19 Pietism ◈
19
Pietism
◈
Justification and the ‘
New Birth’
The term ‘
Pietist’
first seems to have been used in Germany the 1670s, although its wider adoption dates from a decade later, when it came to be used specifically to designate a renewal movement within Lutheranism associated primarily with Philipp Jacob Spener
and August Hermann Francke
.
1
At its best, the Pietist movement may be regarded as a reaction on the part of a living faith against the empty formulas of a dead orthodoxy, often presenting itself as a reforming movement within larger churches –
an ecclesiola in ecclesia
.
2
Pietism commended and encouraged a ‘
religion of the heart’
, locating authentic Christian identity not in some nominal church affiliation or intellectual creedal affirmation of Christian doctrines, but rather through a personal and living faith in Christ. While it is possible to identify some theological characteristics of Pietism –
such as its insistence upon the active nature of faith and its critique of the Orthodox doctrine of forensic justification –
many now question whether a theologically normative definition of Pietism may be offered, and so instead attempt to capture the central focus and concerns of the movement using historical tools. So why did the movement arise, and what are its defining characteristics?
Two main schools of thought can be identified on the part of historians.
3
The first, represented by Martin Brecht, locates the origins of Pietism in a ‘
crisis in piety (Frömmigkeitskrise
)’
that occurred in many Protestant regions of western Europe in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries.
4
A series of movements arose which addressed
this crisis through an intensification of piety that emphasised repentance, sanctification and the imitation of Christ. While Brecht’
s understanding of early Pietist origins brings together a range of renewal movements within Protestantism, allowing the connections between Halle Pietism and the American Great Awakening to be appreciated, it remains unclear whether this emphasis on piety helps us to understand the boundaries of the movement. For Brecht, Puritanism
is to be regarded as a form of Pietism. While it can be agreed that the cultivation of personal piety was a hallmark of Puritanism,
5
it nevertheless is an inadequate criterion of the distinctiveness of Puritanism, given its emphasis upon certain theological themes such as the sovereignty of God. While there were Reformed forms of Pietism present in Germany in the late seventeenth century,
6
they do not show all the characteristics typical of English Puritanism.
A second approach recognises the need for greater specificity, and argues for a tighter definition of Pietism, capable of distinguishing between Spener’
s ‘
Pietism (Pietismus
)’
and movements within Lutheran Orthodoxy which recognised the importance of ‘
piety’
in general –
such as Johann Gerhard
’
s Schola Pietatis
. Johannes Wallmann, the leading advocate of this position, has argued that specific characteristics distinguish Pietism in this narrow sense, such as its encouragement of small groups (collegia pietatis
or conventicles) as a means of spiritual growth, the millenarian eschatologies that often characterised Pietist groups, and an emphasis on personal Bible study. In particular, Wallmann noted the significance of the trend within Lutheranism to move away from the didactic study of Catechisms to the direct devotional study of the Bible.
7
Wallmann’
s approach distinguishes Puritanism from Pietism, seeing them as having different agendas and emphases, while recognising their broader shared concern for promoting piety, in the general sense of the term.
German Pietism regarded Lutheran Orthodoxy as intellectually arid, disconnected from the realities of Christian living and inattentive to the need to promote and encourage personal holiness. This concern for piety led many Pietist leaders to reject the Orthodox concept of imputed righteousness
as being destructive of piety.
8
Thus, in his Theses credendorum
, Breithaupt argued for the necessary implication of inherent
righteousness in justification,
9
hinting at the troublesome moral and spiritual implications of justification on the basis of an imputed righteousness. This provides a helpful boundary marker between Pietism and Puritanism, in that the latter was able to accommodate its concern for the fostering of personal piety within a traditional Reformed theological framing of justification in terms of the imputation of righteousness
, within the context of the believer’
s union with Christ.
The vocabulary of justification itself began to shift within Pietism, with an increasing emphasis placed upon the idea of ‘
being born again’
or ‘
conversion’
,
10
and the growing trend to see the notion of ‘
living faith (lebendiger Glaube
)’
as determinative. Critics of Pietism argued that it seemed to construct its theology on the basis of its desire for personal holiness, and failed to engage and quarry the classic Lutheran theological tradition in order to engage these legitimate concerns. Although the early Pietists such as Spener
or Francke
were more concerned with the promotion of personal piety than with the restructuring of Christian doctrine, it is an inescapable fact that the Pietist emphasis upon regeneration led to a re-evaluation of the received teachings of Lutheran orthodoxy in terms of their capacity for the promotion of piety. The emphasis upon the necessity of regeneration led to the assertion of the priority of regeneration over justification –
a tendency which, as we noted earlier, was already present in some sections of Lutheran orthodoxy itself.
