Jacques Ellul
(French: [ɛlyl]; January 6, 1912 – May 19, 1994) was a French philosopher, law professor, sociologist, lay theologian, and Christian anarchist. Ellul was a longtime Professor of History and the Sociology of Institutions on the Faculty of Law and Economic Sciences at the University of Bordeaux. A prolific writer, he authored 58 books and more than a thousand articles over his lifetime, many of which discussed propaganda, the impact of technology on society, and the interaction between religion and politics. The dominant theme of his work proved to be the threat to human freedom and religion created by modern technology. Among his most influential books are The Technological Society and Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes.
Considered by many a philosopher, Ellul was by training a sociologist who approached the question of technology and human action from a dialectical viewpoint. His constant concern was the emergence of a technological tyranny over humanity. As a philosopher and theologian, he further explored the religiosity of the technological society.
Ellul departed substantially from Reformed doctrinal traditions, but unlike other European Protestant thinkers, utterly rejected the influence of philosophical idealism or romanticism upon his beliefs about God and human faith. In articulating his theological ideas, he mainly drew upon the corpus of works by the Swiss-German theologian Karl Barth and the critiques of European state Christianity made by Dane Søren Kierkegaard. Thus, some have considered him one of the more ardent expositors of dialectical theology, which was in decline elsewhere in the Western theological scene during Ellul’s heyday. Much like Barth, Ellul had no use for either liberal theology (to him dominated by Enlightenment notions about the goodness of humanity and thus rendered puerile by its naïveté) or orthodox Protestantism (e.g., fundamentalism or scholastic Calvinism, both of which to him refuse to acknowledge the radical freedom of God and humanity) and maintained a roughly un-Catholic view of the Bible, theology, and the churches.
One particular theological movement that aroused his ire was that of secular theology (also called death-of-God theology), based on notions that traditional Christian conceptions of God and humanity are based upon a primitive consciousness, one that most civilized people have quite overcome. This line of thought affirmed the ethical teachings of Jesus but rejected the idea that he represented anything more than a highly accomplished human being. Ellul attacked this school, and practitioners of it such as Harvey Cox, as out of accord not with Christian doctrinal traditions, but reality itself, namely what he perceived as the irreducible religiosity of the human race, a devotion that has worshiped idols such as rulers, nations, and in more recent times, materialism, scientism, technology and economics. To Ellul, people use such fallen images, or powers, as a substitute for God, and are, in turn, used by them, with no possible appeal to innocence or neutrality, which, although possible theoretically, does not in fact exist. Ellul thus renovates in a non-legalistic manner the traditional Christian understanding of original sin and espouses a thoroughgoing pessimism about human capabilities, a view most sharply evidenced in his Meaning of the City (see bibliography below). Ellul stated that one of the problems with these “new theologies” was the following:
“ In consequence of the desire to make the message (kerygma) valid for all, to see all men as in the presence of God, to increase the universality of the lordship of Jesus Christ, to insist on the value of mankind generally (to the detriment of the Christian), to insist on the value of the world (to the detriment of the Church), one comes to the point of denying whatever can only be specifically Christian.”
“ The ultimate purpose of the whole death-of-God system is to justify a certain kind of behavior on the part of Christians in relation to society—a kind of behavior that is dictated by conformism to the modern world. So a justification formula is manufactured; and alas, it often turns out that theology merely amounts to a justification of the behavior of pretend-Christians. The theology of the death of God reinforces this evil tendency. It justifies a sociological impulsion. That is the kind of theology it really is, unconsciously. Nor do the marvelous intellectual operations its proponents perform with every appearance of seriousness make it less profoundly false.
But wait! There’s more:
Ellul espouses views on salvation, the sovereignty of God, and ethical action that appear to take a deliberately contrarian stance toward established, “mainstream” opinion. For instance, in the book What I Believe, he declared himself to be a Christian Universalist, writing “that all people from the beginning of time are saved by God in Jesus Christ, that they have all been recipients of His grace no matter what they have done.”
Ellul formulated this stance not from any liberal or humanistic sympathies, but in the main from an extremely high view of God’s transcendence, that God is totally free to do what God pleases.
Any attempts to modify that freedom from merely human standards of righteousness and justice amount to sin, to putting oneself in God’s place, which is precisely what Adam and Eve sought to do in the creation myths in Genesis. This highly unusual juxtaposition of original sin and universal salvation has repelled liberal and conservative critics and commentators alike, who charge that such views amount to antinomianism, denying that God’s laws are binding upon human beings. In most of his theologically-oriented writings, Ellul effectively dismisses those charges as stemming from a radical confusion between religions as human phenomena and the unique claims of the Christian faith, which are not predicated upon human achievement or moral integrity whatsoever.
