Lutheran Pietists

[Iosias]

Do you know where I can read Johann Arndt, Philip Jacob Spener and August Hermann Francke online and find out more about them?

[DaRev]

Do you know where I can read Johann Arndt, Philip Jacob Spener and August Hermann Francke online and find out more about them?

I don't know of anyplace specific, but if you were to do a Google search of each name, perhaps some of their works would show up. Also, check Wikipedia listings for each name and you might find the titles of some of their works, then Google them. It may take some time, but you may be fruitful.

I like your CF character, BTW. Barefoot in the library. How cool is that? Our old friend Jay would be impressed.:P

[BigNorsk]

Google books (http://books.google.com/bkshp?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&tab=wp&q=) has things by them and about them. I doubt that everything has been translated to English.

Go to advanced search and then you can enter them as the author and try it both with and without their middle names.

If you put them in as a term search, you get those books that talk about them.

And there are full books online and some that are partials or teasers to sell books, but many of the older writings are available in full.

Marv

[Iosias]

Thanks guys!

[BigNorsk]

One thing to be careful about when reading the pietists and about the pietists is that the leaders generally were pretty careful not to fall into error, but that many of the followers did. So there's kind of a disconnect from what you read say written by Arndt, and what you would read written about the peitists, particularly if you forge ahead into neo-Lutheranism which was a reform movement to correct the abuses of pietism and ended up giving us the Confessional Lutherans.

The pietists were really loved outside Lutheranism. Especially some groups of Anabaptists and there is clearly an influence on the Methodists as well. Unfortunately, without the restraint offered by Lutheran theology, the problems that came from pietism really got going in those groups.

Just thought I'd give you a head's up.

Marv

[Iosias]

Duly noted :)

[Studeclunker]

Ah, yes. Lutheran Pietisim. What a wonderful way to turn one's children into very angry atheists.:doh:

You might want to watch the movie, 'Babbetts Feast' as well. It's about pietists and excellent.

[IowaLutheran]

I haven't heard of the pietists you have mentioned.

Hans Nielsen Hauge is a Norwegian Lutheran pietist who has had a considerable influence on Lutheranism here in the upper Midwest of the US due to the large Scandanavian immigrant population, many of whom were not fond of the state Lutheran churches in Europe and preferred the pietist reform movements like Hauge's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Nielsen_Hauge

[BigNorsk]

Haugenism had a huge influence on the Lutheran Brethren. It's really where a lot of our customs originated. It was unusual because people did not leave the church, but rather had their Christian life almost alongside the state church of Norway. They went to church, something you can still see to this day in Norway, because the attendance is much higher where Hauge was active, and they got married, baptised, confirmed, and so on in the church. But the state church was really a dead place. So they met for bible studies, and lay preachers gave the message.

Meeting for religious purposes outside the church without the presence to the minister was actually against the law at the time in Norway. Can you imagine being sent to prison for having a bible study without the pastor, well Hauge more than imagined, he was arrested and imprisoned 10 times. Something that broke his health and resulted in his premature death. The pattern of imprisonment continued until Hauge actually came under the protection of a couple of the Norwegian bishops.

An interesting aspect of Hauge that I would dearly like to read and study more about is that he was really an industrialist who had absolutely no problems it appears mixing business and religion. He was really responsible for a lot of the development of industry of the time in Norway. At the same time, he was decidely not what you think when you think of a capitalist. He never got wealthy, and he really was instrumental in starting labor unions in Norway. Can you imagine someone here in the US that had a bunch of factories going out and telling workers to band together to receive good treatment?

Anyway, his way of blending business into a Christian life is something that seems sorely lacking and I think there is something to be learned there, but I haven't been successful at really tapping in to that yet.

From Haugenism we get many of our distinctives among Lutherans. For instance we use lay ministers, indeed each congregation has ordained elders as the leaders (modified Presbyterian form of government) and the minister and elders are really the same office with different functions (the state church minister to perform rites and the lay as the ultimate religious leaders). Certainly the attitude towards the minister is different than it would have been in Norway, since, unlike Norway, the ministers we have are believers.

Anyway, the service is low church, no special clothes or robes, churches don't tend to be ornate or anything, usually just a simple cross at the front with a pulpit in the center. It really harkens back more to the lay preacher led service than the liturgical service in the churches.

