Eros and Pietism

This passage from Helmut Thielicke’s The Ethics of Sex seems to be accurate, with more than a little relevance for evangelical churches here in America:

Pietism, in contrast with Luther, raises the psychological question. It had to arise for Pietism if only because even in the realm of piety it always started out from experience, the experience of conversion, regeneration, repentance, joy in the Lord. In conformity with this interest in the psychic experience the eros experience also called for interpretation and theological evaluation. And yet this question was not posed in such a way that the eros experience as such, having its own value as an encounter with the created world, became the object of the question. Hence this kind of psychological interest, despite its new sensitiveness, was not capable of opening the way to a relationship with modern forms of experiencing eros and marriage. Rather in Pietism the psychological question was focused on the compatibility of the eros experience with the experience of union with Christ. But since the eros experience as such was not thought through theologically and thus remained a spiritually unsubdued element of strong psychic force, its relation to the religious experience could be regarded only as competitive. Here was a power that sought to fill up the whole of the psyche to the limits of its capacity.

[John W. Doberstein, trans., Harper & Row, 1964, p. 302]

In Pietism’s defense, nobody has a good grasp at controlling eros. The objectivity of confessionalism, or even secularism, may help, but we’re all pretty messed-up. It sucks being postlapsarian. Pietism’s “Jesus-love” — the emphasis on a personal and affective relationship with Jesus Christ — may be inadequate but so is the stoicism, whether confessional or secular, that attempts to counteract this.

Image: Amor und Psyche by Antonio Canova

Billy Graham among the theologians

 

For those who know the theologies of Barth and Brunner, and Brunner’s admiration for the American free church model and evangelical personalism, then you will find this very amusing:

“The great Swiss theologian Karl Barth once stood in the rain to hear Graham preach in Basel. When he told Graham that the sermon from John 3:3 was good but should not have stressed the must in ‘you must be born again,’ Graham begged to differ (and was soon gratified to hear another great theologian, Emil Brunner, affirm his position). But then Graham closes this account concerning Barth with these words: ‘In spite of our theological differences, we remained good friends.’” (Mark Noll, American Evangelical Christianity: An Introduction, Blackwell 2001, p. 47)

Another important theologian, Helmut Thielicke, also attended a Billy Graham crusade, but with certain preconceived notions which put Thielicke in an ill disposition toward the popular preacher. However, after coming under the preaching of Graham, Thielicke experienced an awakening of sort. He explained in a letter to Graham, ”The evening was a profound ‘penance’ experience (poenitentia) for me. … When I have been asked now and again about your preaching, I have certainly not been too modest to make one or two theological observations. My evening with you made clear to me (and the Holy Spirit will have helped in doing so!) that the question should be asked in the reverse form: What is lacking in me and in my colleagues in the pulpit and at the university lectern, that makes Billy Graham so necessary?”

In Thielicke’s autobiography, Notes from a Wayfarer, he recounts the situation: