You are on page 1of 10

t

ehr
Ch
. ns lanl~ _
Morality, and t e
Victimization of
e

n the minds ofmostufoU{ tQnremporai'ies. Cl:LtiJlti8coity primarily


me.ans niorality. TI:I'e $picieua,l~p:en
of our faith. ex<:ept ;U)'long a few, is
fol'gotten.Many ()f Wi Christians are
~quslly confused. We hav~ forg~men
dlacGQd's revelation has no.:huls
whatever to do with morality. Noch"---_ _-' iog. Absolutely nothing.
The Torah. as Gtld'$ Word, is God's self-

revelatioQ_ -It Lays d6wriwhat se~es life Min


death aod_~Yfilboli.ies .the coui.! sQ'vereightY ()f
GQd. SiiniWly. what ]e.~us SaYS in the Gospels

Jacques
Ellul

i.!. not morality. Ir h~ can e~sre-ntia1 chuac;tei"


lU1dte$tS on a radical change o( .bei"ng. A8iUo,
wha-c piu! says in the exhQrratjons. in his- letters
ii: nor morality hut consists of praCtical directions by way of example.
There is'iimply Qo:moral system in the revela:tiottof God in].esw Chris!. There areno moral
precepts that c-an eXist:independently in so-tne
.WIlY. that can have univen31 validity. aM that
can $ertee ela,borat',lon of amotal systef/i.
:NOt ~l\l-.-duu. the whole revebWon of God in
Jesus ChriSt is. 4Ktrinstm()rality. The prodlUiladon of grace, the de~arion of pardon, the
opening up of life to freedoM-:--'these are the
direct opposite of morality,
~Genesis shows. tbe origin of sin in the

world is not knowled8e. No, theorijia of sin

in the W'Orid is me "Knowledge of good and


evil." What is nat acCeptable to GOd is that :w,
should decide on out own what .is gOod and

what .sevil.

.16 THE OTHeR SIDE

Biblka.lly~

me good is the ~ill of God. That


What God ~id~s. what~verit Olav be.
tb# is thegQocLWhen U~'Vnstt.uCit a morality.
when wt say what is dghr and ~ood, mar is
~. a,lt.

when w.e ate "aditDLI, sinners. To e1abatate a


morat ~YStem is to show oneself sinner. before
God, Even it the conduct wOe espouse is "good,"
our own "good" has been substituted" For the
wiU ofGod. whiCh is the only good.
This is why Jesu,. macb the PlWiseesso
sevd.:efY They are tbe mQ&t tnonuof ~ople.
TheY live the beSt lies. They ate perfetdY
obedient and vimious. Bur they have ptogres
!ivelysuhstirure:d their own motality for the
liVing and aetna! Worciof CJ:od tttar (-an tlever
be-fixed in commandments.
10 the Gospels. Jesus cODstanclybreaks religious precepts and moral roles. He gives as his
own commandment, "Follow me," nota liSt of
thirigs til do ot nrit to do; He sbow;.us fully
wha! irmeans to be a fre~ persOn With no
moralitY. simply obeying the ever-new Word
of GoG as it tWhes furth.
Similll.tly,Paulanacks ~ might $e~m to
be mooilify in Judai$m. hUlIiAJl rules aQ(iprecepts not coming (rom God at all. The great
mutation is that we bavebeell freed in Jesus
Christ. The primary characteristic of free peo.pleisihat rheyare notbo~d to mora! commandments, "AU things are mwillt Paul twice pro
claims. "Nothing i-simptLt'e." he reaches'.
We find the same message in Ac.ts. We. are
as fr~e as the: Holy Spidt,which comes and
goes llS it wills. This freedom does not me.n'

omen
doing anything at all. it is
the freedom of love. Lwe.
wHich eanl'1ot'be regulated.
cate.gorized. or artalyzed
incQ principles or commandm/lt5, takes thel'laceoi
I,.",.. Thel'~la(jonship with
Othc:rs is' not one of ~uty
bur of love;
.
.
How many dines we read that "Christian
morality is .superior to all d~hers~'~ Yet. even if
there were such a thing as Cl:trisriao mo.ra!iry,
such a chum could hardly be true. We ftrid
honest atId virtJ.LoU$ people. good husban.ds.
wives, apd t.hjJtiren, SCttl,!,u!ou.s ilnd rruthful
people out'Sid~ of Cl1,ristiartltll---'J.n!i more,pe.rhaps, than thetet are Christian.;
. NO;" revelarionis .aiI araik on morality. as is
w.0nderfullyshown ~v Jesus' pllCllbles of the.
kingdom, of rhe prodigal son. of,rbe talents, at
me eleventh-hour lab<Jrers, of the unfaithful

steWard, and many omen. In aU the parables,


rhe one wnQ' serves ~ an :~l~.Jill$."",~i lilre:d

a rnQ~al life The one who is.;ejeCted is me

One

wbo~thvtdamqt.tll.ife.

This dOesnOf mean weare counseled to

become ~obber$, murderers, adulterers, and rhe'


like.. On the contrary, rhe behavior to which
we are summoned surpasses moraliry-surpasses
ali morality, (or ail moraliry is an obsracle ro
encounter- with God..
L(lve obeys no moralitY"Love gives birth to
no moralitV" None of megreatcategbries of
revealed truth is .relarive to morality or can give

birth to it; freedom. {rum, ligbt:, Word. and


holiness do nOt 'belong at all to the order of
moralit\'- What they evok~ is a mode of being.
a model of life rnat is Very free. thtuinvolvcs
c('lnStant risks.thar is constantly ren.ewed.
The Chrisria.n life is c(lntraty to morality
be~us~ it is nor repetitive. No fixed' duty h~s
to ~~ done no matter wh~t course 'life may rllke .
Mo~ry always interdicts [his mode ofb~ing.
ft is an obStacle .ro ii: and implicidy condemns
it, jus.r as Jesus. is inevitablyconderrined by
moral people~
Oile of the basic di:.ama.$ in me bistory Of
Chrisd;micv. then, has, been the'tra!\$f6rnWiQn
Cjf this fre W~'td if'l~o moraJiry:. ThU ~ the
mosrd.etisive setback ~o theChristiaa ml,lt'arion.
Here ~lLin, ~c is very hard to see' why it shou~d
~ve happtmed. Burseem.i.ngly the Chrisri\U1
masses found it ;dif6cu.k co live in this $pirir of
freedom and love. Norms had to be imposed.
Duties had to be indica.red..
from the end of the second century, rhe
churdi could nOt av(')i'd multiplying moral rules
in4norhesiS to thego'spel. Conduce conforming

