L’Abri, William Farel and Erasmus:
Different Paths Hiked, Different Destinations
Erasmus is a chameleon and a pernicious enemy of
the gospel. William FarelHe who destroys Erasmus will destroy a bug which
will stink worse dead than alive. Martin Luther
I will put it in my Testament and I take you all as
witnesses that I consider Erasmus the greatest enemy
of Christ, greater than all those who have been born
in the last thousand years. Martin Luther
I order you, at the command of God, to be enemies
of Erasmus and to be on guard against his books. I
will write against him, even if he should die and perish
from it. Martin Luther
The name of Erasmus will never perish.
John Colet
Erasmus has published volumes more full of wisdom
than any which Europe has seen for ages.
Thomas More
There is little doubt, from the passages listed above, that Erasmus did draw forth intense opposition and equally intense admiration. Who was this man that inspired such hatred and evoked such support? And, how does he live with us today?
I lived at L’Abri in Huemoz/Villars, Switzerland in 1973-1974 when I was in my early twenties. I was quite taken, at the time, by the work of Francis/Edith Schaeffer. Huemoz/Villars was quite close to Geneva, although high in the Swiss Alps, and Geneva/Huemoz/Villars were close to France and in the French speaking part of Switzerland. It was from Geneva that John Calvin breathed forth, lived, and sought to reform the church. Francis Schaeffer was very much a Calvinist, and it is significant that L’Abri in Huemoz/Villars was so close to Geneva.
I had lived in 1972-1973 in Switzerland, also. Most of my time was spent in Grindelwald and Gimmelwald near the imposing Eiger and stately Jungfraujoch by Interlaken. I lived later in St. Gallen near Germany and Austria. Needless to say, I have a certain fondness for Switzerland. It was while I was hiking high in the Alps in the spring of 1973 with a Franciscan friar that I heard of Francis Schaeffer and the L’Abri community in Huemoz and Villars.
The L’Abri community in Switzerland, Holland, England, Italy, USA and elsewhere was drawing the intellectually and spiritually curious like bees to a hive. There was honey in the place, and many were keen to taste from the comb. In fact, Time magazine called L’Abri a centre of ‘Mission to the intellectuals’.
What, though, does L’Abri have to do with William Farel and Erasmus? And, how was Francis Schaeffer’s intellectual and theological world more shaped and informed by Farel than Erasmus? The answer to such a question brings to the forefront different ways of interpreting and understanding the Christian Tradition. Let us, all too briefly, ponder the differences and the difference it makes.
When I was at L’Abri I often slipped down to the library at Farel House and dipped into the many tapes and browsed the many books. The views of the far ranging and white crowned peaks of the Dents Du Midi across the valley were a delight to see from such a perch in the basement of the chapel building. Farel House was the resource centre at L’Abri from which pondering, reading and much reflection took place, and Francis Schaeffer was the Senior Tutor. Farel House was a busy place, and students often took turns in the morning and afternoon shifts studying in the enticing aura of the small yet charming room. There were also the ‘Farel House Luncheons’ that took place in which food was served and Francis Schaeffer gave lectures on a variety of challenging topics. The fact that William Farel’s name emerged so often nudged me, inevitably so, to ask more about this man. Why was he so important to the Schaeffers and L’Abri?
It is pertinent to note that in Edith Schaeffer’s overview and brief history of the origins and development of L’Abri, L’Abri (1972), the statue of William Farel at Neuchatel, with his Bible held high above his head, holds a prominent place ( p.195). The significance of Farel runs like a golden thread through L’Abri, hence his presence cannot be missed. Edith, in recounting her daughter’s wedding, had this to say.
Priscilla and John’s wedding took place at L’Abri—in the
beautiful thirteenth-century church, where Farel preached
450 years ago, starting the Reformation in this part of
Switzerland. Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones of Westminster Chapel,
London, preached the sermon on this memorable occasion.
(p. 167).
Francis/Edith’s other daughter, Debby, was also married in a church indebted to the work of William Farel.
