast and are usually adapted from what the congregations have available. Services in some Colonial-era Lovefeasts, for example, used plain bread and water; some in Salem were even known to have served beer.

The Moravian Lovefeast also concentrates on the singing of hymns, and listening to music which may come from the organ or choir. The songs and hymns chosen usually describe love and harmony. The congregation can also talk quietly with their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ about their spiritual walk with God. Christmas Eve Lovefeasts can become particularly spectacular in the congregation’s choice of music and instrumentation. Many churches also have trombone choirs or church bands play prior to a Lovefeast as a call to service.

A Moravian congregation may hold a Lovefeast on any special occasion, such as the date their church was founded, but there are certain established dates that Lovefeasts are regularly observed. Some of these notable dates include Watch Night, Good Friday, the Festival of August 13th (the 1727 date on which the Moravian Church was renewed or reborn), and Christmas Eve, where each member of the congregation receives a lighted candle at the end of the service in addition to the bun and coffee.

Groups that descend from the Schwarzenau Brethren such as the Church of the Brethren, Brethren Church, Old German Baptist Brethren, and Dunkard Brethren also regularly practice a Love Feast based upon New Testament descriptions of the Last Supper of Christ. The Brethren, however, combine the Agape meal (often consisting of lamb or beef and a bowl of sop) with a service of feetwashing prior to the meal and communion afterward. The term “Lovefeast” in this case generally refers to all three ordinances, not just the meal. Influenced by German Pietists during the early 18th century, the Lovefeast was instituted among Brethren before Moravians adopted the practice.

International Moravian missions

Before the population of Herrnhut reached 300 people, their Moravian missionaries were already on the move, evangelising.  The first were in Europe, but in 1732, they were on a ship to St Thomas (Virgin Islands). They ministered there to slaves as well as to slaveowners. St Thomas had its first Moravian bishop in 1735.

In 1740, they focussed on the (then) British colonies in America, establishing a mission in Dutchess County, New York (where Poughkeepsie is). There, they evangelised among Native Americans, treating them as equals. However, with the advent of the French and Indian Wars, their motives were suspect and the colony of New York expelled them.  The following year, they moved on to Pennsylvania and North Carolina to found the aforementioned Bethlehem and Salem settlements. By 1801, they had reached the state of Georgia, where they established a mission to the Cherokee tribe, until the United States Government resettled the Cherokees in Oklahoma, where the mission continues today under the aegis of the Danish Lutheran Church.

We may well owe our two-day weekend to Count von Zinzendorf, thanks to his exhortations in Philadelphia to respect the Old Testament Saturday Sabbath with time off to listen to additional preaching on the Sunday. (The picture on the left, courtesy of Wikipedia, shows him preaching to all men and women on his mission travels.)

Moravian missions in Australia were transferred in time to the Presbyterian Church. Those in Greenland are now under the auspices of the Lutheran Church.

They also evangelised in South America and Asia, as well as Africa.

Today, the largest concentration of Moravians can be found in Tanzania in Africa.

So, from their earliest days in Herrnhut, Zinzendorf ensured that the Moravians could spread Christianity.

The darker side — sexual imagery, scandal and the Count’s remarriage

Because Zinzendorf was so emotionally involved in religious experience, he began to use rather explicit — if not, to the outsider, blasphemous — sexual references to describe it.

He was preoccupied with our Lord’s wounds from the Cross, describing them as

so moist, so gory

and, astonishingly, in referring to the side wound, called it

the Seitenhölchen (‘little side-hole’). This was tied to his wish to overcome the traditional shame which was attached to sexual organs and acts:

What in the Bible is mentioned an hundred, and more than an hundred Times, but on Account of the Fall, by Reason of Deprivation, is call’d by the hideous name Pudendum; this he (the Saviour) has changed into Verendum, in the proper and strictest sense of that Word: And what was chastised by Circumcision, in the Time of the Law, is restored again to its first Essence and flourishing State; ’tis made equal to the most respectable Parts of the Body, yea ’tis on account of its Dignity and Distinction, become superior to all the rest; especially as the Lamb would choose to endure in that Part his first Wound, his first Pain…^[6]

Today’s pietists are welcome to disagree with me, but their undue prohibition on behaviour and thoughts brings about a vacuum which only Satan can fill. It would be interesting to find out which branch of Christianity has the most pornography addicts. Personally, I venture that it is the pietists. Only on their blogs and fora do I see such comments as, ‘Brother, I have struggled with this sin  [pornography] for many years and find it to be a daily battle’. To those men in good physical health, I say have a drink, enjoy a quiet smoke and love your wife. The first two are far preferable in moderation than seeking out depraved internet sites or, like Zinzendorf, referring to our Redeemer in such carnal phraseology.