Pietism is increasingly recognised as a movement which brought about significant change in German culture, especially in the empowerment of the laity and women in particular.
11
But what of Pietism elsewhere –
for example, in England? The development of evangelical networks between England and the American colonies in the early eighteenth century allowed the interchange of ideas and theological cross-fertilisation.
12
The emergence of Pietism within England is generally considered to have been decisively influenced by the ministry and writings –
especially hymns –
of John and Charles Wesley
, whose contacts with German Pietism originated not, as might be expected, from a visit to Germany, but during a period of ministry spent in the state of Georgia, when they
encountered some core elements of Pietist theology through Moravian clergy working in that region.
13
Charles Wesley enthusiastically embraced the evangelical vision of renewal he learned from his Moravian colleagues in Georgia in 1577, as can be seen from an evangelistic sermon preached in the open air in Bristol on 7 October 1739. Wesley’
s text has not come down to us; indeed, the sermon may have been improvised. However, there exists a shorthand transcription of this sermon by Joseph Williams of Kidderminster. According to Williams, Wesley reassured his large audience that:
14
there was a possibility of their salvation, through faith in Christ; and that for this end our sins were imputed to him, or he was made sin for us, though he knew no sin (that is, had no sin of his own) and this in order that his righteousness might be imputed, as it certainly will, to as many as will believe on him. And he told them, that none were excepted but such as refused to come to Christ as lost, perishing, yea, as condemned sinners, and trust in him alone (that is, in his meritorious righteousness and atoning sacrifice) for pardon and salvation: that this is the method Infinite Wisdom hath chosen for reconciling the world unto himself, and that whosoever believeth on him shall certainly receive remission of sins, and an inheritance among them that are sanctified.
Prior to his encountering Pietism through the Moravians, John Wesley
adopted attitudes towards holiness typical of the Anglicanism of that age, which allowed some degree of alignment between traditional religious virtues and the common-sense morality of the emerging ‘
Age of Reason’
.
15
After embracing the Pietist emphasis on the importance of a ‘
living faith’
as a result of his encounter with Moravians in Georgia, Wesley began to move towards the view that theological ‘
orthodoxy, or right opinions, is, at best, but a very slender part of religion’
.
16
What really mattered was a living faith in Christ, and the consequent transformation of heart and mind, affecting both the ‘
affections’
and morality.
17
The later Pietist slogan pectus facit theologum
(‘
the heart makes
a theologian’
) reflects this core belief that the best theology emerges from a converted heart and mind.
18
Wesley rejected the doctrines of unconditional predestination which found favour within sections of the emerging ‘
Methodist’
revival and were particularly associated with his colleague George Whitefield. Although Wesley declared this difference to be a ‘
matter of opinion’
which should not be allowed to impede their cooperation in ministry,
19
it is clear that he saw certain theological commitments as serious obstacles to personal holiness –
including, as we shall see, the orthodox Protestant theology of justification by imputed righteousness
.
20
For Wesley, four doctrines –
both individually and in combination –
could be considered essential or central to the Christian faith: (1) original sin, (2) justification by faith, (3) the new birth and (4) holiness of heart and life.
21
It is clear that these core ideas can be woven together to construct a theological framework that is conducive to the flourishing of personal holiness. Others, however, threatened to subvert this quest for holiness.
Several of these themes are woven together in Wesley’
s standard sermon ‘
The New Birth’
(1760). Taking John 3: 7 as his text (‘
You must be born again’
), Wesley sets out an understanding of the relation of a changed status in the sight of God and the internal renewal of the believer.
22
If any doctrines within the whole compass of Christianity may be properly termed fundamental, they are doubtless these two –
the doctrine of justification, and that of the new birth: The former relating to that great work which God does for us, in forgiving our sins; the latter, to the great work which God does in us, in renewing our fallen nature. In order of time, neither of these is before the other: in the moment we are justified by the grace of God, through the redemption that is in Jesus, we are also ‘
born of the Spirit’
; but in order of thinking, as it is termed, justification precedes the new birth. We first conceive his wrath to be turned away, and then his Spirit to work in our heart.
