Jacques Ellul

Jacques Ellul (6 January 1912 – 19 May 1994) was a French philosopher, law
professor, sociologist, lay theologian, and Christian anarchist.

Contents
Quotes
The Presence of the Kingdom(1948)
The Meaning of the City(1951)
The Technological Society (1954)
Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes(1965)
The Ethics of Freedom(1973 - 1974)
The Humiliation of the Word(1981) People think that they have no right
The Subversion of Christianity(1984) to judge a fact — all they have to do
The Betrayal by Technology (1993 film) is to accept it. Thus from themoment
Quotes about Ellul that technics, the State, or
production, are facts, we must
External links
worship them as facts, and we must
try to adapt ourselves to them. This
is the very heart of modern religion,
Quotes the religion of the established fact,
the religion on which depend the
Faith lived in the incognito is one which is located outside the lesser religions of the dollar, race, or
criticism coming from society, from politics, from history, for the the proletariat.
very reason that it has itself the vocation to be a source of
criticism. It is faith (lived in the incognito) which triggers the issues
for the others, which causes everything seemingly established to
be placed in doubt, which drives a wedge into theworld of false
assurances.

L'espérance oubliée (1972) [Hope in Time of Abandonment]

translated by C. Edward Hopkin (1973)

I describe a world with no exit, convinced thatGod accompanies

man throughout his history.

Interview in Le Monde (1981), as quoted in "A short biography of

Jacques Ellul (1912-1994)" by Patrick Chastenet, as translated by Faith lived in the incognito is one
Lesley Graham
which is located outside thecriticism
This is why there is such an incredible stress oninformation in our coming from society, from politics,
schools. from history, for the very reason that
The important thing is to prepare young people to enter the world of it has itself the vocation to be a
information, able to handlecomputers, but knowing only the reasoning, source of criticism.
the language, the combinations, and the connections between
computers.
This movement is invading the whole intellectual domain and also
that of conscience. … What is at issue here is evaluating thedanger of what might happen to ourhumanity 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.

Ce que je crois (1987) [What I Believe] translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (1989), p. 140

There are different forms of anarchy and different currents in it.I must, first say very simply what anarchy I have
in view. By anarchy I mean first an absolute rejection of violence.Hence I cannot accept eithernihilists or anar‐
chists who choose violence as a means ofaction.
 chists who choose violence as a means ofaction.

Anarchy and Christianity[Anarchie et Christianisme] (1988) as

translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (1991), p. 11

Anarchism can teach Christian thinkers to see the realities of our

societies from a different standpoint than thedominant one of the state.
What seems to be one of the disasters of our time is that we all
appear to agree that the nation-state is the norm.… Whether the
state be Marxist or capitalist, it makes no difference. The dominant
ideology is that of sovereignty.

Anarchy and Christianity[Anarchie et Christianisme] (1988) as

translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (1991), pp.104–5

I can very well say without hesitation that all those who have
political power, even if they use it well have acquired it by demonic
mediation and even if they are not conscious of it, they are
worshippers of diabolos.

Si tu es le Fils de Dieu (1991), p. 76

I describe a world with no exit,
There remains the problem ofGoebbels' reputation. He wore the title of
convinced that God accompanies
Big Liar (bestowed by Anglo-Saxon propaganda) and yet he never
stopped battling for propaganda to be as accurate as possible. He man throughout his history.
preferred being cynical and brutal to being caught in a lie. He used to
say: "Everybody must know what the situation is." He was always the
first to announce disastrous events or difficult situations, without hiding
anything. The result was a general belief between 1939 and 1942 that
German communiqués not only were more concise, clearer and less
cluttered, but were more truthful than Allied communiqués (American
and neutral opinion) — and, furthermore, that the Germans published all
the news two or three days before the Allies. All this is so true that
pinning the title of Big Liar on Goebbels must be considered quite a
propaganda success.

"The Characteristics of Propaganda" inReadings in Propaganda

and Persuasion : New and Classic Essays(2006) edited by Garth S.
Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell, p. 48, note 47
The biblical teaching is clear. It
always contests political power.
The Presence of the Kingdom(1948)

Présence au Monde Moderne(1948) as translated byOlive Wyon;

page numbers are from the Seabury paperback (1967), p. 28

The will of the world is always a will to death, a will to suicide. W

e
must not accept this suicide, and we must so act that it cannot take
place.

p. 28

In point of fact there are a certain number of values and of forces which
are of decisive importance in our world civilization: the primacy of
production, the continual growth of the power of the State and the
formation of the National State, the autonomous development of
technics, etc. These, among others — far more than the ownership of
the means of production or any totalitarian doctrine — are the
constitutive elements of the modern world. So long as these elements There are different forms of anarchy
continue to be taken for granted, the world is standing still. and different currents in it. I must,
p. 33 first say very simply what anarchy I
have in view. By anarchy I mean first
People think that they have no right to judge afact — all they have an absolute rejection ofviolence.
to do is to accept it. Thus from the moment that technics, the State, or
production, are facts, we must worship them as facts, and we must try to
adapt ourselves to them.This is the very heart of modern religion,
the religion of the established fact, the religion on which depend the lesser religions of the dollar
, race, or
 the proletariat, which are only expressions of the great modern
divinity, the Moloch of fact.

p. 37

The Meaning of the City (1951)

Sans feu ni lieu : Signification biblique de la Grande V

ille (1951), as
translated by Dennis Pardee (1970)

The first builder of a city wasCain. What seems to be one of the

disasters of our time is that we all
p. 1
appear to agree that thenation-state
Cain is completely dissatisfied with the security granted to him by God, is the norm.
and so he searches out his own security . ... He will satisfy his desire for
eternity by producing children, and he will satisfy his desire for security
by creating a place belonging to him, a city .

pp. 4-5

Cain has built a city. For God's Eden he substitutes his own, for the goal
given to his life by God, he substitutes a goal chosen by himself.

p. 5 The will of the world is always a will

to death, a will to suicide. We must
The Scriptures ... tell us what man wanted to do when he created the not accept this suicide, and we must
city, what he was hoping to conquer, what he thought to establish. And so act that it cannot take place.
this narrative of the origin of the city is essential, for we see there in its
purest state, and expressed simply, the feelings of the builders. Such
feelings are no longer evident in our modern day when the prodigious
complexity of the world hides the simple plans of the never-changing human heart.

p. 7

"Righteous Abel," says Matthew [23:34-45]. What luck! So there is a righteous race! No such thing: Abel dies leaving
no children, a fact full of meaning. He is unable to transmit his righteousness.

p. 7

Cain is not the city and Abel is not the country; but the relationship between them also illuminates ... the relationship
between the city and the country. ... The city was, from the day of its creation, incapable, because of the motives
behind its construction, of any other destiny than that of killing the country
, where God put man to enable him to life
his life as best he could.

p. 8

The city is not just a collection of ramparts with houses, but also a a spiritual power
. ... It is capable of directing and
changing a man's spiritual life. It brings its power to bear in him and changes his life.

p. 9

Man's power is first of all the result of hardening his heart against God: man firms
af that he is strong, conquers the
world, and builds cities.

p. 10

Urban civilization is warring civilization.

p. 13

The social group which the city represents is so strong that it draws men into sin which is hardly personal to them,
but from which they cannot dissociate themselves even if they so desire. Individual virtues are engulfed by the sin of
the city.

p. 67
The Technological Society (1954)

La technique ou l'enjeu du siècle(1954); translated by John Wilkinson

as The Technological Society (1964)

Freedom is completely without meaning unless it is related to necessity

,
unless it represents victory over necessity
.

p. xxxii

Our civilization is first and foremost a civilization of means; in the reality

of modern life, the means, it would seem, are more important than the A principal characteristic of technique
ends. … is its refusal to tolerate moral
p. 19 judgments. It is absolutely
independent of them and eliminates
Journalistic content is a technical complex expressly intended to adapt them from its domain.
man to the machine.

p. 96

A principal characteristic of technique … is its refusal to tolerate

moral judgments. It is absolutely independent of them and
eliminates them from its domain.Technique never observes the
distinction between moral and immoral use.It tends on the contrary, to
create a completely independent technical morality .
Here, then, is one of the elements of weakness of this point of view
. It
does not perceive technique's rigorous autonomy with respect to morals;
it does not see that the infusion of some more or less vague sentiment
of human welfare cannot alter it. Not even the moral conversion of the
technicians could make a difference. At best, they would cease to be
good technicians. This attitude supposes further that technique evolves
with some end in view, and that this end is human good. Technique is
totally irrelevant to this notion and pursues no end, professed or No technique is possible when men
unprofessed. are free.

p. 97

It is not true that the perfection of police power is the result of the state’
s Machiavellianism or of some transitory
influence. The whole structure of society of society implies it, of necessity . The more we mobilize the forces of
nature, the more must we mobilize men and the more do we require order .

p. 102

No technique is possible when men are free. … e Tchnique requires predictability and, no less, exactness of
prediction. It is necessary, then, that technique prevail over the human being. … The individual must be fashioned by
techniques … in order to wipe out the blots his personal determination introduces into the perfect design of the
organization.

p. 138

True technique will know how to maintain theillusion of liberty, choice, and individuality; but these will have been
carefully calculated so that they will be integrated into the mathematical reality merely as appearances!

p. 139

Science brings to the light of day everything man had believed sacred.echnique
T takes possession of it and
enslaves it.

p. 142

But if technique demands the participation of everybody

, this means that the individual is reduced to a few essential
functions which make him a mass man. He remains 'free', but he can no longer escape being a part of the mass.
Technical expansion requires the widest possible domain. In the near future not even the whole earth may be
sufficient.

