Pietism

’s Teaching on Church and Ministry

[This is the third in a series or four essays on Pietism.*]

Lutheran Pietism as represented by Philip Jacob Spener (1635–1705) and August Hermann Francke
(1663–1727) was an ideology and a movement which sought to change the status quo in the lives of seventeenth
and eighteenth century German Lutherans. These two men and their adherents judged the prevailing level of
sanctification in the churches and found it wanting. They called for a higher Christian piety; they proposed and
implemented measures to cultivate it.
Although historians who are inimical to Lutheran Orthodoxy have sought to blame it for conditions
among the German Lutherans of the seventeenth century, neither Spener or Francke ever suggested that ethical
sterility, nominal Christianity or worldliness sprang from the orthodox teaching. What they contended against in
particular was the apparently widespread perversion of justification by faith alone which concludes, “It doesn’t
matter how you live as long as you believe right.” There is always the danger that knowledge of the right
teaching will be confused with faith and that adherence to an orthodox system of doctrine will breed a self-
righteous complacency that precludes personal conviction of sin and trust in the Savior of sinners.
Apart from the fact that even the purest and clearest evangelical teaching does not always fall on good
ground, there were other factors which contributed to the conditions which Spener decried in his Pia Desideria
(Pious Desires) of 1675. At the end of the Thirty Years War the German people were a race that had, to a
considerable extent, grown up without the benefit of pastors and teachers. Many men knew no trade but fighting
and many people disregarded any authority that was not backed by the sword. In dealing with such people the
pastors were sometimes ready to look to secular authority to help enforce church discipline. This did not teach
people to love God and his Word and his house. People might conform by attending services, but their
compliance did not grow out of and would not necessarily result in a living Christianity.
A kind of Caesaropapism had replaced the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Germany after the Reformation.
The German princes, as “the chief members of the church,” were asked to take the place of Catholic bishops as
chief ecclesiastical administrators. This arrangement continued even when some of the princes were only
nominally Christian and lived manifestly impenitent lives. Some of them were unionists, indifferent to doctrinal
differences with Reformed Christians. Some of the princes who were Christian and wanted to be loyal to the
Lutheran Confessions were inept meddlers in church affairs.
Princes and town councils appointed the ministers of the church and the appointments often were based
on political considerations. Not all appointees were apt to teach, not all had a love for souls, not all lived in a
manner consistent with their office. Pastors were not supported by their superiors in matters of church
discipline, especially when trying to deal with those of noble birth or high station.
Every subject of a realm or citizen of a free city was counted as a parishioner. Imagine a parish today in
which every inhabitant was regarded as a church member. Would not such a “congregation” include coarse
sinners and despisers of God’s grace? Could such a situation be blamed on orthodox teaching?
Granted that conditions in the churches were bad, it would be a mistake to assume, as some Pietists did
assume, that there were no faithful pastors who worked in a practical way to edify God’s people. Before Spener
set out to “complete the Reformation,” men like the dogmatician Johann Gerhard, the hymnwriter Paul
Gerhardt, and the author of True Christianity, Johannes Arndt, had labored to inculcate a living Christianity
while they adhered to the biblical truth as it is confessed in the Book of Concord. They did not work alone
either.
Spener was committed to the Lutheran Church but believed that the Reformation had not been
completed in it. He provided a bill of particulars in Pia Desideria. One remedy, which he had already proposed
 2
in a sermon of 1669, was to organize collegia pietatis, “gatherings in the interest of piety.” It is from these
gatherings that the term Pietist derived, although its connotations came to include much more than the meeting
of conventicles. As is often the case, a term used pejoratively was eventually accepted as an honorable label by
those who were so designated.
What Spener proposed in 1669 sounds somewhat like a private Bible class:

How much good it would do if good friends would come together on a Sunday and instead of getting out
glasses, cards, or dice would take up a book and read from it for the edification of all or would review
something from sermons that were heard! If they would speak with one another about the divine
mysteries, and the one who received most from God would try to instruct his weaker brethren! If, should
they be not quite able to find their way through, they would ask a preacher to clarify the matter! If this
should happen, how much evil would be held in abeyance, and how the blessed Sunday would be
sanctified for the great edification and marked benefit of all! It is certain, in any case, that we preachers
cannot instruct the people from our pulpits as much as is needful unless other persons in the
congregation, who by God’s grace have a superior knowledge of Christianity, take the pains, by virtue of
their universal Christian priesthood, to work with and under us to correct and reform as much in their
neighbors as they are able according to the measure of their gifts and their simplicity.1