Debby and Udo Middelmann were married….in the
twelfth-century Ollon church, where William Farel preached
the beginning of the Reformation. (p.216)
Edith Schaeffer further mentioned in L’Abri much more about Farel, but this comment was quite telling and informative. She stated that she could imagine:
Farel, running down the hill centuries ago, alive, a man with
ernest beliefs but as real a personality as one could be—chased
by village women with their laundry sticks, throwing things at
the young Reformer! What a fitting name for this modest new
enterprise, both for the sunroom, and the young “Farels” who
were up to study there. (p.202)
There is little doubt, therefore, that William Farel was a significant and essential model and mentor for Francis/Edith Schaeffer and the reformed legacy they sought to promote and convince others of. This fact is clearly demonstrated in Francis Schaeffer’s aerial overview of the history of western thought, How Should We Then Live? The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture (1976). It is significant in this summary of western thought and culture (and its decline) that Schaeffer pits the reformed vision and tradition of William Farel against Erasmus. Luther and Calvin are given a nod, but Farel is applauded. There is a large photo of Farel and a smaller picture of Farel’s head (p.85). Farel is viewed as the genuine man of faith that brought the true reformed and Biblical vision to Switzerland, whereas Erasmus is dismissed as someone that brought Renaissance humanism into the life of the church, and, from Schaeffer’s perspective, such forms of humanism distort and diminish the pure word of truth. As Schaeffer says, ‘Farel thoroughly cut himself off from Erasmus to make plain that he stood on principle against either form of humanism (p. 84).
Schaeffer means by ‘either form of humanism’ both the Classical Christian humanist tradition and the Renaissance tradition of the 16th century. There is no doubt that the Schaeffers hoped to birth a generation of new Farels from their many chalets in Switzerland and beyond.
It cannot be questioned or doubted, therefore, that William Farel was a significant guide and mentor for the Schaeffers in their Swiss mountain centre. Who was Farel, and why was he so important for the Schaeffers? And, equally important, what does Farel-Schaeffer’s opposition to Erasmus say about a way of doing reformed theology? And, what is the good about the much maligned Erasmus that does not often come through in the reformed thinking of Luther, William Farel and Calvin?
William Farel (1489-1565) has often been overshadowed and eclipsed by Luther and Calvin, and yet, in Switzerland, Farel is one of the most significant reformers. It was Farel that coaxed and convinced John Calvin to settle in Geneva. Latourette summed up this reality quite nicely.
It was this Calvin, then in his late twenties, the youthful author
of the Institutes, who was induced by Farel to help him with the
Reformation in Geneva. The two worked closely together and
sought to make of the little city a model community, organized
in such a fashion that the church and state worked together in
harmony. (p.757)
Latourette commented yet further on the role of Farel in the Swiss Reformation.
Indeed, so potent was his influence that eventually he had
more to do with giving the Reformed Churches their
distinctive characteristics than did any other individual.
Calvin was by no means dominant in all the Reformed
Churches. (p.751).
Farel (1489-1565) lived longer than Calvin (1509-1564), but there is no doubt that they shared the same reformed vision and attempted to implement such a vision within Geneva and other parts of Switzerland. Farel and Calvin did much to bring Geneva into a reformed view just as Zwingli and Bullinger did in Zurich. But, there were those that were equally committed to the Bible, but differed with the reformed perspectives of Farel and Calvin, Zwingli and Bullinger.
Erasmus (1466-1536) had targeted the abuses of the Roman Catholic church decades before Luther and Farel were on the scene. Erasmus was part of the Oxford or London reformers that included Dean John Colet, Thomas More and Juan Vives. These men were as critical of the church as were the Lutherans, reformers and Anabaptists, but they did not think the church should be fragmented and severed (it being the body of Christ), and they were convinced that peacemaking and justice must dominate the day. This meant that the Oxford-London Reformers viewed the task of pruning and reforming the Church as a lengthy and deliberate process. It would not be easy to purify the Roman Catholic church in haste, but such a reformation had to be done and done in an irenical and conciliar rather than a belligerent and confrontational manner. These men were, in many ways, the morning stars of the reformation. They stood as much for the authority of the Bible as did the Lutheran, Reformed and Anabaptist traditions. They merely differed with the protestant reformers on how to interpret and live forth the text in a personal, ecclesial and public manner. It is silly, of course, to assume the protestant reformers stood by the Bible, and the Bible alone, whereas the Roman Catholic reformers were for tradition. The reality was much more complex and nuanced than that. The protestant reformers were as much a movement of tradition as were the Roman Catholics. The larger question was this: which tradition and whose interpretation of it?