p. 207
 ...there is a limited elite that understands the secrets of their own techniques, but not necessarily of all techniques.
These men are close to the seat of modern governmental power . The state is no longer founded on the 'average
citizen', but on the ability and knowledge of this elite. The average man is altogether unable to penetrate technical
secrets or governmental organization and consequently can exert no influence at all on the state.

p. 274

Technique shapes an aristocratic society

, which in turn implies aristocratic government. De
mocracy in such a society
can only be a mere appearance. Even now , we see in propaganda the premises of such a state of af
fairs. When it
comes to state propaganda, there is no longer any question of democracy .

p. 275

Sport is linked with the technical world because sport itself is a technique. The enormous contrast between the
athletes of Greece and those of Rome is well known. For the Greeks, physical exercise was an ethic for developing
freely and harmoniously the form and strength of the human body . For the Romans, it was a technique for increasing
the legionnaire’s efficiency. The Roman conception prevails today.

pp. 382-383

The individual, by means of the discipline imposed on him by sport, not only plays and finds relaxation from the
various compulsions to which he is subjected, but without knowing it trains himself for new compulsions. …raining
T
in sports makes of the individual an efficient piece of apparatus which is henceforth unacquainted with anything but
the harsh joys of exploiting his body and winning.

p. 383

Sport carries on without deviation the mechanical tradition of furnishing relief and distraction to the worker after he
has finished his work proper so that he is at no time independent of one technique or another . In sport the citizen of
the technical society finds the same spirit, criteria, morality
, actions and objectives—in short, all the technical laws
and customs—which he encounters in office or factory.

p. 384

The individual who is the servant of technique must be completely unconscious of himself.

Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes(1965)

Propagandes (1962); trans. Konrad Kellen & Jean Lerner

. Vintage Books, New York. ISBN 978-0-394-71874-3.

Propaganda tries to surround man by all possible routes in the realm of feelings as well as ideas, by playing
on his will or on his needs, through his conscious and his unconscious, assailing him in both his private
and his public life. It furnishes him with a complete system for explaining the world, and provides immediate
incentives to action. We are here in the presence of an organized myth that tries to take hold of the entire person.
Through the myth it creates, propaganda imposes a complete range of intuitive knowledge, susceptible of
only one interpretation, unique and one-sided, and precluding any divergence. This myth becomes so
powerful that it invades every arena of consciousness, leaving no faculty or motivation intact. It stimulates
in the individual a feeling of exclusiveness, and produces a biased attitude.

Again I want to emphasize that the study of propaganda must be conducted within the context of a technological
society. Propaganda is called upon to solve problems created by technology , to play on maladjustments, and
to integrate the individual into a technological world.

From the Vintage paperback (1973), p. xvii

In the midst of increasingmechanization and technological organization, propaganda is simply the means
used to prevent these things from being felt as too oppressive and to persuade man to submit with good
grace. When man will be fully adapted to this technological society , when he will end by obeying with enthusiasm,
convinced of the excellence of what he is forced to do, the constraint of the organization will no longer be felt by him;
the truth is, it will no longer be a constraint, and the police will have nothing to do.
The civic and technological
good will and the enthusiasm for the right social myths — both created by propaganda — will finally have
solved the problem of man.

Vintage, p. xviii

First of all, modern propaganda is based on scientific analyses of psychology and sociology
. Step by step, the
propagandist builds his techniques on the basis of his knowledge of man, his tendencies, his desires, his needs, his
psychic mechanisms, his conditioning — and as much on social psychology as on depth psychology . He shapes his
 procedures on the basis of our knowledge of groups and their laws of
formation and dissolution, of mass influences, and of environmental
limitations. Without the scientific research of modern psychology
and sociology there would be no propaganda, or rather we still
would be in the primitive stages of propaganda that existed in the
time of Pericles or Augustus.

Vintage, p. 4

The most favorable moment to seize a man and influence him is

when he is alone in the mass.It is at this point that propaganda can
be most effective.

Vintage, p. 9

Propaganda must be total. The propagandist must utilize all of the

technical means at his disposal — the press, radio, TV
, movies, posters,
meetings, door-to-door canvassing. Modern propaganda must utilizeall
of these media. There is no propaganda as long as one makes use, in
sporadic fashion and at random, of a newspaper article here, a poster or
a radio program there, organizes a few meetings and lectures, writes a
few slogans on walls: that is not propaganda.

Vintage, p. 9
Through the myth it creates,
The aim of modern propaganda is no longer to modify ideas, but to
provoke action. propaganda imposes a complete
range of intuitive knowledge,
Vintage, p. 25 susceptible of only one interpretation,
unique and one-sided, and
Propaganda does not aim to elevate man, but to make himserve.
precluding any divergence.
Vintage, p. 38

Hate, hunger, and pride make better leversof propaganda than do

love or impartiality.

Vintage, p. 38

...because of the myth of progress, it is much easier to sell a man an

electric razor than a straight-edged one.