The potential for both blessing and mischief lay in these collegia pietatis. Mutual edification, instruction
of weaker brethren, discussion of difficult passages with the pastor, relieving the pastor of some of his work and
the exercise of the universal priesthood. These were and are worthy aims to pursue. But the depreciation of
other forms of social relaxation and the suggestion that lay members purpose to correct and reform their
neighbors suggest that some of the less evangelical aspects of Pietism were present from the beginning.
At Frankfurt-am-Main Spener implemented his plan with Sunday and Wednesday gatherings in his own
residence. The Sunday sermon was discussed along with biblical texts and devotional literature. A further goal
of the meetings was the establishment and cultivation of friendships among those with a “Christian disposition”
who would encourage Christian piety in one another. Spener hoped that if a smaller group experienced a
religious renewal they would serve as a leaven to improve the lump and create a “living Christianity.”
Quite deliberately he followed the stratagem of fostering “little churches within the church,” ecclesiolae
in ecclesia. This naturally raised the issues of proper church order and the integrity of the ministry. The aims
and methods also made theologians wonder about Spener’s understanding of church and ministry. Although he
and those who imbibed his spirit and used his methods did not develop new dogmas of church and ministry, in
part because they were in reaction against dogmatics, their views did work themselves out in their practical
ministry. Their real teaching must be surmised from their practice and we may venture some generalizations on
the basis of what they said and did.
Spener wanted to uphold the Lutheran view of what the church is. He had no desire to undercut the
effectiveness of the public ministry. Formally, he and Francke both adhered to the teaching of Augustana VII on
the church and Augustana VIII on the ministry. Neither wanted to equate the true invisible church with a visible
community.
But in making doctrine secondary and assigning priority to Christian living their “marks of the Church”
tended to shift from “the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments” (A. C. VII) to
“chastity, patience, the fear of God, love to one’s neighbor and the works of love” (Apology VII and VIII).
Practically, there was a shift from thinking of the church as the communion of those who are righteous by faith
to those who are ethically righteous, who have a “living Christianity.”
It was not Spener’s intention to separate “true” Christians from others. The conventicle was to be
ecclesiola in ecclesia, not ecclesiola extra ecclesiam. The collegia pietatis were not to replace regular church
attendance and there was to be no celebration of the Lord’s Supper in small groups apart from the public
services.
Separations did, however, occur. In some Pietists the impulse to separate from the church was stronger
 3
than the impulse to serve it. As early as 1676 one of Spener’s friends and supporters began to absent himself
from the Lord’s Supper, a course of action that seemed logical and necessary to him and to others if the
institutional church was really as bad as Spener said it was. In 1685 the latter published Der Klagen ueber das
verdorbene Christenthum Missbrauch und rechter Gebrauch (Misuse and Correct Use of Complaints about the
Sad State of Christianity) to argue that separation from the institutional church, even with its faults and
imperfections, was not justified. When further tendencies toward elitism and separatism appeared, Spener grew
cautious and did not introduce the collegium at his later charges in Dresden and Berlin.
A generation later Francke operated with the concept of a three-way division of the congregation. The
largest group, to his way of thinking, was constituted of those who had the form of godliness but lacked its
substance. It is difficult to avoid the impression that he was denying the faith of those who did not meet his
standards of how the Christian lives. Valentin Ernst Loescher (1673–1749), the most irenic of Pietism’s
contemporary critics, seemed to gain that impression, too. One of the points of contention between him and
Francke’s Halle faculty was whether ethical holiness is a mark of the church’s authenticity.
The second group in Francke’s three-way division consisted of those who had made a beginning but
were not yet fully committed. In modern parlance they had not yet made a “decision for Christ,” a phrase which
Francke would not have found offensive.
The smallest group, fully committed according to Francke’s norms, constituted the “true” church. He
strove to enlarge and extend this inner circle. Whether he realized it or not, he was trying to make the invisible
Church visible. It may not be an overstatement to say that he believed he could identify “the true people of God,
regenerated by the Holy Ghost” (Apology VII and VIII, Trigl. 231).
Another of Loescher’s charges against the Pietism of Halle was that it undervalued the means of grace.
That was not formally true of Spener. In Pia Desideria he wrote: “If there is to be any good in us, it must be
brought about by God. To this end the Word of God is the powerful means, since faith must be enkindled
through the gospel.”2 Both he and Francke sought to retain the teaching that Holy Baptism is objectively
efficacious. Both expressed the conviction that fellowship with God is effected by means of the Word.
But it is a fact that one of the peculiarities of Francke’s pastoral work was that he urged people to pray
for the kind of conversion experience he had undergone. In this he was not directing them to the objective truth
of Christ’s vicarious sacrifice and to his righteousness for us. His son-in-law Fresenius, who helped to continue
the educational and charitable work at Halle after Francke’s death, was not far removed from his mentor when
he gave instruction for a “thorough” conversion “in a short time.” In his Book on Confession and Communion
he wrote: “Pray for grace …! This prayer you should offer, not once or twice, but you must continue offering it
daily with sighs and strong crying until you obtain grace, which assures you from your own experience that
your heart has been truly changed.”3 Thus the troubled soul or urgent seeker was directed to prayer and
personal experience rather than to the timeless and universal truth of justification in Christ.
The neglect of objective preaching of universal reconciliation and justification was bound to lead to that
legalism which characterized Halle under Francke’s successors. The anthropocentrism which directed men to
self, feeling and experience instead of to the Word, could easily become the anthropocentrism which enthroned
reason in theology. It did. Historians are agreed that Pietism paved the way for Rationalism at Halle, especially
at Halle.
Pietism stressed that churchly authority really belongs to the gathering of Christians. Spener and
Francke both believed that congregations should have a voice in calling their pastors and that there should be
lay representation at synods. Princes and consistories were only exercising a delegated authority, the Pietists
believed, and when they misused it the authority should revert to the congregations.
As we have noted, some of the princes were unionists, indifferent to the confessional distinctions
between the Lutheran and Reformed churches. Much theological effort on the part of Lutherans was directed
toward making those differences plain and to validate the Lutheran position. Spener and Francke were not
entirely unappreciative of that position and those efforts. They both, however, had read and learned from
Johannes Arndt’s True Christianity and they shared the latter’s “moderate” approach to confessional questions.
Late in life Arndt recounted why he had written his great devotional classic and included among the reasons that
 4
he had “wished to withdraw the minds of students and preachers from an inordinately controversial and
polemical theology which has well-nigh assumed the form of an earlier scholastic theology.”4

