Intro PresenceOfTheKingdom Nopw

7/28/2019 Intro PresenceOfTheKingdom Nopw

1/12

I N T R O D U C T I O N

Ohoosingcfeand. heI'ossibilityfHistoryAn Introfui.ction o theLifennd,Thoaghtfarques llulLifetTt"t coNTouRS oF ELLUr-'s i fe haveI been documentedwell enough n several

I' l;rccs,lbu t since he "never writes ideas-only my experi-('nces," brief synopsiss in order.Born asan only child in| ) | 2, Jacques llul inheritedboth the aristocratic alues nd. lrronicpovertyof his grandparents nd ather,both of whomlr,r.lonce beenwealthyonly to experience xtremepoverty,lrrring he depressionears.He recounts hi s experience s,lt't ' isiveor understanding is development.n order o sup-Ir ' rr his family,Ellul beganworkingasa young eenager ndI'r'rrg ighteenwasgiving three to four hoursof lessons ailyrr r lcrman, French,Latin, and Creek.About this time Ellul happenedo reada copyof Marx'sl),n KaPiccl, orrowed rom the library, an experiencewhich

I St.chis autobiographical works: In Season,Out of Season;Perspectduesr r, r )u r Agc; and C)e ueje crois,which EerdmansPublishingCompany s. xxi


2/12


3/12

rnt/ T H E P R E S E N C E O F T H E K I N G D O Mlikewise targeted (she was born in Holland and carried aBritish passport).Out of necessityhe "vanished into thecountryside" to Martres, some fifty kilometers from Bor-deaux.For the next few yearshe participated actively n theResistancemovementwhile supportinghis family by farmingwith peasantpeople,Ellut tending the corn, potatoes,andsheepwhile his wife raised hickensand rabbits.During theseyearsEllul also pastoreda church, an experiencehe wouldrepeat in the future, and studied theology throughStrasbourg,although he neverwrote the thesis or the formaldegree.In 1943Ellul was awarded he "agrCgation."4 fter thewar he served a stint as a deputy mayor of Bordeaux(1944-46),believing hat a rue revolutionof society rom thegroundup would bepossible ue o thewar havingdemolishedalmostevery acetof society'snfrastructure.This he countsasone of his greatestmisjudgments,or it was not many yearsbefore the political and economic status quo once againcontrolled atl power. The mayoral experience thoroughlydisillusionedEllul and, because f his firsthand experience,convinced him forever of the absolutepowerlessness f po[i-tics to bring anything but cosmeticchanges o society. [n1947he assumed postat the lnstitute of PoliticalStudies nBordeaux,where he remaineduntil his retirement n 1980.During this time he alsoservedat Bordeaux's acultyof Law( e43-80).

Throughout his life Ellul has ncarnatedhis belief that"intellectual interest means concrete commitment." Hi swhirlwind of constructive engagements as taken him farbeyond he professor'secturn or writing desk (50 booksand1500 articles,with translations nto at leasta dozen oreignlanguages). rom 1947 51he servedwith the World Councilof Churches,an affiliation he discontinuedbecause f what4. The "agr6gation" s the highest competitive exam for universityprofessorsn France.Ellul's awardwas basedon an examination and hisbook on the French Reformed churches seebibliography).

Introdactionhe considered ts platitudinous pronouncements nd blind-ness o the paralyzingeffectsof ideology.For rwenryyearshelaboredon the National Council of the ReformedChurch ofFrance,giving specialattention to the revision of seminarycurricula (1951.70). Environmentalconcerns(h e used totakeregularcamping rips with his students) ed him to help{irrm the "Committee for the Defenseof the AquitainianOoast,"which Ellul served or a term aspresident.The groupprotested he government's ommercialdevelopmentof theAquitaine coast near Bordeaux.From 1945.55he directedafilm club in Bordeauxwhich analyzed urrent cinema.Since1970he hasedited he journal Fo ietVie.Two projects, hough, havebrought specialsatisfactionr. Ellul.5 First,alongwith his wife he helped o establishparish n Bordeaux omposed f working-class eople.Begun^ 1953 n Ellul'shome, the church grew rom ren people o.ver fifty families. n 1960 he churchbuilt it sown building;rndobtainedapastor.Second, n 1958he began o work withthe delinquent youth of Bordeauxwith Yves Charrier (al-thoughhe always ontends hat we need o questionwhetherrt is the person r sociery ha t is maladjusted).6 ar aheadofrheir time, they ormedclubs, ecruiteda staff,anddeveloped;r philosophyof prevention"which, insteadof makingyourh,r.laptedo society,helped hem to become positivelymalad-;rrsted."This eventually ed to the National Committee for[lniry betweenClubs and Teams f Prevenrion,which Ellull rcaded nti l 1977.Beforemovingon ro discuss llul'sdialecticalmethod,lris corpus,and The Presencef theKingdom,mention shouldI'c madeof two other formative nfluenceson his intellectual.lt'velopmenrhat complementMarx. He writesrhat his deep5 Seemy "lnterview wirh Jacques llul," MediaDeoelopmenr2/1988):: 6 . 2 7 .(' . SeehisJeunesseAlinquance,n collaboration with YvesCharrier; an dt 'lrapter 9 of In Se4son,Out of Season, With the Street Gangs."