So Communion ends up being in a separate service held after the regular service. I thought for awhile that it harkened back to the closed commuion traditions, but I don't think it does. I think the Communion service is actually the remnant of the state church service.

And we are congregational. There seems to be an inherent distrust of central government in the Lutheran Brethren. You hear about different synods and denominations talking to each other. As far as I can tell, there really isn't anyone, including the President, in the Lutheran Brethren empowered to do such. And the only discipline the central church has on a congregation is to break fellowship. There's a bit more control of ministers, but since the synod is small, things tend to operate informally more than anything.

And I believe we are the only synod that in order to be a voting member, you need to be an adult who applies for membership and you are voted upon by the congregation. Didn't want nonbelievers controlling the church to the extent that such is possible.

Anyway, you are correct that Haugenism is much different than the German Pietist movement. Though many followers of both fell into legalism. Of course that wasn't restricted to the so called pietistic movements either. Most confessional groups, despite being reform movements against pietism, fell into pietism themselves. While they never got rid of alcohol (German love of beer?), they did in many cases get rid of such things as dancing and such. Both groups really have to a large extent gotten away from pietism, as far as I can tell, WWII and the Korean War probably had more to do with that than any religious movement or reform.

An interesting thing is that even though they had many pietistic things, at the turn of the century, confessionals tended to be almost all Democrats. They were looking to the Democrats to fight against prohibition. The Lutheran Brethren were in the high 90 percentiles Republican because the Republicans were in favor of Prohibition. In North Dakota this led to some strange things. For instance the state came into the Union dry, being strong Republican territory. So the Republicans, who were really controlled by railroad interests would have as their official policy, prohibition. While at the same time, they would caucus each night and booze would flow until the wee hours. The Democrats were against Prohibition, but those in the legislature, since it was an uphill battle to get in the Legislature as a Democrat, were almost all teetotalers. Apparently enough Republicans would switch if you didn't drink to get some Democrats elected. So you had the Prohibiton favoring party drinking all the time and those against Prohibition never touching a drop.

Anyway, I'm on one of my big rambles. But I find all this and how things tie together to be so interesting.

Marv

[IowaLutheran]

Thanks Marv, for that background. I can see why pietist movements got started based on that. I tend to be more on the "catholic" side of Lutheranism, so I do prefer "smells and bells" (which, as you note, are very un-Haugean) but I can see that there was a real need for reform in the state churches based on what you said.

[DaRev]

So Communion ends up being in a separate service held after the regular service. I thought for awhile that it harkened back to the closed commuion traditions, but I don't think it does. I think the Communion service is actually the remnant of the state church service.



It does sound a lot like the old German Lutheran services where at the end of the Service of the Word they would yell "the doors! the doors!" and all of the non-communicants would leave and the doors closed for the Service of the Sacrament.

[Confess]

Ah, yes. Lutheran Pietisim. What a wonderful way to turn one's children into very angry atheists.:doh:

You might want to watch the movie, 'Babbetts Feast' as well. It's about pietists and excellent.
OHHHHH I LOVED THAT MOVIE!!!

[Studeclunker]

Smells and Bells? Oh, my! (LOL):D :D :D


Thank you Marv. My only exposure to 'Luthern Pietism' was the revival of it in the forties and fifties. My brothers and sister used to give me an earful about it as I didn't remember much about it growing up.





Surely it wasn't as comical as it sounds. Monty Python would have a great time with that one.

Confess, I noticed the addition to your character. With seven children, you must have several baskets like that on a regular basis. My wife used to comment that laundry was like the blob, ever growing. She finally, with a bit of prodding on my part, started the older two of our children to helping her. This had mixed results. I remember wearing pink underwear on more than one occasion.

[DaRev]

I remember wearing pink underwear on more than one occasion.

I HOPE that this was accidental. ;)

^_^

[Studeclunker]

Uh, quite. My eldest is still trying to live it down. I didn't really care. My eldest son was mortified.

Revrand, I notice the ecclesiastic gown. Do you wear both the white and then the black cossack underneath?

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Save me the google and research....


What, exactly, was Lutheran Pietism? I've heard of it and maybe learned about it somewhere, but I'm coming up with a blank.


Thanks!


- Josiah

[DaRev]

Revrand, I notice the ecclesiastic gown. Do you wear both the white and then the black cossack underneath?

For regular Sunday Divine Service (we have the Lord's Supper every Sunday) I wear a white alb and a stole which matches the liturgical color. After the sermon I put on a chausable which also matches the liturgical color.
For non-communion services I wear a black cassok and white surplice with a colored stole.

