Dear friends in Christ,
We continue our survey of Church History from the book of Professor E.A.W. Krauss from our St. Louis seminary of a century ago.
Let no one say Church History is meaningless! The whole discussion we had for the past number of months over reintroducing the historic Lutheran practice of every Sunday communion was necessary in large part due to several movements, which we read about in Church History, that infected the Lutheran Church. A Lutheran liturgical scholar comments: “For two hundred years, or nearly half the time from the Reformation to the present, the normal Sunday service in Lutheran lands was the purified Mass…with its twin peaks of Sermon and Sacrament. There were weekly celebrations and the people in general received the Sacrament much more frequently than before. The ravages of war, the example of Calvinism, the later subjective practices of Pietistic groups in a domestic type of worship, and the unbelief of rationalism, however, finally broke the genuine Lutheran tradition.” [Luther Reed, The Lutheran Liturgy, Muhlenberg Press, Philadelphia, PA 1947; pg. 244] It is the movement of Pietism that we will spend the next number of months learning about from Professor Krauss. This month we will see that though well intentioned, Pietism soon degenerated.
38. PIETISM AND ORTHODOXY
1. Spener Emerges [part 1]
The history of Pietism is bound up with the name Philip Jakob Spener. He came from Alsace (born 1635) and at the rather young age of 31 became Superintendent in Frankfurt (1666). Here he began the work that made him the father of Pietism. He recognized that great evils had spread in the church—evils that required extraordinary remedies because the public preaching of the word was not sufficient for it. He believed that such a remedy was found in the special gatherings of serious Christians. He discussed this with such serious Christians and in 1670 they asked him to establish in Frankfurt a Collegia pietatis (assemblies for the cultivation of holiness). He did this in conjunction with his fellow pastors who themselves occasionally took part. It was not to be a sort of conventicle. Spener only wanted, as he himself said, to cultivate a flock of core Christians out of awakened Christians; they would then work as a leaven upon the great masses who were hardly Christian and church minded. These core Christians would be nurtured by going deeper into the Word of God.
This institution was the first offense that the entire pietistic movement gave. A brief written work became a second stumbling block. This short work was first written as a preface to a new edition of Johann Arndt’s sermon book, but then it was published separately. It was called Pia desideria (Pious wishes). In it Spener expressed the wishes that he embraced for the Church and he exposed the error that, according to his understanding, the Church was especially suffering from. He was not the first to do this. Heinrich Mueller and Grossgebauer had done the same not long before. At first Spener’s wishes were well received by all who meant well for the Church. Many of the most prominent theologians, even those who would later become his strongest opponents, sent him letters of agreement. Abraham Calov wrote to him on 11 October 1674: “I greatly thank you for the news of your Desideria; they are also mine. And since, as it is reported, your church has borne such fruit from the exercises of godliness, I do not hesitate to recommend such pious examinations to others. Recently in the public worship service I cited the example and success of your church and exhorted the parishioners to imitate them with the wish that they profitably pursue them and the abuses connected with them, which occur here and there by chance, not of necessity, be remedied.” Yes, ten years later, 1684, Spener’s later opponent, J. Fr. Mayer, had sighed in a theological program, “O that everyone would yet take to heart the cry of that most godly watchman, Mr. Spener! But now we place his pious wishes in the class of the Platonic ideas, the realization of which is indeed to be wished for but can hardly be hoped for because of the weakness of many teachers and because of the stubbornness of our most godless age.”
The main proposals that Philip Spener made were: The Word of God should be brought out to the people richly and completely. It was not enough to have sermons preached only on the pericopes (the Sunday Gospels and Epistles); the continuous reading of all of Holy Scripture must again be introduced into the church. In addition to the worship services, private gatherings under the guidance of pastors are to be instituted. He laid particular importance on the participation of the laity at these gatherings; the laity should take an active part in the spiritual priesthood. The improvement of the church can hardly be expected to come from either of the other estates—of the teachers (!) and the government. Thus, Spener wanted to renew the church from the laity. He further demanded that unnecessary quarrels be restricted, and in the disputes that are truly necessary, should show a real interest in the truth and a godly life. The theologians at the university should be carefully trained; they are especially to point to the necessity of a godly life and walk, which, as he rightly lamented, they frequently lacked.
At that time, sermons had all too frequently degenerated in formality with over a hundred different outlines concocted and brooded over. The sermons were instead to be prepared with the goal of awakening faith and love in the hearers.
