That may well be true, but pietism was not Luther’s thing. The authority of Scripture was Luther’s thing, and the ELCA is butchering that.
The impact that Luther had on pietism was more of an unintended consequence - and Luther himself really regretted what Melanchthon went on to do in his rejection of anything Roman Catholic, which Luther did NOT support.
What Luther believed was that people should be given the Word of God in their own language so they could process it mentally and truly believe it. Because the Word was available to the people they had the opportunity to either interpret it correctly or totally botch it up. Luther wrote lots of books to try to help people understand the hermeneutical principles, but there were still lots of people who botched it. Melanchthon and others who tended more toward pietism wanted to throw out everything from the past, whereas Luther just wanted the teachings of the Church (and beliefs of the people) to be accountable to the Word of God.
The same kind of thing can be seen in some churches today who think that anybody with theological training must be all “book knowledge rather than heart knowledge” so they have as pastors/teachers those who have no training in the Biblical languages, hermeneutics, theology, etc. Often they have a people that believes with all their heart - but may not have a clue about what the Bible really says. Pietism, like you say. It came about because the people had access to the Bible without having to get it from the learned scholars AND THEY CHOSE TO IGNORE BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP like the scholarship, exegesis, etc that Luther offered in his own books.
The ELCA botched it because they denied that the entire Bible is the Word of God.
So what you’re saying about pietism and the ELCA is true. It’s just not what Luther taught. Luther’s role was in allowing the people to see the Bible without having to get it second-hand or third-hand from a theologian.
And that is still a concern for LCMS pastors today. The first year of my marriage my husband was attending seminary. I had been trained as a Lutheran teacher but have also always had the heart of an apologist so I was wanting to sort out in depth all the different angles. He was so afraid I was going to get it wrong. Afraid of me reading my Bible and understanding it wrong. It was a terrible, terrible time for me. That’s when I became suicidal, thinking I would never be able to have the Bible or be alone with my Savior without a “minder” along to save me from myself. We got the Concordia Study Bible for me so I could have cross-references and study notes to look at while I studied.
My husband’s been a pastor for 19 years and now he just wishes he could get more people to read their Bibles at all. Reality at the seminary is so different from reality in the pews.
So anyway, I hear what you’re saying - or at least I think I do. Let me know if I’m misunderstanding. But Luther actually spoke against pietism as he observed it in Melanchthon. The proper interpretation of Scripture is what Luther was passionate about, and that can really only be done with earnest, informed study - which the pietists refused to do.
That may well be true, but pietism was not Luther’s thing. The authority of Scripture was Luther’s thing, and the ELCA is butchering that.
>>I understand that, but the downfall of Lutheranism started in the 17th century with the Pietist movement, which rejected Lutheran scholasticism if favor of emotionalism.
I’ll agree to disagree with you about Luther’s biblical scholarship because reading Luther dissuaded me of Lutheranism.
The impact that Luther had on pietism was more of an unintended consequence - and Luther himself really regretted what Melanchthon went on to do in his rejection of anything Roman Catholic, which Luther did NOT support.
What Luther believed was that people should be given the Word of God in their own language so they could process it mentally and truly believe it. Because the Word was available to the people they had the opportunity to either interpret it correctly or totally botch it up. Luther wrote lots of books to try to help people understand the hermeneutical principles, but there were still lots of people who botched it. Melanchthon and others who tended more toward pietism wanted to throw out everything from the past, whereas Luther just wanted the teachings of the Church (and beliefs of the people) to be accountable to the Word of God.
>>I’m not going to knock the positive aspects of Luther’s effort, namely to put the Bible into the vernacular although I contend he did so rather imperfectly in a way that was as much influenced by Nominalism and Erasmian Humanism as anything else.
The same kind of thing can be seen in some churches today who think that anybody with theological training must be all “book knowledge rather than heart knowledge” so they have as pastors/teachers those who have no training in the Biblical languages, hermeneutics, theology, etc.
>>The Eastern Church attracted me because its theological approach harmonizes both. A theologian is one who prays, according to the Byzantines. Otherwise you end up with pagan philosophy. Right belief without right living and right action is the stuff of devils.
Often they have a people that believes with all their heart - but may not have a clue about what the Bible really says. Pietism, like you say. It came about because the people had access to the Bible without having to get it from the learned scholars AND THEY CHOSE TO IGNORE BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP like the scholarship, exegesis, etc that Luther offered in his own books.
The ELCA botched it because they denied that the entire Bible is the Word of God.
>>I left the ELCA almost 20 years ago because I was the direction it was heading in, and I also noted that Rome had incorporated many of Luther’s reforms in the wake of Vatican II. (Vernacular liturgies, communion under both kinds, and an increased prominence for the scriptures.)
So what you’re saying about pietism and the ELCA is true. It’s just not what Luther taught. Luther’s role was in allowing the people to see the Bible without having to get it second-hand or third-hand from a theologian.
And that is still a concern for LCMS pastors today. The first year of my marriage my husband was attending seminary. I had been trained as a Lutheran teacher but have also always had the heart of an apologist so I was wanting to sort out in depth all the different angles. He was so afraid I was going to get it wrong. Afraid of me reading my Bible and understanding it wrong. It was a terrible, terrible time for me. That’s when I became suicidal, thinking I would never be able to have the Bible or be alone with my Savior without a “minder” along to save me from myself. We got the Concordia Study Bible for me so I could have cross-references and study notes to look at while I studied.
My husband’s been a pastor for 19 years and now he just wishes he could get more people to read their Bibles at all. Reality at the seminary is so different from reality in the pews.
So anyway, I hear what you’re saying - or at least I think I do. Let me know if I’m misunderstanding. But Luther actually spoke against pietism as he observed it in Melanchthon. The proper interpretation of Scripture is what Luther was passionate about, and that can really only be done with earnest, informed study - which the pietists refused to do.
>>I’m surprised that Lutherans refer to themselves in Luther’s name and not Melancthon’s, considering Melancthon wrote the bulk of the Lutheran confessions.