Farel desired to see Switzerland reformed according to his read and interpretation of the Bible. Erasmus had published a tract for the times in 1524. In this missive, he called into question Luther’s (and those who followed him) view of human depravity, sin and the sheer paralysis of the human will and human freedom. Erasmus argued, from a variety of angles, that God honored and respected, worked with and engaged human freedom, choice and action. Luther was enraged by such a position, and in 1524, he turned on Erasmus. The debate between Erasmus-Luther is now etched firmly into the annals of reformation history, and Erasmus’s The Free Will and Luther’s The Bondage of the Will are classics and must reads of early 16th century thought. Erasmus responded to Luther’s The Bondage of the Will in much larger tracts in 1526-1527. There is no doubt, though, that with this butting of the horns between Erasmus and Luther both men parted ways.
The clash between Luther and Erasmus did not go unnoticed. It did not take long for the fiery William Farel to enter the fray. Luther was, of course, working out the Lutheran version of the reformation in Germany, but Farel was in Switzerland; so was Erasmus. Erasmus had settled in Basle, and in
1524, Farel arrived in Basle to duel with Erasmus. Erasmus was 58 years of age at the time, and Farel was a feisty 35 years old. Farel called the older Erasmus ‘a chameleon and a pernicious enemy of the gospel’. I suppose much hinges on how the gospel is interpreted and defined, and Farel was quite sure he knew the right and true interpretation of the gospel. Erasmus had been the major critic of Jerome’s Bible and one of the best translators of the Bible and the Fathers in the 16th century, hence he was no novice to the question of Biblical interpretation. But, Farel would have none of Erasmus and the humanist tradition of the Oxford-London reformers. He knew what was best and right, and Basle in the north and Geneva in southwest Switzerland were primed to set the example of genuine reformation of the church in Switzerland.
The fact that Farel turned with such anger on Erasmus meant that, in 1524, Basle being a Roman Catholic city, Erasmus played a role in having Farel expelled from the city. In 1527, things became much worse between the Catholics and the Reformers, and by 1529 the Roman Catholics were driven from Basle. Erasmus was appalled by the way the reformers suppressed catholic worship, removed images from the churches and closed convents and monasteries. The viciousness and violence of the reformers was worse than any Turks and Muslims that many reformers viewed as pagans and infidels. And, to think all this brutality was carried in the name of God, a return to the Bible and the reformation of the church? Erasmus tended to see in the Bible much more a call to peacemaking and love of enemies than a crushing and destroying of fellow Christians in the name of renewing the church. Erasmus had lived in Basle from 1521-1529. He decided to live in Freiburg in Germany after the reformers banished the Roman Catholics. Erasmus made occasional trips to Basle for the purpose of publishing more of his works with Froben Press. Basle is on the border of Germany and Switzerland in the northern part of Switzerland, so it was quite trip for Farel to tromp and hike from Basle to Geneva, but such was his reforming zeal.
Erasmus was nearing the end of his creative and thoughtful life when he moved, for the most part, to Freiburg in Germany. He was treated well in this Bavarian area, and Farel left him alone When his dear friend Thomas More was executed in 1534, Erasmus said, ‘I seem to have died myself; we had but one soul between us’. Erasmus was completing an edition of Origen when he left the earth in 1536.
William Farel lived for almost 30 more years. Basle had turned reformed and protestant. The task of doing the same with Calvin in Geneva was yet before him.
Why was Farel such a guide and mentor to Francis Schaeffer and the gentler Erasmus dismissed? Schaeffer held high the role of the Bible—so did Erasmus and Farel. Why did Schaeffer choose Farel and tribe against Erasmus? It was not a question of the authority of the Bible. This was something Erasmus and Farel could agree upon. It was much more about how the Bible should be interpreted for personal, ecclesial and public life that was much more at the centre and core of the issue. The debate about the Bible often misses the more stubborn fact that the real differences between most Christians are not so much about the authority of the Bible, but, more to the point, the interpretation and application of the text. This is where Christians divide and oppose one another.