There was much truth in what Spener pointed out and much good in his proposals for improvement. But the initial agreement that he found at first soon disappeared and he found himself forced to having to defend his collegia pietatis, the pious assemblies, publicly. They were also introduced elsewhere and because they were not so carefully and tactfully led as they were at first by Spener, they were not so favorably accepted. In part people looked upon them with mistrust because they thought and rumored that in these closed gatherings weird things were done, certainly such things that shun the light; in part pastors feared that the assemblies could weaken their authority.
In his defense Spener placed great emphasis upon such house gatherings. They were the “little Church” within the Church. He quite emphatically added that it never entered his mind that these groups should draw people away from the other congregations; instead, they would draw in the other members of the congregation to themselves. His writing in which he defended himself certainly removed many misconceptions, but Spener could no longer continue peaceably on his path. Various church governmental authorities forbade the collegia pietatis. Upon investigation and it was discovered that often in these house gatherings, especially when there was no pastor there and the laity only had the word, all kinds of absurd and dangerous things, even things that contradicted Scripture, were brought up and they were not always properly corrected and refuted.
Thus V. E. Loescher in his writings) cites that in these meetings it was taught that 1. the confessional was merely a human invention; 2. the Lord’s Supper does not give forgiveness of sin; 3. the blood of Christ first purifies after walking in light; 4. this walking in the light should always first precede the absolution; 5. as soon as one is born of God, he (in general) no longer sins; 6. it is not very dangerous to be a Calvinist; 7. in general, one should only stick to the Bible and not enquire as to what is Lutheran, and at the very least enquire as to what is in the Lutheran Confessions.
This then cast an evil shadow upon these house gatherings and the mistrust of them did not stop fading. Spener asked the council of the city that the collegia pietatis be allowed to move into the church. He wanted to stop completely the charge “that secret particularities were being carried on in the house of the preacher.” The spiritual meetings were from then on to take place in the church, a place open and accessible to everyone. That’s what happened. But Spener was mistaken if he thought that then that would spark interest in the congregation. Instead, precisely then many lay people stopped coming. They were reluctant to speak publicly in the church and to exchange their opinions as they had certainly done up until then in the small group in the preacher’s house. Thus, after the assemblies, even in Frankfurt itself, had moved into the church, they never again got completely back on track. Spener certainly tried to preserve them and bring them back to their heyday but he was unsuccessful. In fact, in Frankfurt the movement was close to dying out when, in 1686, Spener moved to a greater sphere of work; he was called to Dresden to be chief court preacher. He willingly accepted the call, but then in 1691 he moved to Berlin where he died in 1705.
Spener’s institution was copied in Essen, Darmstadt, Schweinfurt, Augsburg and other places. For the most part it was rather easily introduced. But soon considerable wrongs came to light. In those places just named, these private gatherings were mainly held in the houses of the preachers and became more valued than the public worship service. It was believed, and said, that there was a much greater blessing resting upon that what was laid on the hearers’ hearts here than what was laid on their hearts in the church. Many preachers themselves encouraged this delusion.
But what was even worse was that when the novelty wore off in a certain place, those participating decreased. This became a cause of irritation and bitterness between those who left and those who remained. Again, only all too often the preachers themselves very carelessly cultivated this. The preachers’ egos were hurt when the numbers dropped; they tried to find the reason for the change in the character of the hearers: they were people whose zeal in Christianity grew cold and who, like Demas, began to love the world anew. This is certainly how they must have spoken about them to those remaining behind; and so gradually arose the belief and conviction that all who no longer attended the devotional gatherings, or never attended them, were not among the true Christians.
This resulted in a certain spiritual pride that secretly seized the people and soon became recognized by several signs. They saw themselves as the only children of God at that place and all who did not belong to their group they saw as children of the world. They then took greater pains to separate themselves from them and to make it more obvious; they took the desire for separation to a level of childlike strictness not only in matters like dancing and theatre but also in indifferent and completely insignificant things.
But as soon as the opinion arose that attending the devotional gatherings was a sure sign of being a true Christian, a number of people would soon crowd in. They were people who wanted to be true Christians only at this cost but at no higher cost; but at the same time they stayed like they were before and were fundamentally unimproved. If they only did not have any coarse vices, they were acceptable to the group and the preacher who was happy to see his little flock increase. If even those who were more enlightened looked good and nothing essential was lacking, the conclusion was drawn from their wish to join the community of brothers that, at the very least, “there was a beginning of awakening in them.” They then considered themselves united and were very careful to associate with the dimly burning wick and by this they strengthened them in their self- deception.
It was also inevitable that fanatic views would arise. Many were lacking a right knowledge of doctrine; even worse, many regarded a right knowledge of doctrine as something unnecessary to bother themselves over. These private devotional gatherings were supposed to be different from the public services because here it was more from the heart than from the head. Often it was the case that there was no head, for the laity could also join in together and in many places it was just laity that spoke and found it advantageous to raise this “heart theology” over every other. The same experiences are found already here as later on by the daughter of Pietism, Methodism.