Jittques EllUl.

th~

authorof'more than
fOny:boclks. recently
~~from his

posT-

tlon'asprofessor of
Jaw and the SOCIolOgy
and h./ncHY OflnsU
bJtlonsatthe UnJvet-

slly of 8ordeauJC.

to ~ certain moral

ode became e critenon of


ch(: Chnsti n iie. Pll:ty am.! prayer as rra formeJ into moral rul"'. Chnsn3.nirv w,)k on
the appearanc \J ,l mora '>)lsce . .and rheulog\l
un n em pr founJ m,)di(ic.Hlon With the
.l(( rJing o[ a
e'" proll inen e III works.
The lurheran RCf~)rmation brought 3. br~ak
\virh chis. Our the do nward ~lope was so Steep
that immediate v after chI.: tirst gent:rarIOn ( r"
reform rs had cedis 0 ereJ chrisnan (ret:dorn,
[here was a rerum c moral riW:IW .' anJ mora 'r
J.~ain aLhieved domtnari n over "life in Christ."
We have to e cI J.r abOut cht: fa c chal the one
inevit hI, cluJes rhe orher, It e "11Vt: in
C1risr" as Paul putS it. tl eres llO morality, If
we observe moraliry, 0 lil'e In C.hrisr is po 5ible,

, Antifeminism
remain one of
the important points
at which Christi~ nily\ betrayal
of God'.. revelation is most apparent"
One cauS(; (J J11 thl~ ~ as cht: dlur hmg I) (he
Dut <In t:quJ.Hy It-l:!>l\t: r Lwr Wa.!> he
pr Jigious imrn"rdliry o[ rh e ,)u(:[[ Ir\ whi 'b
the (hurdl 10 flU itself A' chi immorali[\' was
t:sreciall y Ilagranr In t
xu.al' p here, the:
lralizlng r a (lOU tamt' prlllLipail tn this area.
. omen were he chi r' viCtim Antitemi ism
rem ins one 0 - rhe imp nam points at which
Chri t~1Jlity's betrayal ot God's revelation is
most apparem.
ma~st'~,

It has beLome cornmonplaLt." to ,lfflrm that


Chri ti' nity has been antifeminiSt rhat it has
ke r women in bondage. that it has [reared
\va en as mino ':" al J m re. M y appeal to
texts in th Old Te tament and in Paul. So e
have even rried to portray Paul as rhe founcier
of anrifemmisrn.
thers have tried tLl lustily che Bible and
Chriscians by sa in~ thac lhev wer simply following the patriarchal cust ms of the period.
This excus is in ran a t rnble '- n emnau n,
for it testifi s to rbe lack f Chmnan freedom
rehtive to the c st ms d.nJdeologies of rhe ge.
_ ow, it is true chat ther have heen perio is
when a p rriarchal form llr 5 iNy has beer
,10 1inant, such a' 111 Ju al~m Juri g the thin"
IS

-HE ()THE

'r.

and second centuries before Christ and in Rom


n the arne perioJ. Bur it is absurd CO d scribe.:
;.tIl traditiunal soueries as patriarchal. Rome in
the hrsr u:~n(Ur .\ D W, S no unger I rriJ.rchal
i che rriu ~ n c. 'XL' I Cor votin a in elcctil)n
(:1 not insubsC:lnrit I
atterl. wum 0 It
eq I
rights itl1 men. They were nut kept at hl)lIle
EO raise the chiidren
'imilarh. 10 chI:: ;)t:l~ Ul em ire 1I1 d e hrse
c(:nrury B. -.'1"..1 larer) wumen were fulh free.
It has been shown ma.r they ere t work I :iii
che high r prufesslOn., as bankers, shipowners.
business upi dnd emrepreneurs 0 :ill r L iptions, and rhar they [re1r andled lar
urns
ot'money. In rh . Germ,mi r ibes due inva ed
Europe, women again h d- iely prinlcgeJ
StaWS; rhey tuok parr tn bard sand bild e uaI
rights with meo.
It is true that with the collapse of rhe oman
ernpir . t t' srarus t' women su Tered ll. sudden
dedine. Bur fr m the twelfth century [ rL:
were new mOVements t ward legal and ~Cllomic equality be
en men an w
ea movements which <,;Onti ued largely Ul abateJ until
the eiahre nth (cnmr '. Throughout [hlS period.
Xfestern society j, not be descr bed
Ull!formly arriarchal. Rather, the n' ture f ocieey
varieJ according to time and place.
The laeer eighteenrh and ninereerun u:nruries
'ct; astOnishing regr~s-lun m the Ham' t
'women In e cry ne{J. The l ron un IllJscake .)(
ilullhisrorians is to think that ecause this wa:.
lhe pu~i[jo III the nlllereefll Ce!lru..rl. l m '~r
11 \ll been
'O)r e ill lhe SIX ceocll ;lnd '\\ or 'C
l,i?~1fl in rh~' chir cench, J ~q "n, The~' hilve a
JIve beJi
trl COf!sra II pr<)J.;ress. In
cller...
however.
e thesis 01 :1 univets 111, Drc\'alenr
p(l[narchal socierv is nor vullL! .
... everrheles!>, a problem fcm:.l1nS, The Ilblical text . re veri' I umble co ~ 'omen-i)r 'Ire
<it least I eurnl,;], or Lng to [OCl ciruln ,>ran,;\!
Yet ttl arer Ju lal 111 . d in Ceft;.tlll sLranJs of
C 1fi t' nity, these re . slav een t~ en in such
a way as w be orne completdy hl),qii, ro
women. 1'hs poses a serious J'ffi(ulty,
I n the Hebrew Dible, women O' upy an
Important p ace, as witness the political r le or
Esther, Judith. and ahab. [he pro heric role
of many prophetesses. the r ie of Rebekah, and
the role 0{ rhe fern Ie "juJ es" in israel. Tc, C5
such as the Son'
Song~ d.I:I.li Pro erb 31
display the essen e -fe
tne symboli m.
More theologically. if w rerum [() eh
neSIS text, e re. St lished a.e r usua rnisund rsrandngs: Eve is mleriur. ir is said, bee us she
IS (r red after A am. Thl 'upcrb logic make'
Adam inferior t the great lizar satter which
he was created, Creacion is in face au ascending
act, and Eve. who is creared lase, comes ac tht:
dimax as irs crown an com leuon. Ac;ain. it is
said that Eve is inferior beLau~t: she J nor made'
Out of primal clay but nut ( . a parr of AJam.
This is equally absurd reasoning, [or d 111, ho
carries th name Earth. is rna 'e out of inanimare
matter, but Eve, who carnes rh name Life, is
0,

or

made out of animate and hence superiot matter.