Is it possible for Farel and Erasmus to meet in a way in which both men hear and learn from each other? Certainly, this was the dilemma of Luther’s more thoughtful disciple, Philip Melancthon. Melancthon struggled most of his life to reconcile Luther’s thinking and teachings with those of Erasmus. And, to turn to the Anabaptists. Would the terrible things have happened to the Anabaptists in the northern city of Zurich if Erasmus had been given a more prominent place and voice? Many of those who became Anabaptists were students of Erasmus in Basle.
There is no doubt that the reformed vision of Farel and Schaeffer often divides and separates where it should not, and Schaeffer’s earlier ecclesial background and final years were mired in this sort of problem. Books such as The Great Evangelical Disaster (1984) lean in such a confrontational direction. The spirit of Farel and many other reformers very much breaths through such a missive, but we might question the degree to which it is the breath of the Holy Spirit. How would the conciliatory Erasmus reply to such a book? And, what are those essential and basic building blocks in the Bible that both Farel and Schaeffer ignored? How can Erasmus come as a gentle yet firm corrective to such blind spots? How would the L’Abri community, past and present, be different if Erasmus was heard, in all his depth, commitment and fullness, as much as Farel was genuflected to as a reformed ikon?
It is significant to note that, for the most past, it has been Calvin and the Calvinist tradition that have done much to shape and form the protestant and evangelical ethos in large segments of North America. William Farel stands back of Calvin, and the combination of Farel and Calvin must be duly recognized. Schaeffer and the L’Abri community certainly made the connection that is often forgotten. How would North American Christianity been different, though, if Erasmus and the Oxford Reformers been the north star and mentor for the trail? Often, in courses and classes on the 16th century reformation, Luther and Calvin, the Anabaptists and the Roman Catholic Treaty of Trent are held high and frontstaged. Sadly so, the Oxford tradition of Colet, Erasmus, More and Vives are missed and ignored. It is this older and deeper Christian Humanist tradition that does need to be heard yet once again.
Erasmus was deeply grieved by the schism of the reformation and the anger and violence that were so much a part it. He sought to heal the breach again and again, and one of his final books, On Restoring Concord in the Church (1533) is a classic and must read for those who seek to repair, rebuild and restore that which centuries of Christian infighting and distrust have torn down and leveled. May we yet hear what Erasmus has yet to speak to us. And may the zealous Farels of the church have the humility to heed the wisdom and time tried patience and insight of those who turn their ears, hearts and souls to Erasmus to guide them over the rocky mountain trails to the peaks of the New Jerusalem.
RSD
Thankyou Ron for a fascinating and very literate read, I really enjoyed it!
However your argument for promoting Erasmus as a sort of 'peace maker' in his time (and in the process essentially discrediting Farel) is, in this article, based on who happens to 'play nice' rather than any biblically based position or teaching on the part of either propoennet.
I wholeheartedly agree with you that there is no part for belligerence or violence when Christians disagree, However, whether a person plays nioe or not is really no measure of the truth of their particular message.
If a well known public Christian personality began to teach that Jesus had never actually existed, and that His message had value simply because the mythology contains good truths that we can apply to our lives; I would need to crtique this teaching and take a personal view of it, whether the speaker was 'conciliatory' or otherwise.
In other words, the content of the message is equalily important, and the speakers niceness becomes somewhat irrelevant when it comes to my decision to either accept or reject his message.
Your article essentially promotes Erasmus' view because he was nice...but none of his views are in any way described!
In short, your article is a gross oversimplification of some major and very serious doctrinal differences between the protestant reformers and their catholic counterparts. Issues such as the nature and role of Mary the mother of Jesus, and the infallibility of the pope, were and still are worth exploring.
Yes biblical truth does exist today, and yes, it is worth contending for! (in a concilatory way, of course!)
Ron keep up the good work, I love reading your stuff!
Mark C.
Posted by: Mark | September 26, 2008 at 11:46 PM
I know I'm coming in late, but this was a fascinating read. Thanks Ron!
Posted by: Jeremy | August 07, 2008 at 12:54 AM
And what did you do since you were with us in Huemoz that many years ago? Check out TheSchaefferFoundation web site.
Warm Greetings
Posted by: Udo | June 08, 2008 at 01:07 PM
Wow, thanks for the insight. I've got to read some Erasmus so that I can fairly evaluate him myself instead of relying on the party line I recieved. May God help us to love one another.
Posted by: Fr. Michael Gillis | October 23, 2007 at 12:12 PM