So far Professor Krauss
The Symbolism of the pretzel
Pretzels were first made in 610 AD as rewards for children who learned their prayers. The U shape of the dough represents prayers going up to Heaven. The knots represent children's parents united in marriage. The 3 openings represent the trinity and the shape resembles children's arms crossed in prayer. [Julius Sturgis pretzel factory in Lititz, Pa.]
Good Day Ladies,
Just a few news items this month: we have a meeting coming up March 15th after church. We have a 5th Sunday this month but instead of the dinner we will use that time as a reception for our confirmands. Remember we have are craft-bake sale coming up in April.
Pray you will have a blessed month.
Carol
SERMONS FOR MID-WEEK LENT SERVICES IN MARCH
04 March
Mark 14.50-52
Jesus Deserted
18 March
Mark 15. 16-20
Christ's Garments
11 March
Mark 14.60-64
Jesus, The God-Man On Trial
25 March: PUBLIC EXAMINATION OF CONFIRMANDS
In honor of St. Patrick’s Day—Prayers by St. Patrick:
Christ, as a light, illumine and guide me! Christ, as a shield, overshadow and cover me! Christ be beside me on left hand and right! Christ be before me, behind me, about me! Christ this day be within and without me! Christ the lowly and meek, Christ the all-powerful, be in the heart of each to whom I speak, in the mouth of each who speaks to me! In all who draw near me, or see or hear me. In this awe-filled hour, I call on the Holy Trinity! Glory to Him who reigns in power, the God of the elements, Father and Son and Paraclete Spirit, which three are the one, the ever existing divinity! Salvation dwells with the Lord, with Christ the omnipotent Word. From generation to generation, grant us, O Lord, Your grace and salvation. Amen.
I bind unto myself the name, the strong name of the Trinity; the invocation of the same, the Three in One and One in Three—by whom all nature was created—Eternal Father, Spirit, Word. Praise to the Lord of my salvation. Salvation is of Christ the Lord. Amen.
[Prayers from: The Lord Will Answer: A Daily Prayer Catechism, CPH 2004, pg. 49, 34]
A QUOTE FROM A SAINT: "Stupidity is also a gift of God, but one mustn't misuse it."
Pope St. John Paul II
CHRISTMAS IN MARCH?
Christmas is about our Lord’s incarnation—the true God became also true man. But Christmas celebrates the birth of Christ. On March 25th, 9 months before Christmas we celebrate the Annunciation, the day the angel announced to Mary that she would be the Mother of God [Luke 1.26-38]. It is a great mystery, beyond our understanding, that the eternal God could be born in time of a woman; that God became man. From the moment of the Incarnation, nine months before Jesus’ birth and into all eternity, the Son of God is also true man. What follows is Luther’s reflection on this mystery.
This is the twofold birth of Christ. First, there is the birth by which He is called God’s Son. This birth is from eternity…. Afterward He became a man, was born of Mary, and yet they are not two but only one Son. This article suffers great hardship among the fanatics. But after the Lord Christ’s ascension, people in the Christian Church believe in this way: “I believe in God the Father and in Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son, our Lord,…” For Christ is another person. Although He is not the Father, He is still the Creator of heaven and earth, has the divine essence and nature, and later was also born of the Virgin Mary in time. And yet there are not two Christs or Sons, but one Jesus, as we say “and in Jesus Christ,” who is one single Son, one person, and yet has two natures, which are united in the one person and in Christ. The holy Gospels teach us this and also prove it, and if this article falters, we are lost. [AE, LXVIII, pg. 250-251].
REMEMBER YOUR OFFERINGS EVEN IF YOU CANNOT BE IN CHURCH ON A SUNDAY. OUR WORK AND BILLS CONTINUE.
Clothe Yourself with splendor and majesty. In Your majesty ride forth victoriously in behalf of truth, humility, and righteousness; let Your right hand display awesome deeds. [Psalm 45.4 NIV]
Therefore let us open our hearts and look at our Priest, Christ, in His true majesty. Before your eyes you will not find any majesty in Him because you certainly see how ignominiously, miserably and wretchedly He hangs there. But behold His heart. There you will find such a majesty and treasure for which you can never sufficiently thank Him. First, He is adorned with the great, glorious obedience toward His Father in which He allowed Himself—for the Father’s glory—to be spit upon, whipped, and tormented. It is impossible in this life for us to be able to see such adornment, but yet so much of it can we see that all pearls, velvet and gold-embroidered clothing are nothing in comparison. The other adornment is His great love of us that the Lord does not regard His life and suffering and He prays for us rather than for Himself. Who will sufficiently understand such love—that the Lord has such a heart toward us, so full of fire, that He places Himself in His greatest suffering as if He doesn’t see or feel it but He thinks, sees and cares only about your and mine misery, distress and sorrow. [Luther]
What is the Coptic Church?
The name “Coptic” comes from the Greek word for “Egypt. There are various traditions linking Mark, Barnabas, and Peter with the founding of the church in Egypt.
The break with Rome came at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. There the Copts denied the 2 natures of Christ, namely that Jesus is both true God and true man. They say that there is only one nature in Christ—the divine nature. This false teaching is called Monophysitism. The Patriarch of Alexandria, Dioscorus, was deposed at Chalcedon due to his maintaining this false teaching on Jesus only having the one nature, the divine. In 567 two lines of patriarchs were established: the orthodox Catholic, whose following consisted of a foreign minority, and the Egyptian Monophysites, or the Coptic Church. The seat of the patriarch was moved to Cairo by Christodulos, patriarch 1047–77.
The Coptic Church as such never reunited with Rome. It was reduced by internal troubles, persecution, and the Persian invasion (618–627). The Arab conquests in 640 gave it relief from Byzantine persecution. In the Moslem massacre of 832 many Copts were slain. For several centuries afterwards, Arabs, Turks, and Syrians all in turn ruled Egypt. Saladin, a Kurd of Armenia, became sultan of Egypt 1174; he moderated opposition to Christians, but during the Crusades the Copts were persecuted by Moslems. The Turks regained power over Egypt 1517 and remained until overcome by Napoleon I. After the English defeated the French in Egypt 1801, Mehemet (or Mohammed) Ali became viceroy of Egypt from 1805–48; under his reign the Copts attained peace. In 1741 the Coptic bishop of Jerusalem joined the Roman Catholic Church giving rise to the Uniate Coptic Church, which is in union with and submits to the Roman papacy but among other things keeps its own language and law.
Although the Copts hold erring views of Christ, we still regard them as our fellow Christians and part of the body of Christ. We trust the Lord still works saving faith in spite of their error and weakness in doctrine. We certainly are saddened by the Moslem slaughter of these 21 Coptic Christians and we pray for comfort for their families. We are strengthened by their witness of confessing Christ.
PRAYER: Holy Father, Your Son foretold persecution and hatred for all who are His own. Remember in mercy the families of those recently martyred in North Africa and elsewhere. Comfort them with Your Son’s promise that those who are faithful until death will be crowned with everlasting life. Bring an end to the bloodshed in Your own time and way, forgiving those who persecute and blaspheme Your Son’s name and converting them that they may rejoice with all Your people in His saving love; through Jesus Christ, Your Son our Lord. Amen.
WERE THEY RIGHT??
During a lecture at the University of Regensburg in Germany in 12 September 2006, Pope Benedict XVI cited a 14th-century [1391] Byzantine emperor, Manuel II Palaiologos, one of the last Christian rulers before the fall of Constantinople to the Muslim Turks in 1453 who said: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”
FIVE REASONS TO GIVE TITHES AND OFFERINGS
The Lord speaks against insincere offerings intended to impress other people [Is. 1.10-17; Mt. 6.2-4; Mk. 12.41-44]. He desires that we give cheerfully and that we honor His generous gifts to us. Scripture includes the following good reasons to present tithes and offerings to God:
Thankfulness to God for the blessings He provides us through the Gospel.
[Dt. 14.22-29; Rm. 15.25-28; 2 Co. 9.7]
Desire to support the mission of preaching the Gospel so that others may partake of God’s peace and salvation.
[Rm. 15.28b; Php. 1.3-5; 4.14-20]
Desire to show support and care for church workers.
[Num. 18.21-24; Ne. 12.44; Gal. 6.6-7; 1 Ti. 5. 17-18]
God commanded tithing under the Old Testament, by which He has set before us an enduring example of faithful giving.
[Lv. 27.32; Gn. 14.18-20; Heb. 7. 1-10]
God challenged His people to test His generosity by demonstrating their generosity in giving to His temple.
[Mal. 3. 6-12]
Early in Israel’s history, the priests at the temple received offerings of grain, fruit, or animals. Later, offerings of bit-silver or money were placed in a chest at the temple, which stood in the entry way so that people could deposit their money [2 Ki. 12.9; 2 Ch. 24.4-11; the passing of the offering plates in a modern innovation.
[Source: Lutheran Study Bible, CPH, pg. 1092]
Comments for this post have been disabled.