PHILIPP JAKOB SPENER: CONTINUING THE REFORMATION?

Wilda w. Morris, Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Chicago.

Philipp Jakob spener, the leader the severteenth-^entury
German peitist movement, has been quoted as having said:
I cnuld not permit myself the folly of appearing as a
reformer of the Church; 1 realize my own weakness
and that 1 have not the wisdom or power. Let me be
satisfied that 1 may be among those who help encourage the reformation which the Lord intends.
Though Spener was well aware that reformation of Church
was work of Lord and not of men,2 he did not consider
himself w o h y to be classified with ^ blessed instrument of God.3
Spener clearly thought that Lutheran Reformation had not
been brought to completion as one might hope.4 Throughout his
Pi Desiderio he made it clear that Reformation had bogged
down. We are stuck fast in Babel as much as Roman Church
is, and therefore we cannot boast of our w ^ draw al from it.5
Although Spener disclaimed title of reformer, his followers
early began to view him as L e e r s successor, man who was
to complete Reformation.^
Spener became leader of pietistic movement largely as
a result of publication, in 1675, of Pa Desiderio, stoeffler
believes this book adequately sums up essence of what
Spener thought and hoped to accomplish.7. In it, Spener presented six proposals for changes in Church. The purpose of this
paper is to examine each of six proposals in light of
claim that they aim at a continuation or completion of L^hers Reformation.

The first suggestion which Spener made for effecting a needed reform of Church a more extensive use of Word of
God among us.0 Already in his critique of Church he had
spoken of need to let Word penetrate life.
LUTHER
Surely a person can preach
Word to me, but no one is able
to put it into my heart, except
God alone, who must speak to
heart or all is vain; when he
is silent, Word is not spoken.9

SPENER
Again, you hear Word of
God. This is good. But it is not
enough that your ear hears it.
Do you let it penetrate inwardly
into your heart. . . so that you
g e h e b e^ fit of its vitality and
power? Or does it go in one ear

Gods Word is hoiy and sancti- and out the other? the tormfies everything it touches.. . . er, then the words of the Lord
in Luke 11:28 appiy to you:
Wherever, therefore, you hear Biessed are those who hear
or see this word preached, be- the word of God and keep it. If
lieved, confessed, and acted latter, then the work of
upon, ^ do not doubt hearing will not save you but
there must be a tri^e ecclesia increase your condem
sancta catholica.. .
nation.. .
Despite similarities in potations, there are differenees in emphasis between ^ ^ and Spener. It would appear,
for example, ^^ Spener more nearly limited concept Word
of God to Scritures than did Ltiher.12
Spener highlighted importance of doing Word. This
idea is implicit in much of what Lu&er wrote, but ^ ^ did not
push it. B taught t Word of God which sanctifies must
touch heart and be acted upon.
The diligent use of Word of God, which consists not only
of listening to sermons but also of reading, meditating, and discussing (Psalm 1:2), must be chief means for reforming something.. . In
making this point, Spener ^ o ted ^ , who

also urged greater use of Scripture.

Spener believed he was calling for rintroduction of an
ancient and apostolic kind of church meeting when he made a
cautious recommendation (1 set this down for further and more
mature reflection) for extension of concept of collegio pietatis, or conventicles, which he had already instituted at Frankfort.15
Stoeffler understands collegia pietatis in light of Speners
presbyterial convictions. Spener, according to stoeffler, was
convinced that early church had a more Presbyterian form of
government, and regretted & the church had not reinstated it. He never d^red, however*, to advocate an actual change
in L e e r n polity.*^ The collegia pietatis, which might be in part
a substitute for presbyteries, Stoeffler believes, was borrowed
from pietists of Reformed territories where Spener had
traveled.1
Leonard traces idea of conventicles ^ , ^
Bucer.l It is ^ in 1526, wrote of an instituti^
which a truly Fvangelical Church Order should have, which
would meet in homes to pray, read, baptize, receive Sacrament, and do 0 Christian works. These groups would be composed of real Christians, who profess Gospel with hand
and 0 . This may be see-thought behind Speners idea
of collegia pietatis, but fact
spener makes no appeal to
L*^er in defense of practice suggests ^ any connection is
incidental, or at least unconscious on his pari. Note, too, that spe-

