The Renaissance of the Butterfly and the Human Spirit

    Quoth Erasmus, in contemplating the role of free will, “If you keep thinking about what you want to do, or what you hope to do, you don’t do it and it won’t happen.”

    I find something very reassuring in the fact that God can create a butterfly out of a caterpillar. Think about it for a minute. There’s this squiggly, ugly, hairy thing—very unattractive in form and outward appearance—that wraps itself up, goes to sleep for awhile, and poof! Magical transformation, right? Wrong, at least on some counts. The actual science behind it is a bit more…well, messy, shall we say. Sparing the details, the point is that the potential contained in that ugly caterpillar is not something we can easily recognize, no matter how closely we examine it. Aren’t humans much the same? There is a spark of the divine wrapped inside, and it may be necessary to shed some things, dissolve some others, and rebuild from the basics to regenerate and grow into what we can become. We become through a process.

    Erasmus had no priest at his bedside when he died, perhaps because he was able to intuit that if the inner man wasn’t aligned with God and His purpose for him, any outward manifestation wouldn’t matter. His relationship with God was a private matter; it was not dependent on a priest or a facilitator. It makes me pause and wonder what miracles of growth we miss by being passive, rather than being an active participant in our own lives? Humanism in the Renaissance period focused on the potential and value of the individual. Do we see ourselves more collectively than individually; do we become what others say we are, rather than what we feel we are, or should be?

    Can we become more than the caterpillar who spends most of his life ingesting material in a frenzy to survive and then wraps himself up in self-preservation? They may be necessary steps in his progression, but they are only that—steps. As we reflected in our “salon” conversation, it is the application of what we know that matters. Exploration is necessary--even desirable--in life. What strengths can we uncover through testing and trying? Why do we fear reaching beyond the known? Life has its mud puddle and rainstorm days; it gets messy. Mistakes aren’t generally fatal, although we often regard them as such.

    For all of his dogged, focused determination to foster reform and change, combined with a seemingly uncompromising attitude, Martin Luther has been quoted as saying, “If I am not allowed to laugh in heaven, I don’t want to go there.” I agree! I know of no other way to survive—to enjoy—life than by employing what I call “battle humor.” I am happiest when I can laugh at myself and not take offense when others laugh with me. I am evolution in front of your eyes. The master isn’t finished with me yet; I am still finding my wings.

Compl(i/e)menting Adversaries

"Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend." -Proverbs 27:17

From One Humanist to Another

As we were asked to write this week’s blog post on our response to Erasmus’ and Luther’s Discourse of Free Will, to be honest, my first initial response was, “I don’t get it.” I had a hard time following the two men’s points of view. But I did do some research and looked at some outsides commentary on the book that hopefully helped me understand the reading better.

Even if I didn’t fully understand what the two debaters were saying, I did try to pay attention to their rhetorical devices. Both seemed to have an excellent awareness of their audience and their opponent, and a good sense of decorum. Erasmus starts out his very first 

section by acknowledging that he is looked at as much more        

insignificant in comparison to Luther. He understands that his 

audience could be the general public and he recognizes their 

thoughts and feelings. Throughout his writing, Erasmus, also 

seems to write a lot of comparisons and analogies so that more 

people will understand what he is trying to say.

While they are both of the same day and age, Erasmus and Luther have different opinions of free will and different ways of examining the will of man. Erasmus is rejecting the Reformation’s version of man and explains that man is capable of doing good and this good can lead to his salvation. He talks a lot about grace and how man can receive different types of grace to be saved. He offers a lot of examples from history and the Bible, but as a humanist, he puts a lot of human reason and philosophy on his interpretation of the Bible. He also tries to acknowledge many different sides to his theories. But his human reasoning seems to weaken and muddle his position as he tries to argue this Christian doctrine, but doesn’t exactly take a strong enough stance.

Luther, on the other hand, becomes more sure of his position as he responds to Erasmus. And while he debates against Erasmus, he wants to bring him to an understanding of the truth, as well. Luther’s main source to his argument is solely the scriptures. He comes much more strictly from the Reformation philosophy and mindset, to where he believes the Spirit is what is necessary to interpret the scriptures and not as much human reasoning. Based on his interpretation and methods of arguing, Luther believes man is not capable of doing good, but that he is evil in nature and is brought down by sin, but is unaware of his own corruption. Man is not free to choose grace.

Both men do a good job of acknowledging who their audience and opponent is, but differ in their opinions of man’s sin and free will. They also have different ways of arguing this as Erasmus gives a more humanist thinking approach to scripture, and Luther sticks to a Protestant Reformation approach and goes off of scripture alone.

Haters Gonna Hate: Why Audience Is Important

The hate group, the swing group, and the love group; these are how modern companies classify customers’ opinions of their products. Because it is hard for a company to switch someone from the hate group to the love group, companies tend to have their advertising directed at the swing group. We could consider the customers to be the company’s audience.