I looked at the cassok and surplice in the CF character items, but it looked more like an acolyte garb. I wish there was a clerical shirt available for my little guy, but the powers-that-be told me that they won't make one. They're afraid that people would use it to poke fun or something. I guess I agree with their reason.

[BigNorsk]

Pietism was a reform movement. The complain was that the church had fallen into such decline that head knowledge was really all it represented so pietism stressed that one needed a personal relationship with God and that having that personal relationship would rezult in certain evidences within a person's life.

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia available through google books has a very good article on the German pietistic movement.

I'm not sure if this link (http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC60169405&id=9DgMAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=Lutheran+pietism+OR+pietist&as_brr=1#PPA53,M1) will work, the article on pietism starts on page 53.

I checked, the link at least gets you to page 65 of the correct book, either scroll back or enter 53 and hit return in the box that shows the page you are on.

Marv

[DaSeminarian]

Pietism was a reform movement. The complain was that the church had fallen into such decline that head knowledge was really all it represented so pietism stressed that one needed a personal relationship with God and that having that personal relationship would rezult in certain evidences within a person's life.

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia available through google books has a very good article on the German pietistic movement.

I'm not sure if this link (http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC60169405&id=9DgMAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=Lutheran+pietism+OR+pietist&as_brr=1#PPA53,M1) will work, the article on pietism starts on page 53.

I checked, the link at least gets you to page 65 of the correct book, either scroll back or enter 53 and hit return in the box that shows the page you are on.

Marv


If I am not mistaken Marv, The Lutheran Brethren would by most LCMS/WELS/ELS and even some ELCA be considered the Lutheran Pietist synod in America. Would it not? I have a former LB in my classes at Fort Wayne and he says as much.

Is this a fair assessment of the Brethren?

[DaSeminarian]

For regular Sunday Divine Service (we have the Lord's Supper every Sunday) I wear a white alb and a stole which matches the liturgical color. After the sermon I put on a chausable which also matches the liturgical color.
For non-communion services I wear a black cassok and white surplice with a colored stole.

I looked at the cassok and surplice in the CF character items, but it looked more like an acolyte garb. I wish there was a clerical shirt available for my little guy, but the powers-that-be told me that they won't make one. They're afraid that people would use it to poke fun or something. I guess I agree with their reason.

Is there a reason why the surplice is worn on non-communion Sundays rather than the Alb? I only have an Alb and until I am ordained will not have the stole. No one has gone over the proper attire yet, but maybe that will come up in Liturgics II which I take next quarter.

[BigNorsk]

If I am not mistaken Marv, The Lutheran Brethren would by most LCMS/WELS/ELS and even some ELCA be considered the Lutheran Pietist synod in America. Would it not? I have a former LB in my classes at Fort Wayne and he says as much.

Is this a fair assessment of the Brethren?

Would they be so considered, I believe they would, probably because they are not afraid to use the word pietism, and they do talk about having a personal relationship with God and such. So certainly that would be the perception.

Fair?, boy that's really something that is in the eyes of the beholder. No question we have our roots in that Norwegian reform movement called Haugenism and no question that it was pietistic. But Haugenism did not have all of the characteristics of the German Pietists, some certainly.

For instance in common would be an emphasis on the personal relationship with God. You can have all the education and go through all the motions but without faith, you are not a Christian. That might not sound like a strange statement to most of you, but evidently it was at the time in Germany and Norway. Evidently if someone had been baptised and at least shown up a few times a year and could answer the questions to be confirmed, well, evidently many felt that was enough.

There is also in both an emphasis on missions, certainly to a greater extent than in Lutheranism in general. I'm not sure how much that still holds, though I'm told a much bigger percentage of our synod's budget goes to missions than is typical, I really haven't studied it. Actually I'd have to say world missions, until recently we spent not very much on home missions outside of youth, there's been kind of a redirection to the understanding that the US and Canada are now very fertile mission fields.

I would say the emphasis on the Bible as the rule and norm is also quite strong in both. Confessions and such are not held as highly.

Some things that are different. Haugenism was not separatism, and that seems to have been very typical in the German pietists.

Shared also would be the drift into legalism that many took. With the Lutheran Brethren, I think there can be little arguement that the first 50 years suffered from a lot of legalism. Hard to tell if it was the effect of the pietism, it seems like almost all reforms drift into legalism for a time after their establishment. That's certainly not limited to pietism.