14

ners collegia pietatis were not to baptize and receive the sacraments, for he was adamant that they not repiace the institution
al Church.
Spener was in agreement with Luther that church membership does not make true Christians.20 Luther distinguished the
purely external Church from the natural, essential, real and
true one . . . a spiritual, inner Christendom.2* Spener insisted
that the Luthe^n church was a true church, and even its teaching was pure,22 but declared that there were many even among
the clergy who neither understood nor practiced true Christianity.23
Nevertheless, the collegia pietatis were not meant ta be a
means to separate true Christians from others and of imbuing the
former with a Pharisaical self-image. 2 They were meant ta be
the leaven in the loaf, the source of reformation, recalling all members of the Church to true Christianity. The purposes of the collegia pietatis, as Spener outlined them, would be (1) to allow for an
exchange of insights (even laymen can sometimes instruct the pastor); (2) to encourage the asking of questions; (3) preachers could
learn to know members of their congregations as persons and thus
be better able to perform pastoral functions; and (4 the pedple
could experience personal growth and be better prepared to give
religious instruction to their children and servants.25
Luther was not inclined to push for the development of conventicles or house churches because he lacked manpower to organize and administer such a program. There is also implicit in his
comments a distrust of the common man, which may have been fostered by the ?easants Revolt. Luther wrote of the conventicle
scheme:
If 1 should begin it by myself, it may result in a revolt.
For we Germans are untamed, crude, boisterous folk
with whom one ought not lightly start anything except
under the compulsion of a very great need 20
Spener was perhaps less distrustful of the masses, although he
was quite disappointed with some of the results of the conventicle
ihovement. It was especially distressing to him that some members
of his conventicle in Frankfurt became, for a time, separatists.
Spener was well grounded in Luthers writings. It seems unlikely that he knew of Luthers discussion of the ^ouse church,
since he makes no reference to it. He did, however, tael that the
conventicle would be an appropriate means of accomplishing
some of the goals of Luthers Reformation which had not yet been
achieved.

S^eners second proposal for reform is

rooted
in Luthers own thought, as Spener was not reluctant to emphasize. It is the establishment and diligent exercise / the spiritual
priesthood.2^ As Spener pointed out, it is compatible with the

15

first proposal; the collegia pietati s can be seen as a means to implement the priesthood of believers.
The presumptuous monopoly of the clergy, alongside the
aforementioned prohibition of Bible reading, is one of foe principal
means by which papal Rome established its power over poor Christians. . .29 Here Opener clearly reflected Luthers attack on foe
walls of foe Romanists, in which foe reformer argued against
foe supremacy of the spiritual estate and papal infallibility,
which made the pope sole authority on foe interpretation of Scripture.30 spener was careful, as was Luther, to point out that although all Christians are priests, certain o ffic ii actions should be
performed only by those appointed fo do S0.31 Either man could
have said, 1 never wanted more than that all Christians should be
priests. It was perhaps not surprising that the Lutheran
church was in dire condition when foe so-called laity ^as been
made slothful in those things that ought to concern it. Spener
was truly calling for a completion of Luthers work in urging that
this concept be given hfo and reality in foe churches.
Ill

The third element in Speners reform program was a call to a

life of brotherly love. The people must have impressed upon them
and must accustom themselves fo believing that it is by no means
enough to have knowledge of the Christian faith, for Christianity
consists rather of pra c tic e. 34 Luther probably would not have
been pleased with foe way foe dichotomy was worded. For him,
Christianity consists not in knowledge of the Christian Faith
(though it had largely become that for Lutherans of the seventeenth century}, but in faith itself. Christianity for Luther did not
consist primarily of practice, for that would smack of salvation
by works. Nevertheless, good works issue from faith. Luther could
hardly conceive of true faith, rightly understood, not bearing fruit
in practice, Unlike Spener, he felt that the true Christian would
automatically respond fo foe occasion by daing what w^s called
for, and thus had no need of a teacher of good works.33
Spener was aware of a divergence between Luthers thought
and his own at this point. He is quoted as having said that, due to
fofferences between sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, we
need not speak so much against works. Lutherans of his day
did not believe they could be saved by their works; the temptation
was rather in the opposite direction.
There are implications of the need for what Americahs term
piety in this third proposal, and certainly spener did emphasize
the need for specific moral reforms and spiritual exercises, but
it is significant that this proposal is basically a call to put Christian
Jove into practice, ^for all foe commandments are summed up in
love (Romans 13:9}.38

