Lutheran Orthodoxy And PietismSo What Essay Research free essay sample

Lutheran Orthodoxy And Pietism? So What? Essay, Research Paper Lutheran Orthodoxy and Pietism? So What? In many modern-day Lutheran circles, the labels? Orthodoxy? and? Pietism? are clearly unflattering. In popular use, Orthodoxy means a fossilised over-intellectualized theological system that neglected the life of the people and distorted the heritage of the Reformation, synonymous with? ivory-tower stubborn reactionist intellectual. ? One fold, for illustration, had to listen to a discourse on Matthew 10:30 ( ? And even the hairs of your caput are all counted? ) which the sermonizer subdivided into subdivisions: the beginnings, manner, and signifier of hair ; its correct attention ; reminiscences, warnings, and comfort derived from hair ; how to care for hair in good Christian manner ; and how to do usage of it. Its chief feature was its accent on systematic idea. ? A 2nd feature that made it similar to medieval divinity was its usage of Aristotle. ? The 3rd ground why Lutheran divinity in the 17th century is decently called? scholastic? is that it was largely the merchandise of schools. It was no longer, as in the old century, a divinity born out of the life of the church and directed towards prophesying and the attention of psyches, but instead a divinity developed in the universities, and addressed to other bookmans and university professors. ? It left two of import bequests: its philosophy of biblical inspiration, and its spirit of stiff confessionalism. Similarly, Pietism means a system of elaborate ultra-conservative Torahs that lead to an empty formalism? a kind of Lutheran Judaism. In common idiom the term has come to intend? stiff piousness? or? pretentious quietist dissembler? . These negative ratings are non without some justification. They betray, nevertheless, a context-bound consciousness because they do non try to sympathetically come in into the times and idea of the period. Rather than rejecting our history, it is better to encompass it and convey from it the lessons it has for our ain times. In this paper, I will see these motions by looking at their general features, the manner they answer the inquiry? What must I make to be saved? ? , the beginnings of authorization, the significance of community, and their apprehension of what is means to be a True Christian, and their failings as viewed from the opposing cantonments. With this stuff in head, I will so see the deductions of this apprehension of our history for our present context. Orthodoxy and Pietism? The Nature of the Motions In general, it may be said that the Orthodox were concerned about larning right thought, believing that it would take to right action, while the Pietists were concerned about making a right relationship, trying to foster that relationship through right action. Lutheran Orthodoxy was distinguished by a individual cardinal concern: pure philosophy. The overruling concern was to set up, keep, support, and learn? pure philosophy? . By pure philosophy, the Orthodox theologians meant a system of belief based on the content of Bible used to construe the Scriptures in learning and prophesying. The most rigorous logical system of the clip, Aristotelean logical analysis, was used to guarantee that the philosophy was right deduced. The necessity to keep pure philosophy led to extreme intolerance of any fluctuation in divinity and to motivate and vigorous suppression of unorthodoxy. Because the purpose of pure philosophy was to convey the Word, big sums of energy were spent in learning and proving the temporalty in the recitation of the catechism. Stoffler identifies three important subjects in Pietism: the importance of personal relationship with God, the necessity to endeavor for sanctification, the demand for the person to prosecute in Bible survey. The accent on the demand and ability for the temporalty to prosecute in instruction and survey, a resurgence of the priesthood of all trusters, is every bit of import. The kernel of Christianity is to be found in the personally meaningful relationship of the person to God? ( They mean to ) point in the way of the centrality of the person? s relationship to God. Justification is meaningless from the point of position of the person who needs redemption unless it is personally appropriated in a fiduciary committedness. Justification must be more than a forensic act on the portion of God. It must come in into human experience. This it does in the divinely shaped miracle of transition and in the divinely initiated and supported endeavoring for sanctification. Pietism, from the beginning? was strongly committed to Biblical norms of idea and life and became progressively distrustful of ground. ? It was this inexplicit, slightly naif, trust in the Word, instead than in adult male? s words about the Word, which is besides responsible for the fact that Pietists truly trusted the spiritual sentiments of theologically untrained laypersons. ? Laymans were permitted to attest, exhort, and even to prophesy. The philosophy of the priesthood of all trusters was therefore rescued one time once more from being a mere tenet and set free to exercise its influence in the Church. The accent on personal relationship with God is a manner of understanding Luther? s definition of God, A God is that to which we look for all good and in which we find refuge in every clip of demand. To hold a God is nil else than to swear and believe him with our whole bosom. Pietism idea of religion as an experiential act of the whole individual, and non simply assensus. The content of the religion was therefore of less import. The educational focal point became scriptural literacy instead than theological literacy. What Must I Do to be Saved? The theological accents of Orthodoxy and Pietism resulted in different types of pattern for the temporalty, different manners of sermon, and different signifiers of devotional literature. It is helpful to see the responses of the two motions to the practical inquiry, ? What Must I do to be Saved? ? The Orthodox response to this inquiry is, ? You must recognize that you are a suffering evildoer, wholly incapable of being worthy of redemption. You must so believe and