Now the thing that is interesting in a way as to where you find the effects of the piestistic movements, well, they are really everywhere. That seems to have happened because even many of the critics of the pietist movements did indeed try to correct the very things the pietists complained about, kind of like you see in politics sometimes where if a third party makes and issue of something and starts to gain ground with it, one of the main parties will adopt it as their own and take the wind from the sails of the little party. You see some of the same things with pietism where even those who complained about it, in many cases realized that there was a need for a personal relationship with Jesus and indeed that many in the church did not have that, but instead were putting their faith not in Jesus but in the forms and rituals and indeed in the church.

I would think we would have to at least share the pietist label with the Free Lutherans, they have a very typical Lutheran Liturgy, but they left the state churches and were influenced by pietism as well. Then there were many who ended up forming the ELCA, looking back as a child growing up in a Norwegian ALC congregation in North Dakota, the effects of Haugenism were evident.

Then there would be the Moravians, I think they have the strongest ties to the German pietists remaining. But I honestly don't know much about them.

I would also be quite surprised if the old Norwegian synod wasn't strongly affected, didn't they end up in the ALS? I just don't have any personal experience with them so I really can't judge, and as confessionals I'm sure one would generally hear a strong denial of pietism if one asked them so I can't really make a reasonable judgement.

Anyway, there tends in any group to be swings one way and another, always trying to get to the correct position and usually swinging right past the right spot to another place needing correction. Pietism is simply one of those corrections, we see it both in the larger church as a whole and in individual's lives. The hardest thing is to give the correction that people need. A person locked in a dead going through the motions live, needs some pietism, but pouring pietism on a legalist is like gasoline on a fire.

I know where I was at the time, I sorely needed a little pietism when I joined the Lutheran Brethren, I have channeled that pietism in my life towards the study of doctrine and right understanding so that I do not become guilty of a gospel of experience or fall into legalism. Many others would benefit from a little pietism themselves.

Marv

[C.F.W. Walther]

I'm confused. I thought in essence that pietism embraced legalism. That they were somewhat one and the same.

[DaSeminarian]

Would they be so considered, I believe they would, probably because they are not afraid to use the word pietism, and they do talk about having a personal relationship with God and such. So certainly that would be the perception.

Fair?, boy that's really something that is in the eyes of the beholder. No question we have our roots in that Norwegian reform movement called Haugenism and no question that it was pietistic. But Haugenism did not have all of the characteristics of the German Pietists, some certainly.

For instance in common would be an emphasis on the personal relationship with God. You can have all the education and go through all the motions but without faith, you are not a Christian. That might not sound like a strange statement to most of you, but evidently it was at the time in Germany and Norway. Evidently if someone had been baptised and at least shown up a few times a year and could answer the questions to be confirmed, well, evidently many felt that was enough.

There is also in both an emphasis on missions, certainly to a greater extent than in Lutheranism in general. I'm not sure how much that still holds, though I'm told a much bigger percentage of our synod's budget goes to missions than is typical, I really haven't studied it. Actually I'd have to say world missions, until recently we spent not very much on home missions outside of youth, there's been kind of a redirection to the understanding that the US and Canada are now very fertile mission fields.

I would say the emphasis on the Bible as the rule and norm is also quite strong in both. Confessions and such are not held as highly.

Some things that are different. Haugenism was not separatism, and that seems to have been very typical in the German pietists.

Shared also would be the drift into legalism that many took. With the Lutheran Brethren, I think there can be little arguement that the first 50 years suffered from a lot of legalism. Hard to tell if it was the effect of the pietism, it seems like almost all reforms drift into legalism for a time after their establishment. That's certainly not limited to pietism.

Now the thing that is interesting in a way as to where you find the effects of the piestistic movements, well, they are really everywhere. That seems to have happened because even many of the critics of the pietist movements did indeed try to correct the very things the pietists complained about, kind of like you see in politics sometimes where if a third party makes and issue of something and starts to gain ground with it, one of the main parties will adopt it as their own and take the wind from the sails of the little party. You see some of the same things with pietism where even those who complained about it, in many cases realized that there was a need for a personal relationship with Jesus and indeed that many in the church did not have that, but instead were putting their faith not in Jesus but in the forms and rituals and indeed in the church.