4/12

X X U d T HE P R E S E N C EOF T HE K I N G D O Mand distant roots are "nourished in the ever fertile soil ofSoren Kierkegaardand Karl Barth."7 He refers o Barth as"the secondgreat element" in his scholarlypilgrimage,andexpresses mazementat those who consider him pass6. n-stead, Eltut finds him a rich resourcewhose theologicalimplicationsare yet to be exhausted.st is simplymisleading,though, to label Ellul a Barthian (or anything else or thatmatter), for in manywayshe diverges rom the Swiss hinker.e

Justas mportant for understandingEllul is the influenceof Kierkegaard,perhapsseenbest n his work The Subversionof Chrdstianity,which David \7. Gilt has rightly observedrestates or th e twentieth century th e question whichKierkegaard aised or the previousone: why is Christendomso ittle like bibltcal Christianity? VernardEller maywell becorrect to contend that it is the melancholyDane and not theSwiss heologianwhom Ellul most resembles.l0 till, Ellulfreely and often chartshis own courseso hat any mplicationof a slavishadherence o Barth or Kierkegaardsimply gener'atesmisinterpretations.

Ellul\ DialecticPerhaps he single most important factor for

Ellul interpretation is an understandingof his passionateadherenceo dialectic."I am a dialecticianabovealh I believe

?. Jacques llul, Living Fcich San Francisco:Harper and Row, 1983)'p. ix .b. S". "Karl Barth and LJs,"Sojourners December 1978) and GeoffreyBromiley'sessay Barth's Influence on Jacques llul" in lacqucsEllul: .InterpretiveEsscys, dited by Clifford Christians and JayM. Van Hook(Urbana: University of lllinois Press, 981).9. See my TheologicalMethodinJrc.ques llul (Lanham, Mar.: UniversityPress f America, 1987), pp . 10-13.10. Vernard Eller, "Ellul and Kierkegaard:Closer than Brothers,".inChristians and Van Hook, p. 52.

Introduction xxvlrnorhing can be understoodwithout dialecticalsnrlysis."lMorerecentlyEllul has wrirten:

[T]heresa dialectic ithinmy work,and t is entirelycentral n that I havediscoveredrogressivelyhat n theworldwe ive n thereareno means f thinkingandacquiring nowledgehat arenot of a dialecticalnature. . . I became onscious,s worked nd hought,that neededo nterpret ll things ialectically.zA' y unwill ingness r inability ro appreciatehis aspect f hisrlr,rughtalmostalwaysendsup grossly istorting his works.lhc continual charge hat he is a fatalistic pessimisr, or,'xirmple, ails to see har fo r Ellul, l ike Hegel, there is a|.sitiviry in th e negative,an d that he is, in fact, an un-,rlri15[.6ptimistwh obelievesn th e universal alvation f al lr rcation.

In a generalsensedialectic mplies an exchange r a,f :rltrgue dialcgein),such as that which Ellul intends roI'r.,voke vith his readers.More specifically, dialectic is al,rrrcedureha t does no t excludecontraries,bu t includesrlrt'rn."ll As we hinted above,Eltut's oots n dialectic eachl',rr'k o his doubleconversion.For Marx, of course,historytlr( gressedialecticallyby means f the interplayof compet-ilrt: )rconrradictory lements hichdid no t nullify eachotherI'rrr athergave is e o a new situation.Perhapsmore mpor-r,rrrrsEl lul 's ie wof bibl icaldialectic.i lThi leon emightspeak,, 1 l i i r lecric riginatingwith Heracl i tus, eno,or th e ike, he, , s11gnd5ha t the Hebrewsof the eighth centuryB.c. wererlrt ' nr progenitors.only dialectical hinking ca n give aI'r.l)cr accountof scriptural evelation, uch evelation tself: I l . rt . t1usllul, "lnterviewswith Jacques llul," in DavidC.r'l, rrrrnger, Techniqueand Politics:The PoliticalThought of JacquesI l l lrr l" ( l 'h. l). diss.,Universityof California,Riverside, 974), p. ZZ4.l ' l lrr l , In Secson, utof Season,p. 201-202.t I llrrl, l)erspeccivesn Our Age,p. 7.