In his later sermon A Blow at the Root
, or Christ Stabbed in the House of his Friends
, Wesley described the teaching ‘
that Christ had done as well as suffered all; that his righteousness being imputed to us, we need none of our own’
as ‘
a blow at the root of all holiness, all true religion …
for wherever this doctrine is cordially received, it leaves no place for holiness’
.
23
This criticism was expanded in his Standard Sermon Justification by Faith
(1746). Wesley here draws a clear distinction between justification and sanctification; justification is ‘
not the being made actually just and righteous’
, which is a ‘
distinct gift of God, and of a totally different nature’
.
In discussing the nature of justification in one of his Standard Sermons, Wesley mounts a significant criticism of forensic approaches to justification:
24
Least of all does justification imply that God is deceived in those whom he justifies; that he thinks them to be what, in fact, they are not; that he accounts them to be otherwise than they are. It does by no means imply that God judges concerning us contrary to the real nature of things; that he esteems us better than we really are, or believes us righteous when we are unrighteous …
[or] judges that I am righteous, because another is so …
. Let any man to whom God hath given understanding weigh this without prejudice, and he cannot but perceive that such a notion of justification is neither reconcilable to reason nor Scripture.
Wesley reiterates such criticisms elsewhere. In his preface to a collection of statements on justification drawn from the writings of Thomas Goodwin
, Wesley raises significant concerns about the particular phrase ‘
the imputed righteousness
of Christ’
, which he insists is neither Scriptural nor necessary, and is damaging to personal holiness. ‘
I have had abundant proof that the frequent use of this unnecessary phrase, instead of furthering men’
s progress in vital holiness: has made them satisfied without any holiness at all.’
25
At several points, however, Wesley speaks of the notion of ‘
imputed righteousness’
in much more positive terms,
inviting his readers to imagine it as a form of clothing which envelopes the believer. For example: ‘
Lord, thy imputed righteousness / My beauty is, my glorious dress.’
Yet the sense here is that of a shielding or covering righteousness, under which an imperfect believer can grow in holiness, while remaining accepted by God, despite their defects.
26
Perhaps Wesley’
s concerns relate to a misunderstanding of the idea, which holds that the believer is instantly sanctified on account of Christ, rendering any further progression in the Christian life unnecessary.
Wesley has misgivings about the notion of the imputation of righteousness
, which he at times suggests to be redundant: ‘
The plain scriptural notion of justification is pardon, the forgiveness of sins.’
27
Wesley argues that the affirmation of the ‘
non-imputation of sin
’
serves a critically important role in laying a theological foundation for the pursuit of holiness, by reassuring the believer that past sins are dealt with and are no longer an obstacle or impediment to spiritual growth.
28
As Wesley explores this issue, it becomes clear that
To him that is justified or forgiven, God ‘
will not impute sin’
to his condemnation. He will not condemn him on that account, either in this world or in that which is to come. His sins, all his past sins, in thought, word and deed, are covered, are blotted out, shall not be remembered or mentioned against him, any more than if they had not been …
and from the time we are ‘
accepted through the Beloved’
, ‘
reconciled to God through His blood’
. He loves, and blesses, and watches over us for good, even as if we had never sinned.
Wesley’
s concern for the flourishing of holiness within believers seems, at points, to indicate a degree of spiritual –
though not for that reason theological –
convergence with Greek patristic traditions, particularly its Macarian strands.
29
Historically, this has been associated with factitive understandings of justification; however, Wesley locates this aspect of the Christian life under the aegis of sanctification, rather than merging justification and sanctification into a single trajectory of transformation (as in Augustine’
s notion of iustificare
). If anything, Wesley seems to regard justification and sanctification as two correlated and coordinated outcomes of the believer’
s union with Christ (a common theme in Calvin
and Puritanism
), save that Wesley’
s emphasis falls more on the notion of ‘
rebirth’
than ‘
union’
.
*
In this part of the book we have surveyed the complex development of the Protestant understandings of justification from the origins of the Reformation to the end of the eighteenth century. As this analysis will have made clear, the Reformation gave rise to a new appreciation of the importance of the concept of justification in enunciating the Christian doctrine of salvation. Yet that new understanding of the nature and modalities of justification would be challenged, as an increasingly confident and theologically articulate Catholic church began to counter its Protestant critics. In what follows, we shall consider the historical background to the Council of Trent
, before offering a detailed analysis of this important landmark in the history of Christian reflection on the doctrine of justification
.