There remains, of course, an argument that
is repeated again and again in later Judaism and
in some branches of Christianity. Eve, it is said.
was the nrSt [Q sin. She gave sin an entry into
the world. She is thus guilty and must be subject
to her husbal\J. Again. this is absurd reasoning,
for it is hard to see how Adam can have any
claim ro superiority when in this test he shows
himself unable ro rule his wife, falls into the
simplest of craps. and is in no way worthy ro
be the head. But was nor woman tempted firsti'
Indeed she was. And this leads co the invoking
of absurd arguments according to which she IS
less inceHigent, easier to seduce, weaker. and
the like.
There is in tact a better theological reason
for her being tempted first. If she is the supreme
achievement and perfection of creation, it is
through her that the serpenc must attack the
rest. She does not resist. But neither does the
man. We may simply recall the famous Chinese
proverb that it is by the head that the fish
decays.
A second basic truth, as Paul reminds us in
1 Corinthians 11: 7, is that woman is the ~Iory
of man. \Many modern versions do not use the
word glory. They show a concern to attenuate
and weaken tbe biblical text, making it more
banal. Thus they do not translate doxa here as
glory bUt J.S reflection, which is basically the
opposite theologically of the Hebrew (On(l~p
rion of glory.)
Now this passage has often been misconstrued as tcaching .l hierarchy from God to man
and man to W{lman. But this IS not its pOInt or
its purpose: Following Banh and others, ( have
often recalled that glory is revelation. God is
glorified when God is revealed as God IS. Jesus
Christ glorifies Gl)d when he reveals Gou to
us as the God of love who is also the Father.
We ourselves are called upon to be the glory
of God as we live in God's image, as we show
by what we are who is the God to whom we
bear witness. [n this passage then, Paul adds
that the woman is the glory of the man; she
reveals him; she shows what a human being truly
IS.

Relating this to the temptation, we see that


Eve brings to light the fundamental reality of
Adam. She shows him to be weak, undiscerning,
fluctuating, ambitious. and desirous of equality
with God. She simply reveals this. Both are
equally at fault, and the condemnation (as commentators and theologians should remember)
is mare severe for the man, since he is given
no hope. The woman, on the other hand, has a
double promise that carries a double hope: thar
she will transmit life and that her posterity will
crush the serpent.
Insistence has often been placed on the positive attitude of Jesus toward women. Jesus receives both men and women on an equal fooring. He cures sick women as well as men and
Joes nor repel the adulterous woman or Mary

Magdalene. Naturally, it has been noted that


he chooses only men as his disciples. Bur to
this one may make the radical reply that he first
reveab his resurrection to women. Both in the
Synoptic Gospels and in John, women are the
tirst ro receive this supreme revelation. Women
become the "evangeliSts" of this resurrection
by carrying the news 01 it to the disciples.
Women receive the lusc witness co eternal life.
This is theologically consiSt:em, for it is a fuliillmem of the name Eve and of the promise about
the serpent. Compared to this, all else is secondary.
It is important that Jesus affirmed monogamic
marriage and its indissolubility. But this pales
in comparison with his complete reversal of the
judgment of his age concerning tbe transmission
of truth by women. We should also not forget
the decisive role of women in the primitive
church. Women are its founders and pillars.
They act as missionaries. as Paul often shows,
and they bear responsibility for churches (Rom.
lG, Col. 4, Phil. 4). Extern:1lly, we have curious
testimony in the famous letter of Pliny to Trajan
in which he writes about female ministers.
We should also remember that women have
spiritual gifts, such as deaconhood, prophecy,
and speaking in tongues (Acts 2; 12; 21). One
may thus say that there is a clear-cut accession
to unerance and to equality with men. Paul,
toO, recognizes rhat1women have the gift of
public prayer and prophecy (l Cor. 11:5). Finally, he affirms mtal equality when he says
that in Chrlst there is neicher Greek nor Jew,
male nor female, slave nor free.
The opinion soon) fruse. however, that Paul
is a tnghtful misogynISt and that we should (n(tL~
onl~' on those other (exrs in which he speaks
about the obedience of women to their husbanJs, their inferiority, and the need for reservarlons about them in certain church affairs.
Fundamentally, the mistake has been to make
moral laws o'ut of these passages. Cutting one's
hair was a sign of prostitution. So Paul tells
Christian women not to do it, since they arc
not prostitutes. But we must not make of this
an imperative.
The mareer of'subordination is more important. When Paul speaks about hierarchy, it IS
in the context of what Jesus himself said and
showed, namely, that the greater must be the
servant of the lesser, that the hierarchal superior
must serve the hierarchal inferior. The stronger
must nor exercise power and authority but pur
them, and self, at the disposition of [he weaker.
Paul calls no one ro a macho life stYle. He calls
us aU ro a lIfe of nurruring aod caring, a life
modeled on Christ's self-giving love of the
church. Tragically, the church has often misundersrood Paul's theology, retaining only half his
teaching and transforming this half into a moral
duty and a type of legal organization in which
women inevitably find themselves on the
bottom, the exact opposite of what Paul intended.

