Show Notes: Piety vs. Pietism
Hard Men Podcast
Piety vs. Pietism
Welcome to the Hard Men Podcast, I am your host, Eric Conn. In today’s episode, we’re going to talk about what I think is one of the most important issues facing the church today, and that is the spread of a virus—not COVID, but a doctrine—and that is the virus (or teaching) of pietism. In this episode, I want to talk about a) what pietism is, b) why it’s a distortion of biblical teaching, and c) what effects it’s had on the church and our understanding of Christianity in today’s culture. Second, I want to contrast this counterfeit pietism with the real thing, and that is biblical piety.
If you’ve listened to the show before, you’ll remember I had Dr. Andrew Sandlin (@docsandlin on Twitter) on to talk about the pietism in an episode titled Why Pietism is Destroying America. There will definitely be some overlap as we discuss today, but we’re going to dig a bit deeper into what pietism is and, in particular, contrast it with genuine piety. I’d also encourage you to check out a couple of articles by Andrew, as well as Dr. Joe Boot, about pietism and how it has impacted the church today. I’ll include links to those articles in the show notes for this episode.
What is Pietism?
Historically, pietism, as Andrew Sandlin points out is defined this way:
Pietism is the 17th century Protestant (mostly Lutheran) movement led first by Philip Jakob Spener and then Hermann Francke at the University of Halle reacting against the widespread orthodox scholasticism and insisting on personal zeal, sanctification, and piety as central criteria for authentic Christianity.
In the theological development of the West, pietism rescued Protestantism from dead orthodoxy, but in its privatized and anti-dogmatic emphases also paved the way for 19th century Romantic liberalism. Marginalizing doctrine is not an effective technique for guarding against dead orthodoxy. Biblical orthodoxy wedded to devotion is the unbreakable barrier to dead, scholastic orthodoxy.
Pietism, by contrast, links passionate personal devotion to an omission of concern for God’s kingdom in this world, notably as it extends beyond the individual, family and church.
Pietism was mistaken, therefore, not so much in what it affirmed (a warm, personal zeal for God) as in what it omitted or marginalized (rigorous theology and a commitment to Christian culture).[1]
So, a couple of really important things to point out in defining pietism: 1) it tends to emphasize personal experiences andemotions over/against robustly sound doctrine; 2) it limits the definition of piety to the individual; 3) it rejects a rigorous commitment to cultural theology; 4) it is inherently gnostic.
While pietism has taken on different shapes and sizes across the decades, these main themes remain, particularly in American evangelicalism. Today, for example, many prominent Christians are quick to reject the idea of Christianity-as-religion in favor of Christianity-as-a-relationship. Instead of talking about the fear of God or Christian duties and responsibilities—first to God and then to men—the focus is almost entirely on experiences, emotions, my personal walk with Jesus, quiet times, and a hyper individualistic conception of the faith. We talk about “devotions” and not “duties.” To us, the word “devotions” feels warm and spiritual, while “duties” make us feel cold and robotic. Same with relationship vs. religion. The church has trained this bias into us.
Since this brand of churchianity (a word I’m stealing from Joe Boot) ignores the outward-facing societal implications of a godly life and commitment to culture building, Christian leaders and churchmen today are more or less allergic to any discussion of the faith that involves political or cultural theory. When they do interact with the political-cultural sphere, it’s usually a ham-fisted mishmash of feelings and misapplied bible verses (“love your neighbor” = get the shot, mask up, do whatever the state says). As a result, Christianity has been downgraded, declawed, and neutered; it’s inept at bringing the kingdom to bear in real time and space. It lacks any potency in shaping culture.
This type of ideology is alive and well in American mainline evangelicalism, especially in groups like The Gospel Coalition. Chris Wiley aptly refers to this phenomenon as “heart religion.”[2] Part of the reason this pietistic emphasis exists is because a pagan culture is less offended when you speak of a personal, subjective experience than when you make truth claims that are universally binding on all men, everywhere. The pagan cultural elites are perfectly fine if Jesus lives in our hearts, just so long as he doesn’t show up in the public sphere, public schools, or public policy. Many Big Eva elites are all too happy to play to the beat of this “heart religion.”
Probably the single greatest champion of pietism in our day is John Piper. When it comes to the Calvinist doctrine of soteriology, Piper is generally at his best. That’s not at all surprising, because many of the soteriological elements of the Gospel are about an individual’s personal new birth, conversion, and sanctification. In his book, Desiring God, which is a sort of opus magnum of pietism, Piper puts tremendous weight on the emotional experiences of conversion and the Christian life. As a student of Jonathan Edwards and The Religious Affections, this focus on emotions is not at all shocking. And it isn’t all bad, either. But Piper also slams doing anything Christianly out of a sense of duty. To him, duty is a four-letter word attributed to philosophers like Nietzsche. And there’s a definite obsession with personal feelings/experiences that I would put into the category of “morbid introspection.”