In the Bible, however, we find a God who escapes us totally, whom we absolutely cannot influence, or dominate, much less punish; a God who reveals Himself when He wants to reveal Himself, a God who is very often in a place where He is not expected, a God who is truly beyond our grasp. Thus, the human religious feeling is not at all satisfied by this situation…. God descends to humanity and joins us where we are. ”
“ …the presence of faith in Jesus Christ alters reality. We also believe that hope is in no way an escape into the future, but that it is an active force, now, and that love leads us to a deeper understanding of reality. Love is probably the most realistic possible understanding of our existence. It is not an illusion. On the contrary, it is reality itself.
……
YES!
[1≡∞]
The Mystery is Time and how it takes the “future” to reveal it.
[1≡∞]
Paradox divides the whole – there is only One which cannot be divided.
The rest of the buzz is just metaphor – story…
The Ellulian concept of technique is briefly defined within the “Notes to Reader” section of The Technological Society (1964). It is “the totality of methods rationally arrived at and having absolute efficiency (for a given stage of development) in every field of human activity.” He states here as well that the term technique is not solely machines, technology, or a procedure used to attain an end.
What many consider to be Ellul’s most important work, The Technological Society (1964) was originally titled: La Technique: L’enjeu du siècle (literally, “The Stake of the Century”). In it, Ellul set forth seven characteristics of modern technology that make efficiency a necessity: rationality, artificiality, automatism of technical choice, self-augmentation, monism, universalism, and autonomy. The rationality of technique enforces logical and mechanical organization through division of labor, the setting of production standards, etc. And it creates an artificial system which “eliminates or subordinates the natural world.”
Regarding technology, instead of it being subservient to humanity, “human beings have to adapt to it, and accept total change.” As an example, Ellul offered the diminished value of the humanities to a technological society. As people begin to question the value of learning ancient languages and history, they question those things which, on the surface, do little to advance their financial and technical state. According to Ellul, this misplaced emphasis is one of the problems with modern education, as it produces a situation in which immense stress is placed on information in our schools. The focus in those schools is to prepare young people to enter the world of information, to be able to work with computers but knowing only their reasoning, their language, their combinations, and the connections between them. This movement is invading the whole intellectual domain and also that of conscience.
Ellul’s commitment to scrutinize technological development is expressed as such:
“What is at issue here is evaluating the danger of what might happen to our humanity in the present half-century, and distinguishing between what we want to keep and what we are ready to lose, between what we can welcome as legitimate human development and what we should reject with our last ounce of strength as dehumanization. I cannot think that choices of this kind are unimportant.
The sacred then, as classically defined, is the object of both hope and fear, both fascination and dread.
Ellul identified the State and political power as the Beast in the Book of Revelation.
Ellul states in The Subversion of Christianity that he thinks “that the biblical teaching is clear. It always contests political power. It incites to ‘counterpower,’ to ‘positive’ criticism, to an irreducible dialogue (like that between king and prophet in Israel), to antistatism, to a decentralizing of the relation, to an extreme relativizing of everything political, to an anti-ideology, to a questioning of all that claims either power or dominion (in other words, of all things political), and finally, if we may use a modern term, to a kind of “anarchism” (so long as we do not relate the term to the anarchist teaching of the nineteenth century).”
. . . . . . .
Yes, stories and metaphor that is what it “means” to him. As we know there have been literally billions of ‘interpretations’ of the words in the Bible.
I could use an entirely different lexicon, and say very practically the same things as above, come to the same Epistemic conclusions; replacing the term “Christianity” with “Kristos”. I can talk about my own ‘story’ through the metaconscious reflection, and use terms such as “metaphor” to describe the technique of attempting to explain something which is inexplicable in human languages. That would fall back on the Taoist meme of “Like is Not” or Zen, “It’s rather like a beanstalk, isn’t it?” And I can reveal the equation: [1≡∞] which simply says in the language of mathematics; ‘One is Infinity’. Intimating that Now is the only moment.
And who here can accept such as all of this in such a brief introduction?
So you see, I know ‘God’ by personal experience. To know God is not to know what God wants.
It is to know that God wants for nothing. He is complete. The real trick here on Earth, is to know what we want ourselves. If we seek to know God personally, the revelation is available. But it is up to each to find the way there. God needs no salvation and if we know God we need none either.
There is nothing to salvage after human death – we are already One with God. Now and forever.
God is omniconscious and omniprecient, aware of all at once. He is past-present-future in being; Omnipresent.