Vintage, p. 41

Having analyzed these traits, we can now advance a definition of

propaganda — not an exhaustive definition, unique and exclusive of all In the midst of increasing
others, but at least a partial one:Propaganda is a set of methods mechanization and technological
employed by an organized group that wants to bring about the organization, propaganda is simply
active or passive participation in its actions of a mass of the means used to prevent these
individuals, psychologically unified through psychological
manipulations and incorporated in an organization. things from being felt as too
oppressive and to persuade man to
Vintage, p. 61 submit with good grace.

The Ethics of Freedom (1973 - 1974)

The Ethics of Freedom[Éthique de la liberté] (1973 - 1974) as translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (1976)

Jesus Christ has not come to establish social justice any more than he has come to establish the power of the state
or the reign of money or art. Jesus Christ has come to save men, and all that matters is that men may come to know
him. We are adept at finding reasons-good theological, political, or practical reasons, for camouflaging this. But the
real reason is that we let ourselves be impressed and dominated by the forces of the world, by the press, by public
opinion, by the political game, by appeals to justice, liberty, peace, the poverty of the third world, and the Christian
civilization of the west, all of which play on our inclinations and weaknesses. Modern protestants are in the main
prepared to be all things to all men, likeSt. Paul, but unfortunately this is not in order that they may save some but in
order that they may be like all men.

p. 254
Man himself is exalted, and paradoxical though it may seem to be, this
means the crushing of man. Man's enslavement is the reverse side of
the glory, value, and importance that are ascribed to him. The more a
society magnifies human greatness, the more one will see men
alienated, enslaved, imprisoned, and tortured, in it. Humanism prepares
the ground for the anti-human. We do not say that this is an intellectual
paradox. All one need do is read history. Men have never been so
oppressed as in societies which set man at the pinnacle of values
and exalt his greatness or make him the measure of all things. For
in such societies freedom is detached from its purpose, which is,
we affirm, the glory of God.

p. 251

Every modern state is totalitarian. It recognizes no limit either

factual or legal. This is why I maintain that no state in the modern world
is legitimate. No present-day authority can claim to be instructed by
God, for all authority is set in the framework of a totalitarian state.This
is why I decide for anarchy.

p. 396

No society can last in conditions of anarchy. This is self-evident and I The most favorable moment to seize
am in full agreement. But my aim is not the establishment of an a man and influence him is when he
anarchist society or the total destruction of the state. Here I differ is alone in the mass.
from anarchists. I do not believe that it is possible to destroy the
modern state. It is pure imagination to think that some day this power
will be overthrown. From a pragmatic standpoint there is no chance of
success. Furthermore, I do not believe that anarchist doctrine is the
solution to the problem of organization in society and government. I do
not think that if anarchism were to succeed we should have a better or
more livable society. Hence I am not fightingfor the triumph of this
doctrine.
On the other hand, it seems to me that an anarchist attitude is the
only one that is sufficiently radical in the face of a general statist
system.

p. 396

The system absorbs those who think they can utilize it. Nor can there be
any question of finding amodus vivendi or achieving attenuations. It has Hate, hunger, and pride make better
been demonstrated how the liberals state becomes an authoritarian levers of propaganda than do love or
state. The course is set and no accommodation will be either lasting or impartiality.
sufficient.
In face of this absolute power, only an absolutely negative position is
viable. What we have in mind is the attitude that conscientous objectors
take on a specific point, and not without good reason. In the present set-
up the anarchist attitude of a total refusal of validity or legitimacy to any
authority of any kind seems to me to be the only valid and viable one.
The point is not to enforce a particular view of society but to
establish a counterbalance, a protest, a sign of cleavage. In face of
an absolute power only a total confrontation has any meaning.

p. 397

When we speak of dialogue with the sovereign, it seems to me that this

can be definitely initiated only on the basis of the greatest possible
intransigence, for power today is completely alien to any real discussion.
It is true that discussion is allowed within the system. But the
quarrels between right and left seem to me completely futile, for in
every possible way they simply lead to an enhancement of the
power of the state. Men have never been so oppressed
Democracy is a mere trap with the party system as it is and a as in societies which set man at the
bureaucracy that cannot be altered. Discussion may go on about taxes pinnacle of values and exalt his
and the improvement of social services. Butpower is totally deaf to greatness or make him the measure
the individual, indifferent to the interests of freedom, and ignorant of all things.
of the true concerns of the nation. Only a radical opposition, i.e., an
attack on the root of the situation, can engage it in authentic
dialogue.
 p. 397

This is where each individual must decide for himself. The

essential thing is the decision to challenge the modern state, which
without this small group of protesters will be checked by neither
brake, value, nor reason.

p. 397

It seems to me that the free man, i.e., the man freed in Christ, ought
to take parts in all movements that aim at human freedom.He
obviously ought to oppose all dictatorship and oppression and all the
fatalities which crush man. The Christian cannot bear it that others
should be slaves. His great passion in the world ought to be a
passion for the liberation of men.