SEPTEMBER t 9:

All

ro irs source. duu is. co irs spirirusJ

often. what has been deformed


remains deformed. ChrIStianity has become primarily morality. It is imposed as such. It is a
code of conduct.
0 question of freedom or
transgression arises. People-especially
women-are not told ro love God and do as
they like. Faith is no longer the center from
which all dse derives. N that is We) dangerous.
It is tOo open. One must nor a-ppeal to individual
responsibiliry or initiarive. The main virtue that
IS everywhere ueveloped in rhe name of the
church is obedience.
The spiritual vacuum lefr b~' rhe church has
oftcn resulted in an explosion of myscics on the
one side-and hererics on the ocher. The mystoO

="Christianity
has become

primarily morality. It is ~ --..0.imposed Cl" u~h. It is a code of conduct."


rics are in some t.:ases admirable J.ud respectable
pt:ople whu deserve Jur prai e. But only toO
()ften dubious rranct's, a mixture
repressed
and unbridled exualitj', and ambiguous and
somerimes perverted practices come to expression in them. The heretics? Many of them. such
as Wydiffe, Huss, and Savonarola. seem to be
fighring for erue fairh the puritv of the church,
a rerum to the sources of the gospd, the afftrmation f freedom in Chri.st.and the primacy of
love.
But it was now roo late. The church had
acquired the habit of reacting on the moral and
institutional level. It had ceased ro be a fairhful
servant of the Lord of rhe poor, of the Savior
who gives us freedom in love. It had taken up
the cudgels for morality and order at all costs.
Obedience is now surpassed. We have an absolueizing of the insritution and a triumph of
morality. Everything comes down to this. The
popes use laws to fight the corruption of the
clergy. The church uses organization in its fight
for uniry
The truth of the revelation of God in Christ
is totally lost because the church has missed its
way in its desire to reply to the challenge of
immorality. Instead of (racking the perversion

or

20

THE OTHER SIDE

ndacions,
i( has rried to de:tl with the results, rgetting
the spiritual vacuum rhat the church i If played
a pare in creating.
On this poine. Julian the Aposta.re was right.
Immorality In the Christian era h ofren resulted from the dash between p
nism and
Christian preaching, for Christian preaching
destroys .uu:ieor beliefs and religi us. It promores love ver order, fraternity over hierarchy,
freedom over law. All to() often. ,sOCICry lOst its
roars. referen es. and tr"<lditions-widlour finding the vitalitY of new ones in Christ.
When the church embraces all f society,
when the church rakes charge of pQlitical and
social problems, when the church se b ro establish social order and apply Christian principles
in every sphere, then revelation be.comes moraliry. Here is the supreme betrayal - the prophets, (he gospel, and the firsr Christian genera(ion. The more Christian morality dey ps, rhe
more hypocrisy and Pharisaism develops. The
result is ioevir-able.
Take priestly celibacy. Certain pegple have
a vocation to be celibate, to dedicate ,themselves
to God in rhis way, which is ooe po: ible way
of serving God. Perhaps they also b
a vocation to seek rhe priesrhood. This is
od. But
when celibacy is made a law or obU rion or
rul.e for all priests, when, withour any vocation.
it is made a condition of the priesrh
rhen
one of tWo things happen: either rh se who
have a true vocation to the priestho
bur nor
to celibacy are set aside or. inevitabl , mere IS
a cover-up of falsehood and hypocrisy, Hert'.
as elsewhere. law is a bad thing. And ir is nOT I
who sa}' it bur St. Paul.
Theologian ma.ke exactly rh. sam mistake
in political and social maners. Insr . d f caking
rhe parh indicared by Paul (3 faithful e:cpc) ieor
of the work of Jesus), they pur themselves no
the same level and in tb~ same fiel . as tbe
wmld. A political question. they thQughr, should
be ereaeed as a political question. a social question as a social question. The gospel becomes
morality.
But let me now return to anrifeminism. for
I believe thar rhe vicrory of Jaw over gospel., f
morality over love, is the essen rial reason for
the adoption of an antifeminist stance in the
church. This is what led rheologians to. rejecr
women againsr all rhyme or reason. One need
only poinr to the face thar the theologians who
are mosr supremely and passionately concerned
about moral quesrions are also the most amifeminist (Tertullian, for example).
[ am not saying thar moralism leads ro the
exclusion of women because women are more
immoral than men or constitute a rrap into
immorality. The reason is much deeper rban
that. A moralistic artitude is essentially a-masculine one. It is an aHicude of judgment, of
stiffness. of rigidity. of rhe calculation of debits
and assets, of classification, of designation, of

the establishment of wnat should and should


not be done. None of chis is by nature feminine.
Let me explain what I mean by masculine and
ieminine. I am nor thinking solely of man and
woman as diey are defined by gender. I do nOt
chink there is a "ilrure that is original to man
aoci another thar is original to woman, that there
are srereotypes that may be traceJ back to
genes, and {hat d.11 men are masculine and all
women feminine.
We must nor ignore me generiC heritage. but
rhis is nor determinative. Gender roles and
values are the product of a genetic hericage anJ
cultural milieu in proportions that cannot be
fixed. Because of their vocation as mothers. for
example, women incline to such values as hfe,
an interest in sma.l.l things. a concern for (he
weak. But because of their exclusion from sociopolitical functions, they have been led to develop many other values and to establish inrerhuman relationships on foundations different
from politics, competition, and force. In primitive times. when life was dangerous due ro war,
wild beasts, and the hostility of nature, men
striving for material existence managed to take
aurhority and domination, reducing women co
a secondary role. This helped produce twO
orders of values: me masculine values of force.
rule. power, the seeking of big things, a spirit
01 conquesr. courage. and order; and the feminine values of love. sensiriveness, the protecrion
of rhe weak. imagin~tion, and giving.
Naturally, all men and all women Me rlllt like
this. Somt: men wonderfull,. embody feminine
values-Jesus Christ firsr of all-and some
women wam only t(~ act like mt'll and embody
rhe masculine role.j Unforrunateh'. the latter is
lhe rcnden", jn samJ feminist movements. espei..i.aJly rhose which think the only hope of women
is to be identical to men. to adopt [he values
of men. and to till the same role as men tn
so..:iety, madequate: as thal has been_
C\)ofronting social ills and immoraliry. the
masculine mind tinJs only one solution: rhat of
making laws and setting up rules and sanctions.
Sume women have this "masculine" mind too.
There are strict and rigid women who support
order and represent taw.
Neven:heless, in most of llistory's periods of
V3,5t immorality, women have not cried co rna.ner
all the problems of their age by moral and lebral
rules. Instead, chey trieJ to set up incerhuman
relationships on a basis of understanding. love,
toleration, flexibility. and the sheltering of the
weak. They obviously did not have immediate
succes$. Their responses seldom seemed adeqU.llte or strong enough for the brutality of the
age; Action along these lines had to be slow and
less obvious. Yet ic was more basic. Ie went to
che hean of the question. It was the only
response thar offered long-cerm hope.
I do om deny that government must male"
laws or that we nt:ed police and the couns. I
am simply saying char this is a makeshift thar
enables us to dam up the evil; it never solves