5/12

xxl)iii T H E P R E S E N C E O F T H E K I N G D O Mbeing fundamentallyand intrinsically dialectical."14 n theBible,he writes, we constantlysee wo contradictory,appar-ently irreconcilable hingsaffirmed,and we are old that theyalwaysmeet o wind up in a new situation."l5He gives everalexamples o illustrate this: God is beyond ime and history,but with the incarnation He entersboth. Dialecticaltensionexists between the Already and Not Yet of the eschaton.Salvation is by gracealone (Eph. 2:8'9\ but also by works(Phil. 2:12-13).Finally,history s he arenaof God'sactivityand or that reason ot unimportant or negligible,but it does,nevertheless,move toward decisive udgment and catastro-phe. oObviously,when Ellul readBarth, he found a theologi'cal counterpart o the role Marx played or him on the socialscientific evel.Dialectic in Ellul's thought functions at three interre'lated levels.At what we might call the historical and epis-temological evels here is "a dialectic of ideas, ut perhapsalsoa dialecticof facts,of reality."l? n other words,dialecticfor Ellul refers o a descriptionof reality, the real in history,and a mode of thinking or way of knowing by which weunderstand hat reality. Related to both of these s his theo'logical dialectic which combinesboth the epistemologicaland the historical in a dialectical hermeneutic o interpretScriptureand an agonistic style of life."On the historical level, Ellul contends that dialectic"alwaysclaims to have to do with the real, to be a meansoftaking accountof the real."l8Contradictory actors nhere nthe very nature of reality, positive and negative elementswhich do not cancel out each other but interact so as tomodify a situation. As we noted above,Ellul refers o Hegel14. JacquesEllul, "On Dialectic," in Jacques llul: InterpretiueEssays, .304. Thts is Ellul's most conciseexplanationof dialectic, an d Chapter 4in Ce qu e e crois Paris:Grasset,198?),entitled "La dialectique," s analmost verbatim repetition of it.15. Ellul, Perspectiuesn Orrr Age, p. 8.16. All theseexamples re aken ro m Ellul's On Dialectic."17 . Ellul, "O n Dialect ic,"p. 293. Mv emphasis.18. bid.

Introd.uction xxixIrcrc, eeinghe contradictory lementsn historyashavinga,r r,' l ly positive unction (which is not to say, ike Marx, thatlr r ry s progressing,which positionEllul rejects). ndeed,rlr. cocxistence f mutually opposing actors onstitutes her n( ' lu anonof ahealthysociety,whilehistorical clerosisnd,ilr( )nrestedomogeneitymarka totalitarianor evenutopianrr fu;rrionwhere he possibil ityof meaningfulhistoryceases.llrt' "supreme vil" is "paralysis, ntropy, epetition, denti-, .r f t 'ss,unity, duplication."19Ellul'sdenunciationof tech.,f lf t' , or example, snot directedat techniqueer se,but at itslrr'11t'nronizingnd heteronomouseffects on society whichI'r'xrcssivelyeliminate all dialectical tensions n favor of, rr l rrrr:r lrssimilat ion. his view of history, hen, placesa6rr',rtpremium on human choicesand decisions, or fate,,l,r.rirfcqhen peoplegiveup. Dialecticas he real n historyrrrrplicshe certitudeof human esponsibil ity nd hereforeIr, ' r ' , lom >f hoiceand decision."2oWhat, exactly,are the dialectical componenrs f his-r,,r\ Iloli-Bennert,observing hat for Ellul dialecticconsti.rurr.\"the very fabric of l ife . . . the very core of reality,"1,,.11t.siv e acrorsn Ellul'sdialecticof social eality.Dialec-rr , rl rcnsionexistsbetween deology nd reality,actionand, "n\(.(luences,he whole an d th e parts,socialand spiritualrr ' .r l r ty, nd in the radicalambivalence f action.zt n hi s, fnf cnt:rryApocalypse llul suggesrshat the book of Reve-l.rr .n is he bookof all humanhistory,and hat this history s

^'f rhc productof chance or mechanisticcausalitybut the,l , .r l , ' ticaI nterplay f the wil l of th e Lord, the wi l l of men,rrr,f t 'rtain "abstract orces",22 ater in th e samebook her; r' r lrt.s ix concrete omponents riving history's ialectic:1 ,lrrrt;rlpgjygr,economicpower, orcesof destructionand

I I l lrr l , n Season, ut of Season, . 223.I l l r r l , ( )n D ia lec t i c , " . 297 .r l, ' lrr l l . l i-Bennetr, "The AbsolureDialect ics f Jacques llul," inrr , r,',lr rr r 'hrlosophy ntlTbchnology,dited by PaulT. Durbin, vol. 3r , , . , ' nwr (h , onn. :JAI P ress , 980) , p . 171 .201.' I rr f ft's lllul, Apocalypse; he Bookof RevelationNew York: Seabury,, | . l , 5 ( r .


6/12

XT X T H E P R E S E N C EO F T H E K I N G D O Mnegation, the \Uordof God, the prayers f his people,and thesettingapartof God'speople Eltut doesnot intend the list tobe exhaustive).Given his viewof history, t is easy o seewhyEllul hasdevoteda whole track of his studies o sociologicalinvestigationsprimarily technique,ropaganda, otitics,andhuman institutions).2:Templehas even eferred o Ellul as a"phenomenologist," ywhich shemeans ot anyadherenceothe school of philosophy by that name but his endeavor olocateand analyze he real phenomenaof everydayife.24Dialecticalsoappearsn Ellul'swork asan epistemologi-cal tool. That is, not only is reality itself fraught withcontradictory and opposingelements,but so is our means orapprehendingthat reality. Severalnuancesare apparent inEllul'suseof dialectic asan epistemologicaloo[.Etlul's hinking is dialecrical n the Socraticsense f theword in that like Kierkegaard,whoseadmiration for Socratesis well known, all of Ellul'swritingshavea maieutic unction.Their purpose s to provokea critical dialoguewith the readerin order o forcehim or her to makea decision. A[ l Socrates'teaching,"writesEllul, "takesplacewithin the framework f adialogue, n which rwo speakers rovide each other with theopportunity to find themselves nd be born."25Furthermore,he refuseso providereaderswith answers,nsisting hat thisis their unique responsibility.The Socratic dialectic alsorequires he criticism of commonplaceopinions' somethingfor which Ellut is infamous (cf. his Critique of the NetrCommonplaces').laying the role of the Socratic gadfly whohelpspeople o shakeoff the perilsof deadlyslumberand gain

23. Ellul's ive-volumemagnumopus,Histoirede snstitutions, ontinuesas a standard ext in French universities.24. SeeKatharine Temple, "The Thsk of JacquesEllul: A Proclamation ofBiblical Faith as a Requisite or Understanding the Modern Project"(Ph.D. diss.,McMasterUniversity, Canada, 1976), especiallyChapter 2,"Fact, Reality, he Sacred,an d Myth."25. Jacques llul, The Humiliatian of theWord (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans,1985), . 38 .

Introductionrrcw levels of critical awareness, his works are "a call to the.lceper to awake '26 Again, failure ro understand this goal ofl:l lul has le d to misinrerpretations. Hi s consrant barrage ofr ritical opinions have never intended to castigate.

The motive wasalways o help my friendsprogress.But ingeneral was nterpreted ust the opposite.The moment Ibegan o criticizeBarth, I wasan anti-Barthian.When Icriticized he social ists wasa rightist. It wascompletelycontrary o my desirewhen I criticized he social ists-it wasto help them make someprogress.2TEllul 's epistemology is dialectical in anorher sense. Arunres he rejects Aristotel ian linear logic as a ful ly adequatet.'ol. Care should be taken, though, no r to imply thar he,lrs;rarages uman reason or logic as useless.He simply wantst. r 11pg2iIhe hubris sometimesassociatedwith it s use.Templer ghtly observes:Reason, n short, [for Ellul] is a relative aculty, but not anonfaculty. n order to confront reality, peopleneed o usereason. . . To give up the function of reasonaltogetherleads o the retreat into the irrational. At the same ime, hewarnsagainst the tendency to try to force reasonro exceedir s imi ts.28

llrrrnan reason must recognize it s boundaries and avoid, asI.r.p le observes, the fal lacies of both rational ism an dr l ; r r i ona l i sm.The influences of Marx and Barth have generared an-, ' r l rcr and larger epistemological dialectic: that betweenI l lrrl ' .s ociology and theology. Marx convinced Ellul of rhe

.'f, f;rcques llul, TlvTechnologlcalocieryNewYork:Knopf,1964),p.r r \ i l 1 .l : l lul, in Clendenin, lnrerview with Jacques llul," p. 28 .." { K.tharine Temple, Th e sociology of Jacques llul," in Researchnl' l , r lrrrrph) ndTbchnology,ol . 3, p.225.

xxxt


7/12

xxllt T H E P R E S E N C E O F T H E K I N G D O Mneed for a rigorous, strictly social scientific study of thematerial conditionswhich shapeour lives. The biblical reve-lation provideshe dialecticalcounterpoint o this as he basisfor studyingpeopleas spiritual beings. According to Ellul,these wo perspectives ust neverbe separated r synthesized.They mustcontinue o coexist n a relation that is dialecticalan d mutuallycritical.In a sense hese wo tracks of study are separate.No faithcommitment is required for his sociologicalanalyses; heystand or fall as strictly social scientific studies and do notdependon any heologicalbiases. ikewise, he biblical reve-lation speaks wordof itsown. Nevertheless,he sociologicaland theologicalstudiesare verymuch related n a reciprocalfashion:

I foundmyselforced o affirmboth the independencef theanalysis f contemporaryociety, nd he specificity ftheology, oth the coherence nd mportance f the world nwhichwe ive andalso he truth withoutcommonmeasureof the revelationn Christ-two factors oth alienandyetalso ndissolublyound o one another.The relation, hen,couldonly be dialectical. . . I was hus ed o work n twoseparatepheres, nehistoricaland sociological,he othertheological. . . . Each work would have to be exactly equaland as immune as possible from contamination by theother.29

The two realmsexist not merely to complementeach otherbut to provide a framework of confrontation and mutualcriticismSociologyserves critical function on behalf of theologyin at least hree ways.First, it forces heology o be relevantbyidentifying the pertinent questions nd strategic actors hat

shapehuman ife at anygiven point. It also orces heology oremain concrete, or its constant temptation is to drift qff into29 .Ellul, On Dialectic," p. 305-306.