p. 398 I am not fighting for the triumph of

this doctrine.
On the other hand, it seems to me
The Humiliation of the Word (1981) that an anarchist attitude is the only
one that is sufficiently radical in the
We are in the process of seeing the fulfillment of Edgar Allan Poe's face of a general statistsystem.
prophecy in which the painter, impassioned by his mistress-model and
also by his art, "did notwant to see that the colors he spread on his
canvas were taken from the cheeks of the woman seated beside him.
And when several weeks had passed, and very little remained to be
done, nothing but a stroke on the mouth and a glaze over the eye, the
mistress’s spirit still flickered like the flame atthe base of a lamp. Then
he put on the final touch, put the glaze in place, and for a moment the
painter stood in ecstasy before the work he had finished. But a moment
later, he was struck with panic, and shoutingwith a piercing voice: ‘It is
truly Life itself,’ he suddenly turned around to look at his mistress. She
was dead." Nothing ever constrains us to face what is dying when we
see it so alive in our images.

J. Hanks, trans. (1985), p. 208

The point is not to enforce a
“Everything, right now” is the notion that comes from the presence of particular view of society but to
images, which in effect get us used to seeingall in a single glance. establish a counterbalance, a
J. Hanks, trans. (1985), p. 208 protest, a sign of cleavage. In face of
an absolute power only a total
Images produce an intellectual process different from the ancient one or confrontation has any meaning.
the one developed by classical education. It goes without saying that
this process is not completely new; of course, since sight existed, and
since people themselves chose their images, they also thought by
means of images and entered into this kind of thinking. But this was limited and not frequent, because images were
not dominant. The new factor in our day comes from the ef fect of visual reproduction’s triumph over all else, which
involves us in the domination of one form of thought. This supremacy is new , even though we are not dealing with a
completely new form of thought.

J. Hanks, trans. (1985), p. 210

The word, although prevalent in our day , has lost its reasoning value, and has value only as an accessory to images.
In turn, the word actually evokes images. But it does not evoke the direct images related to my personal experience.
Rather, it calls up images from the newspaper or television. The key words in our modern vocabulary , thanks to
propaganda and advertising, are words that relate to visual reproduction. They are stripped of all rational content, so
they evoke only visions that whisk us away to some enchanted universe. Saying "fascism," "progress," "science," or
"justice" does not suggest any idea or produce any reflection. It only causes a fanfare of images to explode within us:
a sort of fireworks of visual commonplaces, which link up very precisely with each other. These related images
provide me with practical content: a common truth that is especially easy to swallow because the ready-made
images that showed it to me had been digested in advance. Make no mistake here: this is how modern people
usually think. We are arriving at a purely emotional stage of thinking.

J. Hanks, trans. (1985), p. 210

The emotional quality of what we moderns call our thought produces an extreme violence of conviction combined
with extreme incoherence in our arguments. I refer here to ordinary people and not to an intellectual elite.eWdo not
involve ourselves in studying the meaning and consequences of a fact calmly and objectively. The fact asserts itself
 through its image and associates itself in unchallengeable fashion with
other images which, in this mode of thinking, are its true context.
Emotions justify as well as provoke or command opinions, which still
seem intellectual and reasoned.

J. Hanks, trans. (1985), p. 211

Sight, when used in the context of nature, creates direct communication

with reality. It implies that one is involved in this particular reality and
quickly leads a person to action. But when the image has become
artificial and is purely a means of knowledge, the reaction persists. I feel
directly involved in what I see, just as prehistoric people did. And if I am
seeing objects or ideas, I am not truly independent; I cannot really take
my distance from these objects. From the intellectual point of view , this
means I cannot really exercise my critical faculties. The use of images to
transmit knowledge leads to the progressive elimination of distance
between a person and his knowledge, because of the way we are made
to participate when this means is used (this is, of course, in perfect
accord with technical civilization, and to be desired by its standards).
The critical faculties and autonomy of the thinking person are also It seems to me that the free man, i.e.,
eliminated. the man freed in Christ, ought to take
parts in all movements that aim at
J. Hanks, trans. (1985), p. 212
human freedom. He obviously ought
The image that creates this thinking gives rise to a feeling of evidence to oppose all dictatorship and
and a conviction that it is not based on reason. This kind of thinking oppression and all the fatalities which
explains the reaction we so often note among our contemporaries: when crush man.
someone asks them to give the reason for their opinions, they answer:
"It’s evident." This thinking, which creates prejudices and stereotypes, is
the domain of the unquestionable. Obviously you cannot dispute with an
image, and you cannot challenge the hero of a film. But this extends to the mental images produced by the film:
there is no criticism or debate possible, because these involve differing methods of thought. What produces
immediate assent cannot bear the discussion process. The conviction acquired in this way can only be attacked on
its own ground: by other images.

