Pietists without apology
Earlier this year “Reclaiming Pietism: Retrieving an Evangelical Tradition” (Grand Rapids: Wm. B Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2015) was published. This historical search for the roots of pietism offers an argument that corrects misconceptions, traces the storylines of important individuals in the movement, and offers up some potential fresh voices and current implications for the church. Reclaiming Pietism was co-authored by Christian T. Collins Winn, professor of historical and systemic theology at Bethe University (St. Paul, Minnesota), and Roger Olson, Foy Valentine Professor of Christian Theology and Ethics at George W. Truett Theological Seminary (Waco, Texas).
Dr. Olson recently took some time to answer a few questions about pietism from Rev. Mark Swanson, a member of Pietisten’s Board of Directors.
Mark Swanson: Why has Pietism been ignored within the history of Christianity and, when it is recognized, given such a poor name?
Roger Olson: The original Pietist movement, beginning with Philip Spener and Pia Desideria, was highly controversial and hotly contested then. I think that reputation as “religious enthusiasm” (i.e., emotionalism) has dogged Pietism ever since. Most of the controversy about Pietism has been based on misunderstandings. Many confuse “Pietism” with “Quietism” and assume they are the same — a kind of mystical withdrawal from the world. However, even some who understand Pietism rightly, based on its original intentions, oppose it because they fear it will lead to a de-emphasis on doctrines or social action. Neither is necessary, however, and retrieving the memory of Pietist prototypes can help overcome those misconceptions.
So, what makes a “good Pietist”?
A Christian who values and seeks transforming communion with God through prayer, Bible reading, worship and holy living. A “really good Pietist” is one who also attempts to change the world toward the Kingdom of God even if only by a life of witness.
If Pietism overlaps and was a precursor to evangelicalism, where does it differ in thought and practice from what we might label as evangelicalism in the West?
Evangelicalism in the West is an unstable compound of Pietism and Protestant Orthodoxy. Pietism regards transforming, personal experience of God as the permanent essence of Christianity (without denigrating doctrine); Protestant Orthodoxy regards correct doctrine as the permanent essence of Christianity (without denigrating transforming, personal experience of God). The two impulses and competing emphases are bound to fall into tension with each other from time to time. During the second half of the 20th century the most outspoken intellectual leaders of evangelicalism have favored the Protestant Orthodoxy “side” of evangelicalism and sometimes pushed Pietism to the background.
As mentioned in the book, Pietism seemed to flourish in the “new world” without a state church. German Pietist Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf (1700-1760) remarked that as soon as Christianity (and presumably Pietism) is put into a system it’s killed. While several denominations trace their history back to this movement, many have lost sight of its influence and themes, at least in practice. Are Pietism and religious institutional life opposed to each other? If not, how can Pietism best serve institutions?
Pietism can be, and at best is, a dynamic, prophetic force within a religious organization or institution calling for a return to “first love” and movement forward toward higher and deeper engagement with God and God’s Kingdom. Pietism relativizes systems and warns against “hardening of the categories.”
A chapter of your book includes profiles on contemporary theologians (Donald G. Bloesch, Richard Foster, Stanley Grenz, and Jürgen Moltmann) who embody the Pietist ethos, some which are perhaps surprising at first glance. As a contemporary theologian yourself, how has the Pietist ethos affected your own theology and practice of faith?
I have always regarded communion with God as the true heart and soul of Christianity; doctrine has a ministerial but not magisterial role in my Christianity. I tend to gravitate toward Christian churches and institutions that embody that ethos.
Is there a particular Pietist profiled in your book that you most identify with?
I love Donald Bloesch’s “The Struggle of Prayer.”
If Pietism was a response to the Thirty Years War, the Protestant state churches of their day and “dead orthodoxy,” what, if anything, would it be responding to today?
Today Pietism is needed to balance out fundamentalist tendencies in evangelicalism. Contemporary evangelicalism is threatened with divisive emphases on secondary doctrines such as biblical inerrancy and double predestination. Pietism is an irenic rather than a divisive force.
Do you find that those who are more recently embracing Pietism as a theological framework are emphasizing certain hallmarks of the movement while neglecting others?
Unfortunately, some people embrace Pietism as an excuse for doctrinal indifference, but that’s an abuse of true Pietism.
How might Pietism be a renewing force in the church again?
True Pietism is itself spiritual renewal; the church always needs spiritual renewal, and when that happens Pietism is happening. What American churches need is not so much a word as spiritual vitality through a rediscovery of experiential Christianity.
If you were to walk into a vibrant church, rooted in a living form of Pietism, what would you find?
I would “find” it by feeling it. I would feel a warm enthusiasm for “the things of God” expressed in deep desires for the glory of God and the neighbor’s good.