Before we get started, I should make it clear that "anarchy" in this context does not denote "chaos" but rather "without rule," and yes, there is a difference. Really, it is unfortunate that the idea of freedom is so closely linked to the idea of chaos, because that reveals the pervasiveness of pagan thinking in modern society. Only Christianity successfully reconciles freedom and order, because only Christianity contains a comprehensive ethic of self-governance, spiritual empowerment, and mutual accountability. The Church exists in a perpetual state of peaceful, orderly anarchy, modeling the miracle of redemptive freedom before the world.As a young man, Ellul was strongly influenced by Karl Marx, though he ultimately was forced to conclude that Marx's biases created fatal problems in his sociological theory. Only in turning to Christ (at age 22) did Ellul find the fullness of truth that he was seeking. Later, Ellul was to draw heavily on the ideas of Swiss Reformed theologian Karl Barth, especially in regards to his dialectic approach to truth and "revelation."
Perhaps the most important element in Ellul's work is his insistence on the dialectic and even paradoxical nature of truth. I find this stance to be scripturally consistent, intellectually compelling, and existentially honest.
According to Ellul biblical revelation provides the prototypical dialectic, for dialectic "is specifically a biblical concept," in contrast to philosophical thinking which tends to resolve and eliminate contradictions.1
We have to recognize that everything in revelation is formulated in antithetical fashion... It unites two contrary truths that are truth only as they come together.2
There is no logic in the biblical revelation. There is no "either-or," only "both-and." We find this on every level.3
Dialectical tensions characterize the Christian life: "We are invited to take part in a dialectic, to be in the world but not of it."... By living out this boundary line existence, which is admittedly agonistic, the Christian reintroduces true dialectical tensions and creative, revolutionary possibilities within the historical process.4
Ellul is interested in the pursuit and preservation of biblical Christianity over and against Christendom, arguing that the Christian faith is essentially revolutionary and subversive. Ellul was advancing the idea of church as organism instead of organization long before it was the catchphrase it is today.
Though Ellul is a very original thinker, he is by no means isolated from the rest of the intellectual world, sharing common ground with a number of other great minds, such as Søren Kierkegaard, Leo Tolstoy, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Vernard Eller, Dorothy Day, and Henry David Thoreau. Neither was his work limited solely to academia: he was active in the French resistance during World War II on behalf of the Jews, and also worked extensively to assist the delinquent youth of his home town of Bordeaux.
Ellul's work is essential for anyone who is tired of the tit-for-tat culture wars and interested in a thoughtful exploration of what it means to seek the Kingdom of God. Take a look: you might be surprised by what you find.
The Christian is constantly obliged to reiterate the claims of God, to reestablish this God-willed order, in presence of an order that constantly tends toward disorder. In consequence of the claims which God is always making on the world the Christian finds himself, by that very fact, involved in a state of permanent revolution.5
(1) Jacques Ellul, The Presence of the Kingdom, (Helmers & Howard, 1989), xxxiv
(2) Jacques Ellul, The Subversion of Christianity, (Eerdmans, 1986), 43
(3) Ibid., 44
(4) Jacques Ellul, The Presence of the Kingdom, xxxvi-xxxvii
(5) Ibid., 36-37
(2) Jacques Ellul, The Subversion of Christianity, (Eerdmans, 1986), 43
(3) Ibid., 44
(4) Jacques Ellul, The Presence of the Kingdom, xxxvi-xxxvii
(5) Ibid., 36-37
Image courtesy of cumberlandbooks.com
5 comments:
Hi Aaron:
In reading this, it is a little difficult to grasp what this man is trying to say without further clarification.
For instance, he says that dialectic is specifically a biblical revelation. How so? Where does he draw this idea from?
He also says that everything in revelation is formulated in antithetical fashion. Really? How so? Where does he draw this idea from?
He says that there is no logic in the biblical revelation. There is no "either-or," only "both-and." This seems to be a self defeating statement, unless of course, that you can escape that defeat by claiming that there is no logic...ha! He uses the either-or to claim that there is no either-or. Perhaps there is more to what he is trying to say.
I'm not sure why he would classify being in the world and not of the world as being dialectic.
Perhaps my feeble mind can't wrap itself around some of this. Or, perhaps he is espousing a certain philosophy or hermanuetic that undergirds that informs him but doesn't come through in your blog post.
What is the undergirding philosophy or hermanuetic that he uses to make these statements?
Yours in Christ
Scott Parish
Scott -
Thank you for your questions. It is healthy to learn how to get down to the foundations of things, especially in regards to matters of thought.
By way of a disclaimer, I would say that I am not in a position where I am qualified to fully defend (or even to fully explain) Ellul's views. I have read two of his books and am currently reading a third, and while I like a lot of what I'm hearing, I have yet to vitally grasp how it's all connected.
I believe it is true that we find the tension of dialectic everywhere in scripture. (The fully divine/fully human nature of Christ, justification by faith alone vs. the uselessness of faith without works, authentic humility vs. spiritual confidence... to name a few.) Proverbs 26:4-5 is an example of this, as are passages such as Acts 2:39-40, Philippians 2:12-13...
In relation to this, Ellul says the Christian life is "agonistic." (Not to be confused with "agnostic" - though Oswald Chambers says "I am an agnostic - that is why I am a Christian." But I digress.) At least in this respect, I sympathize with Ellul's analysis of our position as believers. We are living in the tension between the already and the not-yet, sometimes striving, sometimes thriving, but never arriving.