I would think we would have to at least share the pietist label with the Free Lutherans, they have a very typical Lutheran Liturgy, but they left the state churches and were influenced by pietism as well. Then there were many who ended up forming the ELCA, looking back as a child growing up in a Norwegian ALC congregation in North Dakota, the effects of Haugenism were evident.

Then there would be the Moravians, I think they have the strongest ties to the German pietists remaining. But I honestly don't know much about them.

I would also be quite surprised if the old Norwegian synod wasn't strongly affected, didn't they end up in the ALS? I just don't have any personal experience with them so I really can't judge, and as confessionals I'm sure one would generally hear a strong denial of pietism if one asked them so I can't really make a reasonable judgement.

Anyway, there tends in any group to be swings one way and another, always trying to get to the correct position and usually swinging right past the right spot to another place needing correction. Pietism is simply one of those corrections, we see it both in the larger church as a whole and in individual's lives. The hardest thing is to give the correction that people need. A person locked in a dead going through the motions live, needs some pietism, but pouring pietism on a legalist is like gasoline on a fire.

I know where I was at the time, I sorely needed a little pietism when I joined the Lutheran Brethren, I have channeled that pietism in my life towards the study of doctrine and right understanding so that I do not become guilty of a gospel of experience or fall into legalism. Many others would benefit from a little pietism themselves.

Marv

Marv,

I believe that Martin Luther himself would say that piety is the natural outpouring of the Holy Spirit from the faith given to us by God through his Son Jesus. What becomes a problem for many of the Confessional Lutherans is when the focus is put on the work and not on the initiate of the work. This is also where many misunderstand James and Paul. Paul's emphasis on Faith in Christ's work alone versus James writing that Faith without works is dead seem to be contrary to each other. But I think if one looks at both in light of who and how they are addressing the topic they will be much more congruent.

We can only do because God has empowered our doing with the Holy Spirit.

[BigNorsk]

Marv,

I believe that Martin Luther himself would say that piety is the natural outpouring of the Holy Spirit from the faith given to us by God through his Son Jesus. What becomes a problem for many of the Confessional Lutherans is when the focus is put on the work and not on the initiate of the work. This is also where many misunderstand James and Paul. Paul's emphasis on Faith in Christ's work alone versus James writing that Faith without works is dead seem to be contrary to each other. But I think if one looks at both in light of who and how they are addressing the topic they will be much more congruent.

We can only do because God has empowered our doing with the Holy Spirit.

Yes of course, the Holy Spirit, it is back to the faith and works thing. Faith produces works. It is not alone. But the works can very much be alone. One must not look to or trust in the works, but rather it must be the faith.

But what would you say if as a pastor of a congregation they told you, their shepherd, that they were Christians, and you could not find any evidence of it? They walk out of your church building and become completely a part of the world, cheating, stealing, killing and fornicating with the best of them and no sorrow or contrition is to be found.

At some level we have to look to people's works because we cannot directly see their faith like God does. But we have to be careful in that. We cannot for instance teach that because people come to our congregation they are saved and those who go to others are lost. And we must be careful not to think that being a Christian means we don't drink, smoke, chew, play cards or dance. Or maybe better think that because we don't drink, smoke, chew, play cards, or dance that we are Christians and therefore saved.

Any reform can and often does go too far. Matter of fact, it's almost guaranteed to go too far at least for awhile.

Marv

[Studeclunker]

Facinating treatise, Marv. Well said.

As to James and Paul seemingly contridicting each other, this isn't quite the case. Both were addressing the issues of the day. Paul was shown to agree with James through snippets of Corinthians and Galatians. "Should we sin all the more that Grace may abound? Certainly not!" "See that you walk circumspectly, not as fools but as wise." Paul was correcting, lovingly, congregations that were in error. James was dealing with... well, pietism. But as you described, Marv, pietism that had gone sour. Legalism without the salvation of Christ. Kind of like the Pharasees.

I have heard RC priests say, sarcastically, that Paul was the first Lutheran. Interesting... as Martin Luther did want to name the church The Via Paulinica. James is a good book to temper the seemingly anti-nomian flavour of many of Paul's writings. The two complement each other.