Wikipedia cites a famous Christian hymn which follows this carnal line of thought:

Zinzendorf’s emphasis on the “blood and wounds” is not that different from hymns that are sung today without second thought: “Rock of Ages, cleft for me, let me hide myself in Thee.”

Well, those lyrics have also given me pause for thought in the past, and I am happy that my church does not sing them.

Zinzendorf’s son, Christian Renatus, lived in another commune, Herrnhaag — the Lord’s Grove — and took the imagery further:

he led the Single Brethren’s Choir composed of the unmarried men in the Congregation. Excessive use of sexual imagery, combined with questionable theology of “playing in the Lord,” came to mean that the young men did little work and came to look down on those who were in the mission field laboring for the Kingdom instead of spending every moment adoring the Savior. Ensuing scandal and near-financial ruin forced Ludwig to chastise his son, bringing him to England. Casimir Count of Isenburg-Buedingen demanded the submission of the Moravians of Herrnhaag to himself, and that they reject their allegiance to the elder Zinzendorf. The entire community rejected this demand, leading to the closure of Herrnhaag beginning in 1750-53.

Christian Renatus died in 1752. Zinzendorf felt a profound loss. Two years before, the Count was almost forced to file for bankruptcy, having spent his fortune on financing Herrnhut and the missions. In 1756, his wife died; she was also a close friend and confidante. However, only a year later, he married Anna Caritas Nitschmann, 15 years younger than he.  Wikipedia explains:

he had been very close [to her] for many years. Anna had for years been spiritual leader of the women of the movement. The marriage was not publicized broadly since Anna was a commoner, and would have been extremely controversial.

Hmm.

Zinzendorf died in 1760.  Anna went to her rest just a few weeks later. Zinzendorf’s son-in-law took his place as head of the Moravian communities.

Soon: More on pietism in other denominations

Our churches today are full of ‘holy’ behaviours and small groups meant to reinforce them for the ‘true’ believer. I use these words advisedly, as orthodox Lutherans, Calvinists and Anglicans believe that it is only by grace through faith that a person is saved and comes to share eternal life with Jesus Christ.

The Roman Catholic doctrine

We would do well to begin by reviewing what the Catholic Church teaches on sin, as this will feature throughout this series. The Catholic Church teaches the doctrine of impeccability, whereby it is believed that saints in Heaven and souls in Purgatory awaiting union with God cannot sin. The Catholic Church believes in free will, and, to this end, promotes a faith-plus-works teaching so that adherents will be able to be perfect like Christ.

Christ instructed His followers (Matthew 5:48):

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Indeed, Christian perfection has existed from the early Church through to the present day and in Protestant circles is referred to as pietism. In other words, there are two sides to this story: a) the orthodox Reformation view of sanctification through God’s grace working through us to bear the fruits of our faith and b) the manmade, legalistic Pelagian acts and works towards that end which imply or demand that we can redeem ourselves. The gulf between the two is great.

The Anglican — state church — in Post-Reformation England

A number of state-established churches in northern Europe after the Reformation forbade worship outside the official church setting.  Although the following laws are no longer in force in England, they were deemed necessary at the time:

- Religion Act 1592: Under Elizabeth I, anyone 16 and over who failed to attend the Anglican church, encouraged others to follow suit or who met in small groups — conventicles — could be imprisoned without bail. Upon serving their sentence, they were given three months to begin attending the Church of England. If they failed to do so, they had to leave England. This law was temporary and lasted for the term of that particular Parliament.

- Conventicle Act 1664: Enacted during the Restoration by Charles II, this law forbade small group gatherings outside of the Church of England. It included all Christians.  It was preceded by the Quaker Act of 1662, obliging all citizens to swear allegiance to the King as well as the Act of Uniformity of 1662 which required the use and rites of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer (1662) in all church gatherings. However, a decade later, Charles II would grant permission for a limited number of nonconformist chapels.

- Conventicles Act 1670: Parliament passed a law in 1670 forbidding any meeting of small groups or use of a meeting house for worship and assembly outside of the rites of the Church of England. This was to suppress ‘seditious’ conventicles.  Offending laypeople were fined four times less than clergy were.

If you click on the Wikipedia links, you’ll see engravings of nonconformist and ‘seditious’ gatherings taking place out of doors.  This was so the groups could avoid fines and imprisonment.  Pietism and the outdoors are closely linked — as are small groups.

The Lutheran — state church — in Germany

A number of practising Lutherans in the 17th century believed that the established church in Germany was reluctant to promote a lively Christian faith.