In regards to your questions regarding Ellul's underlying philosophy, I believe he is advancing the idea of dialectic, not as a particular philosophy, but as an independent system over and against philosophy. ("Dialectic 'is specifically a biblical concept,' in contrast to philosophical thinking which tends to resolve and eliminate contradictions.") This is a bold move, and I don't claim to know if it is a correct one or not, I simply believe it deserves some thought.
It seems to me that Ellul's claim regarding the antithetical nature of revelation carries some historical/experiential weight, as Christianity has a reputation of constantly going to extremes. What is needed is balance, and balance necessarily involves a certain degree of tension and concentration. (When I say "balance" I do not mean the "balance" of noncommittal mediocrity, but rather the "balance" of a gymnast performing a difficult maneuver.)
I realize that I'm not directly answering your questions, but as I stated above, that is mostly because currently I'm unable to do so. Still, I hope some of these thoughts have contributed to some clarification.
Hmmm...okay.
What is his defintion of dialectic?
I guess I just wonder when someone says that there is no logic in biblical revelation...all the while using logic, syntax, word meanings, and grammar to make the assertion. Again, perhaps I am missing something. When God speaks, can we understand? And can we understand even when we don't hear audible words?
Identifying dialectics may not be philosophy per se, but the way in which he uses the idea to explain reality is certainly philosophy. That is why I wonder why he would think that he can get away from philosophy. I am defining philosophy as an attempt to provide an explanation of the reason of things.
I'm not sure that the things you mentioned are dialectical tensions. However, they may be perceived to be based upon the undergirding hermaneutic one uses to interpret the scriptures. Instead of being theses and antitheses, they may just be parts of the same theses.
I am wondering if he is saying something about God, in the end. Is this really how God thinks and operates?
Scott
I think Ellul's concept of dialectic might be analogous to saying that truth stands on two legs. Regardless of whether the things I mentioned are theses and antitheses or parts of the same theses, they are still two different ideas in tension with one another, (or collaboration, if you prefer,) and must be accepted as a single whole, if the truth they are supporting is to stand.
No one is denying the necessity of logic or syntax. Obviously, if we are going to understand and communicate at all, we need logic and syntax and word meanings. John 1:1 says: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Everything pertaining to thought, language, and communication as we know it has its beginning in God. We can understand when God speaks because he created the very context for understanding. (We are made in the image of God, and thus we share the nature of the "Word." See my post of August 26th on "Intuitive Faith.") When Ellul says "there is no logic in the biblical revelation," he is not saying that the bible makes no sense, rather he is challenging the viability of using logic as a starting point. When people begin with logic, it may lead them towards or away from God - it seems they tend to find what they're looking for. (Though C. S. Lewis was a big proponent of the argument from reason, and I think he did a good job with it.) In any event, I think it is this idea of logic as a system independent of or outside of God that Ellul holds to be fallacious. Rational thought is a good discipline but a poor religion. As N. T. Wright says: "'Reason' is more like the laws of harmony and counterpoint: it does not write tunes itself, but it forms the language within which tunes make powerful sense." I myself have described logic and reason in similar fashion - for example, as a pie pan.
I am sympathetic to this view of the inadequacy of reason, and I've written about this before in reference to the incomprehensibility of a complete "systematic theology."
I don't know if we can make conclusive statements about God in these matters. I think what Ellul is highlighting is the manner in which God has chosen to reveal His truth through scripture, experience, and history. God deliberately structures revelation to include ambiguities, tensions, and loopholes. Ellul writes, in The Subversion of Christianity, "How did they fail to see that if God had wanted to give us a philosophy he would have given us a coherent book and not the vital incoherence of the Bible?"
Granted, incoherence is a strong word. Still, I don't believe Ellul is recommending a random, nonsensical hermeneutic, I believe he is simply asking us to reevaluate how we define coherence.
But I could be wrong.
Thank you for these insights into the teachings of Jacques Ellul.
I think it is would be helpful to be able to engage with Ellul somewhat more on exactly what he means by "dialectic."
I think that it is clear that truth is often paradoxical, and that there are opposite polarities that can only be reconciled in a Christian's relationship with God--eg. male-female, subjective-objective, mercy-truth, compassion and justice, etc.
My concern is that this not be taken to the extreme that Carl Jung took it in defining all reality as part of one undifferentiated whole, reconciling good and evil, light and darkness, truth and lies.
In such a view, there is no need for salvation, because there is no sin, there is no warfare between the kingdom of light and the kingdom of darkness, because there are no opposing kingdoms. There is no distinction between heaven and hell, truth and lies, because everything is part of one undifferentiated whole--good and evil, moral and immoral, right and wrong, blessing and cursing, life and death.
Such a view leads to universalism, and makes a mockery of why Jesus had to go to the cross in order to take away the sin of the world, and why the resurrection, and the victory over death and over all of God's enemies is important.
I am not clear on how far Ellul takes this, but I think that there needs to be a distinction between paradoxical truth which can be reconciled in God, and contradictions which are mutually ezclusive and irreconcilable. In the city of God, there will in no wise enter into it anything that defiles, or is of the works of darkness, or that makes a lie.
Defilement cannot be reconciled with cleansing, nor light with darkness, nor truth with lies.
Post a Comment