I'm including this reading from the French Christian politically-oriented theologian Jacques Ellul (1912-1994) in order to balance out the more personal and individualistic readings from Dag Hammarskjold.
The main function of these readings from modern Christian thinkers in this course is that they present what seems to me the core of the message of the New Testament in modern terms. One of. the things most lacking in Dag Hammarskjold in this respect is that his Christianity has mostly to do with himself. The thought in his diary at least lacks the aggressive, activist attitude toward the social environment that seems to me an important aspect of early Christianity. For early Christians the conventional social atmosphere was an active competitor with God -- social dynamics continually operate to pressure people to compromise their consciences, to strive for success in purely "worldly" terms, etc. Early Christians were not content simply to "drop out" of this society after the manner of Buddhist monks, to concentrate on their own personal salvation. They rather felt compelled to actively denounce and combat "worldliness" wherever they see it. This shows, for example in Paul's strong denunciations of the damage he thought the "spiritual show-offs" were doing to the social atmosphere of the Christian community at Corinth, and his attempt to press for a better community spirit there. It shows also in Jesus' denunciations of Pharisaic religion in the Gospel of Mark, and his attempt to show the group of his followers a better way so far as social organization goes ("Let him who would be first among you be the servant of all.")
Jacques Ellul is a good modern example of this 'activist' side of Christianity. This shows both in his books and in his personal life, as is evident from what he says of himself in interviews published in a recent book about him In Season, Out of Season (1982). In the late 1930's he did a lot of grass-roots organizing for social change in France. ("We had understood Marx's teaching on revolution, and we thought that socialism was the first stage of a more fundamental revolution...but nothing would be revolutionary if there were nothing beyond this step, if there were not a transformation of our ways of thinking, of all types of centralizing structures,...and of interpersonal relations." p. 40.) During the second world war he lost his job teaching law at a University when he advised his students not to trust the Vichy government, collaborators with the German occupation forces in France. He worked as part of the Resistance helping Jews escape from the Germans, and became well-known enough to be made Deputy Mayor of Bordeaux after the war was over. He was active in ecology groups fighting developers in Aquitaine. In the early fifties he organized groups to work with youth gangs in Bordeaux. And he was active in support of the student movement to reform French Universities in the late 1960's. (The Presence of the Kingdom was one of his first books, written in 1941.)
So far as his theological thinking goes, Ellul belongs to a movement known generally as "neo-orthodoxy". (The most prominent "founder" of this movement is the Swiss theologian Karl-Barth [1886-1968], and it is ultimately inspired by the Danish Existentialist Philosopher Soren Kierkegaard [1813-18551.) Neo-orthodoxy consists of an attempt to recover the 'strong" elements of Christianity, over against the attempts of 19th century "liberal" theologians to "water it down" and make it into a general humanism. Neo-orthodoxy is not a leading force in Christian theology today, and I am not presenting a representative of this school here because I think that it represents the best of Christian thought today, or the way Christian theology ought to go in the future. It does seem to me however that neoorthodox thinkers like Ellul actually were quite successful in their attempt to recover in a somewhat "pure" form the spirit of axial Christianity, and to translate that spirit into the modern world
One way of trying to make clear what it is that Ellul really means in the concrete is if one sees his basic message as the setting up of a particular structure, a way of structuring human experience. The structure revolves around a certain polarity or opposition: There is on the one hand all those aspects of life we can give clear, concrete definition to, which we can "grasp" and "manage" relatively easily, which we can be "accomplished" at and be proud of ourselves about. And on the other hand, there is the particularity of every situation and its unique "call" on us, there is the perspective we haven't yet thought of, the voice making us aware of the good we have not yet seen. For Ellul, this is the central structure of the human situation. The voice can never be captured and grasped and "put into practice". It is like Hammarskjold's "void". The polarity is always there. Seeing things always in the light of this particular kind of polarity is essential to being a Christian.
The particular difficulty of being a Christian in the modern world, as Ellul sees it, is that the first side of the polarity described above -- that side of reality which we can grasp and manage -- is precisely the one which modern technological culture focuses most of its attention on. Ellul is not against technology as such, or the benefits it brings us. What he sees as unchristian is the way we tend to let a technological mentality take over our entire lives. - When we think of "bringing peace to the world", for example, our minds run completely in "practical" directions: trying to define what "peace" is in a purely empirical way, devising practical programs the bring about this concrete state of affairs. We ought of course to do all these things, but one primary thing we ought to do in addition, which we tend to forget -- because it cannot be reduced to a pragmatic program -- is to cultivate a spirit of peacefulness within ourselves, to act peacefully in our dealings with others, etc.