2
The phrase ‘
ecclesiola in ecclesia
’
(‘
a little church within a church’
) was widely used in Pietism around this time: see Yeide, Studies in Classical Pietism
. Yeide’
s argument that ecclesiology was central to Pietism (5–
9) is questionable; his analysis of the significance of the ecclesiola
motif for Pietism, however, is reliable and important.
3
See, for example, Strom, ‘
Problems and Promises of Pietism Research’
, 538–
43. Strom also notes a third approach, emphasising the polemical aspects of Pietism, which has not secured significant academic traction.
5
See, for example, Packer, A Quest for Godliness
, 28: Puritanism was at heart ‘
a spiritual movement, passionately concerned with God and godliness’
.
8
Baur
, Salus Christiana
, 91–
5. See further Weigelt, Geschichte des Pietismus in Bayern
, 187; Albrecht, Johanna Eleonora Petersen
, 215.
12
See the pioneering study of O’
Brien, ‘
A Transatlantic Community of Saints’
. On the transmission and development of Pietism in America, see Conkling, ‘
Pietism on the American Landscape’
.
13
On the background, see Campbell, The Religion of the Heart
; Ward, The Protestant Evangelical Awakening.
14
The account is set out in the The Methodist Magazine
, 38, new series 12 (1815), 455‒
9; quote at 457. For details, see Rivers, ‘
Joseph Williams of Kidderminster (1692–
1755) and His Journal’
.
16
The view of John Wesley, expressed in his ‘
Plain Account of the People Called Methodists’
; Works
9:254–
5. For the development of Wesley’
s ideas, see Collins, John Wesley
.
17
See Clapper, John Wesley on Religious Affections
. Note the notion of ‘
orthokardia’
(156) in this context.
18
For Karl Barth
’
s use of this slogan, see Barth, Christliche Theologie im Entwurf,
116; Barth, Die Protestantische Theologie im 19. Jahrhundert
, 466. Barth’
s growing interest in and appreciation of the Christocentric pietism of Nikolaus von Zinzendorf, dating from 1946–
7, should be noted here: see Gärtner, Karl Barth und Zinzendorf
. In a 1960 conversation with representatives of the Herrnhuter, Barth related how he had come to realise that the Pietist notion of ‘
feeling (Gefühl
)’
was not about sentimentality, but was rather an attempt to express the believer’
s closeness and intimacy with Christ, typically expressed in terms of ‘
relatedness (Bezogenheit
)’
. See Barth, ‘
Gespräch mit Vertretern der Herrnhuter Brüdergemeine’
, 143–
4.
19
See the discussion in Maddox, ‘
Opinion, Religion, and “
Catholic Spirit”’
, 67–
9. Wesley held that while he and Calvinists might differ in their intellectual explanations of the nature of justifying faith, they nevertheless shared the common experience of their hearts cleaving to God through the Son.
20
Wesley was also critical of the idea of final perseverance in that he considered it to generate controversy and thus to distract people from focussing on the Christian discipline of self-denial.
21
Maddox, ‘
Opinion, Religion, and “
Catholic Spirit”’
, 76–
7. The best critical analysis of Wesley’
s views on justification is Maddox, Responsible Grace
, 157–
91, particularly 162–
72. On the importance of the third of these central doctrines, see especially Collins, ‘
John Wesley
’
s Doctrine of the New Birth’
. For a critical examination of Wesley’
s sometimes inconsistent statements about which doctrines are to be seen as ‘
essential’
or ‘
central’
, see Campbell, ‘
The Shape of Wesleyan Thought’
.
22
Wesley, Sermons on Several Occasions
, 203. In his later sermon ‘
God’
s Vineyard’
(1787), Wesley indicates that he assumes that being ‘
born again’
, being ‘
born from above’
and being ‘
born of the Spirit’
are all synonyms for regeneration.
23
Wesley, Works
, 10.366.
24
Wesley, Sermons on Several Occasions
, 43.
25
Wesley, Works
, 10.306. These comments date from October 1756.
26
A similar idea is found in Charles Wesley
’
s great hymn ‘
Free Grace’
, which speaks of the believer being ‘
clothed in righteousness divine’
.
28
Wesley, Sermons on Several Occasions
, 43.
29
As noted by English, ‘
The Path to Perfection in Pseudo-Macarius and John Wesley
’
; Snyder, ‘
John Wesley and Macarius the Egyptian’
.