In Pia Desideria Spener advocated a practice of heartfelt love toward all unbelievers and heretics. While
we should indicate to them that we take no pleasure in their unbelief or false belief or the practice and
propagation of these, but rather are vigorously opposed to them, yet in other things which pertain to
human life we should demonstrate that we consider these people to be our neighbors …, regard them as
our brothers according to the right of common creation and the divine love that is extended to all
(though not according to regeneration), and therefore are so disposed in our hearts toward them as the
command to love all others as we love ourselves demands.…5

This was not liberalism or unionism but wholesome counsel for confessional Lutherans in any age.
Halle nurtured the notion that the doctrines which really matter are the basic truths, that is biblical truths
which have been verified in the experience of the Christian community. There was that appeal to experience
again and that setting of human criteria. It made for a looser view of confessional Lutheranism than either Arndt
or Spener had advocated and a more liberal attitude toward other “evangelicals.” It also helped to prepare the
climate for Rationalism’s easy triumph at Halle when Christian Wolff, deposed in 1723, returned in triumph in
1740.
Francke did not advocate union with the Reformed. He did, however, urge unified efforts in missions,
education and charitable work. When nineteenth century Pietists turned from rationalism to a more confessional
and ecclesiastical mindset, many Lutherans continued their participation in various unionistic enterprises and
institutions.
The literary opponent of Pietism, a younger contemporary of Francke, was the aforementioned Valentin
Ernst Loescher. In his Unschuldige Nachrichten von alten und neuen theologischen Sachen (Guileless Reports
on Theological Matters Both Old and New) and in a colloquy with the Halle faculty, he charged that Pietism
was depriving the ministry of its authority. The charge had been leveled by others earlier against Spener.
Spener’s second proposal for renewal in Pia Desideria had been “the establishment and diligent exercise
of the spiritual priesthood.” He hoped, through the collegia pietatis and through his writing, to encourage and
equip Christians for the discharge of this priesthood.6 It is a fact that his views on the spiritual priesthood of all
believers were subject to misinterpretation and misuse. He himself recognized this and warned against it,
proposing safeguards to prevent it.
He elaborated his teaching with seventy questions and answers in The Spiritual Priesthood in 1677.7
Here he taught that Christ has purchased this priesthood, that it is bestowed by the Holy Spirit and that it is
acquired in Holy Baptism. It is active in three ways. The first is in spiritual sacrifice, the office of yielding all to
the Redeemer. The second is in praying and blessing, the office of intercession. The third is in exhorting and
consoling one’s fellow Christians, the office of the divine Word.
It was especially in connection with the third office that Spener had to warn against abuses. In Question
26 he asks, “Are then all Christians preachers and are they to exercise the preaching office?” He answers: “No.
To exercise the office publicly in the congregation before all and over all requires a special call.” He might have
added “on behalf of all” to further clarify what public ministry is. In Questions 46 to 51 he speaks of the
responsibility of all Christians to care for the salvation and edification of others and warns that this is to be done
“without hindrance to the public office of the regular ministry.” In answer to the question (68) what the called
pastors should do to prevent disorder, he concludes that “they should keep the supervision and Christian
direction of the work in their hands.” Question 69 asks how spiritual priests should conduct themselves so as to
prevent disorder. The answer is, “They should associate faithfully with godly ministers.…They should willingly
give them an account of their doings and follow their Christian counsel, and especially refrain from all
disparagement of them, picking flaws in them and injuring their office with anyone.”
Spener did not want to be a Donatist, but he had described in Pia Desideria how a “godly minister”
lives. He wrote of clergy who “do not actually possess the true marks of a new birth.”8 He placed a higher value
 5
on godly living than on orthodox teaching. It is a fact that some of his followers and many later Pietists
separated themselves from the church when they determined that their ministers were not “godly,” that their
personal character flaws were not compensated for by their orthodoxy.
One of Spener’s complaints regarding the training of pastors was that it was possible to complete
university training without having had a single course in exegesis. Another was that many graduates of the
theological faculties had no idea how to preach in the language of the people. He proposed that collegia pietatis
be initiated both to remedy these shortcomings and to deepen the devotional life and ethical sensibilities of
students of theology. He wrote:

Surely students of theology ought to lay this foundation, that during their early years of study they
realize that they must die unto the world and live as individuals who are to become examples to the
flock, and that this is not merely an ornament but a very necessary work, without which they may indeed
be students of what may be called a philosophy of sacred things but not students of theology who are
instructed and will be preserved only in light of the Holy Spirit.… If at the beginning of their study of
theology all this were told to students and impressed upon them, I should hope that it would bear much
fruit throughout the entire time of their study and, indeed, the rest of their lives.9

Pia Desideria also suggests that students read Theologia Germanica and Tauler “which, next to
Scriptures, probably made our dear Luther what he was. Such was the advice of Luther himself.”10 Here Spener
was directing students to German mystics who did influence the early Luther. Regrettably, many Pietists
followed through on this advice which Luther wrote to Spalatin in 1516, before he had won through to
theological clarity and evangelical freedom. A theological student who was directed toward subjective and
anthropocentric sources for inspiration and guidance was being led away from the objective truth of objective
justification and would mislead souls accordingly.
Francke at Halle, and earlier at Leipzig, acted on Spener’s suggestion regarding collegia pietatis for
students of theology, but not in a direct way and not under that name. He began with a collegium philobiblicum
which met on Sunday afternoons to read the Bible in the original languages. Initially the sessions were given to
linguistic matters, but later became practical and devotional.
Then he instituted collegia biblica, lectures in German on the New Testament. These attracted up to 300
students who were thus learning to speak of spiritual things in everyday language, to the advantage of their
future parishioners. As time went on the theological curriculum at Halle became increasingly practical and
students were expected to teach in the various catechetical schools which Francke had established for children
and adults who had never received thorough instruction. The emphasis on practical training and experience was
accompanied by an ever-increasing emphasis on exegesis. Halle, in Francke’s time, had the world’s best
scholars of biblical languages; systematics diminished in importance and philosophy went begging. Dale W.
Brown’s description of Halle’s dogmatics sounds somewhat familiar to graduates of Wisconsin Lutheran
Seminary: “an ordered summary of biblical theology.”11
By improving the training of pastors and especially in emphasizing the spiritual priesthood of believers,
Pietism helped to remove the wide gulf that had existed between clergy and laity. There was a more active lay
involvement in congregational life, a close cooperation between pastors and flocks. Following Francke’s lead,
institutions of learning, charity and missions both involved and depended upon lay people.
Loescher realized that much of Pietism’s criticism of the Lutheran Church in Germany had been
justified. He himself adopted the “pietistic” practices of catechetical examination, the lay diaconate, church
visitation and personal contact with candidates for the ministry in order to evaluate their character. He even
spoke in favor of conventicles if these were used in the church’s interest and did not result in separatism or
elitism.
Spener and Francke emphasized that public preaching must be accompanied by private pastoral care.
Private conversation and personal instruction can accomplish some things that sermons cannot. We are told that
Francke gave the impression of being personally concerned about everyone’s problems without seeming to be a
 6
busybody in other men’s affairs. Starck’s good counsel was not characteristic of all pietistic pastoral dealing but
it bespeaks an understanding care for souls: “The fact that a believer does not at all times feel the same degree
of happiness in prayer is no evidence that he has no faith, no more than coals concealed beneath the ashes prove
the fire to be extinguished.”12
The early Lutheran Pietists placed great emphasis on the instruction of children. Spener promoted the
Sunday school. Francke preached a series of sermons on the training of children and stressed cooperation
between home and church in Christian training. Children preparing for confirmation were welcome at Francke’s