(My speaking in such confirmed assurance might frustrate some readers. All I can say in response to that is that it takes being there to ‘get it’ – nothing anyone else says will do it.)
I think it is essential to understand Ellul under the auspices of Julian Jaynes concept of the consciousness – a meta-consciousness, which leads to the appreciation of Metaphor as the basis for human understanding. The concepts of both are deep, and need to be approached with patience to grasp what they are really saying without overlaying ones own preconceptions.
I think to believe is some very strange syntax like sin tax for licking forbidden objectivity. It exist to maybe almost. However there that and the other thing too can be.
Walking to school lunch carry drive-by colorists heavy handed. Or cum into the gap drifter while harmonium is stroked by monkeys from Balfour creates strange strains of green ooze in bucket the.
Nevertheless I don’t know howl you mean? Perhaps foreign pocket full change. Yea?
“Strawberries” (she said).
Maybe … but Duncan Roads is not a traitor to Scientology. Now is he?
No but perhaps to the donuts that found no java to be dunked into forthwith as per gallon. And because lower than behold!!! Tahdah …. Dunky wuz ondah road!!!
Har har har … ya know whut I mean??? Get yerself a gawldern burberry handbag to carry your fresh donuts next time – and stop yer bitchin’!
Words are but words … communication is a’stumble a mumble a’numble … a bumblebee … see?
*****************************************************************************
There is no sin. no sinners, no salvation. All is … All is as should be … All is … All is how it must be …
All is always … All is, and can be no other way than it is.
Karma dwells in Sansari yet Samsara dwells in Satori.
(~ww – 1975)
[1≡∞]
THE LEGEND OF SLEEPY HOLLOW
FOUND AMONG THE PAPERS OF THE LATE DIEDRICH KNICKERBOCKER.
“A pleasing land of drowsy head it was,
Of dreams that wave before the half-shut eye;
And of gay castles in the clouds that pass,
Forever flushing round a summer sky.”
–CASTLE OF INDOLENCE.
But if there was a pleasure in all this, while snugly cuddling in the
chimney corner of a chamber that was all of a ruddy glow from the
crackling wood fire, and where, of course, no spectre dared to show his
face, it was dearly purchased by the terrors of his subsequent walk
homewards. What fearful shapes and shadows beset his path amidst the
dim and ghastly glare of a snowy night!—With what wistful look did he
eye every trembling ray of light streaming across the waste fields from
some distant window!—How often was he appalled by some shrub
covered with snow, which, like a sheeted spectre, beset his very path!—
How often did he shrink with curdling awe at the sound of his own steps
on the frosty crust beneath his feet; and dread to look over his shoulder,
lest he should behold some uncouth being tramping close behind him!—
and how often was he thrown into complete dismay by some rushing blast,
howling among the trees, in the idea that it was the Galloping Hessian on
one of his nightly scourings!
T’is a harsh gale driven, frigid Halloween night here…
Nary a single tricky treater nor a lit Jack-o'lantern to be seen.
The dullness of this 21st century is like the gray tombstones of a forgotten necropolis overgrown with tall grass & weeds.
Washington Irving
(April 3, 1783 – November 28, 1859) was an American author, essayist, biographer, historian, and diplomat of the early 19th century. He is best known for his short stories “Rip Van Winkle” (1819) and “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow” (1820), both of which appear in his book The Sketch Book of Geoffrey Crayon, Gent. His historical works include biographies of George Washington, Oliver Goldsmith and Muhammad, and several histories of 15th-century Spain dealing with subjects such as Christopher Columbus, the Moors, and the Alhambra. Irving served as the U.S. ambassador to Spain from 1842 to 1846.
Taking chances taking risk taking drugs
Neuro-cascades take you so high – so high above
You see from here everything is meant for love
It may sound trite, it may seem silly, perhaps a bit naive
But when you’re standing in the garden getting the ‘come-on’ from gorgeous Eve
There’s something up there
There’s something slithering below
Looks like a snake rising up there__ could it be there is something he knows?
He seems persistent and determined Eve is captured she is enchanted
She seems not here but far far away
She cannot see me cannot hear me speak her eyes focused on something new…
And it seems so long ago now__but then just like yesterday Or coming ’round the corner
I do not know I cannot say
Taking chances taking risk taking drugs
Neuro-cascades take you so high – so high above
You see from here everything is meant for love
A bucket of war paint
A bucket of dust
A bucket of blood
Put them together and you’ve got mud
From: THE DESCENT OF THE REBELLIOUS ANGELS by Willy Whitten ©2022