I once watched a PBS debate on the topic of whether the Religious Right was a threat to American democracy. William F. Buckley, Pat Robertson and others pleaded that they were four square in favor of the flag, Mom’s apple pie and the American way. The Religious Right cried for “Principled Pluralism” and the “Free Market Place of Ideas” as the lever to bring prayer and creation science back into the classroom and halt the degeneration of American culture. The Humanist response was obvious: these ideas represent an alien and dangerous worldview that threatens their dominance in public life. The Humanists know that if Christianity becomes a potent force in American life again, most of what they hold dear will be destroyed. The Humanists understand something that the Religious Right does not seem to grasp, this is a real spiritual war with winners and losers; and the Humanists are not about to give up without a fight.

The kind of internal, humanistic reformation attempted by the Religious Right has been tried before, by Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466-1536). Erasmus is credited with laying the egg that Luther hatched. While his scholastic contributions were significant, (especially his work on the Greek New Testament) he was handicapped by his own personality and presuppositions. Theology has implications. What we believe, really does affect what we do and how far we will go. Current efforts, just as was his, are doomed to failure unless we deal with the fundamental presuppositions behind the issues. While the Religious Right (like Erasmus) could criticize the excesses and abuses of our culture (or the mother church), they are neither willing nor able to take the steps necessary to bring about real reformation of Christianity or our culture. Perhaps if we remember why he failed, we will also realize why the Religious Right’s battle, though valiantly fought, is also doomed unless they return to basic Biblical principles.

Erasmus and Personality
Erasmus as a reformer cannot be separated from Erasmus as a person. His attempts at reformation were inadequate because his early background education derided scholasticism and emphasized piety and personal religion (Spinka, PG 281). Thus, religion for him was a simple, un-dogmatic thing. He disliked and distrusted theology and his own religious convictions were such that he really had nothing to die for. Un-dogmatic people make great friends (and better enemies!) but do not lead great movements. In our age, privatized, pietised religion also makes a great placebo for the stresses and trauma of modern living, but it is no source of strength to fight spiritual wars. One pastor I heard preached passionately that the gospel gave peace in a troubled age. Thus, the cross of Christ was reduced to a divine form of Diazepam (i.e. Valium), helpful for getting through trials and tribulations, but of no use in changing the world. In the same way, without a consistent worldview tied into a sound grounding of orthodox Reformed theology, the Religious Right is fighting the battle without their biggest and most effective weapon.

Likewise, Erasmus’ own personality was such that one has the impression that he was a theological dilettante; he abhorred messy controversies, had a smug, superior and supercilious attitude and one can envision him with a slight curl of distaste at those he considered his intellectual or moral inferiors. He was a brilliant scholar with little time or patience for those not on his same level. He intensely disliked unsettling things or excessive argument. He wrote in a letter “I have never liked clamor (Murray PG 72).”

Thus, his personality directly affected his whole approach to reformation. Erasmus was more than willing to criticize the scholastics and sacredotalists for their inconsistencies, absurdities and ritualistic excesses. But he does so not in a spirit of reform, but rather to humiliate. Luther protested his tactics of “…making fun of the faults and miseries of the church of Christ instead of bewailing them before God with deep sighs” (Murray PG 71). This kind of criticism was no brave act of a stalwart reformer, but merely something found acceptable to every right minded, educated person. (Murray PG 71). Erasmus stated “More is gained by well mannered modesty than by storming” (Murray PG 73)

Granted, sarcasm and ridicule have their place, even in Biblical revelation. Some things are so ridiculous that they demand ridicule. But sarcasm is no substitute for truth, and in fact has more in common with a debater’s tactic than true Biblical reformation. An old adage concerning lawyers says, “When the facts are against you, use the law. When law is against you, confuse the facts. When the law and the facts are against you, attack the person…” But Christians are not out to win a debate, but the world! And our weapons, “are not the weapons of this world, they have divine power to tear down strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of Christ that we might make every thought captive to Christ…” (2 Cor 10:4-5). Because our God is sovereign, our job is to preach the truth. He and only He, through His own divine will, can change hearts. Winning points in a debate and winning a soul are two different things.