parsonage for daily Bible study from 11:00 a.m. to noon. Catechism instruction was directed to the children’s
development and maturation as Christians.
Aids for private meditation and prayer as well as family devotions were provided. Most notable of these
was Johann Friedrich Starck’s Daily Handbook for Days of Joy and Sorrow (1728), which was more popularly
known as Starck’s Gebetbuch.
A hymnody which stressed regeneration, commitment and Christian living came into existence and to a
considerable extent displaced the Reformation chorale. The fact that a very small percentage of Lutheran
Pietism’s hymns are included in The Lutheran Hymnal suggests that there was little wheat and much chaff.
Benjamin Schmolck (1672–1737) wrote 1183 hymns, of which four appear, but it should be noted that he was
more contemporary than an advocate of Pietism. Johann Jacob Rambach (1693–1735) wrote more than 180
hymns and four are included. Only one of Johann Andreas Rothe’s (1688–1758) 40 hymns is sung in our
churches today.
Some people say that Pietism leads to legalism. We are more inclined to say that Pietism is legalism, that
Pietism’s counter to Orthodoxy’s “ethical sterility” finally developed into a “sterile legalism.” This is not to
discount its many positive contributions or to deny that the gospel did its work in the Pietists and through them.
Nor does it imply that Pietists departed from the solo Christo, sola gratia, sola fide in their formal teaching. In
what follows, however, we shall see that there was a real departure from the gospel-centeredness of Luther and
the Lutheran Confessions.
Spener tried consciously not to be a legalist, but in later life he exhibited a tendency to systematize,
prescribe and methodize Christian living. He and others thus did in the area of Christian life what they
deprecated in the area of Christian doctrine. Pietists tended to judge the Christianity of others by the often
subjective and arbitrary standards of their own conduct. It is no wonder that for some of them adherence to a set
of rules—mostly negative—came to be the identifying mark of the Christian.
Legalism must result from the confusion of law and gospel, justification and sanctification. Loescher
explicitly accused Francke and the Halle Pietists of commingling justification by faith with works. It is a fact
that they were preaching the gospel, not so much for the consolation of sinners, but so as to stimulate Christian
living. Even in Spener there was more emphasis on Christ in us than on Christ for us. Francke’s emphasis in
treating the Lord’s Supper was not on the forgiveness of sins but on the desired effect which partaking would
have on the Christian’s life. Proclamation of God’s saving acts for the assurance of troubled souls often gave
way to instruction on how to attain assurance by prayer, introspection and the experience of joy. To say that
Spener did not divide law and gospel as sharply as Luther did but tried to operate with “an organic
combination” of the two is really to say he confused them.
Loescher formally accused the Pietists of a false position on adiaphora. Actually, they did not really have
a position on adiaphora because for them nothing was “indifferent.” It has been said in defense of both Spener
and Francke that they were reacting in a legitimate way against extremes in dress and entertainment, against
license and drunkenness, against a general misuse of time and treasure. Spener did not oppose pleasure, play,
dancing and the theater as sinful in themselves. But he assumed that they cannot be engaged in to the glory of
God and are therefore not suitable activities for the truly regenerate. He regarded the reading of the classics as a
sinful waste of time.
Francke held that dancing is intrinsically sinful since it is not motivated by the Holy Spirit. He opposed
the reading of fiction as a waste of time and also because it is not true. Children in his institutions really were
forbidden to play. Enjoyment militates against self-denial and the flesh can be crucified only by abstinence from
 7
what is enjoyed. In Rule 20 of Rules for the Protection of Conscience and for Good Order in Conversation or in
Society (1689) he wrote:

Games and other pastimes such as dancing, jumping, and so forth, arise from an improper and empty
manner of life, and common and unchaste postures in speech are associated with them.… They provide
an opportunity for you to become enmeshed in a disorderly way of life, or at least make it very difficult
for you to preserve the peace of God in your soul.