His clearest passage seems to me to be the first two pages of the excerpts included here. He uses there the familiar metaphor of the Christian as a citizen of two worlds. His real loyalty is to the Kingdom of God, but on the other hand he cannot simply give up on the world. He cannot "accept the view that they will always remain in their anguish and their disorder, victims of tyranny and over-work, buoyed up only by a hope which seems unfounded. Thus he must plunge into social and political problems in order to have an influence on the world, not in the hope of making it a paradise...not in order to diminish the opposition between this world and the Kingdom of God...but in order that the Gospel may be proclaimed..."
This passage partly corrects an impression one gets in some other parts of the book that he is simply against taking part in political action. What he seems to mean, rather, is that a Christian should look carefully at whatever situation she is in, and take whatever action she can to make that situation a better one, to bring it closer to being the perfect, ideal "Kingdom of God". (One should not, of course, confuse the "Kingdom of God" in his thought with the popular Christian idea of Heaven in the afterlife.) What the Christian should not do is think that by doing this she is actually bringing about some fundamental change in the world that significantly alters the basic constitution of things, the fundamental opposition between this world and the Kingdom of God. "Even when the institutions, the laws, the reforms which he has advocated have been achieved, even if society be reorganized according to his suggestions, he still has to be in opposition, he still must exact more, for the claim of God is.... infinite..."
Since many students will naturally try to connect what Ellul says to the modern church-Christianity they are familiar with, I want to preface this essay with a brief summary of some main differences between Ellul's thought and modern church-Christianity:
| Modern church-Christianity | Ellul |
|
Modern church-Christianity posits certain moral rules (e.g. anti-abortion) as "Christian" rules, and Christians are distinguished from non-Christians because they follow these rules |
Ellul declares that the Christian message cannot be reduced to a set of rules. The "Kingdom of God" is not a place where everyone keeps "Christian rules," but an image of a society that is perfectly just and fair. A Christian should try to remedy injustices and unfairness in her own society. What fairness/unfairness consists in cannot be decided ahead of time by a set of rules. This does not mean breaking rules, but it means not being satisfied merely by keeping rules, since no set of rules can define what is fair/unfair in all situations whatever. The main thing is that the Christian should not compromise her sense of fairness by what is realistically possible in this world. The "Kingdom of God" is an image of perfect, transcendent rightness, transcending anything realistically possible in the world. It is like a Platonic Idea of Perfect Rightness. |
| Modern church Christians often consider it their main duty to preach Christian teachings to others and convert them to become members of the church. | For Ellul, "making the Gospel message heard" does not mean teaching other people Christian teachings, but trying to actually remedy unfairness in the world wherever it is found, since this in his mind is the main practical content of the Christian Gospel. It of secondary important that anyone connect these efforts to remedy unfairness with some specifically Christian beliefs or language. One should not conceive of these as "Christian" projects to be conducted by Christian organizations. Rather a good Christian should ally herself with all others, Christian or non-Christian, who is struggling to remedy obvious injustices. |
| Modern church Christians often consider it their main duty to promote the interests of their particular church. | Ellul looks on promoting the interests of church-organizations as a betrayal of the true spirit of Christianity. |
| Modern church Christians are motivated to do good deeds and obey church rules because they think that doing so will earn them rewards in heaven after they die. | Ellul never mentions rewards in heaven. The Kingdom of God in his thought is not much like the the common church-Christian concept of "heaven." The practical point of focusing on this image is not to feed the ("selfish") desire to get rewards for oneself, but to motivate a person to selflessly devote herself to "making the future Kingdom present" in the present world, which is done by standing up against unfairness in the present world (since the Kingdom of God is an image of transcendent fairness). |
Excerpts from Jacques Ellul
The Presence of the Kingdom
From Chapter 2:
Revolutionary Christianity
The first condition [for being a Christian] is a well-known
truth, but its reality is not sufficiently understood:
The Christian belongs to two Cities. He is in the world, and
he has a social life. He is the citizen of a nation; he has a place in a family;
he has a situation, and must work to earn money; the setting of his life is the
same as that of other men; he lives with them; he shares with them the same
nature and the same conditions. All that he, does in this world, he ought to do
seriously, because he is bound up with the life of other people, and must not
neglect what are called 'duties,' since he is a man like everyone else. On the
other hand, he cannot wholly belong to this world...
The Christian... is the citizen of another Kingdom, and it is
thence that he derives his way of thinking, judging, and feeling. His heart and
his thought are elsewhere... He may be in this world, it is true, but all his
'ties' are elsewhere... When we speak of 'this world,' we are referring to
concrete realities: the nation, the State, the family, work... To all this the
Christian cannot swear an unconditional loyalty. His first duty is to be
faithful to his Lord.
