Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ehr
Ch
. ns lanl~ _
Morality, and t e
Victimization of
e
Jacques
Ellul
what .sevil.
Biblka.lly~
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
One
wbo~thvtdamqt.tll.ife.
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
, 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'~,
-HE ()THE
'r.
or
SEPTEMBER t 9:
All
="Christianity
has become
or
20
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
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
SEPTEMBER 1987
21
"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.
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
tJ
,OUf
,R:eaders Res:pond
Too Far!
Garbage!
Hu/ten,," Brdhrefl
I
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,
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
a, end
Ire
6n
catrh.
($-en:esis
an
Pasadena, CdljiJ17Iia
Wrong Me'ans
24
mae
..
..
Protesso;:ojfRkligiQt7l
[i:ltVern~
Ca/.ifo~i~..
. , .::1.
A Joyfill ""sion
I wnrk on a magazine which asserts in il:Jj state.rne \:'l
purpos thar bristianic,' 'and feminism are iuse aIllili e
From srolid church members to secular r"eminis!s, p.eopl
snort. III disbetll~f'and declare such
-'
.
a wedding a.conrraelierion 10 terms.
I rry (() explain how it's nor the
go, pc:! irself which is.. sexlsr; the
chu h is parnarchal only because
fics,immersion in worldly, hierardlicaI. exdusiorulr:y thinking patrerns which: stand in direct opposition to J esus' g(~spel.
With great passion and: persua~
si\'eness, Enul ~i;i made the same'
poiar. He has>gone on the 'offen:sJve and lifted up a. vision of r!H~:
joy: and 'fre Jam within ltdman rel'l!ri6 S -ip wni~E ,~M
'nn1y bapgen w. en Jesus~ good ne,\"{~ Is 4nl f$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
b~
J'
3. D
you 'lgr
[S
wh n he sug-
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
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.
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~
as lOOll
4S P
wblt to:
EI/111 ResportSes
The Other i e
30U W l\. sley St.
PhIladelphia, Pa. 19144.
SEPTEMBER 987
25