experience right about Jesus. You will so be freely given redemption. ? The Pietistic response is, ? You must be converted to a new relationship with God. Analyze your workss. If they are non worthy of a follower of Christ, so your transition is non completed. You will be freely given redemption if you have faith, shown by your workss. ? Both systems assumed, in covering with redemption, that the individual addressed was undue, did non hold religion, and was non in a right relationship with God. They both asserted that penitence and religion would take to right relationship and right action. Neither placed much accent on either baptism or on the sacrament of the communion table. The demand to come to footings with? at the same time justified and evildoer? meant that neither system, nevertheless, could travel beyond this, but began the rhythm once more. In other words the suffering evildoer was saved but was still in demand of redemption. The implicit in message of such a divinity is that worlds must ever be immersed in guilt and penitence, self-affliction and self-torture. Authority Both the Orthodox and the Pietists held the Bible to be the important criterion for religion and pattern. They differed significantly with respect to reading and practical application of the Bible. Orthodoxy held that the church is? the lone proper and competent translator of the Bible. ? Not merely was the Bible to be a standard but it was besides assumed to be a complete sourcebook for divinity and pattern, ? Sacred Bible contains everything to be believed and done. ? Therefore, the Orthodox took small history of the changed physical and societal fortunes between Biblical times and civilizations and their ain. The Pietists emphasized the ability and necessity for the temporalty to prosecute in Bible survey. The first of Spener? s proposals was a greater usage of the Scripture in church, place, and survey group. All the temporalty were to be able to construe Bible for the sophistication and solace of others. There was slightly more freedom in reading with respect to application, but the hermeneutic remained Orthodox. The confessional preparation of justification was of import to the Orthodox and was often explicated in Arndt? s True Christianity. The Pietists recognized that their accent on the Christian life appeared antithetical to justification by religion and exhausted clip seeking to accommodate the two. Neither group, nevertheless, was of all time able to hold on the possibility that the consecrated life might be one of diverseness. Both motions had entreaty to the Lutheran Confessions and to Luther? s Hagiographas. The Orthodox often besides used statements from the early Fathers to back up theological statements. The Pietists, in contrast, used the Hagiographas of medieval mysticism and moralism, peculiarly those of St. Bernard of Clairveaux. Community The function and value of community contrasted between the Orthodox and the Pietists. The Orthodox were strongly conditioned by trueness to their historical and physical communities. Conformity to knowledge and pattern was supremely of import. The trial system , the legal codification, the forced catechization, all acted to implement conformance to community spiritual criterions. Deviation from the community was quickly punished. The Pietists were more individualistic in attack. The of import Markss of sanctification that they intended to cultivate were more single? for illustration, non attending at worship, but cheerful and capable exercising of 1s naming. The Pietists expected that merely few of people would be true Christians. There was hence small sense in promoting group designation if the great mass of the community would be stubborn. This separation from the community allowed the Pietists to stress service to the community at the same clip that they could be critical of the community. True Christianity The pastoral end for both the Orthodox and the Pietists was to distribute? True Christianity? . They defined the significance of this end otherwise. To the Orthodox, a true Christian was one who held to the Lutheran philosophy, the merely truly? pure? philosophy. The Pietists more normally defined the true Christian as one who was a adherent of Jesus, that is the practical effects in the truster? s life were the criterion. These effects were frequently considered to include specific emotions, peculiarly the experience of transition. The difference may be summarized as one of? The One True Faith? versus? The One True Praxis? . Reciprocal Positions The Orthodox manner of stressing the gracious nature of justification and the importance of conformance to the community could take to a formalized? lowest common denominator? faith with small grounds of transmutation in the lives of the people, or even of the curates. The trial studies seem peculiarly dejecting with their lists of misconduct and dirt. The Pietists ailments, nevertheless have a ring of truth: ? It has come so far with us, we who call ourselves Lutherans, because we have heard so frequently that the Catholics would be saved through good plants but such is denied in the Lutheran Doctrine, that most believe it is non even their responsibility to make good. ? Our readings have non included primary anti-Pietistic literature. The primary ailments of the Orthodox were that the Pietists focal point on the experience of transition and the indwelling of Jesus created a subjectivist attack to justification. The danger of such an attack is that, since no 1 can will emotions, individuals without such emotions can despair. In add-on, the Orthodox were concerned that the accent on the marks of sanctification could take to excuse by plants. Contemplations Orthodoxy in a Pietistic Spirit? While our class attempted to do a instance for modern-day Lutheranism as? Orthodoxy in a Pietistic Spirit, ? I suggest that that point of view does non use to modern-day ELCA pattern, but instead more accurately reflects the Missouri Synod? s stance. If we characterize the general ELCA place on the issues of importance to the Orthodox and the Pietists, possibly the analogies with the yesteryear will be clarified. We are non chiefly Orthodox. Although we have some concern for the logical defensibility of