Pietism

[David Hawthorne]

Does anyone know of a good Orthodox article or book length treatment of pietism vs. piety? I have found an article by Yannaros and an article in Theandros but would like to read more.

[Ryan]

Does anyone know of a good Orthodox article or book length treatment of pietism vs. piety? I have found an article by Yannaros and an article in Theandros but would like to read more.

I thought pietism was a specifically Protestant movement and so would be hard to confuse with the general concept of piety. Is there some other meaning to it?

[Rick H.]

I agree with Ryan. And, this is probably not what you had in mind, but I will mention a book that I appreciate very much, by Eberhard Busch (translated by Daniel W. Bloesch), that is about Karl Barth's critique of Pietism. This book titled, Karl Barth & the Pietists, has in it the young Barth's criticism of Pietism (especially the 'religious individualism' which he strongly objected to in Pietism). From Barth's thinking, from his first hand quotes in the book, the distinction that has been drawn in the first post may be made with little effort.

I just pulled this one down off the shelf to get the author/translators name and now flipping through this and seeing some of what I highlighted the first time I think I will have to keep it out to read again. This really is a good book. I think some of the folks that are so hard on Barth have never read Barth

[David Hawthorne]

I was looking for something that compared the pietistic approach many Protestants have (personal insight trumps historic Church) vs. Orthodox piety where we are encouraged to put our heart into being faithful to the fullness of our Apostolic Christian heritage. I have some friends who seem to be going further into radical pietism (borderline emergent church stuff and/or cutting edge mass marketed non-denominational Bible Churches) and I would like to have a better understanding of where that sort of thinking comes from.

[Andrew]

Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos commonly addresses this issue in his works - the difference between true Orthodox spirituality and sentimental pietism. His writings are pretty dense and deep.

[Rick H.]

I have some friends who seem to be going further into radical pietism (borderline emergent church stuff and/or cutting edge mass marketed non-denominational Bible Churches) and I would like to have a better understanding of where that sort of thinking comes from.



With the way the term pietism/radical pietism is being used in this thread, and with the above goal in mind, it seems that it would be better to drop the term pietism . . . and just talk with the friends to see where this thinking comes from (as opposed to attempting to read a book about where their thinking comes from). I imagine you will find out that they like most people believe what they believe because that's what they have been taught.

[David Hawthorne]

With the way the term pietism/radical pietism is being used in this thread, and with the above goal in mind, it seems that it would be better to drop the term pietism . . . and just talk with the friends to see where this thinking comes from (as opposed to attempting to read a book about where their thinking comes from). I imagine you will find out that they like most people believe what they believe because that's what they have been taught.

I have spoken to them but not in any particular depth about why they are going in this direction. I still would like to know the history of this line of thought but perhaps that is one of my weaknesses, wanting to study things to death. It would be a shame if, in an effort to understand where they are coming from I end up depersonalizing the issue- thank you for the advice, Rick. And thanks to all for the responses.

[Andrew]

I was looking for something that compared the pietistic approach many Protestants have (personal insight trumps historic Church) vs. Orthodox piety where we are encouraged to put our heart into being faithful to the fullness of our Apostolic Christian heritage. I have some friends who seem to be going further into radical pietism (borderline emergent church stuff and/or cutting edge mass marketed non-denominational Bible Churches) and I would like to have a better understanding of where that sort of thinking comes from.

The pietism of the Emergent Church/house church/what have you is different from the moralistic pietism that the Orthodox Church has had to deal with every so often.

This is my own take on the emergent church groups, for what it is worth:
These groups are made up of people who are intelligent and sensitive to aesthetics and want an interior life of prayer and peace. They have mostly grown up in evangelical/charismatic groups that are tacky and spiritually damaging, and reject it, but oftentimes overdo it and adopt a somewhat worldly lifestyle. The ec groups are oftentimes extremely "non judgmental," which means that many things are tolerated that aren't in keeping with traditional Christian morality - living in sin (ie sex outside of marriage and cohabitation), sometimes homosexuality, etc. The focus is on community, interior spiritual experience, and "living evangelism." It is formless, hazy, somewhat nondogmatic, and gnostic. A lot of these people who are involved with these groups or interested in them convert to Orthodoxy, Catholicism, or abandon Christianity.

[Ken McRae]

I will mention a book that I appreciate very much, by Eberhard Busch (translated by Daniel W. Bloesch), that is about Karl Barth's critique of Pietism. This book titled, Karl Barth & the Pietists, has in it the young Barth's criticism of Pietism (especially the 'religious individualism' which he strongly objected to in Pietism).

Once upon a time, nearly two decades ago now, I too owned a few of Barth's books. To be perfectly honest, I never cared much for him then, and even less so today. I'm not sure how to take the reference to the "young" Barth, but I do know that the two world wars changed him and his theology. Prior to those two wars he was a "Liberal" theologian, in the worst possible sense of that term.