Introduction xxxltrrhe purelyabstract nd ideal,askingmetaphysical uestionssrrb pecieaeternitatist can never answer.Third, sociologyhclps the church community to examine tself in order to,.lcterminehe degree o which it functionspurely n a socio-hrgically etermined ashion withour any Christian distinc-t ves. In other words, it helps the church to avoid blatantr'onformity o the world. To summarize:

We nrust eek he deepestossibleociologicalnder-standing f theworldwe ive n, apply he bestmethods,refrain rom ampering ith theresults f our researchntheground hat theyare spiritually" mbarrassing,maintainingomplete larityand ealism-all n order ofindout, asprecisely smaybe,wherewe areandwhat wearedoing, and also what linesof actionare openro us.30But theology ikewiseprovides critical counterpoint orr. I isl6gy,primarilyby forcing t t o be wholistic. Many soci-, h gists laim to bepuristswh o disavow ny nterest n values'r nle?oingand who attempt a neutral appraisalof phenom-('n;r which results n a mathematicalconclusion. BesidesI't ' irrg dealisticand naive, this approach ends o becomert'rluctionistic-defining people, or example,only in rela-r r rrship o their work (homo faber)or economic activiryllr,rrrro economicus).n the process,he spiritual nature of

I ' t ' r pl e sneglected.When we ook at Ellul'sentire corpuswe see he resultofrlrrsconsciously onceiveddialectic as an epistemologicalr, r l ro comprehend eality. With a methodologicalplan, { n( civedasearlyas 1947-43,an d from which he hasneverl, 1r.1p1cd,l lul 'sworks or m a whole:I-hewriting hadundertakenn a tenrativerameof mind,rtsumedprogressivelyetter rrucrure.he whole f it is a

( ()mposit ion in counterpoinr. Every sociological analysis oft f rt .1rrcslllul, "Mirror of theseTen Years, The ChristianCentury'' ,' ( l ; t .hruary 8, 1970), . 201.


8/12

xIxlt, T H E P R E S E N C E O F T H E K I N G D O Mmine sanswerednot in thesense f replying, ut in that ofnoting heotherdialectical ole)by a biblicalor theologicalanalysis.I

To The TechnologlcalSociet) correspond The Meaning of theCity (the city epitomizing human technique) nd Apocalypse,which "sets orth the dialecticalpositionI can have n regardto society,human works, and especially echnique."32ThePolitics of God and the Politics of Man brings a dialecticalcounterpoint to ThePolicicallllusion.The consequence f thisoverarchingdialectic throughout all of his works s that onemust read widely in his corpusor risk misinterpretation.' At a third level, the theologicalone, the historical andepistemological ialecticscombine. According to Ellul thebiblical revelation provides the prototypical dialectic, fordialectic "i s specificallya biblical concept," in contrast ophilosophical hinking which tends o resolveand eliminatecontradictions.33 his biblical or theologicaldialectic func-tions at both of the levels ust discussed:t is a mode ofrhinking, an epistemological rientationby which one under-stands he scriptures,and a mode of Christian existenceor"style of life" within history itself.In addition to the five examplesof biblical dialecticalreadymentioned,several thersdemonstrateust how thor-oughly Ellul carriesout this hermeneutic.He interprets heBibleasa whole and eachof im ndividual topicsdialectically.His works on 2 Kings (The Politicsof Cod and the PoliticsofMan) and Revelation(Apocalypse) tand in dialectical rela-tion to other books in his corpus, and the text itself, in itsstructure,movement,organization,andrelation o culture, sreaddialectically.r+\7e alsosee his by looking at how Eltul treatsscripturalthemes.Fourexamples tandout. His comments n natural or31. bid.32. SeeApocalypse,. 13.33. Ellul, Humiliation f tlv'Vord, p. 253.34. Ellul, APocalyPse,p. 52.54.

Introduction xxxr)p'sitive aw eadone o think he san absoluteconoclast, ut.r krser eadingwhich takesaccountof the dialecticshowsrlr;rt econsidersivil law o be ordainedby God, servingno t,rrr lya useful but indispensableunction.35A reciprocalr.l;rtionshipexists between divine and human law whichf r.l1i['1i1rny dichotomybetween hem, and thus the Chris-f ,r nmustcultivatea "doubleattitude" o civil law.36Uhiler. t ognizing he God-appointed oleof civil law, he Christiann('\'cr magines ha t it can embody rue justiceor goodness.llrrrrranaw existsas an intermediate ntity''betweenGod's,rrl.rro2l ovenant and the final eschaton. t is a relativerrrrtitution,bu t not merely elative, becauseGo d endows t,r rl rdignity."lTOnly the dialecticalperspective oe s usticer, rothperspectives.