The official founder of the pietist movement was Philipp Jakob Spener, born in Alsace (now part of France) in 1635. Spener studied theology in Strasbourg, still the principal city of the region, then moved on to see what the Calvinists and the Waldensians were doing in Geneva. There he met a number of professors and pastors who deeply impressed him.

Spener believed that German Lutheranism had lost its moral and religious focus. He blamed Lutheran orthodoxy for this, which is probably not much different to the theological or intellectual conflicts occurring in other Christian countries today between evangelically-minded and orthodox Christians.

As a pastor in Frankfurt in 1666, Spener decided on a course of action to remedy the situation by holding conventicles, or small groups, in his house. There, he preached sermons and taught from the New Testament. He invited questions from those assembled and engaged in dialogue with them.

In 1675, Spener wrote (emphases mine):

Pia desideria or Earnest Desire for a Reform of the True Evangelical Church, the title giving rise to the term “Pietists”. This was originally a pejorative term given to the adherents of the movement by its enemies as a form of ridicule …

In Pia desideria, Spener made six proposals as the best means of restoring the life of the Church:

1. the earnest and thorough study of the Bible in private meetings, ecclesiolae in ecclesia (“little churches within the church”).
2. the Christian priesthood being universal, the laity should share in the spiritual government of the Church
3. a knowledge of Christianity must be attended by the practice of it as its indispensable sign and supplement
4. instead of merely didactic, and often bitter, attacks on the heterodox and unbelievers, a sympathetic and kindly treatment of them
5. a reorganization of the theological training of the universities, giving more prominence to the devotional life
6. a different style of preaching, namely, in the place of pleasing rhetoric, the implanting of Christianity in the inner or new man, the soul of which is faith, and its effects the fruits of life.

Despite the controversy that this volume generated, a number of Lutheran pastors in Germany followed Spener’s example.

In 1686, Spener became a royal chaplain and was transferred to Dresden. He mentored a group of young theologians in Leipzig in a society he formed there for devout application and practice of biblical principles. Later, he ended up founding the University of Halle, which was based on pietistic theology. Not all went smoothly; a number of pastors in Leipzig opposed his pietism and made a stance for orthodox Lutheran doctrine and practice.

Spener died in 1705, but one of his followers from Leipzig and Halle, August Hermann Francke, helped to spread pietism throughout the northern half of Germany, which is still predominantly Lutheran. This enabled Spener’s godson, Count von Zinzendorf, to revive the Moravian Church in 1727 and to establish Protestant missions.

Wikipedia states:

Spener’s stress on the necessity of a new birth and on a separation of Christians from the world, (see Asceticism), led to exaggeration and fanaticism among some followers. Many Pietists soon maintained that the new birth must always be preceded by agonies of repentance, and that only a regenerated theologian could teach theology, while the whole school shunned all common worldly amusements, such as dancing, the theatre, and public games. Some would say that there thus arose a new form of justification by works.

Because pietism is so personal it became quite popular and began to weaken the state Church. It made its followers feel as if they were actively doing something to achieve their own salvation. In other words, it could be said that it was a form of Pelagianism. A reaction against pietism began in Dresden in the 18th century.

The state church — Lutheran — in Norway

Only a few decades after Spener’s death, the established church in Norway experienced problems with the spread of pietism.

Like England, they, too, issued a law proscribing small groups meeting outside the church. The government enacted the Conventicle Act of 1741.

Hans Nielsen Hauge (1771 – 1824) was born into a large farming family.  Like Spener, he, too, felt that pietism was necessary in order to transform the state church. Defying the Conventicle Act — and spending time in prison for doing so — he began preaching to Norwegians after Sunday church services.

Although he was a lay preacher, Hauge held revival meetings in Norway before taking his preaching into Denmark. Like many revivalists, he claimed to have had a mystical experience directing his ministry. He also wrote 33 books, which were widely read.

He said that his Haugean movement was in line with Lutheran doctrine. He also believed in Continuationism — active charismatic gifts (prophecy, glossolalia) — as do today’s American Pentecostalists.

After his final release from prison in 1811, he decided to return to farming and to also become an industrialist. He founded a number of factories and mills and donated his wealth to followers and friends. Because he was so influential as a lay minister, his secular success was almost guaranteed. Even today, Norwegians remember his help in making Norway a player in the Industrial Revolution. They also credit him with giving their country its ethical flavour of modesty, honesty and hard work.

Wikipedia states:

• His defiance toward the religious and secular establishment gave voice to ordinary people, paving much of the way for the liberal and democratic tradition in Norway and indeed the entire Nordic region.
• There also seems to be a clear link between the Haugean movement and the rise of Labor Union movement in Norway.
• His theology, while bound in Lutheran doctrine, revitalized the notion of universal religion in Norway. The Norwegian state church credits him today for making religion a personal obligation.
• His travels created nationwide networks that persist in Norway’s political system generally and among parties in particular.
• His advocacy for common people became an important force as the industrial revolution unfolded.