J. Hanks, trans. (1985), p. 213

Thought based on images can be neither abstract nor critical. … again in this case intellectuals have worked out
theories to justify the inevitable. For unconsciously
, they could not avoid being subjected to the enormous weight of
billions of images (just like other people). Y
et consciously, they were well aware that maintaining the demands of
critical and independent thought involves a complete break with the rest of humankind. This would make it
impossible for them to play their role as genuine intellectuals. They must think like everyone else if they expect to be
at all believed by the masses. Thus their conscious and unconscious minds agree in taking them down the path of
thought that involves images, evidence, and emotivity .

J. Hanks, trans. (1985), p. 214

A person who thinks by images becomes less and less capable of thinking by reasoning, and vice versa. The
intellectual process based on images is contradictory to the intellectual process of reasoning that is related to the
word. There are two different ways of dealing with an object. They involve not only different approaches, but even
more important, opposing mental attitudes. This is not a matter of complementary processes, such as analysis and
synthesis or logic and dialectic. These processes lack any qualitative common denominator .

J. Hanks, trans. (1985), p. 214

The Subversion of Christianity(1984)

La subversion du Christianisme, G. Bromiley, trans. (1986)

We seem to have here a fulfillment of the prophecy of Jesus that a little evil or error will corrupt the whole (like the
leaven of the Pharisees). … Christians and the church have wanted an alliance with everything that represents
power in the world. In reality this rests on the conviction that thanks to the power of theHoly Spirit the powers of this
world have been vanquished and set in service of the gospel, the church, and mission. e Wmust use their forces in
the interest of evangelism. … But what happens is the exact opposite. The church and mission are penetrated by the
power and completely turned aside from their truth by the corruption of power . When Jesus says that his kingdom is
not of this world, he says clearly what he intends to say . He does not validate any worldly kingdom (even if the ruler
be a Christian).
 pp. 20-21

Evangelical proclamation was essentially subversive. Put in danger by it,

the forces of the social body have replied by integrating this power of
negation, of challenge, by absorbing it.

p. 21

The social body that had been effectively threatened by the diffusion of
a faith that bordered on anarchism, on a total lack of interest in worldly
matters (administration, commerce, etc.), … reacted in self-defense and When Satan offers to give him all the
absorbed the foreign body, making it serve its own ends.
kingdoms of the earth, Jesus
p. 21 refuses, but the church accepts.

Whereas the good news had first been published for its own sake with
no concern for success, now ineluctably success brought, as always, a
desire for it. … They were not aware of what was happening, namely ,
that society was inverting Christianity instead of being subverted by it.

p. 30

Certainly everywhere in the church there are examples of the rich who
give up all things, who become poor for God. They did exist. But in
doing this, they either chose the hermit life and withdrew from the life of
the church, or they were canonized and held up as miraculous instances
of sanctity, that is, they were excluded from the concrete life of the
church, set outside the church as “saints” whom, of course, there was Revelation … unavoidably
no question of ordinary people ever imitating. challenges the institution and
p. 32 established power, no matter what
form this may take. But the
The act of canonization itself demonstrates that these are exceptions adulteration by political power has
not meant for ordinary believers. Ordinary believers should follow a path changed all this. Christianity has
that conforms to what is natural and normal. Hence theology becomes become a religion of conformity.
increasingly a theology of nature and moves further apart from a
theology of grace. The hard question put by Jesus: “What more are you
doing than others?” is obscured. In accord with society as a whole,
theology enters into a search for normality
, for obedience to the “laws of
nature.”

p. 33

The gospel and the first church were never hostile to women nor treated
them as minors. … When Christianity became a power or authority , this
worked against women. A strange perversion, yet fully understandable
when we allow that women represent precisely the most innovative
elements in Christianity: grace, love, charity, a concern for living
creatures, nonviolence, an interest in little things, the hope of new The church in the spiritual and
beginnings—the very elements that Christianity was setting aside in
favor of glory and success. theological sense always contains a
current that is hostile topolitical
pp. 33-34 power, that is revolutionary and
anarchical. But this is not the current
Jesus told his disciples they were a little flock. All his comparisons tend
that society as a whole, and
to show that the disciples will necessarily be small in number and weak:
the leaven in the dough, the salt in the soup, the sheep among wolves, especially the political authorities,
and many other metaphors. Jesus does not seem to have had a vision recognize as the church.
of a triumphant and triumphal church encircling the globe. He always
depicts for us a secret force that modifies things from within.

p. 35

The state, [Kierkegaard] argues, bears a direct relation to numbers. When a state decays, numbers decline and the
state disappears. The whole concept is void. The relation of Christianity to numbers is dif
ferent. A single Christian
gives it reality. Christianity bears indeed an inverse relation to numbers. When all become Christians, the concept of
Christianity is void. The concept is indeed a polemical one. One can be a Christian only in opposition. When
opposition is suppressed, there is no more sense in saying “Christian.” Christendom has astutely abolished
Christianity by making us all Christians. … In Christendom there is not the slightest idea of what Christianity is.
People cannot see or understand that Christianity has been abolished by its propagation. Again, history probably
does not offer any other example of a religionbeing abolished by reason of its success.