A ProvQ.cative Book
Jacques Ellul's Th( Subvmio11 of Chrirrianit.Y is, in the opinion
of some who have read it, one of Ellul's most provocative books in
years. Indeed. it would be safe ro say that anybody who isn't offended
b)' some pan of rhis book either has no opinions about anything or
JUSt tsn'r readingir carefully.
Some samples: "Mammon is a power thar waits patiendy for faith
ro faiL In its abundance. it prevents fairh from coming ro birth."
"Christian convictions have prepared the way for terrorist OUtrages."
"We must uphold the sure and cerrain fact that the Bible brings us
a message chat is against power, against the srate, an.d ~inst
politics."
Like aU his books, The SlIbI'ffljon oj Christianlly is written with
passion and conviction. Ellul has an intense. dedararivesryle thac
excites some and rurns off others. Frequencly be (apses ineo arrogant
pronouncements about matters to which he has had little first-hand.
exposure. But throughOUt this newest volume he demonstrates, lt5
always. a deep allegiance to Cbrisr and Scripcure--and an- abiding
willingness co follow tbat allegiance wherever it rakes him.
With vigor, Ellul rakes on the church's long-term undermining
of the gospel. including irs tendency to declare "holy" anything and
everything (usually for some ulterior motive), its persistent antifen1i
nism, itS endorsement--even championing---of violence, irs rolera:..
tion of slavery and economic exploitation, itS puC'Sui[ of power and
adorarion of fallen PaLitica.l structures, its worslIip of money. and its
promotion of nihilism by an overemphasis on sin apart from grace.
The adjoining article. excerpted from the book with permission from
the publisher. provides a revealing example of Ellul's rhinking.
Ellul attributes the bulk of these subversions of Christianiry to
misinterpretations of biblical texts, repe:ued failures ro listen to the
Spirir, and other perversions wirhin the church itself Other flaws
he see~ coming from outside rhe church. from the (ulrure ilt large,
even from Islam (suggesting that Christendom, so tbWCli in itself,
ha.~ over the centuries also bought some of the worst tcnJencics in
Islam, J religion which many in the church saw as spawmog a
brighter, more successful culture),
No doubt about it: Ellul can be absolutely maddt-ning. He's a
socialisr without being a socialist. an anarchisr without being an
anarchist. a feminist without being a. feminist. He's opinionared in
the exrreme. But his persistence in thinking new thoughts and his
repeated abiliry to see things from unusual perspectives provide
important challenges to
rurs in which we so easily wallow. He's
exCiting. provocative. and disgusting; his mind and his spirit. overwhelming. As The Subversion of Christianity demonstrates. we'd all
be poorer without him.
-Mark Olson

me

The Subt'ersio1l of Christianity is publiIhed b)' ''(1m. B. emimans


(19.95). II'S lItJa;lable by mail jrom The Oth" Side litem #~088); To
ordu a copy, uu the ltar-out card at Iht back of Ihis Imfr.
anything. What happened was that Chrisrians

and the church adopted rhis attirude and took


this course--even though all evangelical teaching is against it.
One might have expected Christians to replace false love wirh the true love rhat comes
from God. One might have expected ro see
Christians substituting agape for the world's conquering rfOS. Or putting [he spirit of service in
the place of the spirit of domination. Or rejecting punctilious legalism in favor of an open and

SEPTEMBER 1987

21

supple human relatIonship. Or b(>uscm~ the


personal in place oi the social. Or exah'ing
personal appreciation in place of VallJ rules.
Or looking on the heart rarher than external
conducL Or mainraining everywherE a iiving
flexibility in place of an ordered rigidity. In
shoft, one might have expected to see Christians
and the church, even at the COSt of unavoidable
sacrifice and suffering, embodying and maimawing feminine values in the bosom of a brutal
society.
But instead the church chose the spirit of
constraint and domination. It re ieeled the
gospel. It set up the primacy of law and morality
over faith, hope, and love. By this fact it essentially, if not exclusively, eliminated women, re-

"By exalting

women in the
ideological sensef
men find it poss'ible to .
maintain a clear conscience
while Virulently abasing women in the real sense."
duced them to a secondary role, and submim:d
them as wt:ll to its law and moral judgments.
The church has rejected women as living
witnesses to the gospel. Law, once again, has
become an expression of evil, an embodJment
of the temptation in the Garden of Eden. B\'
subjecting women to the judgment of moralism,
the church has lost its vocation and departed
from its God. The biblical revelation pUts
women at the very center of God's will for the
race. But rhe church. treating women as mmors.
has made them an object of repulsilln and
distrust.

From the viewpOint ot men. twO rhmgs had


had co be neutraliwd. And
a theological jusritication for this position haJ
to be found. Neutralizing women was the first
prioriry because the revelation of God in .1 ems
Christ. as given throughout the Bible, assigns
to woman (the Living One) all the values of life
(and not of social well-being).
The church finds three ways to neutralize
women. by now familiar. One, it imposes on
women silence, passivity, obedience, and selfeffacement, as though such things were valid
fur all women. Two, ir makes the status of
virginity superior to all others, thereby excluding women from their social role and from
their rrue nature as chose who bear and transmir
life.
Thirdly, the church engages in idealizing the
Virgin Mary, who becomes a modc:l of submission ("Be it umo me"). By exalting women in
the ideological sense, men find ir possible to
maintain a clear conscience while virulently
abasing women in rhe real sense.
As rhe process of neutralization developed,
theologians had to prove thar the exclusion and
abasement of women had J;ood biblical and
theolot!ical foulldJ.rions. There thus carne into
bein.1:! the vicious reading o( Scripmre that I
earlIer alluJeJ to. ~pirLtu,.1 passap:t:s abou[
wumen an: avoidt:J. TeXIS arc wn:sl.eJ from
their (ontexL Sratements "f fan .100Ut a rarricuhlr historical aod culrural situation arc: rWlsted
into eternal imperatives. And important pasS:lt!es of Scripture. such a-~ the purring of Evc\
cfl:ation last, are read in their exaCt opposite
sensC'.
None of this is surprising. Whenever the
gospel becomes morality. the same mistakes are
made. Once the church seeks (Q impose a moral,
political, or social "solution," it inevitably seeks
to add a small whitewash of theological terms
or biblical references for anybody who wams
them.
Today's Christians, like those under Constantine, seldom deviate from rhe partern. We first
take up political or moralistic positions. Then
we ross in some theology to jusrify our selfserving vicrimization of others. Twisting verses
from their contexts, we banter around some
Scripture to give ourselves a good conscience.
We seek validiry for our use of rhe term Chrijto be done. Women