Norwegian Lutherans who emigrated to the United States in the 19th and early 20th centuries took his influence with them on religious and socio-political levels.  A case in point is the progressive state of Minnesota.

The Protestant churches in Prussia

As Hauge was defying the law in Norway, Prussia’s king, Frederick William III, urged the Lutheran and Reformed (Calvinist) churches in that country to unite. In 1817, this united church body became known as the Prussian Union, or the Evangelical Christian Church.

Protestant history in Prussia is somewhat complex, because it was one of the nations which welcomed Calvinists fleeing the Catholic Counter-Reformation in Europe.  Although Prussia no longer exists as such, the Evangelical Christian Church lives on today in parts of Germany.

Wikipedia explains that this church union came about after Napoleon defeated the Prussian army in the battle of Jena-Auerstedt in the early 19th century. Prussia was obliged to undertake a number of state reforms, among them, the Church:

Under the influence of the centralising movement of absolutism and the Napoleonic Age, after the defeat of Napoléon I in 1815, rather than re-establishing the previous denominational leadership structures, all religious communities were placed under a single consistory in each Prussian province. This differed from the old structure in that the new leadership administered the affairs of all faiths; Catholics, Jews, Lutherans, Mennonites, Moravians, and the Calvinists (Reformed Christians) …

On 27 September 1817, Frederick William announced that on the 300th anniversary of the Reformation Potsdam‘s Reformed court and garrison congregation, led by Court Preacher Rulemann Friedrich Eylert, and the Lutheran garrison congregation, both using the Calvinist Garrison Church would unite into one Evangelical Christian congregation on Reformation Day, 31 October. Frederick William expressed his desire to see the Protestant congregations around Prussia follow this example, and become Union congregations. Whereas, since the Reformation the two denominations in Brandenburg, the Calvinist and Lutheran, had their own ecclesiastical governments under state control through the crown as Supreme Governor, under the new absolutism then in vogue, the Churches were under a civil bureaucratic state supervision through the newly created Prussian Ministry of Religious, Educational and Medical Affairs (German: Preußisches Ministerium der geistlichen, Unterrichts- und Medizinalangelegenheiten, est. in 1817). Karl vom Stein zum Altenstein was appointed as minister. However, because of the unique role of congregations in Protestantism, no congregation was forced by the King’s decree into merger. Thus, in the years that followed, many Lutheran and Reformed congregations did follow the example of Potsdam, and became single merged congregations, while others maintained their former Lutheran or Reformed denomination. When in 1847 Prussia finally received a parliament, some church leadership offices included a seat in the second chamber of non-elected, but appointed members.

As we would expect, not all Lutherans were pleased with this merger. Today’s Lutherans — and Calvinists — would appreciate the difference between the two denominations’ confessions of faith.

Wikipedia explains:

Pietism, with its looser attitude toward confessional theology, had opened the churches to the possibility of uniting. The unification of the two branches of German Protestantism sparked the Schism of the Old Lutherans. Many Lutherans, called Old Lutherans formed free churches or [e]migrated to the United States and Australia where they formed one of the bodies who formed the Lutheran Church of Australia. (Many immigrants to America that agreed with the union movement formed German Evangelical Lutheran and Reformed congregations, later to be gathered as the Evangelical Synod of North America, which is now a part of the United Church of Christ.)

And this is another reason why orthodox Protestants are opposed to pietism. They have seen the historical results of a ‘looser attitude toward confessional theology’: merger, dissatisfaction and confusion.

Pietism, the Enlightenment and atheism

Pietism peaked in the 18th century, although it is by no means extinct today.

However, because its emphasis on the individual appears to have lent it a certain popularity leading towards the examination of man in relation to himself, to others and to the world at large, it helped to enable the Enlightenment.

That said, it renewed religious fervour amongst European Protestants, which some emigrants took to America and Australia.  The laity found a new life within the Church and more of an active voice within established state churches.

Wikipedia explores this further:

Pietism also had a strong influence on contemporary artistic culture in Germany; though unread today, the Pietist Johann Georg Hamann held a strong influence in his day. Pietist belief in the power of individual meditation on the divine – a direct, individual approach to the ultimate spiritual reality of God – was probably partly responsible for the uniquely metaphysical, idealistic nature of German Romantic philosophy.