Luther, I do envy you so.:sigh: As to the various garments you wear during service. Look at it this way; everything you do is a type of symbolism to your congregation about Christ, and salvation. I don't know the names of the various gowns that the pastor wears. Wouldn't know the difference between an Alb and a Supplice. Still, how it was described to me (by Dr. Rosenbladt), the white is worn over the black to symbolize the righteousness that Christ himself, with his own hands, will dress us in. The black cossack, represents our sinful nature. Hence one is worn over the other, to remind the congregation that we are sinful by nature and covered, only, by Christ's righteousness. Yes, I know, our sins are cast as far as the east is from the west, still, this is done by Christ not ourselves.

Our church comes from a time when most of the population was illiterate. Hence the Lutheran occupation with education. Also, many of our traditions and liturgy are there to teach with symbols and repetition. Now, the majority of the population is literate, and ignorant. Oi, vay!:doh: So, these traditions, like your various garments, continue to teach.

Forgive me please, if I've gone on a bit. There is so much comfort to be found in these traditions.

God bless you, Luther1521, may he hold you close, and through you, shine his light into this dark world.

[DaSeminarian]

Yes of course, the Holy Spirit, it is back to the faith and works thing. Faith produces works. It is not alone. But the works can very much be alone. One must not look to or trust in the works, but rather it must be the faith.

But what would you say if as a pastor of a congregation they told you, their shepherd, that they were Christians, and you could not find any evidence of it? They walk out of your church building and become completely a part of the world, cheating, stealing, killing and fornicating with the best of them and no sorrow or contrition is to be found.

At some level we have to look to people's works because we cannot directly see their faith like God does. But we have to be careful in that. We cannot for instance teach that because people come to our congregation they are saved and those who go to others are lost. And we must be careful not to think that being a Christian means we don't drink, smoke, chew, play cards or dance. Or maybe better think that because we don't drink, smoke, chew, play cards, or dance that we are Christians and therefore saved.

Any reform can and often does go too far. Matter of fact, it's almost guaranteed to go too far at least for awhile.

Marv

Perhaps it is not about us seeing it in others so much as God seeing it in them. It is not our place to judge whether or not a church filled with sinners is truly repentent or not. What is important is that you who are filled with the Holy Spirit can share your faith with others because he does good works through you.

In St. John's Revelation, we read letters written to the seven churches. In Chapter 3, he writes to Laodicea where the faith is called Lukewarm. They are sitting on the fence and the letter pleas with them by saying, "behold I knock at the door, if anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will go in and eat with him and he with me."

Many in the protestant churches think that this verse is speaking about the non-believers, but in reality it is to those who have become lazy in their faith. So is the church becoming lazy or is responding to the call God puts on all our hearts to "Love your neighbor as yourself"?

The Church is the bride of Christ and it is ugly full of sin, but Christ laid his life out for her despite her ugliness. A Shepherd who does not fulfill his duty of convicting his flock of their sin so that he can deliver the Gospel, has much to answer to God at the judgment, but
it is not up to us to judge whether there is one among the many at the church you described who is faithful. Abraham pleaded with God that if 10 people in the city of Sodom that were righteous to spare it from annihilation. That was the Old Covenant and in the new Covenant we are told not to judge lest we be judged by the same measure in which we judge.

So whether that church is holding to the word or not, we do not have the ability of God to determine whether or not there is one or more than once who have received Christ and can share their faith.

[DaRev]

Is there a reason why the surplice is worn on non-communion Sundays rather than the Alb? I only have an Alb and until I am ordained will not have the stole. No one has gone over the proper attire yet, but maybe that will come up in Liturgics II which I take next quarter.

The cassok and surplice is tha traditional garb worn for prayer services. I'm sure that you'll hear about this before you are through there at the Fort. I know that they emphasize this a bit more than does St. Louis... that and the pontifical collar! ;) :P

[DaSeminarian]

The cassok and surplice is tha traditional garb worn for prayer services. I'm sure that you'll hear about this before you are through there at the Fort. I know that they emphasize this a bit more than does St. Louis... that and the pontifical collar! ;) :P

How else does one pontificate if one does not have the pontificate collar? I have 2 shirts that require the Roman collar and 2 shirts that only need the tab. I only have an Alb and do not use the Surplice.

I am preaching next Sunday at my fieldwork church

[DaRev]

How else does one pontificate if one does not have the pontificate collar? I have 2 shirts that require the Roman collar and 2 shirts that only need the tab. I only have an Alb and do not use the Surplice.

I am preaching next Sunday at my fieldwork church

The surplice goes with the black cassok, not the alb.

Blessings on your preaching.