ria n.
In irsel(, rhe gospel is good news. It is ).!race.
joy, freedom. and love. in human relationships.
it means flexibility, finesse. concern tor the
linle, the protection of the weak, and openness.
Its transformation into a morality of duty and
judgment, provoked by the immoraliry of surrounding society and regarded as the only possible resulr and responst-this is whar leJ ((l the
exclusion or women from their plact and vocation, their rejectiun from circles of responsibility. Men were the l>nes who carried (lut rhis
operation, who tried to protect rheir own group
as if threatened by violent military ag,l,:reSsl(lO.

22

THE OTHER SIDE

But when faith has become ideology, when


love has been replaced by law. and when gospel
has been subverted by moraliry, there is no
longer any point to calling ourselves Christian.
The gospel is 10sL The hopt' is gone. And tnt'
spiritual roots of our world's very rea] problems
have once again gone unaJJresseJ.
The antifeminism of the church is bur om'
example of a tragic, two-thousand-year-old pattern, a pattern of perverrillJo: rhe will of God, a
parrern of turning Chrisnanity intO the exact
opposire of what we have been shown in the
life and death of Jesus Christ.

tJ

Ch,istianity, Jw'orality, and the Victimization ofWomen-

,OUf

,R:eaders Res:pond

Too Far!

Garbage!

1t is true that moSt Christians


walH to replace the life of fairh
wirh a less arduous and less rewardmg svsrem of moralistic rules. It
is also true, as Ellul su~~ests, that
11'eal hristianiry is grounded in the
freedom of grace. This is the mes- ,
sage- of the Gospels, i yful1y rediscovered by Anabaptists in the rad- ,
ical reformatibn.
everrheless, when it comes to
women. "Ellul goes toO far. The
pr\l.Cucal meaning of grace is that men and women are
crented equal-but this equality is in the spiritual sphere.
Ir C0ncerns our relationship with God. Where Ellul falls
iot(! a trap is where he extends this equality to the
da},to-d y funCtions of mea and women jfl this world.
H~r~ God has fixed f r us roles, wonderfully diffl,renr
from each other. yet complementary,
Thoma.l Pow

While I nnd myself agreeing with much of what Ellul


says about moraliry, the way he says it leaves me very
uneasy. I decry the morality and legalism Ellul opposes,
but I would have liked [Q hear him speak more directly
of The alternative way of livin r he proposes.
I also agree wjrh him that the srams of women has
flUCtuated in various societies and social periods. Contrary
to our naive assumptions, thef" has Dot been uniform
social progress sin e the first Christmas. On the Other
hlind, he does not seem t understand rhe nature of
patriarchy nor its universality in almost all written hisrory.
While American society coday, in comparison to many
other eras, gives women a great deal of equali y and
privllege, we still live in a patriarchal s lClery.
Indeed, for the most pan, Ellul himself seems tu write
our of unexamined patriarchal assumprions. For c::xample,
he seem to feel that men should rule theIr wives and
sill uld be the "head" in some hierarchical sense. And [
get the feeling that he believes the vC'ca(ion of all women
IS motlterh od. f\lr he suggests (har "their teu
nature" is
\{J "bear and transmit life."
Ellul tries tu lift women OUt ui
rh!:" ~u[[e.r by raislng titem t1 a
peJestai-"rhe glury of man." This
is not an improv mem In IlWller()u~ places, it seems to me thar he
cominues to think hierarchically,
even though he says that ChristianIty promotes "fraterniry" (which is
no improvement either).
In shorr, I find most of what
Ellul says about women nOthing
but garbage. I'm embarrassed that "-,;"..........---~...,;".....
such an eminent scholar is making a publi fool of himself.
His exegesis of Scripture reveals little or no reading
of the biblical feminist scholarship of the past decade. ,It
1S elementary at beSt, and inaccurate in several places. A
moSt cursory reading of the relevant literature would have
alerted him that "the essence of feminine symbolism" is
fIot ro be found solely in the sexual partner of Song of
ongs and the "good wife" of Proverbs 31. Most biblical
eminisrs begin with the assumption thar the essence of
both male and female is the image of God (Gen. 1:27-28).
a concept Ellul never mentions.
I fear Ellul's discussion of anti eminism is lUSt a la kluster attempr [0 find an (,/,/1 CllUmnl example t J illU5rrat~
his pet peeve about morality,
Nancy Ha/o'e.r/y
l-ha(J/ian, \1:1 rile", E"lIo/'
/lIIa11l(/. GeorgIa

Hu/ten,," Brdhrefl
I

Ri/t(Jn. New York

Only True,Answer
Tudal', as in Bible times, legalisCJc behavior codes
nOt 'ubstitmt' for God's living Word. It is impossible
separate morality, mar is, nl' human ethical system,
from free-Jam in Chnst Jesus without abandoning God's
ideal for humanity, And as Ellul remind us. a legalisuc
nrifemi.nism is nothing bur a tragi manifestation of the
lass of that ideal.
Through irs negative preoccupation with rules.designed
to <.Ontain immorality; the church fails to see 'that "the
beh vior to which we are summoned surpasses morality."
A sterile legalism, disguised as
"Christian morality," suppr sses
the Good New. It avoids the rrurh
that our new life in Christ replaa!J
(not merely represses) immorality.
N ~w life in Christ, not some imposed, human concept of moraliry,
is the only answer to sexual disharmony-and the only answer ro all
forms of social injustice.
J was steuck by the simplicityyet profundiry-of Ellul's thesis.
But if htO's right, we need to disover why the church has pursued morality and not
~1fl[uaJity. \'Vhy have we witnessed a new bIrth lOW
legntism and Out into liberatJon J
To adequately safeguard our newly tediscovered freedom in Christ Jesus. we surely need to know how to
prevent such subversions of ChristianitY in [he fmure,

GreJ:chm GaebeLe11l Hid!


