Hexter presents the first argument in the article and contends that More wrote about utopia from the perspective of someone “who was at the same time a deeply committed Christian and a social revolutionary” (3). He believed that More wrote the second book of Utopia from a Christian humanist perspective. Hexter explains that More was tricky and developed this major ironic paradox. He says that although the utopians were described as pagans the irony is that “their way of life stamps the nominal pagans of Utopia as true Christians” meanwhile the Europeans can be closer equated with Christians (6). Hexter argues More is showing not telling that this lifestyle is the best for a moral Christian to live in. He is showing that while they are not practicing Christian rituals they are instead living a virtuous life and according to this movement living morally is the most important thing.

Bradshaw counters this argument and says that this is a big stretch and More did not intend to create this paradox.  He says that if More intended to create this paradox then scripture, Christian practices, or even Jesus were not aspects of Christianity that More found to be necessary. It is true that Christian humanists wanted to reform the church and move the church away from emphasis on rituals toward a larger emphasis on virtuosity but that did not include eliminating the most important texts from Christianity. Bradshaw points out that Erasmus one of the most famous humanists dedicated much of his life to translating a bible. Thus as a Christian humanist he would not have seen an ideal Christian society as a place that has no bible. Erasmus would have commended a more virtuous society but no Christian humanist would say that “virtue somehow subsumes the Christian revelation as if to say ‘virtue is Christ’” because there are more components to Christianity than morality (8).  Bradshaw acknowledges the intelligence of Hexter’s claim but he points out that Christianity without its scripture is not Christianity and it is not what humanists intended to create if they were to reform the religion.

Bradshaw also finds another hole in the Christian humanist argument in regards to communal living. Christian teachings show that communal living is not seen as something that people should strive for if they want to be the perfect Christian. Bradshaw points out that the doctrine of the Fall says that “with the corruption of human nature through sin” it became necessary for individuals to possess private property (15). The whole basis for utopia is communal living and yet the doctrine of the Fall says that people are too corrupted by sin to live in this way. Bradshaw brings his argument together by pointing out that More could not be suggesting that utopians were living as ideal Christians if Christian doctrine does not accept communal living.

Bradshaw’s final argument is most similar to the argument that Fenlon presents. Fenlon, like Hexter, comes from a humanist perspective and believes that society needs to be reformed. Unlike Hexter he does not attribute More’s writing to a Christian perspective. Fenlon attempts to explain a point of confusion in the book which is why More the character would critique the society the author More has created.  Fenlon says that creating an ideal society like utopia is an honorable task that More has taken on but it is just simply impossible. He says that trying to correct European society “by reforming the state (is) an illusory” goal because there will never be a perfect society (18). Fenlon is arguing that More thought that the humanists should have realized their goal was impossible. Bradshaw notes this argument and sees this validity yet he explains this conflict as More trying to reconcile the feasibility of this plan with its idealistic components. Bradshaw understands Fenlon’s argument that this society would be a challenge to create but he believes that More was not saying it is impossible to create this state but that it would be a challenge and that there would still need to be a “constructive and continuing dialogue” before there is any possibility of creating a utopia (27).