It’s also worth noting that when Piper and others refer to “the gospel,” they generally mean soteriology only. This is why, as Sandlin pointed out in our previous conversation, the “gospel-centered movement” is consistently preaching a truncated gospel. In reality, the Gospel is about more than just personal salvation—it’s also about Christ taking dominion, reordering the cosmos through households, making disciples, restoring a cursed earth, building Christian culture, and more.
Likewise, notice what happens when Piper starts to deal with issues that fall within the realm of society/politics/culture and are outside the realm of the subjective elements in salvation. When it comes to armed defense in the home, for instance, Piper said he’d rather the intruder kill his wife than protect her (if this isn’t antinomianism, I don’t know what is). He couldn’t stomach voting for Trump because the Donald was a serial mean tweeter, so he passive aggressively endorsed Biden (whose moral failures are equal if not greater). And he heavily pushed the vaccine because, well, love your neighbor + warm feelings = do what the government tells you (they’d never lie to you).
So, to summarize, pietism is a distorted view of Christianity that limits the faith to a personal, subjective, individualistic experience and neglects the familial, cultural, and societal elements of genuine piety. It tends to dismiss earthly endeavors or physical realities as insignificant.
Why is it a Distortion of Biblical Teaching?
I’ll dig into this a bit deeper when I unpack genuine piety in a just a moment, but for now I’ll offer a brief summary: the fundamental reason pietism is a distortion is because genuine piety is about far more than personal religious experience—biblically, it’s about duty to God and others, and it carries a strong element of familial, cultural, and societal responsibilities (duties). Pietism is simply an unbiblical distortion, a counterfeit to true godliness/piety.
When you examine Paul’s teaching in 1 Timothy 5, for example, biblical piety is directly and immediately displayed in relation to household duties and relationships. The pious man gets a job and keeps his kids fed and clothed, Paul tells us, and if he doesn’t, he’s worse than an unbeliever. Notice how the passage isn’t about tantric quiet times or waterfalls of emotions during a musical performance? Notice how the fear of God is supposed to show up in outward-facing duties and that—not your emotional state—is the litmus test of true faith?
Secondarily, pietism is a distortion because it’s a fruit tree that produces self-obsessed, emotionally fragile (some might call it “gay”), shallow proselytes who are quite often intentional about not advancing the kingdom in this world. They’re navel gazers, not culture builders and kingdom makers. Simply put, pietism has produced enough bad fruit that we should stop watering that tree.
As Doug Wilson once said—and I think this summarizes the problem well—Christians of this ilk are trained to rummage around in their own hearts, and when they’re done with that, to rummage around in the hearts of others. They’re obsessed with emotional experiences tied to conversion. What they’re not equipped or interested in doing is building, extending, and strengthening the kind of Christian culture that will transform the cosmos. Building institutions that will stand. Poking the idols of the culture in both eyes. And other activities reserved for manly, holy troublemakers.
What are the Effects on Church & Culture?
First, pietism has left the church open to heresy & false teachers.
It’s no accident that Critical Race Theory, Wokeness, Feminism, Socialism, and Intersectionality have all hit peak form at exactly the same moment that pietism was having its heyday. While I wouldn’t charge Piper, Keller, Dever, or the like with total softness on all doctrinal issues (they’re pretty good on the Five Solas, for example) they are certainly Downy soft on cultural and political theology—which by the way has a rich, rich history in Reformed traditions but I think they find rather distasteful and crass.
Mark Dever is an apt student of Richard Sibbes and Puritanism, but clearly not of Samuel Rutherford and Lex Rex. As a result, many of these teachers, rather than offering robust critiques of false teachings (Romans 13, vaccine mandates) have actually been the pushers of them. The greatest irony is these teachers keep demanding we “not get political” yet they’ve openly, repeatedly touted hyper-leftist policies (vaccines, open borders, anti-nationalism) and hated on conservatives (whose views are much more closely, though not perfectly, aligned with Christian morality). They’ve endorsed Democrats and bludgeoned the Orange Man (Who is Bad).
Think about it: the pietists’ game plan from the beginning, before the ball was ever snapped, was to encourage Christians to politely decline to engage in politics or cultural issues (with some exceptions, like abortion). It’s like showing up to a football game and refusing to make physical contact. Everybody gets a participation trophy. This is a great strategy if you want to lose. But behind the scenes, what they were really doing was running a Lucy-and-Charlie-Brown-style trick play: they were actually hellbent on advancing the leftist cause all along. They were engaging in a demoralization campaign in our midst to get us out of the fight.
Here’s my hunch: they watched their fathers and the “moral majority,” the Bible Belt, they saw the cultural hatred it produced among liberal elites, and they reviled their own fathers. They went the route of James Davison Hunter and Tim Keller and all the nonsense about “practicing faithful presence” in the midst of paganistic pluralism. I think many of these guys were academic types who wanted peer approval from the cultural upper crust. Many of them hired PR gurus and marketeering experts like Ed Stetzer and they rebranded their churches after doing demographic studies. They hated dominion-taking and its barbaric, post-colonial aftertaste, because it didn’t play well in the focus groups.