Closely elated o this treatmentof divine and humanl.rrvs Ellul'spositionon the state. Th e biblical perspective,r'r.she stateasordainedby God, in harmonywith the divine,,rrlt 'r, nd at the same ime as the Beastof the Abyss, he( ,rt'r[ Babylon."38t hasbeengiven he sword o restrainevilrn(llrromote oodbut at the same ime has nflictedpain andrrrllt 'ring po n untold mill ions. While many Christians arerlr tk to ustify he statebased n passagesuc hasRomans 3,I l lrrl,without denying hosepassages,raws ur attention or rt 'orherpoleof the dialecticby pointingou t passagesuchas| \;rnruel , Zechariah1l:6, Ecclesiastes, atthew4: 9 an d.' 4, :rnd I Corinthians 5:24-all of which cast he state nr r,nrewhatnegative ight and challenge ts validity. Chris-r ,rn\ nust ever eparatehemselvesrom the politicalarena,l, r r urt would grant the state more uncontestedpower,butrlr.rr involvementmust nvolve a subtle nterplayof No and\, ,, ot'approvaland rejection, of caution and support, of| , l.r. 1rrcs llul, The TheologlcalFoundotion f Law (New York: Seabury,, r , , r ) ,P .68 .r / l l ' r , 1 . ,. 1 0 0 .I l l ' r , f p . 9 4 .i ' l.r, ;rrcsEllul, Violence;Reflectionsrom a Christian PerspectiveNew, , : t . ; r lrrrr! , 969),p. 2.


9/12

xxxl)i T H E P R E S E N C E O F T H E K I N G D O Mimpulsion and restraint."39 n short, the hermeneutic ofdialectic ssuesorth in a dialecticalmode of life.A third exampleof this biblical dialectic s money: TheBibte containscontradictory texts about wealth."4oSeveralNew Testamentpassageseem o condemn t and refer o it asademonor falsegod, while someOld Testament exts "presentwealthas a blessing,willed by God and pleasingo Him."4lA final example s Ellul's reatmentof "the world." Ellul,aswe havenoted, is nfamous or his reputednegativism,andit is easy to see why some label him as a world-denyingpessimist.But this reading of him is possibleonly to theexrent that one disregards is dialectical interpretation ofScripturewhich demands hat one embrace the Bible's ou-ble affirmation" about the world, that it is both loved andlost.azThe dialectic sees he world as the realm of absoluterebellion and radical evil, but still of infinite value to Godbecause f his irrevocable ove.a3His teaching on the citylikewise eflects he "doubleattitude"requiredby the biblicaltext. The city is the purest form of technique, he epitome ofhuman pride and self-sufficiency,but at the same ime themodel of the heavenly Jerusalem.Those who neglect thedialectic either baptize he world without discrimination orcategoricallycondemn it and withdraw-neither of which,according o Ellul, does ustice to the text.In addition to serving as an epistemological ool, thetheological dialectic issues orth as a style of life withinhistory itself; it requiresa peculiar mode of Christian exis-tence. Dialectical tensions characterize he Christian [ife:"'Weare nvited to take part in a dialectic, to be in the world39. JacquesEllul, The Ethicsof FreedomGrand Rapids: Eerdmans,1976),p.434-435.40. Jacquesllul,MoneyandPowerDowners rove, ll.: InterVarsityPress, 984), . 35 .41. b id .42. Ellul,Violence,. t72.43. SeeEllul's rticle 'The\Uorld'in heGospels," aallagete5.l(Sprine 974\:16-73.

Introduction xxxviilrrrtnot of it,"44To use he metaphorof the city, Christiansarer, l 're ity dwellers ur no t city builders, ully participating nrr \ l ife but maintaining "a dialectic between stayingan dIr':rving, reserving nd udgment."4sChristianexistence perates t the unctureor boundarylrt'twD wo realms, the Already and No t Ye t of God'sI rngdom, nd his orces he Christian nto whatEllul callsan";rgonistic"style of l ife: l iterally, a contesror struggling.+oI lrus, he believer ives at the point of contactbetween wor rrrrents:he will of the Lord, and he will of th e world.rt4?ylrvingou t this boundary ine existence,which is admittedly.rgtrnistic,he Christian reintroducesruedialectical ensions,rrrrl reative, evolutionary ossibil ities ithin the historicalI't()cess.n short, th e Christian actsas a fermenting actorrr rhin history,and should,when the dialectic s ived out,

play he most ruitful, the mostpositive,he mostoriginalrole possible: utting the tension nt o societyand thuskeeping t alive. He restores ociety's bility to develop.Heoffersa truly revolutionary nterprerarionof life. And it ispreciselyhe alonewho can play this role. He causes ositive,l iving, and fruitful contradiction o gush orrh in th e heartof a societywhich prefers o be simplexand which pretendsrt l denyand resolve he contradictions . . Thiscontradiction s not something o avoid. It needs ather tohe broughtout asstrongly aspossible, ot for opposition'ssake,but in order that this man, this society, his state,evenif one is opposed o rhem, should ive; for without thisc()ntradiction hey would die.18

I I l i f u l , Wo le ce , . 26 .f ', f rcques llul, The Meaningof theCiry (Crand Rapids:Eerdmans,r ' t , ' r ) ) , p .74-75 , 4 .f ' f rcques llul, The Presencef theKngdom (Philadelphia:r \ rs rn ) rns rr ,9 5 1 ) , p . 20-Z l .f , l l ' r . 1 . , . 2? .f , f . rcques llul, ToVil landto Do (Philadelphia: i lgrim Press, 969),i l t 0 7 - 1 0 9 .