AMho,.
New York., Ne-w i'ork

Finding the Power

J lhn's 'Gosp'el tells us that Jesu, wasn't crucified because he disrupted the social order. Nor was he crueineJ
because be taught a new philosophy or healed the sick
or.claimed t b a king. Rather, says John, he was crucified

"because he made himself the SeoloFGod" 11&7).


ft was. Jesus' asseI'Cion of 'his own J:!ight to a direct
re ationship with God that so offen"declc the religiQus
ao.thqrities. It was for thiJ that l'1e was )<i(leq.
III similar fashion, it is in the realiiation of s>ur own
"spirit oneness" with God' that we. too, obtain power anel
authority. In such oneness we find power, not only to
define ourselves, but power [0, sustain and maintain our
, . . . - - - - - - - . , - Identiry as childr~n of. the Almighty, adopred offspring of an
unseen" u.nknown, but all-pQwerful
God. j nformnarely, as Ellul 5ugI gests, tlIrough mosr ,of Christian
history, men., ha:ve tried ro keep'
rhis.. power sG"urre' hidden from
th mindS' 0 women~ Tl'ie~ have
'kept it: hidden,beGause It'tis the One
:Ijliqg.: whioft will mOSI sw,e!y bJring

a, end

to [ll1eir own nuU: h

Ire

6n

catrh.
($-en:esis

m u.s th~ i!:J pu~


'th.e. er '~,n.. . 0l\e W'~G H:, a
wlDlil1eg ~~I rhqse w!'o ~en,y' y.'OI'I'l.efr a fuI1., Be.tsQti~

e~' ,tl'etweeu.;. ~,.graa

an

C'flla.ormnship wiofu Ge4,,, wherev~t) rli.a~ ',I;llight tak,e' dtem)


need to' be a,waue of-whQse ~ide. they;. i!J'e ~n. In aIling
lOCO 'etnnUEY. ,with nhe woman. man, JOiGs 11anc4 om ;icl
the- Cr.eator but with th 'Des'troyer, nN 'wLch tlieRleieemer bur wit:.Frtthe-'f~ter;.
''To repent." says Jam6 Cone,. "is tQeaffu-m the rcalil)'
nf the kingdom by refusing to live- Onf the bash of any
J Inition excepr according to the kingdom."
Ju t as men must repent of centuries of keeping v.'Dmen
"in their place." so, toO, women must repent. \X' men
must r~a1lze theif spiritual oneness with God; Fmey mus
affirm the reality tlf the kingdom; and they mLl~t'esrablish
their own direer relarionship with GoJ-aparr '(rom rhe
me) .listie inferiorirv that men have so often imposed.
Any ocher liberatiOn is fmile. Rober! \IiI/iam Green. Jr.
Student. Fuller 'emimhJI

Pasadena, CdljiJ17Iia

Wrong Me'ans

These words of J acqu~~ Ellul are "the. greatest" If we


.are open co having our posjtions ,chaHenged rather than
simp!.' affirmed, il we will .hear what 'Ellul wants to say
['ather' than what we want to hear, and 1I we are ready to
.becom~'b~lical, even at ~e cost of some-of bLir p'et ideaL
As 1 read him, Ellul here i aauaHy iJha//engitl'{; modern
feminism rather than simpl' confirming 'its biblic<fi
righteousness. A .j myself once tried to'say in Y;he Other
So/de, the Bible'docs include a..srcong
emphasis on the feminine. Indeed,
die Bible caIls us to a real feminization'of the church.
Bur, as Ellul observes, rhis emphasis was lost, even twisted into
the contrary, when Christendom
substituted a humanly defined
system of morals for irs God-oric
ented gospel. The first consequence of that move into moralism
was the clergy's purting down of'
the laity (women are not the only

24

Ii-IE OTHER \IDi:

group to, have bef!fr victimized.). That proceeded. intQ.


chun;b's (that' is, the male Clergy's) moralistic 'put~d- .
of females.
Nevertheless" it. seems to me that our chosen m.e'
fqr s()lving this problem is the poorest possible: Modem!
femirllsm swings the church even f{lnher from the0Iog#;.
inro moralism by' introducing a countermoralism: of.orhe1
same. son-a movement based on the very character:istic~
that Ellul calls "masculine." That JUSt cannot be oud
Christian,calling.
~
There-if a feminist movement that is Christian and im
keeping with the gospel. I could name. any, number-- OR
bd.uv~d'!isters In the' Lord.:\yho have, .in :'my presen<:;e, :.5(/
pra.: w::ed the "feminine values" Ellul. menrioosthac' If

my:s#ti hll.v~rhereby: been! broughno: a c.r.u:er und'er,s~lid1ti~


of the rheQJ()g.t;c4gosp'~1..And.Lhavethereby, be~n;broughc':

to a' truer femilliza~on of my own Telatiolll to 'iod" an,,:


neighbor. t eQuid similarly point to congregationsI
have becorn.l::-;mafe trul~feminized,......and thus. Clu:iscian~'
ized..,...-chrougn, d'le.lb~itig Wim~S,Clfsis:reCs-ijll;;t-heir midst.
But Lam' Cl:',ittin. mati'EI1lilc0.l,du)not be meariirig:r t
we should stipPQrt contempo'rary femi~lri as;,i'~ is,'u.slJ.1i.U
undel:.Sw.od;1'~at woula be' rosupp.or.t one roor~ t;;iiiS:<='
group'ioc'itsl'conteptiQoagainst\o"clieps_ Ell;'ul: ~watnl'ng,:us>
aboLit h0wdamaging.any"and all mora:li&m is. co .UMf: g9.~Iie,
obed.ienGe_ .
Vertzard;Eller

mae

..

..

Protesso;:ojfRkligiQt7l

[i:ltVern~
Ca/.ifo~i~..
. , .::1.