16

IV

Spener considered his fourth proposal to be closely related to

the third, because it also rests on love. We must beware how we
conduct ourselves in religious controversies with unbelievers and
heretics.39 Christians owe to erring 8 prayer,

good exampie, moderation, and even love. To insult or wrong an unbeliever

or heretic on account of his religion would be not only carnal zeal
but also a zeal is calculated to hinder his conversion.^9 Lu
ihers caustic sarcasm and name-calling reflect a less-gentlemanly
approach! Even Luther, however, pointed out that truth is
lost . . . b y d i s p u t i n g , a n d he recognized that disputation was
not always helpful. Speners opposition to such disputation may
well reflect not only virulent na^re of much Lutheran-Calvinist conflict, but also fact
such polemic was so f l u e n t l y
brought into the pulpit.
Spener and 0 ^ Lutheran pietists tended to feel a strong
sense of
w ^ pietists in 0 traditions, which, as
?ietism gained s tr e n g t helped to soften bitterness between
^ and Reformed. While Spener was a determined
opponent of Roman e r o tic is m , he considered in^vidual 0 0 believer to be a member of invisible church.43 In many respects
his hfo, Spener was hurt more by his followers
taking his view to extremes (a problem which Luther also had)
than by attacks of his opponents. N ev e^ eless, he remain^
consistent, and recommended a gentle handling of radicals.^3
Here Spener was confronting problems like and unlike those
of L ^ e r . Both were engaged in controversy, but 0 na^re
of controversies and of opponents were different. If Speners position was not 1
it

certainly
/was Christian.
V

The fifth platform of Pia is a plea for reform of theological

training.45 Tlie central thrust of argument is that piety is even
more essential ^ study (though latter is also important).
Ambition, tippling, carousing, and brawling should be eliminated from schools in which pastors are trained. As ministers must take lead in reforming churches, so profossors should take lead here, setting a good example, exercising
discipline regarding students, and, where necessary, admonishing . Devotional books such as Theoiogia Germanica should
be recommended to sedente, and * kinds

of exercises of a
spiritual type should be instituted.45
In many ways, reflects concerns of ^ ^ :
If we do not train pupils, we shall not long have pastors
and preachers.. . . The school must give Church
persons who can be . . . preachers, pastors, rulers, besides 0 ^ kinds of people are needed.. . .
Moreover, if school-master is a god-fearing man

17

and teaches the beys te understand, te sing and to

practice Geds Word and the true faith, and hoids
them te Christian discipline, then. . . schoels are
yeung and ever lasting councils, which do more than
many great councils.4 '
Spener approvingly quoted Luthers statement that a man becomes a theologian not by comprehending, reading, or speculating
but by living and indeed dying and being damned.4
Spener further suggested the use of German in place of Latin
in theological education.4 We are informed that in seventeenth
century Germany it was common for preachers to quote theol^
gians in Latin ( other foreign
with no attempt to
translate for the congregation. Spener suggested that it is difficult
for one who has had no practice in discussing theological issues in
German to make the transition when he is preaching. This was cer
^ainly a worthy furtherance of Luthers work in translating the
Scripture into the vernacular and urging its use in that form.
Finally, Spener was distinctly modern in proposing field education. He recognized the n ee^ o r practice in teaching, ministering to the sick, and preaching.

In his sixth proposal, Spener dealt directly with the sermon.

Too much of preaching, he said, was an intellecfaal showcase.
Our whole Christian religion consists of the inner man the new
man, whose soul is faith and whose expressions are the fruits of
life, and all sermons should be aimed at this.1 This does not
mean that Spener never preached on doctrinal matters,^ but he
emphasized those doctrines which were relevant to the everyday
life of the Christian, not theological dispute, anti-Calvinist polemic,
trivia.
Here again, Speners interests are akin to Luthers. Even before 1521, Luthers preaching differed from that which was typical for his age, for he put less emphasis on learned prolixity, depended biblical authority, and tended toward simpliity in
form. After 1521, Luther put an even stronger emphasis on the
Bible^ with everything he said serving to expound and explain the
text. He pointed out pastoral and practical implications. The goal
is always that God may speak his Word to the congregation
through the sermon.4 It was unfortunate that Luthera^ p^eac
nS bod lost the vitality and relevance of Luthers sermons, spener
was recalling preachers of his day to kind of relevance
wbich Lu e had exhibited, though w more emphasis on regeneration and piety.
CONCLUSIONS

Speners 1 was not identical to that of Lu .It is especially obvious that in his conception of Church and his em

18

phasis on regeneration, he departed from Luthers steps. He was,

neverthetess, concerned to he faithful to the tradition of the great
Reformer. At one point Spener listed sixteen areas of agreement
between Luthers thought and his own.55 It ^^ be true that on
some subjects the agreement is more verbal than real, but Spener
felt that he owed the best of my theology to Luther.55 At the
same time, he did not consider Luther infallible, nor believe that he
must be blindly followed,5^ a view in which Luther would have
concurred.58

As we have seen, Spener was aware of a considerable difference in emphasis regarding works piety. This he attributed
to a change in the si^ation. Had Luther been living in the seventeenth century, he might not have gone as far as Spener did at this
point; but spener is probably correct in suggesting that Luthpr
would have stressed the fruits of faith more than he did.
Had Luther been around to critique Speners work, he might
also have taken issue with the collegia pietotis as a means to implement the priesthood of believers and the study of the Word. Especially by the time that radical Pietism was resulting in separatism,
Luther would likely have been ready to retract at that point, in a
way that Spener was not willing to do.
In other respects, Speners six proposals reflect concerns Similar to those of Luther, and probably would have won the support
of the latter had be been living.
Even in the areas where Spener separated most sharply from
Luthers thought, his proposals are not wholly inappropriate
means for continuing (if not completing) the Lutheran Reformation.
Historians are in agreement that toe Reformation had bogged
down, and toe Lutheran Church had lost its vitahty. Aland has said
that in the lito of toe church there remains really no area which
was not substantially advanced by Pietism.55 stoeffler suggests
that Protestantis^ as it functions today is *
apart
from this legacy.55 It was to a large extent through toe auspices
of Spener and his followers that the laity received toe Bible, toe
priesthood of believers was taken seriously, and ethics was restored to a respectable place in Protestant theology. Preachers became pastoral, sermons became relevant, and toe emphasis was
put on a vital, personal faith. In each of these ways, spener helped
to continue toe Reformation which Luther began.
ENDNOTES
1. Quoted by Marie E. Richard, 7 Jacob

SpenerandH is Work (Philadelphia: Lutheran Publication Society, 1897), p. 39.

2. Ibid., p. 38.
3 Phitip Jacob Spener, Pia Desiderio trans. Theodore G. Tappert (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1964), p. 40.

4. Quoted by F. Ernest Stoeffler, The Rise o/EvangelicalPietism (Leid

en: E. j.B rifi, 1965), p. 235.
5. Spener, op. cit., p. 69.
6. Stoeffler. op. cit., p. 234.
7. Ibid., p. 232.
3. Spener, op. c, p. 37.
9. Hugh T. Kerr, ed.,A CompendofLuther's
tress Press, 1947), pp. 11-12.

(Fhiladelphia:
?

10. Works ofM artinL uther( The Philadelphia Edition, six volumes. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1915-1932), Vol. V, pp. 270-271. (Henceforth, abbreviated WML.)
11. Spener, op. c it, p. 66.
12. See for instance, Luther's Works (American Edition, fifty-five volumes. Philadelphia: Fortress Press and Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1955-1%8), Vol. 51, p. 183. (Henceforth abbreviated
LW.) In other places, Luther seems to make the same e(}uivalence,
which stands behind the doctrine that the Scripture is the sole authority of faith; cf. LW, Vol. 39, pp. 236 f. This limiting of the definition of
Word of Cod in the Lutheran tradition may in part be a reaction
against the view that Jesus Christ, as Word of God, can affect faith
and sanctification without the written Word. See Robert Preus, The
Inspiration of Scripture (London: Oliver and Boyd Ltd., 1955) p. 46.
The Hebrew word dabar, from which the concept originally stems, has
a much broader meaning, and can be translated as word, deed, thing,
matter, affair, etc.; it may refer as well to an action as to a written
spoken word.
13. Spener, op.
14. WML, op.

C l*,

Cl*,

p. 91.

Vol. I, pp. 7-9.