This has had a paradoxical effect on Christianity and secular politics which is present to this day. Clare Spark’s brilliant blog traces today’s Western multiculturalism back to the German Romantics:

The German Romantics and their descendants have co-opted radical Enlightenment concepts (tolerance, the rejection of innate ideas and fallen flesh as determinants of “human nature,” the cultural biases of the participant-observer) and practices (introspection, scientific materialism, the comparative history and analysis of political and economic institutions). These “enlightened” concepts and practices were then turned against “the lower orders.” For instance, the social psychology of “progressivism” transforms the common-sense perception of objective social conflicts and clashing interests into personal, anti-social symptoms of “xenophobia,” “prejudice” or “scapegoating,” i.e., distorted vision of “the Other.” Insofar as they are conservative Freudians and Jungians, the progressive psychologists attribute negative “stereotypes” to individual weakness and social irresponsibility: Entirely inner conflicts (Oedipal or pre-Oedipal in origin) are projected onto the outer world; this social world could be made harmonious through “integration”; i.e., discreet purges aka correct adjustments or through the emotionally mature recourse to administrative remedies.

Tying in with that is what I see as the nanny state dictating what we can(not) ingest — animal fats, nicotine and alcohol.  Most of today’s health experts and enabler politicians have no real religious faith, but they still have the Pelagian urge for manmade perfection, which pietism actively nurtures.

In fact, there is such a thing as Atheistic Pietism:

a term used by Asgeir Helgason to describe a pietistic (moralistic) approach to life without religion. “We have denied the existence of God but kept the pietistic rules”. Atheistic pietism has been suggested by Helgason,^[4] to be one of the characteristics (traits) of the modern day Swedish national spirit. The term is first known to have been used by W.H. Mallock in 1879.

Wikipedia adds:

Economic historian Murray Rothbard sees modern Progressivism as essentially a deistic form of Pietism. ^[5]

Pietism has a lot to answer for in reviving Pelagianism, particularly the mantra heard continually throughout the West: ‘If only, if only, if only …’ we were healthier, younger, etc.

Whatever the shortcoming, pietism is there to point the finger at things which only God in His grace — not Man — can remedy.

Tomorrow: Pietism in Methodism

The interpretation of the Holy Scriptures has been and will continue to be an important part of the Church. However, the way in which it has been interpreted has, differ in different time and places. Especially in the time of the Reformation, different ideas were plentiful.

Two different subjects will be discussed concerning the Interpretation of Scripture. Firstly, the way in which the different Protestants looked at and compared the Old and New Testaments . Then, the way in which the Reformers interpreted the Scriptures as a whole will be noted.

How Protestant teachers Compared the Testaments

The ways in which various Protestants looked and compared the New Testament differ in depth as much as the reformers themselves. Some would, like Luther stress that there were key differences from the New and Old Testaments.[1] While others, such as Calvin would argue instead for more “consistency between the Testaments.”[2] There would also be, of course, views that went along the middle ground of these two extremes.

Melanchton saw the Old Testament as a promise of blessings if one followed the commands of the Lord, while the New Testament was to him a promise of blessings with no conditions of following the Law.[3] The Old Testament describes the demands to do the Law, while the New describes the desire to do the Law.[4]

Luther stressed that the Old and New Testament were each distinct works, the old containing “commandments and laws,” the new “gospel and promises.”[5] He saw a key difference between the works, and preferred them not to be seen as similar, again, one was for the Law and those who “kept them, and… who did not,” and the other is for the gospel and those who “believed or disbelieved.”[6] The New Testament in teaching about faith teaches a better thing than the Old Testament that teaches “righteousness by the Law.”[7]

Viewing the Old and New Testaments as kinds of Grace, Schiemer notes, that they are concretely different from one another.[8] The first act of Grace was Law (given by Moses) the second is Jesus.[9] The Law though filled with many “external” aspects point to an internal aspect.[10]

The Old Testament to Calvin was similar to the New in that both showed that a person was saved through God’s mercy, not anything else.[11] Since the Prophets point toward Christ and the Gospel it shows that they had, on some level, similar concerns.[12] Calvin felt that the Old and New Testament are more similar than is often granted to them and that they are different only in “administration.”[13] For example, the future hope of heaven was seen through the Israelites through their earthly blessings (the Land).[14] The Old Testaments saints were given many blessings as earthly types and symbols to understand better the heavenly hope.[15] Calvin pointed to the fact that though, yes, things were different they led to the same result.

How the Scriptures were Interpreted

As noted already the way the various teachers of the Protestant Church looked at scripture varied greatly at times. Luther, for example saw the Law as very different from the New Testament’s gospel, and thus it his beliefs concerning salvation are different from the other Reformers.[16] Calvin who, however, saw a “consistency” placed greater weight on the moral law and interpreted the ceremonial laws into something useful for the Church.[17] Therefore, this section like the previous will be looked at different Protestants broadly.