 

People are classified by their opinion into these 3 categories

In reading the debate between Erasmus and Luther, it is easy to see who the intended audience is. Erasmus is targeting the swing group, and Luther is targeting the hate group (at least the head of the hate group).

The Difference in Rhetorical Discourse

“Brutus was an honorable man” – Antony, “Julius Caesar”

As I was reading the Erasmus and Luther arguments, that line from Antony kept coming into my head. Here were two men, each trying to undermine the other, yet treating each other with respect that was, in some places, over the top. Eventually, readers of “Julius Caesar” come to see the honorable line in an ironic light, and I also came to see Erasmus and Luther’s praise for each other as ironic. They used phrases like “literary prowess and intellectuality” to build the other up while in the same breath they tore the others argument apart.

Although they each had different ideals, they both attempted to persuade—one of the pillars of rhetoric. However, in their modes of persuasion they highlight a difference between rhetorical theory of the Renaissance and current rhetorical theory.

Is There Free Will or Not?

The discourse between Erasmus and Martin Luther on free will is a fascinating discussion.  Both men used some strong language and rhetoric to argue with each other, and it was awesome to see an in depth discussion about something that is so important to those of us who are Christians today, since the debate over free will isn't entirely settled among all Christian faiths.

Despite the combative and maybe even offensive rhetoric that both Erasmus and Luther used, both still remained respectful of each other.  For example, Luther says to Erasmus “… artfully you debate this matter with wonderful and continuous restraint, preventing thereby my becoming angry with you.”  It’s a great example to me to see two men with very different and opposing viewpoints argue peacefully and civilly with each other.

While remaining respectful of each other, it was a thought-provoking debate.  Luther clearly starts his arguing from the belief that everything comes about because of God’s grace, or whatever God wills to happen.  For example, Luther states “But tell me this:  was anyone of them made a saint, did anyone of them receive the Spirit or work miracles in the name of the free will, or by the power of the free will, or to confirm the free will?  Far from it, you will say, but in the name and by the power of Jesus Christ were all those things done, and for the confirmation of the doctrine of Christ …”  Before Luther stated this, Erasmus had said “But you fail to define the limits within which we should think of the will as acting and as being acted upon.”  Erasmus clearly was attacking Luther by pointing out that Luther would speak of free will as being free and as being acted upon, but then state that free will is a lie.  Erasmus’ view was obviously the belief in free will.

I believe that Erasmus was much more convincing than Luther.  Luther seemed to come off as if to say that Erasmus was ridiculous because he wasn’t going along with what was clearly the truth, but then Luther didn’t seem to have any real evidence to back himself up.  Also, coming from an LDS perspective, I agree with Erasmus, so I’m sure I have a bias J.

The Road Less Traveled

    "...Pleading for the light is what opened this dispensation. It is what keeps it going, and it is what will keep you going." So spoke Elder Jeffrey R. Holland in a 1999 BYU Devotional entitled, "Cast Not Away Therefore Your Confidence". In it, he addresses the issue of coming unto God with our questions with faith that they will be answered, although opposition may rage. I couldn't help but think of this in relation to the reading of the treatises of Desiderio Erasmus and Martin Luther. There opposing views gave much for men of the 16th century to think about, and in many ways, the debate still rages. While I honor the study, pondering and forethought that must have gone into Luther's impassioned writing citing corruption within the Roman Catholic Church, and his subsequent call for reformation therein, I was disappointed at his seeming lack of understanding on the subject of free will. This was tempered, however, by further reasoning on my part that inspiration and revelation come line upon line, and are generally suited to the time period in which they occur. There must always be trailblazers in every dispensation, and one builds upon another, until the light can be fully developed and new understanding dawns.
    In that light, I was intrigued with the depth of understanding which Erasmus exhibited in his thoughtful view and treatment of sacred scripture. His consideration of it in the light of reason--a faculty with which I believe man is endowed for divine purpose--was likely ahead of most of the thinking of his time, and doubtless provoked much continued thought and debate; perhaps the reason it was granted in the first place. Both men played an integral role in promoting the thought and inquiry that fanned the flames of the Protestant Reformation, as the Roman Catholic Church began to lose its ability to dictate, the publication of treatises sparked debate among classes, and Christian Humanism celebrated man's individual rights, freedom and will.
    For my part, I am grateful for those who sought enlightenment and were brave enough to take the road less traveled. I am the beneficiary, though generations removed, of their questions, study and pondering. I have walked in solitude down the path which runs through the Sacred Grove, and pondered the path of the feet of a young boy who sought answers to his quest, first by study, and then by faith. I am grateful to know that I, too, can pose questions and seek answers, resting in the knowledge that He hears me.