15. Spener, op. ct*, p. 89.

16. Stoeffler, op. ct*, p. 236.
17. Ibid., p. 237.
18. And even before Luther, from Carldstadt via Muntzer. See Emile G.
Leonard, A History of Protestantism trans. Joyce M. H. Reid (London: Thomas Nelson. Ltd, 1965). Vol. I, pp. 78-79,197 f.
19. WML, op. ci, Vol. VI, p. 137.
20. Ibid., Vol. I, p. 355.
21. Ibid.
22. Spener, op. p. 67.

23. 45 . But note that the double negative in Tapperts translation

literally gives the opposite meaning to that intended, when he says,
there are fewer than may at first appear who do not really understand and practice true Christianity. Cf. the translation by ^llen c .
eeter, in the Appendix to his dissertation: .. there are many fewer
t^an it would appear at firstglance who properly understand and prac
tce true Christianity. Since this wording accords with the overall
thrust of Speners message it is safe to assume that Deeters transation is preferable at this point. An Historical and Theological Intro
ducti^
Phillip Jakob Speners
Pia Desiderio,: A Study in Early German Pietism (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Princeton Universty, 1963), p. II, p. 19.
24. Stoeffler, op. cit., p. 33?.
25. Spener, op. cit., pp. 89 f.
26. WML, op. cit., Vol. VI, p. 1?3.
27. Spener, op. ., p.
92.
28. f. Carl^irbt, Pietism, The New Schaff-HerzogEncyclopedia ofReligious Knowledge (^ew Funk and Wagtails Company, 1911),
Vol. IX, p. 55.
29. Spener, op. cit., p. 93.
30. WML, op. ' Vol.
. II, pp. 65-76.
31 DW, op. cit.. Vol. 39, p. 233. Spener, op. ' , p.
94.
32. LW, op.

Cl .,

33. Spener, op.

Vol. 39, p. 233.

p.
93.

34. / , p. 95.
35. LW, op. .Vol.
44, pp. 23-26.
36. Deeter, op. .p. 73.
37* Spener, . c it, especially pp. 57-62; cf. WML, op. .Vol.
V, pp.
287-288, where Luther urges a pious life.
38. Spener, op.
39. /
40. /

p. 96.

p.
} 71.

p. 99.

41. Ibid., p. 100.

42. Chauncey David Ensign, Radical German Fietism (C. 1675-c. 1760),
(unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Boston University, 1955), p. 92.
43 / , pp. 9^95.

21

44. Especially hs interest in converting Jews and treating them as neighbors.

45. spener, op. cit., pp. 103-115.
46. Probably similar to the listings 0 such exercises common in the Puritan Pietistic movement. See Stoeffler, op. cit., pp. 58 ff.
47. WML, op. cit., Vol. 5, pp. 297 f.
48. Spener, op. cit., p. 113.
49. Ibid., pp. 109 f.
50. Tapperts translation includes this as part 0 the sixth proposal,
whereas Deeter considers it the end of the fifth. This suggests that the
chapter subdivisions in both were added by the translators, and are
not part of the original, spener, op. cit., p . 5)eeter, op. cit., p.II, p.
98.
51. Spener, op. c it, p. 116.
52. Thus his 67 sermons on regeneration. See Martin Schmidt, Pietism,
The Encyclopedia / the Lutheran Church (Minneapolis, Minnesota:
Augsburg Publishing House, 1965), Vol. Ill, p. 1899.
58. John w . Doberstein, Introduction to Volume 51, LW, op. c it, Vol. 51,
p . XV11.

54. Ibid., p. xviii.

55. Deeter, op. cit., pp. 69-71.
56. Ibid., p. 68.
57. John T. McNeill, Modern Christian Movements (Philadelphia: The
Westminster Press, 1954), p. 55.
58. WML, op. cit., Vol. V, pp. 7 f.
59. Quoted by F. Ernest Stoeffler, P ietism -Its Message, Early ManiGestation, and Significance, Covenant Quarterly, XXXIV (February/May, 1976), p. 15.
60. Ibid., p. 16.


Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may priut, dow nload, or send artieles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international eopyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your resp ective ATT,AS subscriber agreem ent.
No eontent may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s) express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS eollection with permission
from the eopyright holder(s). The eopyright holder for an entire issue ajourna!
typieally is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, tbe author o fth e article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use covered by the fair use provisions o f tbe copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright hoider(s), please refer to the copyright iaformatioa in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously
published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initia funding from Liiiy Endowment !).
The design and final form ofthis electronic document is the property o fthe American
Theological Library Association.