A lot of us fail to connect with the spirituality and faith of others.
Often we get into conflict with those who don’t pracitce their “piety” as we do.
The word “piety” is a Latin term. It was a highly prized and nuanced virtue, meaning “devotion” or “Spirituality.”
We think that our faith differs from others because of content, theology, politics, or philosophy. And we tend to avoid and mistrust those with a different faith temperament.
The truth is, piety temperament divides us more from others than anything else. We get into arguments with people which stay on the intellecual plane and we don’t deal with the real issues that divide us.
First, it helps to define the three different flavors. They cross all “religious system” barriers.
1) Athletic Piety. These folks use words like discipleship, discipline, and mission all the time. They are evangelistic and zealous. We don’t want to be cornered by them. Left wing or right wing, they tend to be activists and have a cause. Those with Athletic Piety (AP) like books like My Utmost for His Highest. Their preachers love phrases like: if you only knew what was at stake! One more conference! One more book to read! Theology can be an excercise in combat; and many of them gravitate, over time, to Calvin as a guide. Those of you with “AP” will get frustrated with this essay and write a critical comment. Their churches have clear windows. APers contribute a great deal, because without them, who would feed the hungry and transform the world? Their public leaders wear power suits and ties.
2) Cool (or “Deep”) Piety. These are the sophisticates. They prefer Henri Nouwen books and Taize music. If they start to struggle–candles always help; aesthetics in their shadowy churches and shrines are everything. Pipe organs resonate with their very souls. Reflection, contemplation. Ideally, their faith expression would be a succession of Haiku quotes. The sermons in their churches are complex, nuanced, and “oblique,” often with great depth. The first thing they visit in a European capital is the cathedral; and they love stained glass. Their public leaders wear embroidered robes.
3) Warm Piety. This is me, so I’m biased. Please forgive that. There is a lot of human touch (WPers can’t pray for someone without touching him or her) in these faith groups, and a lot of humor in the messages. Their love for the Bible is affectionate rather than theologically rigorous. Rules are just suggestions. People raise their hands when they sing together and talk a lot about a relationship with God; WPers expect God to touch them in one way or another. Testimonies are more important than detailed instruction by the teacher. They love Cursillo weekends and Bible Camp, and they know songs with hand motions. They have the best youth groups. Their mental background music is made up of inspirational, positive quotes. Their leaders wear non-trendy jeans and hooded sweatshirts. They love hugs.
A spiritual community with one “flavor” contracting the services of a leader of another flavor is a recipe for trouble.
We can also be a blend. I can float in the other two flavors without too much distress.
One of the keys to getting along with people is learning to appreciate the value of the other groups:
-Effectivenes (AP)
-Depth (CP)
-Love (WP)
This is all more or less true in most all faith systems. A warm piety Christian may get along better with a WP Hindu than with an AP Christian who drives her nuts. An AP Protestant has immediate resonance with an AP Roman Catholic.
We often feel that we are in a faith community that doesn’t “match” because we were sent there by God as missionaries to “change it.” Not a good idea. It’s malpractice to try to turn a WP church into an AP church. Help your faith community be the best at its own temperament that it can be.
What about “balance?” Also not a good idea; like putting mustard on waffles. Better to stick with one basic flavor in a church or faith community.
++++++++++++++++
Follow me on Twitter @RobinwoodChurch
Follow me on Facebook: David Housholder
Check out my book on Warm Piety
Please browse through my other posts and comment on them. Dialogue is better than monologue!
David Housholder Essays 
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 11, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Diane
This was very helpful! Thank you! (although I do like Henri Nouwen, I think I’m closer to a warm piety). (I discovered HN at the tail end of my pentecostal experience, and found him a helpful way to deepen the spiritual experiences I was having.
December 11, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Dave Fisher
This is an interesting and insightful article and I am wondering how complex it might be. Is it possible to have a predominate piety temperament and a subordinate one that serves as a fall back if necessary? I am also wondering how positive and negative experiences with each of these general temperaments forms opinions and reflexive responses in people when conflicts appear. Is there any more body of study on this subject?
December 11, 2009 at 11:14 pm
David Housholder
Please write a detailed response based on your intuitions here–these are good points!
December 12, 2009 at 8:12 am
Bosco Peters
It would be fascinating to compare/contrast these with the Myers Briggs Types & the related spirituality/prayer types.
What is important IMO is not the classifications but the acknowledgement and treasuring of difference – one size fits all, cookie-cutter spirituality is often quite damaging. Thanks for this post.
December 12, 2009 at 8:29 am
David Housholder
Bless you for posting; you are doing great and creative work in NZ.
December 12, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Carl Hamper
maybe you could use call this teaching “Piety Training”.!! o.k. seriously, i like this topic because it opens up the door to the whole discussion that many of our differences are not, in fact theological, but temperament related, or related to our personal giftings and passions. churches full of extraverts tell us we must be street evangelists, churches full of introverts tell us we must withdraw and be introspective, churches full of recovering alcoholics insist you cannot have a beer and still be “saved”, and every one of these churches insists they are teaching “nothing but the Bible”. if we could explore the possibility of trying to have common ground with others, not by putting doctrine first, but putting personality, passion, and temperament first, we may form much more effective, deep, and loving relationships. doctrine is not eliminated, but we realize that it doesn’t bring the unity we demanded of it. we all know people who are doctrinally a “perfect match”to us, but we lack the personal chemistry, fellowship, and passion, that is needed to have real fruit or fellowship. The contrary is also true; if we allow those with less doctrinal agreement into our hearts, w mat find that temperament, gifting, and passion bring us a bond, and a fellowship, that produces far more good fruit then doctrinal consensus alone ever did..