Most Orthodox will have next to no sense at all of what it means to be a "Liberal" Protestant theologian. However, it is about the worst form of Protestant theology there is, imho; and far worse than even the most extreme form of 'pietism;' for a number of reasons, not least of which is that it denied the historical Christ, just for starters, (as if that is'nt enough in itself), and the real existence of both evil and the devil!

At any rate, Barth experienced a revolution in his thinking during the second world war, which moved him closer to the "orthodoxy" so-called of historic Protestantism as taught by the early Reformers. He was the father of a form or system of Protestant theology identified or known as "neo-orthodoxy." It assumed a kind of middle of the road position between between Reformed orthodoxy and the more radical forms of "liberal" Protestant teaching. Nevertheless, it was a significant improvement over the "early" Barth, imho.


From Barth's thinking, from his first hand quotes in the book, the distinction that has been drawn in the first post may be made with little effort.

The operative phrase in the above passage are the words "first hand quotes." Let us observe that Barth did not base his view or opinion of 'pietism' on "secondary" sources, or hearsay; but rather upon his own direct "first-hand" examination of the primary sources. Let us do the same. Let us turn to the primary sources and read them "first-hand" for ourselves; in search of a well-balanced view of 'pietism', rather than a 'distorted' image of it. That means acquiring a knowledge of its best aspects, as well as its worst.

Now, if you are going to read just a handful of 'pietist' books in your life time, I would definitely recommend five early 17th century treatises, the first of which is entitled True Christianity (http://books.google.ca/books?id=J90OAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=True+Christianity+by+Johannes+Arndt#v=onepage&q=&f=false), authored by a Lutheran man named John Arndt. This particular book had a profound influence upon the life and teaching of St. Tikhon of Zadonsk. It was one of a few 'pietist' volumes that found a permanent place in his own private library. Just to give you a better idea of Arndt's importance within historical Pietism proper, I would recommend these other two volumes as well:

1) Pietism and the Making of Eighteenth-Century Prussia (http://books.google.ca/books?id=CgRNFWjvhqEC&pg=PA96&dq=True+Christianity+by+Johannes+Arndt&lr=#v=onepage&q=&f=false), by Richard L. Gawthrop.

2) Early Evangelicalism (http://books.google.ca/books?id=lE2oIwml-fQC&pg=RA1-PA9&dq=True+Christianity+by+Johannes+Arndt&lr=#v=onepage&q=&f=false), by William Reginald Ward.

In addition to the books of John Arndt, St. Tikhon also studied and was influenced by the 17th century Anglican bishop named Joseph Hall. I would thus recommend to your perusal a few of Hall's books, as well, which were also found among St. Tikhon's relics/remains. The two that I have in mind now and entitled Heaven Upon Earth, or True Peace of Mind, and secondly, his Remedy of Discontentment, both of which can be found in Volume Six (http://books.google.com/books?id=_9GzBjJd7r0C&printsec=toc#v=onepage&q=&f=false) of Hall's Collected Works.

In addition to Arndt and Hall, I also recommend three other 17th century 'pietists' of some considerable interest, though likely unknown to St. Tikhon: namely Thomas Fuller, David Dickson, and Richard Gilpin. There is no question in my mind but that Yannaros would classify Arndt, Hall, Fuller, Dickson, and Gilpin as early 'pietists'. As stated above, I have recommended Arndt and Hall primarily due to their historical connection to St. Tikhon of Zadonsk, and their relative influence upon him, but the following three treatises are recommended primarily for the glimpse they offer into the form of "sacred therapy" which these early existential 'pietists' practiced in the curing of a wounded conscience.

3) The Cause and Cure of a Wounded Conscience (http://books.google.com/books?id=0CZeDkLCmZoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Wounded+Conscience+by+Thomas+Fuller#v=onepa ge&q=&f=false), by Thomas Fuller

4) Therapeutica Sacra: Shewing Briefly, the Method of Healing the Diseases of the Conscience (http://books.google.com/books?id=4RotAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Therapeutica+Sacra+by+David+Dickson#v=onepage&q=&f=false), by David Dickson

5) Daemonologia Sacra: A Treatise of Satan's Temptations (http://books.google.com/books?id=Jb4UAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=A+Treatise+of+Satan%27s+Temptations+by+Richard+ Gilpin#v=onepage&q=&f=false), by Richard Gilpin

The above treatises are of some historical interest at the very least for the mere fact that they disprove or counter the view of Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos which holds that Protestants (i.e. Pietists) have no known method of sacred therapy for healing the spirit and soul. The historical evidence proves the very opposite to be true; i.e. that 17th century Pietists practiced a highly developed form of sacred therapy in the cure of souls. Whether or not Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos would agree with their methodology is quite beside the point. The fact is that they practiced a definite therapeutic method of some kind. The evidence is quite conclusive to that effect.