philosophy, we do non be given to trust on an detailed massive divinity as the primary agencies of informing our sermon or keeping our community. Our openness to oecumenic treatment and to divinities from other faith communities is antithetical to Orthodox stances. We do non curtail Biblical reading to the clergy. We are non loath to promote practical societal action. We teach about no expressed divinity to the temporalty ; the catechism is about fresh, even in verification categories. We have a much more outstanding Pietistic influence. We have become progressively concerned with societal action. We spend monolithic resources on instruction ; largely in footings of Bible survey and practical applications. The engagement and ability of the temporalty to take these plans are assumed, even without developing. We emphasize relationship with God instead than understanding of philosophy. We are individualistic instead than communitarian because the Lutherans are simply one point on the assortment of spiritual picks. We have other elements that are antithetical to both Orthodoxy and Pietism. We tend to be grace-centered in position and do non stress the personal experience of wickedness and desperation ; we neer preach about the cursus. We are much more aware and accepting of? simul justus et pecattore? than either the Pietists or the Orthodox. Our governments include more of the natural scientific disciplines and humanistic disciplines than either. Modern Bible scholarship has changed the manner in which the Bible is used as a criterion for divinity and pattern. We place small accent on? True Christians? because we tend to acknowledge both the diverseness and the ongoing nature of personal transmutation. This suggests that our current state of affairs could be described as one of? Transformed Pietism with an Orthodox Leavening? . How Does the History Inform our Present? There are a figure of decisions relevant to today? s Lutherans to be drawn from this history. While it is easy to wax nostalgic about the yearss when everyone was Lutheran and everybody went to church, existent scrutiny of those times shows a much less ideal state of affairs. Both the Orthodox and the Pietists wrote and spoke at length about the un-faith and immorality of their times. The voluntary nature of church rank in our society can be seen as a approval ; the majority of our parishioners can be presumed to hold at least some degree of committedness to the life of religion. We can therefore be more concerned with fostering religion instead than with seeking to change over the unregenerate. Both the Orthodox and the Pietist motions showed marks of underselling the? free gift? nature of justification. Their methodological analysiss help to demo us where the swamps and brushs are when we try to steer people in the Christian life. The Orthodox show us the dangers of over-emphasis on philosophy, doctrine, and assensus, while the Pietists demonstrate those of subjectiveness, emotionality, and normative moralss. These motions besides have given us illustrations of digesting subjects and patterns that we might make good to heighten. The Pietists insisting on Bible survey that is informed by scholarship could be a welcome restorative to our inclination towards shallow ballad Bible plans. The Orthodox regard for the catechism as a digest of the most of import theological subjects should admonish us against its neglect in our folds. The Pietist concern for personal plants of religion should admonish us against over-emphasis on corporate societal action. Both suggest that we should hold more understanding for the experience of transition among our parishioners, without doing such an experience in any manner a demand or a good work. The Orthodox experience suggests that we should re-evaluate the importance of community trueness to the care of our church ; it frequently seems that our committedness to inclusiveness demonise our European yesteryears. Lutheran Orthodoxy and Pietism receive small attending in general studies of church history. Possibly we would make good to convey these motions back into our historical consciousness. Bibliography Arndt, Johann, True Christianity, Tr. A ; intro Peter Erb, Preface Heiko A. Oberman ( New York: Paulist Press, 1979 ) , Forde, Gerhard, Justification by Faith, a Matter of Death and Life, ( Ramsey, NJ: Sigler Press 1990 ) Franke, August Herman, ? Duty to the Poor? , in Gary Sattler, God? s Glory, Neighbor? s Good, A Brief Introduction to the life and Writings of August Herman Francke, Chicago: Covenant Pres, 1982 Franke, August Herman, ? The Mystery of the Cross? , in Gary Sattler, God? s Glory, Neighbor? s Good, A Brief Introduction to the life and Writings of August Herman Francke, Chicago: Covenant Pres, 1982 Gerhard, John, Sacrae Meditationes, Tr. C. W. Heisler, Philadelphia: Lutheran Publication Society 1896 Gonzalez, Justo L. , The Story of Christianity, Volume 2, The Reformation to the Present Day, San Francisco: HarperSan? Francisco, 1985 Gritsch, Eric W. , Fortress Introduction to Lutheranism, ( Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994 ) Kolb, Robert, ? Jakob Andreae and His Concern for the Laity, ? Concordia Journal 4/2 ( 1977 ) ,58-67 Martin Luther, Theodore G. Tappert, transcriber, ? Large Catechism? , in The Book of Concord, Philadelphia: Fortress Press 1959 Preus, Robert D. , The Theology of Post-Reformation Lutheranism, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1970 Smits, Edmund, ? What Is Lutheran Orthodoxy? ? The Doctrine of Man in Classical Lutheran Theology, Ed. Herman A. Preus and Edmund Smits, Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1962 Stoeffler, F. Ernest, ? The Advent of Lutheran Pietism, ? The Rise of Evangelical Pietism, Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1965 Strauss, Gerald, ? The Reformation and Its Public in an Age of Orthodoxy, ? The German Peoples and the Reformation, erectile dysfunction. R. Po-Chia Hsia, Ithaca A ; London: Cornell University Press, 1988 Tappert, Theodore G. , ? The Influence of Pietism in Colonial American Lutheranism, ? Continental Pietism and Early American Christianity, erectile dysfunction. F. Ernest Stoeffler, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. , 1976