MennoNet.com

One word that I have heard a few times now in my journey of exploring the Anabaptist Church/Kingdom Christianity is Pietism. I looked up the word in Theopedia (http://www.theopedia.com/pietism) and found this description:

Pietism was originally a reform movement in the German Lutheran Church during the 17th and 18th centuries, which endeavored to renew the devotional ideal in the Protestant religion. The most predominant trait of pietism is its emphasis on a practical, active piety (praxis pietatis) rather than on doctrine. This involved, among other things, an emphasis on the performance of good works, the scrutinization of daily life, the diligent study of the Scriptures with particular reference to its moral teachings, the centrality of forming a personal and experiential relationship with God and disassociation from worldly practices such as dancing and non-religious reading, inevitably leading to separatism and a sense of exclusivity.

Continental pietism proved to be influential throughout Protestantism, and along with Reformed puritanism, inspired the Methodist movement in England and was the formational heritage of Jonathan Edwards in America and the emphasis on individual piety, and a vigorous Christian life.

As I read through that description, I see a lot of similarities to what is emphasized in the Anabaptist Church. Yet when Anabaptists use the word Pietism it is seems to be used with a negative connotation. Can someone explain why the word Pietism has a negative connotation in Conservative Anabaptist circles?

That definition is not what the average conservative Anabaptist thinks of when he hears that word.

Pietism became a word of condemnation soon after the beginnings of the Charity movement. To most people it simply meant...

Someone who does not accept the authority of the church. IE. Individualistic. Led personally by the Spirit, etc.

Now people who actually are acquainted with the better brands of charity folks know that this is nonsense. But there are probably still people around who honestly think that this is what the word means.

I love the word pious.

Another couple other things seen as negatives...

Pietists often conceded to Reformation church/state political structures rather than stand in opposition to them. They tended to keep their faith to themselves rather than being willing to make a public statement.

Pietists often met in small groups for worship and spiritual and activity apart from the church. People from different denominations came together and these small groups became their primary "church" instead of the church where they were a member. This was a direct afront against the Anabaptist concept of brotherhood and accountability.

Quite a few years ago, MN's Edsel was at a cons. Anabaptist meeting and read off quotes of Anabaptists and Pietists. The quotes he chose from Anabaptists sounded like Pietists and the quotes he chose from Pietists sounded like Anabaptists. He had the audience guess as to whether it was a Pietist or and Anabaptist who made the quote. Most times the audience guessed wrong.
Edsel's point was to show that there was a lot of overlap in thinking.
The organizers of the meeting were not very pleased with this and Edsel was put on the "do-not-ask-to-speak-in-the-future" list.
Edsel might have more to say if he sees this thread.

When I was in Germany, an Evangelical Free Church pastor heard I was Mennonite, and told me that the Pietists were the closest thing to Mennonites that was well represented in Germany. I really did see a lot of similarities.

Ernie wrote:

Quite a few years ago, MN's Edsel was at a cons. Anabaptist meeting and read off quotes of Anabaptists and Pietists. The quotes he chose from Anabaptists sounded like Pietists and the quotes he chose from Pietists sounded like Anabaptists. He had the audience guess as to whether it was a Pietist or and Anabaptist who made the quote. Most times the audience guessed wrong.
Edsel's point was to show that there was a lot of overlap in thinking.
The organizers of the meeting were not very pleased with this and Edsel was put on the "do-not-ask-to-speak-in-the-future" list.
Edsel might have more to say if he sees this thread.

That's sad. Edsel made an excellent point in his efforts at peacemaking. Blessed are the peacemakers.

But with any effort to clarify a situation, there will always be those who are so comfortable in their own thinking and stereotypes that they become angry when those stereotypes are challenged and proven incorrect. We can only pray for a change of heart for those who are resistant to the possibility they're wrong. They are still our brothers even if they don't want to be

Ernie wrote:Another couple other things seen as negatives...

Pietists often conceded to Reformation church/state political structures rather than stand in opposition to them. They tended to keep their faith to themselves rather than being willing to make a public statement.

Pietists often met in small groups for worship and spiritual and activity apart from the church. People from different denominations came together and these small groups became their primary "church" instead of the church where they were a member. This was a direct afront against the Anabaptist concept of brotherhood and accountability.

Quite a few years ago, MN's Edsel was at a cons. Anabaptist meeting and read off quotes of Anabaptists and Pietists. The quotes he chose from Anabaptists sounded like Pietists and the quotes he chose from Pietists sounded like Anabaptists. He had the audience guess as to whether it was a Pietist or and Anabaptist who made the quote. Most times the audience guessed wrong.
Edsel's point was to show that there was a lot of overlap in thinking.
The organizers of the meeting were not very pleased with this and Edsel was put on the "do-not-ask-to-speak-in-the-future" list.
Edsel might have more to say if he sees this thread.

Sounds like the beginnings of the Anabaptist movement. I find it sad and humorous at the same time, the folks who begin a new movement or church group are attacked by the ones they came out from for not submitting to authority, but just wait 10 years (or less) and the new group is doing the exact same thing to those within their own movement who may have some different ideas. I have seen this amongst the Mennonites especially.

This is a good summary of Spener's Pia Desideria, a founding document of Pietism.

1. A more serious attempt to spread the Word of God. Pastors should preach from the entire Bible and Christians should meet in small groups to study the Bible.

2. The Lutheran doctrine of the priesthood of all believers should receive a new emphasis. The differences between the laity and clergy should be minimized. The clergy in particular should recognize that their calling involves Bible study, teaching, reproving and consoling and a personal, holy life.

3. More attention should be given to the cultivation of individual spiritual life. Love for God and man should take priority over theological disputes. Knowledge is secondary to practice.

4. Truth is not established in disputes but through repentance and a holy life.

5. Candidates for the ministry should be “true Christians.” Their training should include small groups for devotional life and personal Bible study.

6. Sermons should not show the preacher’s erudition, but attempt to edify believers and produce the effects of faith.

Here's an article from Christianity Today on the history of Pietism, Mennonites, and other related groups in America:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/histor ... erica.html

I wonder how much of our current understandings as Mennonites were shaped by our connections with Pietistm. I suspect more than we think.

Bootstrap wrote:This is a good summary of Spener's Pia Desideria, a founding document of Pietism.

1. A more serious attempt to spread the Word of God. Pastors should preach from the entire Bible and Christians should meet in small groups to study the Bible.

2. The Lutheran doctrine of the priesthood of all believers should receive a new emphasis. The differences between the laity and clergy should be minimized. The clergy in particular should recognize that their calling involves Bible study, teaching, reproving and consoling and a personal, holy life.

3. More attention should be given to the cultivation of individual spiritual life. Love for God and man should take priority over theological disputes. Knowledge is secondary to practice.

4. Truth is not established in disputes but through repentance and a holy life.

5. Candidates for the ministry should be “true Christians.” Their training should include small groups for devotional life and personal Bible study.

6. Sermons should not show the preacher’s erudition, but attempt to edify believers and produce the effects of faith.

I guess we need to shut down Mennonet according to #4...

I just glanced up at the header to this forum, "Where Mennonites and others connect".
Unfortunately, there are still seekers coming in who are being driven away by the exclusivity of Anabaptism, where tradition trumps truth in too many instances, in my opinion.