pp. 35-36

It was impossible to keep up the great movement of inner and outer freedom initiated by Jesus. The proclamation
“You are free through the Holy Spirit,” and Paul’s statement, “Everything is lawful,” were fine for a small, elite group
in which everyone knew everyone else. But when it was a matter of thousands of new converts whose depth of faith
could not be known, how could they be told that they were completely free to choose their way of life and decide
their own conduct? They had to be incorporated and put under the authority of a head of each group, and the more
numerous they became, the more sacred and complex this authority had to be. … The glorious freedom that is in
Christ could not be tolerated. It was replaced by clear and strict commandments.

pp. 36-37

The problem is not merely that of the transformation of Christianity into a state religion but of the fusion
dif of this faith
that has stopped being a faith and has become a collective ideology , a kind of manifestation of thought that collects
all the commonplaces, the legends, the miracles, the “prophecies,” the apocalypses, the thaumaturgies, and
formulates for the people a facile, moralistic, and constructive set of beliefs.

p. 40

Christianity, … welcomed at first among the e

r ligions of escape, changes into a religion that gives cohesion to
society

p. 40

Very quickly the church found intolerable andinapplicable features in what Jesus Christ demanded and proclaimed.
Let us simply take two themes. First, he tells us to be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect. But how can anyone
take this impossibility seriously? … Again, Jesus says, “Go, sell all your goods, give them to the poor
, and then come
and follow me.” How are we to take this? …

The way opens, then, for the sapping work of theologians of all kinds, then of lawyers, in an
attempt to explain that Jesus wanted to say something other than what is written, or that
these commandments are meant only for a spiritual elite and are simply counsels for others,
or that the order given to the rich young ruler was meant for him alone. In other words, the
texts have been wrested in all kinds of ways so that we should not be driven into a corner or
forced to recognize the distance between God and us.
pp. 41-42

Perfect freedom, spiritual as well as political or social, … is accomplished in us by the death and resurrection of
Jesus Christ. … But it is strictly intolerable in the fullness of its implications. It is psychologically unbearable. It
carries frightening social risks and is politically insulting to every form of power . It was not possible. On every social
level and in every culture, people have found it impossible to take up this freedom and accept its implications. This is
the basic impossibility, the unanimous refusal of all people, which has resulted in the rejection of Christian freedom.

p. 43

The biblical view is not just apolitical but antipolitical in the sense that it refuses to confer any value on political
power, or in the sense that it regards politicalpower as idolatrous.

p. 113

In one of the temptations Satan offers to give Jesus all the kingdoms of the world, that is, the kingdoms and the
related political power. …

Jesus refuses to answer the question about the tax. His “render unto Caesar” does not imply
that there are two kingdoms, but that everything belongs to God. If Caesar undertakes to
manufacture certain things like pieces of money, we should give them back to him; such
things are of no interest or importance.
Jesus pays the (political) temple tax with two coins taken from the mouth of a fish. This
absurd miracle expresses simple derision and shows once again that such matters are of no
importance. Jesus similarly refuses to arbitrate between two men who are contesting an
inheritance. He has not come to deal with legal problems.
p. 114
Jesus find the same mistake in both theSaducees and the Pharisees, both those who collaborate with the Romans
and those who oppose them. In the eyes of Jesus they are both wrong. He will not play any part in the political
drama.

p. 115

The exousia of political power … is a rebelexousia, an angel in revolt against God.

p. 115

I believe 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 inIsrael), 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).

p. 116

Throughout the Old Testament we see God choosing what is weak and humble to represent him (the stammering
Moses, the infant Samuel, Saul from an insignificant family, David confronting Goliath, etc). Paul tells us that God
chooses the weak things of the world to confound the mighty . Here, however, we have a striking contradiction. In
Constantine God is supposedly choosing an Augustus, a triumphant military leader . This vision and this miracle are
totally impossible. But they are not impossible in the context of Christianity that is already fofthe rails, that thinks of
God as the one who directs history and is the motive power in politics.

p. 123

After his victory at the Milvian Bridge, faithful to his promise,Constantine favors the church from which he has
received support. Catholic Christianity becomes the state religion and an exchange takes place: the church is
invested with political power, and it invests the emperor with religious power. We have here the same perversion, for
how can Jesus manifest himself in the power of domination and constraint? W e have to say here very forcefully that
we see here the perversion of revelation by participation in politics, by the seeking of power. The church lets itself
be seduced, invaded, dominated by the ease with which it can now spread the gospel by force (another
force than that of God) and use its influence to make the state, too, Christian. It is great acquiescence to the
temptation Jesus himself resisted, for when Satan offers to give him all the kingdoms of the earth, Jesus
refuses, but the church accepts.