10/12

IXXUnI T H E P R E S E N C E O F T H E K I N G D O MArmed with a dialectical nterpretationof Scripture, he

whole of Christian existenceworksout a dialectical elation-ship in the world.

The Presenceof the KingdomFirst published in 1948 (Geneva: Roulet),

and later in England (London: SCM Press,1951) and theUnited States(Philadelphia:rVestminster,1951; then NewYork: Seabury, 1967), Prl,sence u mondemoderne:Probllmesde Ia ciuilisation ost-chrd,ciennes one of Ellul's shortest butmestseminalworks. He has often remarked hat it serves sanintroductionto his entire corpus.This is sonot in a ormalbutin a material way, or The Presencef cheKingdomcontains ingerminal form ideas and themeswhich in later works reachfu[ maturity and find specializedreatment. For this reasonits republication s an especiallywelcomeoccasion.

The book deserves wide readershipnot only becausetis the necessary rimer for all Etlul study (i t is the first bookone should ead by him), but becauset examines ssueshatremain perennial problems n church and society. Far frombeinga popularwriter who generalizesbout rendy ssuesasis sometimes aid of him), Etlul demonstratesn this book atimeless uality n his ability to examine ssuesar aheadof histime in a creative way. Despite its having been written ageneration ago, The Presence f theKingdomwill provoke newdialogue oday(seehis Preface).Several f its themesdeservespecialmention.According to Ellul, human history does not unfotd byany logical or causalprocess,and much lessby any divinepredeterminism (he would never considerthe questionfromthat perspectiveanyway).Rather, he contends hat history isopen, that there s an ambiguity n its direction that dependsin a radicalway upon the choicespeoplemake. f in the pastEllul hassoundedas f he believeshat history is ocked.intoanundeviatingcourseof despairand fatalism, that is only be-

Introdaction xxxtxt ,rrrse udgeshat wehavepersisrently ad epoorchoices-,r , wors til l and moreoften the case, o choiceat all ("fate(' l )cratesnly when people iv eup").In his most ecenrwritings,Ellul drawsour artenrion orlrc dea hat, according o the biblical revelation, odaywelrvc n the seventh ayof creation.ae his is he dayof "God'srt'sr"whenhumanactivity assumesternal mportance.Thisvrcw ejects he Go d of mechanistic rovidence ashe says nl'lv Presencef theKingdom,God does not drive history as a, lrrruffer rivesa car), bu t neitherdoes r imply that God isrrr..l ifferentr absent, or he issupremely God of love.Once,rg;rin,w are in the presenceof a deeply personalan d,lr;rlccticalelationship etweenGo d and humanity.Accord-rnH o th e biblical evelation,God never onstrains s.He isat i,'tl who shocksus by repentingof planned udgment, who. lr:rnges is plansaccording o human decisions,wh o an-\\r'(.rs rayer,who refuses o violate us, and who patiently.rrl lcrsour folly. Nevertheless, istory is not a random se-'lrr('nce f eventswithout a goal, no r are peoplecompletely',,lcpendentbeforeGod. Indeed, he universal alvationof,r c earion sa ac tof which Ellul scertain. 7e in d ourselvesr rlf lengedwith "la grandeproclamation"5Oound in Deu-rr'ronr)rrr) nd repeated hroughout the prophets: l havesetI'r' lorcyou life and death, th e blessingand rhe curse.Sor r,ose if e in order hat youma y ive" (Deuteronomy 0:19).I lrt ' mbiguity of historyawaits he choiceswe make.

Ellul'.sociological tudies ave ed him to conclude ha t,r',' rrve madeand continue to makepoorchoices, o hat in a,r.rywe have indeed set ourselves n a path of collective.,rr. tle.His apocalypric isionof th eworld swell-known,bu trr rs r)od o examine t here. n a sense type of "necessity"lr,rr riurophed. gain, this hasno connotationwhatsoever f,rr. l rrcrableestiny r determinist ic ausal i ty.t means ha tf , '.r'ehi s Ce qu e e crois,Part II, Chapter l, "Le septidme our," pp .r . ' J l .

I l lrr l ,Ce qu e e crois,p. 209.