[DaSeminarian]

The surplice goes with the black cassok, not the alb.

Blessings on your preaching.


So is it necessary to wear the Alb only for Divine Service and the Surplice for the Offices or can the Alb be worn for any of them?

[BigNorsk]

I'm confused. I thought in essence that pietism embraced legalism. That they were somewhat one and the same.

Pietism in the sense that those who promoted it is to stress one's personal relationship with Jesus. That Christianity is not just a book knowledge and ritual based moral system, but an actual living relationship with God. It stresses that live faith produces works.

It always attracts legalists, who are pious on the outside but all law on the inside. So legalism flips everything that pietism tries to be upside down. I don't know, should a movement be defined by people who violate everything the movement hopes to accomplish? Doesn't seem fair to me. Legalists will almost always think of themselves as wonderful pious christians, but they are as lacking of a personal relationship with God as the dead ritualist is. It's just you can't reform a legalist with pietism because he hears everything you say as a confirmation that he's doing just great.

As a theological term pietism is really a type of legalism. Where the marks of a Christian are often very much what he doesn't do, like dancing, drinking, card playing and so on.

But that's where there's this disconnect, because those types of things were in no way what the pietist reformers tried to institute. Those weren't the goals at all. The goal was a life changing personal relationship with Jesus. So it becomes difficult to discuss because what the pietists wanted and promoted and how they are defined is two different things.


Marv

[DaRev]

can the Alb be worn for any of them?

Yes.

[BigNorsk]

All the talk about clothing reminds me, we've only talked about one branch of German pietism. The other major branch was the high church pietists. I don't know too much about them other than the claim is that they died out. I have my doubts though. It seems to me the big pull for some Lutherans to go east, not all of them, but many of them is exactly high church pietism.

Any thoughts?

Marv

[DaSeminarian]

DaRev,

What in praytell name is wrong with the roman collar? (We're not talking just a white tab, but the full collar fastened to the shirt by brass tabs) I personally don't see anything wrong with them. Does CSL frown upon them?

Do they think we are being arrogant by wearing them?

What is the problem with this collar in your opinion of course.

I am just inquiring not trying to be snide or cynical.

L

[DaRev]

DaRev,

What in praytell name is wrong with the roman collar? (We're not talking just a white tab, but the full collar fastened to the shirt by brass tabs) I personally don't see anything wrong with them. Does CSL frown upon them?

Do they think we are being arrogant by wearing them?

What is the problem with this collar in your opinion of course.

I am just inquiring not trying to be snide or cynical.

L

There's nothing at all wrong with it. I never said that there was.

I was just poking a bit of fun at my Fort Wayne brothers because the majority of them (at least the ones that I know) wear the pontifical collar. I have a couple colleagues in my district who don't even own tab collar shirts... and they are FW grads.

[DaSeminarian]

There's nothing at all wrong with it. I never said that there was.

I was just poking a bit of fun at my Fort Wayne brothers because the majority of them (at least the ones that I know) wear the pontifical collar. I have a couple colleagues in my district who don't even own tab collar shirts... and they are FW grads.


Well just so long as you were poking fun...;)


The Pastor at my fieldwork church will sometimes just wear a shirt and tie because he has a big neck and the collars move around on him. He still wears the Alb and Stole when he is doing the services.

I have a couple of both of them as I mentioned before. I rather like the tabs better because they are less expensive to buy.

[synger]

When I first started attending an LCMS church regularly, I noticed the various garments. My Presbyterian pastor wore robe and stole, and I was used to that. But the chasuble, cossack, and tabbed shirt were new to me. I'd seen them before, of course, in various Catholic and Lutheran church services, but I'd never looked up their names and what they were worn for.

So I found a Vestments glossary (http://www.kencollins.com/glossary/vestments.htm) that, while not strictly Lutheran, has helped me understand the basic garments and why we see Pastor wear one thing one time and other thing another time.

[DaSeminarian]

Chasuble is only worn by the Celebrant for the Divine Service of the Sacrament. Stoles are only worn by those who have been ordained but most all pastors and vicars wear an alb or cassock/surplice.

[BigNorsk]

http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2005/dec/cartoons/mike11252005.jpg

[DaRev]

http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2005/dec/cartoons/mike11252005.jpg
http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/lachen/laughing-smiley-001.gif http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/lachen/laughing-smiley-001.gif http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/lachen/laughing-smiley-001.gif