Now the two Cities to which he belongs can never coincide,
and... so long as he is upon earth he cannot possibly renounce the one or the
other; on the other hand, he cannot be satisfied with the fundamental dualism in
which he is involved... Thus he is obliged to accept this tension, this
opposition, and the results from the acceptance of this inner tension -- because
he knows that the two orders can never be equated with one another that the
opposition between this world and the Kingdom of God is a total one.
But it is an intolerable situation, which causes acute
suffering, and it is not a satisfying statement. The Christian can never regard
himself as being on the winning side... Bound up with the lives of other men...
he cannot accept the view that they will always remain in their anguish and
their disorder, victims of tyranny and overwork, buoyed up only by a hope which
seems unfounded. Thus he must plunge into social and political problems in order
to have an influence on the world, not in the hope of making it a paradise, but
simply in order to make it tolerable, not in order to diminish the opposition
between this world and the Kingdom of God, but simply in order to modify the
opposition between the disorder of this world and the order... that God wills
for it...
The Christian is essentially a man who lives in expectations
This expectation is directed towards the return of the Lord which accompanies
the end of time, the judgment, and proclaims the Kingdom of God. Thus one who
knows that he has been saved by Christ is not a man jealously and timidly
attached to a past... but he is a man of the future, not of a temporal and
logical future, but of the eschaton, [the end of the world] of the coming break
with this present world.
Thus he looks forward to this moment, and for him all facts acquire their value
in the light of the coming Kingdom of God, in the light of the judgment, and the
victory of God. The actual events of our world only acquire their value in the
light of the coming Kingdom of God. It is the imminence of the Return of Christ
which gives genuine seriousness to each actual event, and, indeed, it is through
this fact that each actual event acquires its true content.
Now in this matter the Christian... by his action and by his
thought [must] bring this 'coming event' into the life of this present world. He
has to carry into the actual world of the present day elements which belong to
the eschaton...
This then is the revolutionary situation: to be revolutionary is to judge the
world by its present state, by actual facts, in the name of a truth which does
not yet exist (but which is coming) – and it is to do so, because we believe
this truth to be more genuine and more real than the reality which surrounds us.
Consequently it means bringing the future into the present as an explosive
force. It means believing that future events are more important and truer than
present events...
We must be convinced that there are no such things as
'Christian principles.' There is the Person of Christ, who is the principle of
everything. But if we wish to be faithful to Him, we cannot dream of reducing
Christianity to it certain number of principles (though this is often done), the
consequences of which can be logically deduced. This tendency to transform the
work of the Living God into a philosophical doctrine is the constant temptation
of theologians, and also of the faithful, and their greatest disloyalty when
they transform the action of the Spirit which brings forth fruit in themselves
into an ethic, a new law, into 'principles' which only have to be 'applied.'...
What is true in the individual sphere is also true in the
social sphere. There are no Christian political and social principles, defined
in an absolute way. What God reveals to us in this sphere by the Scriptures is
not a doctrine or principles... The Bible shows us a God at work in political
and civil history, using the works of men and bringing them into His action for
His promised Kingdom. From what the Scripture reveals to us about this action we
can draw similar analogies, we can conceive the essential direction which our
action should take. We can have a glimpse of a contemporary order with a
changing shape, but not of a system, or of political principles. Whenever we
have to transcribe the action of God in the world, in an incomplete manner,
intelligible to humanity, there can be no question of any dogmatism, which is
the very contrary of this action. Thus, the first consequence of this
revolutionary function of the Christian is that he ought to be open to all human
action, that he ought to welcome it as giving him valuable direction. We are
never called to set aside a political or a social attempt on account of
'principles' which are supposed to be 'Christian.' Everything that seems to be a
step in this right direction (in the sense in which this was defined above)
should be most carefully examined.
On the other hand, it is evident that the Christian can never
be tied to the past or to a principle... There is not a Christian attitude which
can be applied to all times, but according to different times, attitudes which
appear to be contradictory, may be equally good, to the extent in which they
make their mark on history as fidelity to the purpose of God. Thus it is not
necessary to be loyal to an idea, to a doctrine, or to a political movement...
The Christian may belong to the Right or to the left, he may be a liberal or a
Socialist, according to the times in which he lives, and according as the
position of the one or the other seems to him more in harmony with the will of
God at that particular time. These attitudes are contradictory, it is true, from
the human point of view, but their unity consists in the search for the coming
Kingdom. It is in the light of this Kingdom that the Christian is called to
judge present circumstances.