Erasmus and Post-Conservativism
I recently read Luther’s Bondage of the Will. For those that don’t know, Luther’s Bondage of the Will was written against Erasmus’ Freedom of the Will. In the historical/theological introduction, editors Packer and Johnston do a fine job of establishing the context for Luther’s work. Erasmus, arguably the finest scholar of his day, was a humanist who had his own grievances against the church. Early on, as the Reformation was just getting started, it was supposed that Erasmus and Luther would join forces. Such was not to be. Erasmus, though a Greek scholar of unquestionable renown, was not a theologian. In fact, he found the scholastic theology of his day to be distracting and largely irrelevant to the life of the average Christian. He was a pragmatist and a moralist and largely uninterested in questions of theology. Erasmus was after reform, but he had no ability to see the connection between ecclesial reform and theological reform. For Erasmus, one of the main problems with the church was that it gave too much attention to theology in the first place. Far better was the simple life of faith, of love and good deeds toward God and neighbor. And if he was annoyed with the theology of the scholastic theologians, he was horrified by Luther’s theology.
For Erasmus, Luther’s appropriation of Augustine’s doctrine of sin and grace seemed to render moral reform and good works an impossibility. Far better, Erasmus argues in his Freedom to simply not ask questions about such matters. Luther responds with a resounding chastisement, chiding Erasmus for being unwilling to deal with theological issues and for too quickly claiming “mystery!” about what God had clearly revealed in his word.
Without drawing too fine of a parallel, I have noticed that much of post-evangelicalism/conservatism has followed Erasmus’ distaste for theological reflection, chiefly in relation to soteriological matters such as the freedom of the will. Like Erasmus, it seems that much of the post-conservative world has lost patience for the traditional evangelical (Reformation/Augustinian) debates regarding the nature of grace, election, and the freedom of the will, focusing instead on pragmatic issues such as social justice, and ecclesial life. In fact, the primary place where post-conservative theologians have done a tremendous amount of work is in theological method, reaching conclusions that often discourage further theological reflection. Without a doubt, the spirit of postmodernity, embraced in many ways by post-conservatives—has called into question the viability of the task of theology all together. Doing what Luther does in Bondage of the Will (and what Augustine, Calvin, Edwards and evangelicals have historically done) is largely viewed as modernistic and naïve. Far better to focus on pragmatic issues—on the life of good deeds toward God and neighbor—then to get distracted by soteriological issues. (Of course, this characterization is broad and sweeping and not a reflection of all who fall under the label “post-conservative.”)
Luther was right. The road to ecclesial reform lies through theological reform. Erasmus’ preoccupation with pragmatism and his refusal to sort through soteriological issues such as grace and the freedom of the will did little to help the Church. May we not repeat his mistake.
Categorized as: Books, Church History, Evangelicalism, From Gerald, Theology
October 9th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
I too agree that too much attention has been given to methodology and too little to theology. But I would also say that I see this changing and being called into question by a younger generation of ministers. This same generation is reconnecting with our roots and embracing men like Augustine,Luther,Owen,and more.
October 10th, 2008 at 8:33 am
So Insightful, and helpful to those who are seeing this very pattern. My experience, over and over, has been that church history shows us that the great cloud of witnesses is shouting, “Nothing new under the sun.” We can learn from the battles they have fought.
Thanks for this.
October 13th, 2008 at 10:52 am
I find the discussion fruitful but challenging within the church. I love to see Christians seeking the Lord and searching His Word to develop convictions of truth, but I find it a struggle to maintain unity when these new found or long held convictions collide with one another. I think these discussions can provide exciting times of growth, but as a pastor, I get uneasy when it appears to lead to dissension among the brethren.
October 14th, 2008 at 11:22 am
thanks for a thoughtful post. I’m not sure our pragmatists are interested in social justice, but otherwise I concur with your assessment. when I talk theology, I get the same pained expression from both my pastor and fellow church members. Godspeed.
October 31st, 2008 at 11:01 am
As I was posting on my blog today, I came across this post and linked to it. Here’s part of what I posted:
——-
We had dinner with another Christian brother of “non-Reformed’ persuasion and he was telling about this TV preacher he ice fishes with occasionally. He told us that he had told this guy about me and my Calvinist beliefs. The preacher said something along the lines of, “We’ll pray for healing.” My response was, “Well, ______________, it’s a big burden still being one the few people who thinks Martin Luther was right, but that’s a burden I’m willing to bear.” All he did was laugh.
—–
Too bad Paul didn’t emphasize “sound doctrine.” Oh, that’s right – he did. Good thing he never rebuked anyone for bad doctrine. Oh, that’s right – he did (see his rebuke of Peter and the Galatians, right?). Good thing Jesus never cared about sound teaching. Oh, that’s right – He did (see letters the churches in Revelation).
What WOULD Jesus say to the church of the Americans? What would Paul write to us?
August 13th, 2009 at 7:29 am
[...] over at Pastor James MacDonald’s relatively-new blog Straight Up. It is by Gerald Hiestand on Erasmus and Post-Conservativism. Bottom line: theological reform is essential to ecclesial reform. For the Spirit of Revival is [...]