RADICAL PIETISM "No, My Dear Fritz," Wrote Jakob Boehme to an Obscure Silesian Orthodoxist in 1621

CHAPTER FIVE RADICAL PIETISM "No, my dear Fritz," wrote Jakob Boehme to an obscure Silesian Orthodoxist in 1621, "opinions will not suffice, but rather the living Word, through which the heart experiences certainty. Out of the Spirit of Christ I received insight into the great mystery."1 This senti ment, oft repeated by Boehme, and the theological presuppositions on which it is based, continued to agitate the guardians of theological normalcy throughout the seventeenth century. At first they tried to ridicule the prophet of Gorlitz. When they found that this was to no avail they attacked him bitterly. Inspite of it all, however, the influence of the humble cobbler continued to grow. The result was that at the end of the seventeenth century, Boehmism, together with other spiritualistic traditions, constituted a considerable challenge to established Lutheranism and its commonly accepted theological formulations. There were three streams of mystical piety, really, which converged at this time, and which, therefore, form the background for what may be called radical Pietism. 2 The one came down from Johann Arndt and 1 Die erBte Schutz-Schrift wieder Baltha8ar Tilken, pars. 306, 301, in Ja.cob Boehme; Siimmtliche Schriften, 1730, facsimile reprint edited by Will-Erich Peuckert, vol. 5, 1960. 2 There is still some hesitancy on the part of certain historians as to whether or not the development covered in this chapter should be discussed under the category of "Pietism." Such reluctance seems to grow out of a desire to legitimize the phenomenon of Pietism by restricting the name to intra-confessional developments. In that case 'spiritualists," "mystics," or "enthusiasts" are terms applied to the people with whom we are here concerned, all of whom are more or less indifferent toward traditional standards of theological or ecclesiological normalcy. We do not share this hesitancy for two reasons. For one thing, in the modern world in which confessional standards of normalcy within Protestantism have become very problematical such attempts at legitimizing a particular movement within historic Christianity have become quite unnecessary. The present account, at any rate, is based upon broader criteria. Secondly, the people discussed in this chapter had in common with church-related Pietists an over riding interest in the kind of Christian piety which concerned itself with practical, every day matters, and which was based on a more or less literal interpretation of the New Testament ethic. It is utterly arbitrary to think of them, as some church historians have done, as being primarily interested in mystical union. Their mystical-spiritualistic theo- RADICAL PIETISM 169 his circle of followers within the Lutheran Tradition. Since it has been discussed elsewhere little needs to be said about it here. 1 A second such stream was the Boehmist theosophy which has been alluded to in our discussion of Oetinger. Its main strength, however, is not to be found in bequeathing its insights upon a segment of eighteenth century Lutheran theology, but rather in helping to lay the foundations for a certain critical attitude toward accepted theological and ecclesio logical norms. For that reason we need to speak once more of the Boehm ist movement prior to the period with which we are here concerned. In this context we must restrict ourselves, of course, to a summation of those facets of that movement which helped to prepare the ground for the rise of radical Pietism. 2 Perhaps Boehme's utterly reckless genius becomes most clearly visible in his ability and willingness to distinguish between religious insights and their intellectual formulations in an age in which such an attempt still seemed little short of preposterous. Dissatisfied with Lutheran Orthodoxy and its bias toward ex opere operato interpretations of the efficacy of Word and Sacraments,3 yet bent upon re-vitalizing the Christian enterprise, he embarked upon the well known venture of creating his own theological concepts and language. He did this not primarily because he meant to be rebellious, but because he was profoundly convinced that in his day the traditional conceptualizations of the Christian faith were largely obscuring the Christian message. Boehme wanted to proclaim the existence of a living God, not a God hedged in or dehydrated by dogmatic propositions and theological systemics. He wanted to tell the world that God is Love, not the cruel deity, which, inadvertently at least, he had often been made out to be. logy was merely their rationale for such piety. For these reasons the term "Pietism," would seem to be as applicable to this phase of eighteenth century religious striving as it is to the movements associated with the names of Francke, Bengel, or Zinzendorf. 1 See RI, p. 202f. Its influence upon eighteenth century Lutheranism has been alluded to in our present volume at various points. 2 The subject of mystical piety within seventeenth century Protestantism on the European Continent needs further investigation. It would seem, however, that by focuss ing almost exclusively upon Boehmism E. Hirsch tends to over-state the Boehmist influence (Geschichte der neuen evangeliachen Theologie im Zuaammenhang mit den aU gemeinen Bewegungen dea europaischen Denkens, 1949-1954, vol. 2, p. 208f). The evidence for his contention that Hohburg, for instance, was dominantly under Boehmist influence is slim (239f). Theologically, at least, Hohburg seems to have been in the orb of Caspar Schwenckfeld and Johann Arndt, rather than that of Weigel and Boehme. Still, Boehmism is an important element in the soil out of which radical Pietism came. 3 Weg zu Christo, p. 135f, in Ja,rob Boehme; Siimmtliche Schriften, op. cit., vol. 4, .

Load more