Rule 24 commands:

Guard yourself from unnecessary laughter. All laughter is not forbidden. It is fitting that the most pious
person rejoices inwardly not over earthly but rather over divine things.… How frivolous (laughter) is
becomes clear when a person wishes to draw near to the everpresent God once again in deep humility.…
Joking does not please God; why then should it please you? If it does not please you, why do you laugh
over it? If you laugh, you have sinned as well.13

What is enjoyed and natural does not come from the Spirit. What is serious and sacrificial does.
One of the charges laid at the door of Lutheran Pietism is that it really derived from Reformed sources.
It is true that personal contact with Calvinists and personal reading of Reformed literature did play a role in the
shaping of Spener and, to a lesser degree, Francke. It is true that Starck regarded Sunday as the Sabbath, set
apart by God as a day of rest, not to be desecrated by labor or business of any kind, to be observed not for an
hour but all day long.
Orthodox teachers of the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries accused Pietists of teaching that a
converted Christian can attain to perfection. Loescher made a formal accusation of perfectionism against
Francke and the Halle faculty. It can be said that both Spener and Francke formally disavowed perfectionism.
Spener anticipated and deflected the charge in Pia Desideria: “We are not forbidden to seek perfection,
but we are urged on toward it. And how desirable it would be if we were to achieve it! [But] I cheerfully
concede that here in this life we shall not manage that, for the farther a godly Christian advances, the more he
will see that he lacks, and so he will never be farther removed from the illusion of perfection than when he tries
hardest to reach it.”14
Francke wrote a brief treatise On Christian Perfection in 1690, in which he wrote:

Both of the following statements are true in a certain sense: We are perfect, and we are not perfect.
Namely, we are perfect through Christ and in Christ through our justification and according to the
righteousness of Jesus Christ ascribed to us. However, we are not and will not be completely perfect in
the sense that we will nevermore be able to grow, to set aside evil and to take on good toward
sanctification. The one who does not wish to err in this matter must distinguish well the article
concerning justification and that concerning renovation or sanctification.15

Whatever aberrations may have appeared among their followers and successors, both Spener and
Francke recognized the danger of perfectionism and disavowed it. Both affirmed the doctrine of imputed
righteousness and the perfection that is ours by faith in Christ. Both strove for perfection and encouraged others
to do so. Both knew and admitted that it is not to be attained this side of heaven.
Whatever positive things may be said of Pietism and whatever defenses may be raised against specific
charges of false teaching, its shift in emphasis from objective justification to regeneration cannot be ignored.
The insistence on introspection, subjective experience and the external signs of “living Christianity” profoundly
affected its pastoral theology. We can observe this in Pietism’s attitude toward baptism and in its teaching on
regeneration and conversion.
Francke and his Halle co-workers and successors were especially culpable in this regard. Formally, as
 8
ministers pledged to the Lutheran Confessions, they held to baptismal regeneration. Actually, their emphasis
was on a later “renewal” of the baptismal covenant, a conscious commitment, actually a conversion. “At some
point in the maturation of the individual personal faith must be added to baptism.”16 This is what made
confirmation so important in their thinking. “Every baptized child was looked upon as having fallen from the
state of baptismal grace, necessitating this conscious pledge on the part of the individual as a completion of the
efficacy of this covenant.”17
Francke’s Autobiography recounts the conversion experience which he held to be normative for all.18 In
the fall of 1687, after completing his theological studies, he went to Lueneburg where he hoped “to become a
justified Christian.” He was asked to preach and “was not only concerned with the mere preaching of a sermon
but chiefly with the upbuilding of the congregation.” His text was John 20:31, “But these are written that you
may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”
Here, surely, was a text that would direct him and his hearers to rely on the objective truth of God’s
written Word. But that was not what Francke saw in it. “With this text I had a particular opportunity to discuss
true faith, and how this faith is distinguished from a mere human and imaginary foolish faith.” As he meditated
further he concluded, “I did not find the faith in myself that I was to demand in the sermon.”
He agonized in prayer, asking God to give him the assurance of a living faith. “When I knelt down I did
not believe that there was a God but when I stood up I believed it to the point of giving up my blood without
fear or doubt.” If anyone ever pointed out to him the inconsistency of calling on a God in whose existence he
did not believe, Francke would not have been disturbed. He had had the experience. “This is the period to
which I can point as that of my true conversion. From this time on my Christianity had a place to stand.”
Awareness of one’s sinful condition, doubt as to one’s faith, prayerful struggle, conversion experience.
These were the ingredients of the Buszkampf which became normative in Francke’s care of souls. There should
be such an experience to recall, recount and fix in time. Without this a person has not been reborn. The resultant
damage has been cataloged and documented in an insightful and practical way by various fathers of the
Synodical Conference, particularly Walther and Francis Pieper. The latter quotes Schneckenburger’s evaluation:

The individual’s assurance of his sonship with God and salvation, a primary need of the Reformed,
could not come into question at all for a Lutheran while orthodoxy was in bloom in his Church. In
penitential faith he took the assurance of forgiveness out of absolution, which was for him the absolute
truth and the consolation of the Holy Spirit, and where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and
salvation. Only when Pietism arrived, there was introduced a reflection on one’s inner status.
Unrestrained subjectivity operated entirely apart from the objective acts of the Church, which no longer
gave full satisfaction. Thus gradually an approach to the Reformed way of viewing things begins to
appear even among the orthodox.19

Francke and others could insist that the experience must not be striven for in an artificial way, but they were
establishing counterfeit norms for the assurance of the believer and counterfeit means of attaining to it.
In the sermon If and How One May Be Certain That One Is a Child of God (1707)20 Francke avers that
a true child of God cannot be disturbed and concludes that those who are disturbed have no true certainty. He
directs them to pray and assures them that “God [will] give you his adoption so that you will find the proper
indicators of this.” These indicators are prayer, experience, signs in one’s life. “Thereafter you will have joy and
pleasure from it when your certainty has a firm basis.” The gospel of Christ’s vicarious atonement and of
universal objective justification sealed by his resurrection is not there. Or, it is not made explicit when it most
needs to be made explicit.
In the same sermon there is also the warning not to confuse the “beginning of conversion” with
conversion, which is equated with a “full victory of the faith.” One must still always be uncertain and insecure
until one meets the pastor’s criterion of victorious living, of true conversion. If Francke and his imitators cannot
be formally convicted of false doctrine they certainly stand convicted of false teaching in the sense that they
tormented souls which needed comforting.
 9
In A Letter to a Friend Concerning the Most Useful Way of Preaching (1725) Francke advised his friend
“to lay down in his sermons the distinguishing marks and characters both of the converted and of the
unconverted … so that every one of (his) hearers may be able to judge his own state, and may know to which of
these two classes he belongs.”21 He warns against an unskilled confusing of the two classes but offers the
reassurance that “a prudent minister, who has experienced a work of grace upon his own heart, will have no
difficulty in describing it to others, so as to guard sufficiently against the mistakes on both sides.” Again,
personal experience is the touchstone and the objective truth of law and gospel is not a sufficient means. It is no
wonder that Pietism was not satisfied with the general absolution: the Word of forgiveness must be protected
against those who have not yet attained to the Pietists’ standard of readiness to hear it. Or, as they saw it, such
people must be protected from hearing it.
We conclude that Lutheran Pietism, as represented by Spener and Francke, adhered to the formal
definitions of church and ministry as set forth in the Augsburg Confession. Where it went astray was in its
understanding of the church’s mission and of the ministry’s function. The essential proclamation that sins are
forgiven was relegated to the ancillary role of getting people to feel and behave like “true Christians” as defined
by their pastors. All the good work in education of children and adults, all the mission activity and works of
mercy, all the involvement of the laity in church life and government was finally tainted by the tyranny over
souls that resulted from Pietism’s fundamental legalism.

In addition to the works cited two more books are rich in information and analysis concerning Pietism. They are:
Stoeffler, F. Ernst, The Rise of Evangelical Pietism (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1971).
Stoeffler, F. Ernst, ed., Continental Pietism and Early American Christianity (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Co., 1976).
 * ndnotes