11/12

X I T H E P R E S E N C E O F T H E K I N G D O Mresponsiblehuman freedom has capitulated and refused omake difficult choices.\Ue can illustrate this surrender of human freedomthrough Ellul's reatment of technique. Ellut is by no meansan anti-technist. In fact, he hassaidon several ccasionshatwe might well be servedby more, not less, echnique; andforty yearsago, n the presentvolume,he declared hat Godcan use echnique.Technicalprogresss "neither exclusivelypositivenor totally negative . . [andl wouldcertainlyneverwish to maintain that technologywas o be dep[ored."51hequestion s one of means nd ends.Ellut defines echniquenotasmachineryor anydeviceor procedure, ut as nothing morethan means nd the ensemblc f means."52he problemarises,though, when means nd endsareseparated, o hat technicalmeans no longer have any end except absolute, rationalefficiency ("the one best way'') and are no longer sublect tooutsidevalue judgments. "The one best way'' of efficiency isalways he self-selecting nd self-justifyingend. At this pointpeopleno longerhavea choice, becauseechnique chooses orthem, and a[ proposedends becomesuperfluous.Thus tech-nical meanshave become otalitarian and landed us in anapocalypticsituation.53We havemadeour own bed and nowwe must sleep n it.Ellut contends, however, hat another option remainsopen to us: he Christian way,which refuseso separatemeansand ends. n Jesus hrist the meansand the end are oined.51. JacquesEllul, "The Technological Revolution and lts Moral andPolitical Consequences," in The EvolvingVorB andTheology, edited byJohannesMetz (New York: Paulist Press,1967), pp. 100, 10? . For otherrefutations of the charge hat Ellul rejects technique, seeThe Presen ce ftheKingdom pp . 24, 87), Perspectivesn Our Age pp . 70 , 82 , 108),Autopsy of Rewlution (New York: Knopf, 1971, p. 275\, and Hope n Timeof Abandonment New York: Seabury, 1973, pp. 73?-238).52. Ellul, The Technological ociety,p. 18. Ellul's emphasis.53. For a fuller treatment of technique, consult Ellul's trilogy: TheTechnolngicclSociety 1954), The Technological ystem 1977\, and I-eBluff technologie1988). The third volume moves rom examiningtechniquc o analyzingtechnologle r the various discourses nd studiesoftechnique, which studiesEllul considers o be an enormousbluff.

Introduction xliI h s waydemands revolutionarystyleof life and "presence"r'rrhin human history an d sreadfastlyefuses o cave n to,lcspair.what rhe world needsmosrChristianity alonecan,'flt 'r-a rrue revolutionwithin history today.According tol:l lrrl, modennattemptsat revolutionar e dead, and he has\rrrrren heir auropsy.5aor Ellul, wh o is perhaps he firsr"lrlrclslisn theologian,"christianity is nothing if it is no tr.r',rlutionary.Bu t we need to be careful about how we.rrr(.rtrpro facilitate he revolution.contrary to advocaringwithdrawal from the world or,rsrng a lifeboarerhic, Ellul challengds s to embrace ndl,rcscrvehe world.Go d alonewill effecr ur separarionn his, \r'n ime.This resolute ngagementequires dialectical nd,r|:r)ni.srictyleof life which remains er y much in the world,'\ '('n s t rejectsworldliness cf .John 7) . To be n the world.rl ', ' lsqsires us to understand t in both it s material an d.l 'rrirualaspecrs, taskEllul hasundertakenn hi ssociologi-,,rl ;rnd theologicalworks an d which he challenges s rol'r'r .r . 81 ' ejecting he twin perilsof spiritualization whichrr.glccrs narerial ealities)an d capitulation (which simply,r rt |r5 one of the world'smanydifferentoptions that appearst, ' l1;11p6nizeit h Chrisrianity), the Christian playsa trulyr rr',rrive ol e an d gives meaning an d direction to history,,rlrr,.'h therwise as no logicor certitude.Furthermore,what is irst requiredof the Christian isnot,r , r()^ although ha t cannotbe neglected) ur a presence,

rt t' .f [ife, an attitude, a specialmode of existence.Fewr* r rJrlg, f'course,will find this adviceveryheartening,bu trlr,rr ,rrly eveals ur irrepressible redispositionor and en -,l,rr..rcnt ro rhe alternativeof absolute echnicalefficiency.\,rr rt'nricChrisrianexistencerusts n th e powerof th e Holy'. 1rrrr t( ) give ou r "presence" revolutionaryand explosiver,,r, ' rn history.By incarnating heir God-given dentity asI 'l , ur t, and sheep,Christianseffectapresent ealityof the| , '11r1rrrf Go d which wil l be culminated n the future.' | ' ,, ' lr s r\urpr) of Reuolution New York: Knopf, 19? ).


12/12

r | d d T H E P R E S E N c E o F T H E K I N G D o MThere are no guarantees,of course, hat Christians willeffect this revolution. In fact, our track record is mixed atbest. But that indicts our own choices, not God's character.Thus:A Christianought to understand is responsibility n thisadventure,or Christianity (andGod) will nor acr ipso acnin this sense. his advenrures not the cburseof history,which will go on, whetherwewish it or not. It mayberealized,and it maynot be realized.God mayacr, or He maynot act, andwhenGod wishes o acrHe ought to findinstrumentswhich are suppleand obedient, eady or Hisuse.We ought to remindourselvesonstantlyof the lessongivenus n the Scriprures, hat God rarelyacts n atranscendentmanner;on the contrary,asa rule He choosesa human nstrumenr o accomplishHis work. Now in thisworkof God, which isactuallydecisive,will God find the[peoplelHe needsls5

choosing life and integrity for this call to responsibilityconstitutesheonlypossibilityor meaningful istory oday.DeNrel B. CISNoENTNVlilhamTyndohCollcgeFarmingtotr ilb, MichiganJanuary 989

55. Ellul, Presancef .tv Kindgom, . 90.

THE PRESENCE OF THE KINGDOM

Intro PresenceOfTheKingdom Nopw

Documents

Transcript of Intro PresenceOfTheKingdom Nopw