I just pulled this one down off the shelf to get the author/translators name and now flipping through this and seeing some of what I highlighted the first time I think I will have to keep it out to read again. This really is a good book. I think some of the folks that are so hard on Barth have never read Barth.

Though I claim no expertise on Barth's writings, I cannot think of a single volume of his that would compare with any of the five 'pietisitc' treatises recommeded above; nor do I imagine Barth to have made any reference to them in all his writings, with the possible single exception of Arndt's book on True Christianity. Since you appear to value Barth so highly, I hope you'll at least take the time to turn a few pages in the writings of the above five 'pietists', in the interest of acquiring first-hand knowledge of their teachings and a more balanced view of 'pietism', in general, than can be acquired merely from secondary sources, or mere hearsay at the worst!

Humbly in Christ,
Innocent

[Ryan]

These groups are made up of people who are intelligent and sensitive to aesthetics and want an interior life of prayer and peace. They have mostly grown up in evangelical/charismatic groups that are tacky and spiritually damaging, and reject it, but oftentimes overdo it and adopt a somewhat worldly lifestyle. The ec groups are oftentimes extremely "non judgmental," which means that many things are tolerated that aren't in keeping with traditional Christian morality - living in sin (ie sex outside of marriage and cohabitation), sometimes homosexuality, etc. The focus is on community, interior spiritual experience, and "living evangelism." It is formless, hazy, somewhat nondogmatic, and gnostic.

A lot of the emergent stuff reminds me of what I've seen in various secular counter-cultures (hippies, punks, etc.) or radical activist groups (anarchists, Earth Liberation Front, etc.). There is a certain search for authenticity and authentic community, but also a rebellious and prideful aspect that keeps everything in turmoil. A given group will either split apart or stagnate; they can leave for something better, or become increasingly insular and irrelevant. I can imagine many thinking people entering the emergent movement but not many of them staying.

[Rick H.]

Ken--I wonder if you know that Rdr. David initially asked for an article to read or 'a' book? . . . and not a work (or set of works) that would provide an exhaustive history of Pietism and detailed biographies of it's key players . . . and not even a survey for that matter--but specifically in relation to some modern day mindsets:




something that compared the pietistic approach many Protestants have (personal insight trumps historic Church) vs. Orthodox piety



Something tells me you have not read the book by Eberhard Busch that I recommended; but, after learning more about Rdr. David's intentions, and understanding what is meant by the "pietistic approach" in this thread, I still think this little book is very much in line with what was asked for initially, and can be helpful for those mindful of not depersonalizing by generalizing/categorizing, as Rdr. David has said.

If someone was interested in taking a hard look at Pietism though, you have offered up the big guns that would be most helpful for going back to the beginning of this movement and tracking forward. I would not be surprised if someone who is interested in this comes along one day in the future and sees the title of this thread and finds a gold mine in the book references in your post above (with the exception being some of the Wiki-like comments about Barth of course) ;)

[Ken McRae]

I was looking for something that compared the pietistic approach many Protestants have (personal insight trumps historic Church) vs. Orthodox piety where we are encouraged to put our heart into being faithful to the fullness of our Apostolic Christian heritage. I have some friends who seem to be going further into radical pietism (borderline emergent church stuff and/or cutting edge mass marketed non-denominational Bible Churches) and I would like to have a better understanding of where that sort of thinking comes from.

While I cannot think of any Orthodox treatments of this subject off-hand, in which these deviant trends are traced back to their very roots in great historical detail, I do know this is a topic researched by Protestants themselves, who generally belong to the mainline historic Protestant denominations established by the early Reformers. The term coined by the early Reformers for this form of 'pietism' was "enthusiam;" and those who were given to this form of spiritual excess and drunkenness were called "enthusiasts."

A couple typical examples of 17th century Enthusiasts were the Quackers and Shakers, though there were many, many other types during that same time period. At any rate, these represent far more radical forms of 'pietism' than that represented by the likes of a John Arndt or Joseph Hall. Arndy and Hall were sober individuals by any and all comparion to the likes of the 17th century George Fox. I would tend to say that the 17th century English Quakers laid the essential groundwork or foundation for the mass-marketed non-denominational Bible sects of today!

[Andrew]

A couple typical examples of 17th century Enthusiasts were the Quackers and Shakers, though there were many, many other types during that same time period. At any rate, these represent far more radical forms of 'pietism' than that represented by the likes of a John Arndt or Joseph Hall. Arndy and Hall were sober individuals by any and all comparion to the likes of the 17th century George Fox. I would tend to say that the 17th century English Quakers laid the essential groundwork or foundation for the mass-marketed non-denominational Bible sects of today!

For what it's worth, John Wimbur, a former member of the Dooby Brothers, was a Quaker pastor who was kicked out for whatever reasons, and then went off to start the Vineyard movement, which helped to spread sentimental soft rock "worship" throughout Evangelical Protestantism.