Erasmus Humanist Presuppositions
Erasmus was also unable to achieve significant reformation because he was a Humanist, and the Christian adjective normally applied not withstanding, his thinking was more significantly influenced by Greek humanistic philosophy than Biblical theology. In the Enchiridon “he reduces the practical duties of religion to certain ethical requirements, the first of which he defines in Platonic fashion as that of knowing oneself (Spinka, PG 287)”. Thus man need not yield to vice, he can control his passion by reason. Ignorance was to be overcome by self-mastery, scholarly endeavor and an appreciation of the classics (Spinka, PG 287).

If it is argued that the worst features of the Roman church were the results of its eventual accommodation of man-centered religion, classic Christian humanism is simply an intellectually more palatable form of the same religion! His handling of the issue of free will demonstrates that when it came to fundamental first principles, he accepted the Roman Catholic’s claim to ultimate authority over interpreting the Scriptures (Spinka, PG 292). Thus, he has no authoritative, objective stand upon which to make the fundamental types of changes needed.

Furthermore, since Erasmus began with an unbiblical view of man, and attempted to reason on natural ground, unregenerate man rejected his reformation. A quote by James Henly Thornwell seems appropriate here: “The Word of God uniformly represents man as blind and ignorant, incapable of seeing afar off, perverted in his judgment, warped in his understanding, seared in his conscience and misguided in his affections and therefore requiring a heavenly teacher and a heavenly guide at every step of his progress… ” The Religious Right, in failing to deal with the nature of Man as taught in Scripture, shows pretty pictures to blind men and plays beautiful music to those who are deaf.

In a related vein, Erasmus humanist presuppositions worked against analyzing the root problems of the excesses he so laudably critiqued. Murry states that Erasmus did not join the Lutherans because by 1524 his own criticism and scholastic endeavors had mainly cured the diseases he had written so passionately about (PG 80). Yet, one can argue that his efforts could not cure the disease, but that he was merely successful in suppressing certain symptoms. Codeine does an excellent job of suppressing the symptoms of a cough, but it does not deal with the cause (and the “cure” can be worse than the disease since codeine is an addictive narcotic…). Suppress the symptoms without dealing with the disease and the disease is likely to grow worse.

Erasmus thought that literary culture was the great weapon to be used against the inner rot of the church (Murray PG 80). Reason and education were the answers to ignorance and superstition (Spinka, PG 286). But it is the Word of God that changes hearts. Information, reason and scholastic excellence are no substitute for repentance. Thus, he is certainly within the tradition of Aquinas who believed that total depravity did not extend to the mind, but he stands outside the teachings of the Apostle Paul (Romans 1:18ff).

Finally, the humanist attempt at reformation was doomed to fail because Erasmus did not have the courage of his convictions. “For all his biting criticisms of the clergy and monks and of the whole hierarchical regime, he was not inclined to become a martyr or schismatic” (Spinka, PG 290). He ruled out breaking with the church a priori. “I have not deviated in what I have written one hair’s breath from those who agree with the Catholic Church…” (Murray PG 79). Thus whatever reformation was to come, had to come within certain proscribed limits. He could go so far, and no further.

Conclusions:
Modern attempts at reformation are doomed to failure if we wage war on the enemy’s battlefield. There is no neutrality, no common ground that the regenerate and unregenerate man can meet on to peacefully discuss their differences. Unregenerate man is in willful rebellion to his sovereign Lord and consciously suppresses the truth (Rms 1:18). It is only by divine grace that His heart can be changed, the scales fall from his eyes, and he come to understand and receive the truth. In a time of increasing hostility to the gospel, it may well be tactically advisable to push for toleration; but ultimately and finally, there is no détente between the Kingdom of Christ and the Kingdom of Satan. If we want to see true reformation and national revival, we must abandon the intellectual rags of humanism and proclaim a fully orbed Biblical faith.

Bibliography

Douglas, J. D., The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1974
Hollis, Christopher, ERASMUS, Milwaukee, The Bruce Publishing Co., 1933
Huizinga, Johan, Erasmus and the Age of Reformation, NY, Harper and Row, NY, 1957

Works Cited
Murray, Robert H., Erasmus and Luther, Their Attitudes towards Toleration, NY, Macmillian and Co., 1920
Spinka, Matthew, Advocates of Reform, (from Wycliff to Erasmus), The Library of Christian Classics, Volume XIV