 The following foreword, “The Legacy of Pietism,” was written for the series by Edward C. Fredrich.
Volume 82 of the Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly will present four articles that will give special attention to the
theological movement called Pietism. The first, appearing in this Winter issue, will be of a bibliographical nature,
treating some of the major writings produced by the Lutheran Pietists of Germany [written by Martin O.
Westerhaus].
Subsequent articles will center on specific aspects. There will be a study of the Pietist influence in the area of
church and ministry [by Richard D. Balge]. Then the great Halle mission enterprises will be highlighted [by Ernst
H. Wendland]. A final study will have the title, “Pietism Comes to America” [by Edward C. Fredrich].
Why all this attention to Pietism in 1985? It isn’t even an anniversary year. That was 1975, three hundred years
after the appearance of Spener’s Pia Desideria, the book generally credited or blamed for inaugurating German
Lutheran Pietism. But in 1975, readers will recall, the anniversary that absorbed our attention was “Grace—125.”
If Pietism had to wait for its turn while that anniversary and those of the birthdays of our country, our
Confessions and our Reformer were being celebrated, then the year 1985 may not be as inappropriate as might
seem for catching up.
Just 300 years ago in 1685, Pietism was getting into high gear. After ten troubled years of controversy and
strife at Frankfurt-on-Main where he was located, Spener sought to rescue the infant movement from some of its
worst excesses. He broke with the Frankfurt separatists, who would provide Pennsylvania with some of its colorful
immigrant groups. The repudiation of the separatists was signaled by Spener’s 1685 writing, Der Klagen ueber das
verdorbene Christentum Misbrauch und rechter Gebrauch (“Misuse and Correct Use of Complaints About the Sad
State of Christianity”).
In 1685 the other outstanding Pietist leader, August Hermann Francke, was taking the first steps that would
soon bring him to his leadership role at Halle. He received an advanced degree at Leipzig that year and then began
the Bible lectures that attracted such attention and gave Pietism one of its important characteristics.
Whether this year’s concentration on Pietism in the Quarterly is timely or tardy can be debated. What is hardly
debatable, however, is the value of such concentration on our part any time and any place. There are good reasons
for the Quarterly and its readers to review periodically “The Legacy of Pietism.”
The legacy is long. It reaches across the centuries into our own time. It involves such basic and enduring
theological issues as the proper relation of sanctification and justification and of law and gospel. It touches on such
relevant issues as lay involvement, Bible study and theological education.
There is a danger that the average Wisconsin Synod pastor will give the whole subject the quick and easy
brush-off here and elsewhere. If there is one characteristic Wisconsin Synod pastors have in common, it is a
profound and congenital distaste for Pietism. The easiest way to win a debate on our conference floors is to charge
the opponent with being a Pietist. On the enemies’ list of most of us Pietism stands high in third place, just behind
Satan and Antichrist. Such an attitude is understandable. A church body heartily committed to the truth of objective
justification cannot help being turned off by the worst vagaries of Pietism.
The antipathy can, however, overextend itself. It can lead to a closed mind that does not reflect and an open
mouth that pronounces slogans. These are not assets in our work. We should not throw out the baby with the bath
water. We dare not let our dislike for Pietism lead us to a personal or professional neglect of piety. A
reconsideration of the flaws and faults in Pietism may help us refrain from recommitting the same blunders and
errors. It need not blind us to whatever commendable uses and pluses the movement underscores. Hence, the
studies in this year’s Quarterly.
There is a special reason why a consideration of Pietism is especially in place in 1985. The big new Lutheran
Church is in the process of forming. By 1988 it is to be a reality. Many things about this church body are not yet
known. But this we do know: the church body that will dominate theologically is the Lutheran Church in America
and among its theological emphases Pietism has an honored place. The ancestor ministerium of the LCA was
founded by Muhlenberg, an emissary of Halle. Its oldest seminary was founded by S.S. Schmucker on the
proposition, “Without piety, no man can be a faithful minister.”
Even if these short-range prophecies of a larger lease on life in Lutheranism for Pietism prove false or inconclusive in the
years ahead, the movement will always have its place in our concerns. The four Quarterly articles in Volume 82 will not
by any means satiate those concerns or exhaust the subject. They may arouse a measure of interest and promote personal
study. To that end they are being presented in the 1985 Quarterly.
1 Spener, Philip Jacob, Pia Desideria; translated, edited with an Introduction by Theodore G. Tappert (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1964), p 13.
2 Ibid, p 87.
3 Quoted in Volume III, p 218 of Francis Pieper’s Christian Dogmatics (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1950–
 57).
4 Quoted in Tappert’s Introduction to Pia Desideria, p 8.
5 Pia Desideria, p 98f.
6 Ibid., p 92.
7 In Peter C. Erb, ed, Pietists: Selected Writings (New York: Paulist Press, 1984). The quotations are from p 54ff.
8 Pia Desideria, p 46.
9 Ibid, p 106ff.
10 Ibid, p 110.
11 Brown, Dale W., Understanding Pietism (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978), p 65.
12 In “The Afflicted One Complains of the Weakness of His Faith,” a selection from Daily Handbook for Days of Joy and
Sorrow (1728), in Erb, p 203.
13 Erb, p 111f.
14 Pia Desideria, p 80.
15 Erb, p 111f.
16 Stoeffler, F. Ernst, German Pietism During the Eighteenth Century (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973), p 17.
17 Wendland, Ernst H., “Present-Day Pietism,” Theologische Quartalschrift 49:1, January 1952, p 26. The article is
mistakenly ascribed to E. W. Wendland.
18 The quotations are from Erb, p 110f.
19 Pieper, Volume III, p 173.
20 The quotations are from Erb, p 147f.
21 The quotations are from Erb p 117f.