Tendenzen der Frömmigkeit in der Neuzeit am Beispiel von Pietismus und Chassidismus.

Neither protestant pietism nor East European Hasidism two of the great modern pietistic movements are attested to be innovative in the realm of theoretical theology. Both movements, however, caused a sensation among their contemporaries. Their pietistic practices show what was understood to be specifically pietistic or Hasidic.Against this background, the author scrutinizes this practical pietism as the key characteristic of both movements, thereby tying in and relating the polemical perspective of antipietism and anti-Hasidism to the original pietistic or Hasidic writings that give guidance on pietism.This approach allows a systematic evaluation of two 'phenomena' that have repeatedly been termed related on account of rather superficial parallels. Going beyond the key identification criteria, it identifies modern pietistic tendencies within a frame of reference that goes beyond religious, cultural and territorial boundaries.

Autorentext
Dr. Patrick Wulfleff, Jahrgang 1981, studierte Theologie und Germanistik an der Universität Siegen. Nach einem Stipendium im Graduiertenkolleg des Exzellenznetzwerkes »Aufklärung Religion Wissen« der Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg wurde er 2010 an der Ruhr-Universität Bochum promoviert.

Leseprobe
Neither protestant pietism nor East European Hasidism - two of the great modern pietistic movements - are attested to be innovative in the realm of theoretical theology. Both movements, however, caused a sensation among their contemporaries. Their pietistic practices show what was understood to be specifically pietistic or Hasidic.Against this background, the author scrutinizes this practical pietism as the key characteristic of both movements, thereby tying in and relating the polemical perspective of antipietism and anti-Hasidism to the original pietistic or Hasidic writings that give guidance on pietism.This approach allows a systematic evaluation of two 'phenomena' that have repeatedly been termed "related" on account of rather superficial parallels. Going beyond the key identification criteria, it identifies modern pietistic tendencies within a frame of reference that goes beyond religious, cultural and territorial boundaries.