With the New Testament’s appearance, it has done away with not only the ceremonial laws, but also the moral laws.[18] A person who truly loves God, Melancthon notes, will follow the moral law, but the “curse” that comes with the law is not there.[19] The Old Testament was “justification by the Law,” an impossibility because of the curse.[20] The Gospel in contrast “preaches freedom,” freedom from the curse of the law, because we “had sinned and have sin.”[21]

The Law of God, according to Luther, is something that is not followed by the doing of works, but instead, with the heart.[22] To follow the law, to obey it externally means nothing, if the person hates that certain law or command.[23] To really follow the Law, a woman or man needs to have faith in Christ and then he or she will “fulfill it by faith.”[24] Luther felt that one of the primary functions of the Bible is to tell humans of the need for faith and that unbelief is the reason for sin.[25] The Old Testament, the Law, leads a person to the point of knowing their sin.[26] Yet the New Testament then must be used to show the person hope and lead her or him to faith.[27]

Spener felt that if a person were to understand the scriptures properly, prayer needed to be the beginning point.[28] The idea being that in the praying, the Holy Spirit will begin to enlighten the person so that proper understanding will come.[29] Since, humans left to their own devices cannot understand scripture by themselves; God is needed in the process.[30] In all of this, however, the prayer must come from person praying in a repentant and seeking mind.[31] The Scriptures detail what God wanted humans to know of him and what he requires.[32] True knowledge of God will lead to action.[33] The Scriptures are also a true and correct knowledge of God for all people at all times.[34]

Conclusion

How the Scriptures have been interpreted historically is important to us in the modern Church still. It shows us why such and such a passage has been and continues to be looked at in certain ways. The works of earlier teachers of the Church concerning the differences and similarities of the Old and New Testament are reflected even in the ways various churches teach today. For a person who says they believe what Calvin or Luther says they should turn to what these and other early Protestants really did say. Especially concerning the Bible. For to know what they thought and to assess it a person should read their works then decide if they really believes what they say.

Continuing on with my series on the Seven Notes, I would call them tests, which Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman developed for determining whether some aspect of Church teaching is a development of doctrine or a corruption of doctrine.  We began with Note Six-Conservative Action Upon Its Past, and I would highly recommend that any one who has not read the first post in the series read it here before reading this post.  We then proceeded with an examination of the First Note-Preservation of Type here,  the Second Note-Continuity of Principles here and the Third Note-Power of Assimilation here.  This post will deal with the Fourth Note-Logical Sequence.

It is possible as an idea develops during the history of mankind, to logically trace its development.   Afterwards, however, this logical character which the whole wears becomes a test that the process has been a true development, not a perversion or corruption, from its evident naturalness; and in some cases from the gravity, distinctness, precision, and majesty of its advance, and the harmony of its proportions, like the tall growth, and graceful branching, and rich foliage, of some vegetable production.

Newman notes that in the political history of states, it is often easy to see development of ideas at work.   It is illustrated by the words of Jeroboam, “Now shall this kingdom return to the house of David, if this people go up to do sacrifice in the house of the Lord at Jerusalem … Wherefore the king took counsel and made two calves of gold, and said unto them, Behold thy gods, O Israel.” Idolatry was a duty of kingcraft with the schismatical kingdom.

Newman concludes:  A doctrine, then, professed in its mature years by a philosophy or religion, is likely to be a true development, not a corruption, in proportion as it seems to be the logical issue of its original teaching.

Newman on the Fourth Note.

Logic is the organization of thought, and, as being such, is a security for the faithfulness of intellectual developments; and the necessity of using it is undeniable as far as this, that its rules must not be transgressed. That it is not brought into exercise in every instance of doctrinal development is owing to the varieties of mental constitution, whether in communities or in individuals, with whom great truths or seeming truths are lodged. The question indeed may be asked whether a development can be other in any case than a logical operation; but, if by this is meant a conscious reasoning from premises to conclusion, of course the answer must be in the negative.  An idea under one or other of its aspects grows in the mind by remaining there; it becomes familiar and distinct, and is viewed in its relations; it leads to other aspects, and these again to others, subtle, recondite, original, according to the character, intellectual and moral, of the recipient; and thus a body of thought is gradually formed without his recognizing what is going on within him. And all this while, or at least from time to time, external circumstances elicit into formal statement the thoughts which are coming into being in the depths of his mind; and soon he has to begin to defend them; and then again a further process must take place, of analyzing his statements and ascertaining their dependence one on another. And thus he is led to regard as consequences, and to trace to principles, what hitherto he has discerned by a moral perception and adopted on sympathy; and logic is brought in to arrange and inculcate what no science was employed in gaining.

And so in the same way, such intellectual processes, as are carried on silently and spontaneously in the mind of a party or school, of necessity come to light at a later date, and are recognized, and their issues are scientifically arranged. And then logic has the further function of propagation; analogy, the nature of the case, antecedent probability, application of principles, congruity, expedience, being some of the methods of proof by which the development is continued from mind to mind and established in the faith of the community.

Yet even then the analysis is not made on a principle, or with any view to its whole course and finished results. Each argument is brought for an immediate purpose; minds develope step by step, without looking behind them or anticipating their goal, and without either intention or promise of forming a system. Afterwards, however, this logical character which the whole wears becomes a test that the process has been a true development, not a perversion or corruption, from its evident naturalness; and in some cases from the gravity, distinctness, precision, and majesty of its advance, and the harmony of its proportions, like the tall growth, and graceful branching, and rich foliage, of some vegetable production.

2. The process of development, thus capable of a logical expression, has sometimes been invidiously spoken of as rationalism and contrasted with faith. But, though a particular doctrine or opinion which is subjected to development may happen to be rationalistic, and, as is the original, such are its results: and though we may develope erroneously, that is, reason incorrectly, yet the developing itself as little deserves that imputation in any case, as an inquiry into an historical fact, which we do not thereby make but ascertain,—for instance, whether or not St. Mark wrote his Gospel with St. Matthew before him, or whether Solomon brought his merchandise from Tartessus or some Indian port. Rationalism is the exercise of reason instead of faith in matters of faith; but one does not see how it can be faith to adopt the premises, and unbelief to accept the conclusion.

At the same time it may be granted that the spontaneous process which goes on within the mind itself is higher and choicer than that which is logical; for the latter, being scientific, is common property, and can be taken and made use of by minds who are personally strangers, in any true sense, both to the ideas in question and to their development.

3. Thus, the holy Apostles would without words know all the truths concerning the high doctrines of theology, which controversialists after them have piously and charitably reduced to formulæ, and developed through argument. Thus, St. Justin or St. Irenæus might be without any digested ideas of Purgatory or Original Sin, yet have an intense feeling, which they had not defined or located, both of the fault of our first nature and the responsibilities of our nature regenerate. Thus St. Antony said to the philosophers who came to mock him, “He whose mind is in health does not need letters;” and St. Ignatius Loyola, while yet an unlearned neophyte, was favoured with transcendent perceptions of the Holy Trinity during his penance at Manresa. Thus St. Athanasius himself is more powerful in statement and exposition than in proof; while in Bellarmine we find the whole series of doctrines carefully drawn out, duly adjusted with one another, and exactly analyzed one by one.

The history of empires and of public men supplies so many instances of logical development in the field of politics, that it is needless to do more than to refer to one of them. It is illustrated by the words of Jeroboam, “Now shall this kingdom return to the house of David, if this people go up to do sacrifice in the house of the Lord at Jerusalem … Wherefore the king took counsel and made two calves of gold, and said unto them, Behold thy gods, O Israel.” Idolatry was a duty of kingcraft with the schismatical kingdom.

4. A specimen of logical development is afforded us in the history of Lutheranism as it has of late years been drawn out by various English writers. Luther started on a double basis, his dogmatic principle being contradicted by his right of private judgment, and his sacramental by his theory of justification. The sacramental element never showed signs of life; but on his death, that which he represented in his own person as a teacher, the dogmatic, gained the ascendancy; and “every expression of his upon controverted points became a norm for the party, which, at all times the largest, was at last coextensive with the Church itself. This almost idolatrous veneration was perhaps increased by the selection of declarations of faith, of which the substance on the whole was his, for the symbolical books of his Church.”  Next a reaction took place; private judgment was restored to the supremacy. Calixtus put reason, and Spener the so-called religion of the heart, in the place of dogmatic correctness. Pietism for the time died away; but rationalism developed in Wolf, who professed to prove all the orthodox doctrines, by a process of reasoning, from premisses level with the reason. It was soon found that the instrument which Wolf had used for orthodoxy, could as plausibly be used against it;—in his hands it had proved the Creed; in the hands of Semler, Ernesti, and others, it disproved the authority of Scripture. What was religion to be made to consist in now? A sort of philosophical Pietism followed; or rather Spener’s pietism and the original theory of justification were analyzed more thoroughly, and issued in various theories of Pantheism, which from the first was at the bottom of Luther’s doctrine and personal character. And this appears to be the state of Lutheranism at present, whether we view it in the philosophy of Kant, in the open infidelity of Strauss, or in the religious professions of the new Evangelical Church of Prussia. Applying this instance to the subject which it has been here brought to illustrate, I should say that the equable and orderly march and natural succession of views, by which the creed of Luther has been changed into the infidel or heretical philosophy of his present representatives, is a proof that that change is no perversion or corruption, but a faithful development of the original idea.

