The Petersens and the Silesian Kinderbeten Revival by Eric Swensson
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Petersens and the Silesian Kinderbeten Revival By Eric Swensson After three days of riots in Los Angeles in 1992, Rodney King famously said, “Can we get along?” Surveying the sweep of history and considering religious disputes, the same simple phrase appears equally eloquent, and I know because I am a Lutheran. Lutheranism is a tradition born out of a dispute within the Roman Catholic Church. The blooming of German Lutheran Pietism, 1675-1725, a period commencing with Phillip Jakob Spener’s Pia Desideria and ending with the death of his protégé August Hermann Francke, was a movement with less bloodshed than the Reformation, but nevertheless one of great upheaval. I have studied these two movements in detail and did so the last decade mindful of other revivalist movements, including Pentecostalism, and I studied the latter with an eye toward its influence on the Lutheran Charismatic Revival. I was fortunate enough to complete a thesis while doing this and wrote a book about a certain Pietist revival, the Silesian Kinderbeten, which broke out sometime in 1707. I had the opportunity to present upon it at the International Congress of Pietist Studies in Halle, Germany in August, 2009 and in between sessions, a German pastor told me of a most interesting remark made by Martin Brecht, one of the deans of German Pietist history, who said that he thought the future direction of Pietist studies would be how the Pietists were forerunners of the Pentecostal movement. I found this really interesting, delightful in fact, because it is something I always suspected; however, this is significant because it was made by the main editor of Pietist studies. That Pietists were Pentecostal is not a recent discovery, it is actually basis of the charges against the Charismatic movement made nearly thirty years ago, one made in a book by a Lutheran historian, Dr Carter Lindberg, who said that the Spiritualists of the time of Luther, the Spener-Francke Pietists and the participants in the Lutheran Charismatic Revival were all cut from the same cloth.1 Lindberg’s book is interesting, but it is problematic. In my opinion he is correct in making the connections; however, it is obvious that it is an attempt to discredit both Pietism and Pentecostalism. Clearly there is much more work to be done on the subject, but it is work which may have to wait as there is very little interest in the subject by scholars of Lutheranism and little interest in anything involving Lutheranism outside of Lutherans. It may take years to learn if Dr Brecht is correct in predicting the direction Pietist research will take, and considering not one of the important four volumes he edited was translated into English besides the work done by Hans Schneider on Radical Pietists, beyond a handful of scholars, Americans may not even learn of it. Of course, they could look at the aforementioned Schneider translation (by Gerald T. MacDonald), and another way of getting at it would be another look at the research of Lindberg, but outside of a few Lutherans it is not likely to sustain interest. That can be said also of my Kinderbeten book because one has to also wade through the intra-Lutheran debates. 2 However, the roots of many drivers of Pentecostalism are found here. 1Carter Lindberg, The Third Reformation? Charismatic Movements and the Lutheran Tradition. The Third Reformation? Charismatic Movements and the Lutheran Tradition (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1983) 2 Eric Swensson, Kinderbeten: The Origin, Unfolding, and Interpretations of the Silesian Children’s Prayer Revival (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2010) There will be a chapter on this in The Pietist Impulse in Christianity (Eugene: Cascade, 2 We, however, can use this time to focus at on several issues affecting the outworking of Pietism and the Kinderbeten Revival that are also important for Pentecostalism. One is millennialism; another is the concept of personal revelation, which has a corresponding term in Pietist research, unmittelbare Eingebung (in English “direct inspiration”).3 We have another case to study here, the Kinderbeten Awakening, and since Rev. Petersen was invited to Silesia to see the Kinderbeten first hand and he wrote about it in his book, Der Macht der Kinder (The Power of the Children),4 we have a good primary resource of both events and his interpretations of them to study. Of course, one can only scratch the surface in the time allotted; therefore, we will share something of the Petersens, and then accompany them to Silesia and the Children’s Revival, followed by a section on the controversy ignited by this revival between the Pietists and Lutheran Orthodoxy. This will give us a chance to look at what I put forward as a dynamic shared by all awakenings and subsequent revivalist movements, controversy. Being troublesome may or may not come to mind when speaking of spiritual practices; however, we argue here that it is paradigmatic for all who work to bring reform and renewal to the life of the Church. The Petersens German historian and Pietist scholar Emmanuel Hirsch called Johann Wilhelm Petersen (1649-1727) and Johanna Eleonora Petersen (1644-1724) “two of the most fascinating representatives of Pietist fanatics.”5 Johann studied theology, philosophy, and poetry at leading German universities Gießen, Rostock, Wittenberg, Leipzig and Jena. He was pastor at Hannover in 1677, was quickly made Superintendent and Hofprediger (court preacher) in Eutin (1678), in 1686 he returned to Rostock for the Doctor of Theology degree, in 1688 he returned to being a Superintendent until 1692 when he was in trouble again for his teachings. Besides being a “fanatic,” which of course, is all in the eyes of the beholder, Petersen was a respected man of letters who was a professor of poetry, which at that time meant teaching composition of poetry in Latin. Petersen was respected by intellectuals such as Leibniz, who suggested he write a long poem on the history of the world up to its consummation. The year 1692 proved to be the only time he was “fired” for his beliefs, and he spent the next thirty five years free to study, pray and write under the patronage of pious nobles. Peterson forms an important link between Spener and Radical Pietists for historians.6 Radicals were those who left the Church so they had some freedom to engage in speculative theology, and while they must be viewed individually, all were motivated by millennialism. Hans Schneider wrote, “In dealing 2011) to be released by June and a book will be forthcoming from papers presented at the International Pietist Congress Halle, Germany, 2010. 3 These allegations are seen in the edict against Pietists which was ordered to be read from every pulpit in Silesia in 1710: they taught direct inspiration ( unmittelbare Eingebung ), that one could become so perfect one did not need to go to Communion ( Stillestand ), that they had secret gatherings ( heimliche Winkelversammlungen ), and that there was going to be a new kingdom of Christ on earth ( Chiliasmus ). See Meyer, Gnadenfrei , 21–3. 4 Die Macht der Kinder in der Letzen Zeit, auf Veranlassung Der kleinen Prediger/ oder/ der betenden Kinder in Schlesien/ Aus der Heiligen Schrifft vorgestellet von Johann Wilhelm Petersen, der H. Schrifft D. (The power of the children in the last time, at the request of the small preachers, prayer or the children in Silesia, from Holy Shrift introduction by Johann Wilhelm Petersen, Doctor of Holy Scripture) Franckfurt und Leipzig, In Verlegung Samuel Heil und Joh. Gottfr. Liebezeits, 1709 (AFSt 159 K 32). 5 Hans Schneider, German Radical Pietism (Landham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2007), 21. 6 Ibid, 22. 3 with radical Pietism, it is impossible to miss the fact that the great significance eschatology was afforded in Pietism only increased in Pietism’s radical representatives. For some figures and groups, it almost became the focal point of their theology and piety.” 7 His wife, Johanna Eleonora Petersen von Merlau was from nobility who belonged to the Knights of the Rhine and so were not subject only to the emperor, but her father was without fortune, and so circumstances and her own religious convictions led her to turning her back on a life as a lady-in-waiting and embrace a life of chastity and good works, and she might have remained that way if not for the persistent yet principled advances of the younger-by-a-few-years, non-royal, Johann. The Petersens met through the leading Pietist figure Philipp Jakob Spener and were both members of his early Frankfurt circle (1675). She actually met Spener by chance in 1672 on a boat trip and they exchanged letters thereafter. She received permission from her father to board with a noble widow who had the ancient Saalhof castle in Frankfurt. There she used her newfound time and freedom to study Hebrew, correspond with theologians and other women who were interested in theological questions.8 There she also taught a group of young girls, such as they did at that time, in homemaking, singing and manners but also in Bible lessons, Scripture memorization, even some in Greek. Petersen herself was an autodidact. Inspired by Spener, she became a leading personality in Frankfurt’s religious community. She did not participate directly in Spener’s collegia until after she married, rather a group gathered around her at the Saalhof, which was preferable women were permitted to speak, unlike at Spener’s church. Many theologians came to her Saalhof collegia including William Penn and George Fox. In 1678 the city fathers considered revoking her license to hold the meetings, but she wrote a spirited defense that was decided in her favor.