Second, pietism is for losers.
Most of the Reformers weren’t nice guys. To many of us today, Luther and Calvin (read their commentaries and other writings) seem rather harsh. Since COVID began, what we’ve seen is an apocalypse (unveiling). Many of the pastors who should be fighting for their churches and congregants have willingly shut down, embraced government tyranny, and are advancing the cause of leftists. It’s not just that they refuse to fight—it’s that they’ve taken up arms for the others side. What’s the penalty for treason?
Pietism can only thrive in a world of luxury and ease. Historically, it’s only succeeded in the context of opulence, not persecution or intense hardship.
Third, pietism is inherently gay.
It’s really quite obvious, but I will say it simply because many refuse to—a good number of the prominent pastors today are somewhere on the spectrum of gay. Not in the full-blown sodomy sense (some of them are definitely that, too), but in the malakos-soft-effeminate sense. Excessive focus on personal feelings? That’s gay. Refusal to defend your own people when an enemy is at the door? Super-duper gay. Making war on masculine virtue, plain spoken-ness, competency, and physical prowess, while elevating the Harry-Styles-Soft-Boys to hero status? Also gay. Vilifying masculine-leaning sins but dismissing feminine-leaning sins? Gay.
Fourth, pietism is destroying households, churches, and society.
Piper’s logic, refusal to protect, also rubs off on the church. It’s produced weak, gay men who are easy to conquer. It’s produced men who are obsessed with their own emotional experiences. Softshell crab men. Snowflakes.
What is Godly Piety?
Where I first came across the discussion about piety was C.R. Wiley’s The Household and the War for the Cosmos, and I definitely would recommend that book to you. Chris discusses piety at length in the first half of that book (Canon Press).
First of all, the word “piety” has a long, rich history. Its meaning can be traced back to both Scripture and the rich cultural heritage of the Greeks and their language, in which the New Testament was written. Bernard Knox, commenting on the Aeneid, said this about the word pius and pietas:
The word pius does indeed refer, like its English derivative, to devotion and duty to the Divine…and in the Aeneid he is always mindful of the gods, constant in prayer and thanks, and dutiful in sacrifice. But the words pius and pietas have in Latin a wider meaning. Perhaps the best English equivalent is something like “dutiful,” “mindful of one’s duty,” —not only to the gods but also to one’s family and to one’s country.[3]
What’s interesting is we find virtually the same meaning in the New Testament for the English word piety. For example, in 1 Timothy 5:4, Paul says that “if any widow has children or grandchildren, they must first learn to practice piety in regard to their own family and to make some return to their parents.” The Greek word here is eusebio, which means “dutiful, pious, showing piety towards, or paying homage.” In other words, piety is about devotion to God that manifests itself in duty-bound relations to our household.
This is obvious given the context: 1 Timothy 5:1-16 is all about how members of households should take care of each other. What Paul has in mind is clearly a fear of God that manifests in duty toward household (which is the basis of a healthy society and a right ordering of the cosmos). Again, anyone who fails to provide for his own household is worse than an unbeliever (v.8). The man who lives only for himself is worse than a pagan. Why? Because even pagans knew the right order of devotion and duty to household, people, and country
The perfect picture of pietas is Aeneas carrying his father on his back and leading his son by the hand after the destruction of Troy. This is the manliest, most heroic picture imaginable. Piety, in turn, is concerned with fathers and sons, intergenerational legacies, and passing on your life story through your offspring. And yes, it is about duty to your household that far surpasses mere feelings, emotions, or personal experiences.
As Wiley says, “The thing about pietas that you can’t miss is its social character. It didn’t isolate you; instead, it bound you to everything else.”[4] I would add, as Wiley does elsewhere, that true piety is essentially manly and heroic.
To summarize, genuine piety is a devotion and duty to God that results in a life of duty-bound service to one’s household and people. It is deeply engaged in cultural theology, culture building, and physical realities. It is manly and heroic.
Why is it Good for Society?
As Wiley points out in his book, genuine piety is the basis for establishing godly households, which are God’s plan for bringing order and dominion to the entire cosmos. Piety sets men about rebuilding in the ruins of a once-great culture, hopeful about God’s purposes. It breathes courage and heroic manliness into men, who take up sword and trowel to rebuild their own households, cultures, and communities.
P supports heroic masculinity. Empowers the rebuilders/protectors.
It destroys selfish, “me first” people. Women as well as men. As Bill Belichek says, “Do your job.” That’s how you get to great societies—great societies were not built by emotional cupcakes with participation trophies sprinkled on top. They just weren’t.
Piety is required for culture war. Proud of Christian culture. Dominionist, not empathetic or apologetic.
[1] https://pandrewsandlin.substack.com/p/the-political-pietism-of-john-piper
[2] “The Household and the War for the Cosmos,” C.R. Wiley, 20.
[3] Wiley, 25.
[4] Wiley, 28.