5. This is but one out of many instances with which the history of the Church supplies us. The fortunes of a theological school are made, in a later generation, the measure of the teaching of its founder. The great Origen after his many labours died in peace; his immediate pupils were saints and rulers in the Church; he has the praise of St. Athanasius, St. Basil, and St. Gregory Nazianzen, and furnishes materials to St. Ambrose and St. Hilary; yet, as time proceeded, a definite heterodoxy was the growing result of his theology, and at length, three hundred years after his death, he was condemned, and, as has generally been considered, in an Ecumenical Council. “Diodorus of Tarsus,” says Tillemont, “died at an advanced age, in the peace of the Church, honoured by the praises of the greatest saints, and crowned with a glory, which, having ever attended him through life, followed him after his death;” yet St. Cyril of Alexandria considers him and Theodore of Mopsuestia the true authors of Nestorianism, and he was placed in the event by the Nestorians among their saints. Theodore himself was condemned after his death by the same Council which is said to have condemned Origen, and is justly considered the chief rationalizing doctor of Antiquity; yet he was in the highest repute in his day, and the Eastern Synod complains, as quoted by Facundus, that “Blessed Theodore, who died so happily, who was so eminent a teacher for five and forty years, and overthrew every heresy, and in his lifetime experienced no imputation from the orthodox, now after his death so long ago, after his many conflicts, after his ten thousand books composed in refutation of errors, after his approval in the sight of priests, emperors, and people, runs the risk of receiving the reward of heretics, and of being called their chief.” There is a certain continuous advance and determinate path which belong to the history of a doctrine, policy, or institution, and which impress upon the common sense of mankind, that what it ultimately becomes is the issue of what it was at first. This sentiment is expressed in the proverb, not limited to Latin, Exitus acta probat; and is sanctioned by Divine wisdom, when, warning us against false prophets, it says, “Ye shall know them by their fruits.”

A doctrine, then, professed in its mature years by a philosophy or religion, is likely to be a true development, not a corruption, in proportion as it seems to be the logical issue of its original teaching.

Pietism on the Continent

• 230: Noll gives a brief biography of Philipp Jakob Spener, whom he calls the “Father of Pietism.”
• 230: “Spener criticized nobles and princes for exercising unauthorized control over the church, ministers for substituting cold doctrine for warm faith, and laypeople for disregarding proper Christian behavior.”
• 230: “Spener’s six proposals for reform became a banner for Pietism in general. …
  • 1. ‘… more extensive use of the Word of God among us.’ …
  • 2. ‘… renewal of the spiritual priesthood,’ the priesthood of all believers.’ …
  • 3. ‘… [an appeal] for Christian faith to be expressed in authentic practice, [an argument] that Christianity was more than a matter of simple knowledge. …
  • 4. ‘… restraint and charity in religious controversies.’ …
  • 5. ‘… reform in the education of ministers. …
  • 6. ‘… edifying sermons, understandable by the people, rather than technical discourses, directed at other clergy. …”
• 232: “Spener’s aim was to revive the concerns of Luther and the early Reformation. Yet he also altered Reformation theology in much the same way that Wesley would alter it. … Such changes in Protestant doctrine were subtle.”
• 233: “… pietists trained at Halle became the first Protestants to engage in extensive cross-cultural mission work.”
• 233: “… Moravians … carried the pietistic concern for personal spirituality almost literally around the world … “
• 234: “The English and continental movements shared an emphasis on Scripture, a zeal for evangelism, a method of organization through small groups, and a dedication to practical social benevolence.”

Evangelicalism and Pietism in the History of Christianity

• 235: “Evangelicalism in the English-speaking world and Pietism on the Continent together represented a strategic shift in Christian energy, direction, assumptions, and associations.”
• 235-237: Noll compares and contrasts Europe in the sixteenth century and the eighteenth century. He also discusses the effects of wars and strife on religion, gives an analysis of the efforts of Puritans, summaries relations between the state churches and reform efforts, and discusses various theological changes that occurred during this time.
• 240: “The ability of pietists and evangelicals to combine a message rooted in Protestant history with techniques, attitudes, sentiments, and innovations resonating with the realities of late seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Europe resulted in rapid, widespread success for these versions of the Christian faith.”
• 242: “On the foundation of their experiential biblicism, evangelicals and pietists thus erected a new form of Christian faith. It was a Protestantism clearly marked by the inheritance of the Reformation, but also one that in its willingness to discard tradition, its eagerness to adjust to widely diverse social realities, and its zeal for the practice of piety represented a significant new stage in the history of Christianity.”