Thursday, September 07, 2006

Jacques Ellul and Morality

I have been reading Jacques Ellul's "The Subversion of Christianity" lately, and one of the most striking points he makes is that Christianity is not a system of morals, and that it is in fact opposed to all mere "systems" of morality. All systems of morality, he says, arise from mankind's attempts to order themselves apart from God's Law and Kingship. Thus morality is a human attribute, but not a specifically Christian one. Or, in other words, people (like Muslims!)can be moral apart from Christianity. The puzzling part of this is that he does not say that moral systems should be entirely done away with. I guess he has a pragmatic approach and believes that people basically work out the best morality for themselves among themselves, and that this is a necessary part of being human. Living as a disciple of Christ, though, he says, requires one to maintain an ironic distance from all such human systems of behavior-ordering, since one might be required at any time to do something that goes against the accepted morality. God's righteousness (which transcends all moral systems) calls us to a higher purpose than merely being moral. Thus, Christ did not die in order to give us a better moral system. He died in order to give us new lives -- lives characterized by freedom, creativity, and (oftentimes) dissent from the prevailing systems.

More on this in a later post.

4 Comments:

At 9:36 AM, Blogger Andrew Hatcher said...

What do you think about similar remarks about systems of morality and religious belief by idealist/Transcendentalist people like Theodore Parker (i.e. Transient and Permanent in Christianity)? The assumption that is often made is that we have direct access to some moral law or moral intuition that, if followed, will lead us to right action, regardless of our own laws or systems. For Ellul, is "God's Law" something that all men/women can access or intuitively know? Is this, to some extent, a necessary assumption for "anarchism"?

 
At 7:46 PM, Blogger Michael Van Dyke said...

Anarchists basically believe that institutions and human laws corrupt our natural perceptions of the good. Transcendentalists like Emerson thought that we have to, in a sense, train ourselves to ascertain higher laws (from my reading of Nature), but this involved a type of peeling away of the layers of "worldliness" laid down by society's impositions of norms. Ellul, I think, is more practical, in that he relies on Scripture to both reveal God's law (which our spirits then would bear witness to?) and to enable us to judge our own reliance on human systems. In this, I guess, he's fairly orthodox.

 
At 1:27 PM, Blogger Andrew Hatcher said...

But isn't any reading of scripture reliant upon some humanly-constructed hermeneutical framework/structure/etc.? Is this where deconstruction comes in? Did Ellul ever comment on Derrida? With regard to the Transcendentalists, it seems to me that many or most of them still wanted to hang on to Christian beliefs and Scripture as at least one (if not "the") way that God's law is revealed to man. I know Emerson lost control of his romantic self here and there, but even he was very concerned with Scripture early on with the German Higher Criticism stuff. But I digress...I'm mostly interested in the first few questions.

 
At 2:23 PM, Blogger Michael Van Dyke said...

I only meant that he believes in scripture as being authoritative in an ultimate sense (that it does bear the weight of presence). Actually, his own hermeneutic would not be easy to qualify from what I've read. He projects a "plain sense of the text" approach when he wants to critique the church, and when the statements of scripture can easily be made to align well with anarchist sentiments. Probably read some Derrida, but I don't know of anything that he said about him.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home