A Joyfill ""sion
I wnrk on a magazine which asserts in il:Jj state.rne \:'l
purpos thar bristianic,' 'and feminism are iuse aIllili e
From srolid church members to secular r"eminis!s, p.eopl
snort. III disbetll~f'and declare such
-'
.
a wedding a.conrraelierion 10 terms.
I rry (() explain how it's nor the
go, pc:! irself which is.. sexlsr; the
chu h is parnarchal only because
fics,immersion in worldly, hierardlicaI. exdusiorulr:y thinking patrerns which: stand in direct opposition to J esus' g(~spel.
With great passion and: persua~
si\'eness, Enul ~i;i made the same'
poiar. He has>gone on the 'offen:sJve and lifted up a. vision of r!H~:
joy: and 'fre Jam within ltdman rel'l!ri6 S -ip wni~E ,~M
'nn1y bapgen w. en Jesus~ good ne,\"{~ Is 4nl f$CO,I!fd ana
li'VtJ ut.
T~e' essay 6egin.s~with a'(one of hype J;ltlle. Whll'h hde
me wary of beln "taken in.'''Bu ~b the time. -IhM rellQh~'
the mear'-o. the article; I was indeed t;aken- in.:-h9J!te.1e.ssly.
and delightedly:
Ret~;,Pi~er:
Editori/ Gool'dinfftor. Daughters of Sarah

'Cht(-ag(J'; lIlinair,

God Is Law
Ellul's problem is,that he loses,:$ighr.of the difference
between God's law and "moraliry." 1vforaliry is man' : taw,
which is arbitrary at'ld author:itariarh G d's law.i eternal,
because it is rOOted in God's character. The Bible- says;
God's,law is holy, just, and good-and .rha i:hat-Jaw will
never pass away (Rom. 7:14; Matt. 5: 18).

Man's morality, as Ellul :J.Ss.:.rts, do~s ead to ill V'ietUTIIUtion of women, as well as ,til people. fr is enf red oulv
bv power and offi e and the end result !s d arh an
hop iessness. Bur od's law leads to Chr'or (Rom. 10' ;
.Tiu. 3.22-24'l---and
co eeJllm.
T,) reject Gl,d'., I ;v a, ''.lppre:.sive '5 t(\ "eel C
::haracr <Jf G,)d him~ I anti place ourse!'~ In anar h
wirb to e ylme Join .vlur I riu C
it thllf ,)~ n e~'e5: there
l tlll

mus

~
!
I

I
I
I

II
I
I

,
I
I

I
I
I

Soun
ew p r~pc

'[1

ffl

es up 'n new losi"hts. And this

b~

Jae ues Ell 1- ! ng with itS divers


respon es--is likel to have surred up 5 me fresh
thoughts. maybe even 3. ew augrv impulses, in us al .
In any (use. we'd love co hear what you chmk. .
please:: rake :1 few minure' right no\'. to fill ut d1i
~im Ie \UI'Vey. We'll rabulace the :m owets
J PUbU3h
chern in. f cure Issue.
Indllde an~ addirionaJ comm tS or observarions
~ou ha e--anJ your name :mJ :L ress, if ~'ou'd like.
Then please send iliis ba k co us
o n as 'au can.
- The E lIoYJ.
m nch' arcle

1. Do you agree With Ellul when he su e [$ that the


church bas treated wo e
mino hile S ripcure
putS cl1 m "at th cencer f G d' will ~ r e b
all
ace";; YES NO UNCER. rAI.N
l. D y u
e WIth Ellul w en he suggesrs that
people hbuld simp!v be "wid to 1 e God and do as
they please'" YE5 ..0 U
T

J'

3. D

you 'lgr

[S

wh n he sug-

geStS.. m hi- resp nse, dl<l


al fema
qu.a.lirv is
inten d onlY for "rhe spimu.al sp ere" an should
merefore not be exrended co day-co.day function,
hen: God as rd lIled "wonderfully dl--ertnt"
role~?

U 'CEllT"

4. Do . au .lgree 1m
on' H lrJe ry when 'he
suggestS mat E.llu's clforl:S to "litt wumen OUI 01 the
gutter"' are, in themselves. sexi '[ and hterarchlc i and

rhus 'n

improvement"~ Vb

COI.TA

). Do you a~ree with Robert Gree


'h~n he 5U2't the effeCt of men's ~ff rt
(0 k '~p w men
Ir m cere n roles in he church has been co e p
women from the one true "po er sour e," whi h is
ir own "spirie onenes .. with Go j
'des th

Flawed Analysis
'\ 'h;llO' I hd my elf ple:l.s d hi (liul'::; m n} s[;],t C l
'egarding amifemifilliffi as a rauern of p [verSion I
11
dturch. I m troubled \ b~ an' tvsi_ of e f mlnine.
The long-standing id~a Ihilt [h~re are two ways of b("m~,
masculine amJ femInine, and thac one is superior !Xl rhl.:
other, does nO( provide mu -h upportunitj' for whoj~nt:j
or equality. I fear that in his [[tempt co display hi w
liberation fmm d rifeminism, Ellul
is in turn eIenting the feminine
to ,1 place of superiority. Histor[calll, such J.l1 elt:'vR,tion conrnbllte (0 ,he victirniLiltion of
omen. almos,' \. frc:n
d
the
equallv regrettable dc\ 'ill ti n
worn n.

llul, a ai~'. is. wflU vallJ


-ome re, li'etS, i - ~n ther re-minJer
(hac mo:u ii.naly LS Jone by malt: ,
nO mane no~ sen 'inve or .::omp thEcic, simply dIes n adequareh'
"mati n \\'o
~ 'e.

tn

YES

'0 UNCERT IN

6. Do ou agr e ieh Vcrnard Eller when he suge ts that mudern f minism i a "counrerrn mli 'm"
rhat devi res ~ much from the go pel
the an if mini m that Ellul criticize ? YES NO L
T,\I r

7. Do y u agree with
0 g Kicrreo -e when he
suggests mae law is ll1herenr to "rhe character of God"?
YEs

'0

UNCERTA~

8. Do you agree wtth


therine
e-ek when she
suggeStS eh [ "most analy i done by rnaies. no marter
how. ensici e or empachecic," fail CO re ect aJequaccly
che real-Ii e situations w men fa e? YI5 N U:"l'CERTAlN

1atl thlI Jllrt!

as lOOll

4S P

wblt to:

EI/111 ResportSes
The Other i e
30U W l\. sley St.
PhIladelphia, Pa. 19144.
SEPTEMBER 987

25

You might also like