p. 124

The combination of Christian truth and political power led to the creation of the complex that we know so well. … The
emperor endows the church handsomely , helps it in all that it does, aids it in its “mission.” The church supports the
emperor’s legitimacy and assures him that he is God’ s representative on earth.

p. 124

It is frightening to see how easily the church accepts all this. Hardly had it achieved peace before it itself began to
persecute. … It commenced the persecution of heretics, and primarily , of course, those who contested the truth and
validity of this alliance of empire and church.

p. 125

The church … is always at the service of the political power that is either in place or in course of being installed. It
goes on to serve the Holy Roman Empire but also the kings of France who split foffrom it. It will bless all the
monarchs who seize power in ways that are tragic, tempestuous, and often bloody and unjust.. It legitimizes
everything. This is logical once it associates itself with the existing power
.

p. 125

Once the church is ready to associate with instituted power it is obliged to associate with all and sundry forms of the
state. The scandal is that each time the church seeks to justify both its adaptation and the existing power
. It
continues to legitimize the state and to be an instrument of its propaganda.

p. 126

The church buys the possibility of maintaining itself sat the price of concessions. … In so doing it disavows its
martyrs. [Martyrs] want to obey God, not men. But the church trades its support for advantages, honors, titles and
money. It comes under the rule of mammon.Finally, it lets itself be bought so as to gain facilities for its celebrations,
its evangelism, its good works, its preaching of the good W ord. But Satan rejoices at all this, for as this gospel is not
based on the cornerstone, on Jesus Christ, but on the power of the world thanks to which it is propagated.
 p. 127

The church in the spiritual and theological sense always contains a current that is hostile to political power
, that is
revolutionary and anarchical. But this is not the current that society as a whole, and especially the political
authorities, recognize as the church. If these many movements have failed, it is primarily because of their intrinsic
nature. Spiritual currents cannot last. When they attach political power, this power attacks them in return and
proclaims that the true church is that which is in alliance with it.

p. 132

Revelation … unavoidably challenges the institution and established power , no matter what form this may
take. But the adulteration by political power has changed all this. Christianity has become a religion of
conformity, of integration into the social body. It has come to be regarded as useful for social cohesion (the exact
opposite of what it is in its source and truth). Alternatively , it has become a flight from political or concrete reality
,a
flight into the spiritual world, into the cultivation of the inner life, into mysticism, and hence an evasion of the present
world.

p. 133

Cosmao’s … thesis is that societies obey two “sociological laws,” … according to which, when left to their own
inertia, they “structure inequality” and “fabricate gods that become their masters.” God’s revelation in Jesus Christ
expressly contradicts these two laws and should produce equality and destroy false gods. [Cosmao] contends,
however, that Christianity has taken on the role of a “civil religion” and has thus become Christendom.

p. 134

The Betrayal by Technology (1993 film)

In a society such as ours, it is almost impossible for a person to be
responsible. A simple example: a dam has been built somewhere, and
it bursts. Who is responsible for that? Geologists worked out. They
examined the terrain. Engineers drew up the construction plans.
Workmen constructed it. And the politicians decided that the dam had to
be in that spot. Who is responsible? No one. There is never anyone
responsible. Anywhere. In the whole of our technological society the
work is so fragmented and broken up into small pieces that no one is
responsible. But no one is free either. Everyone has his own, specific
task. And that's all he has to do.
Just consider, for example, that atrocious excuse… It was one of the In a society such as ours, it is almost
most horrible things I have ever heard. The director of the Bergen- impossible for a person to be
Belsen concentration camp was asked at theNuremburg trials, “But
responsible.
didn’t you find it horrible? All those corpses?” He replied, “What could I
do? I couldn’t process all those corpses. The capacity of the ovens was
too small. It caused me many problems. I had no time to think about
these people. I was too busy with the technical problem of my ovens.”
That is the classic example of an irresponsible person. He carries
out his technical task and isn’t interested in anything else.

I know many people who like watching commercials because they're so

funny. They provide relaxation and diversion.People come home after a
day's work, from which they derive little satisfaction, and feel the need
for diversion and amusement. The word diversion itself is already very
significant. When Pascal uses the word diversion he means that people
who follow the path of God deviate from the path which leads them to
God as a result of diversion and amusement. Instead of thinking of God,
they amuse themselves. So, instead of thinking about the problems
which have been created by technology and our work we want to amuse
ourselves.
When we become conscious of that
Mankind in the technological world is prepared to give up his which determines our life we attain
independence in exchange for all kinds of facilities and in exchange for the highest degree of freedom.
consumer products and a certain security . In short, in exchange for a
package of welfare provisions offered to him by society. As I was
thinking about that I couldn't help recalling the story in the Bible about
Esau and the lentil broth. Esau, who is hungry , is prepared to give up the blessings and promise of God in exchange
for some lentil broth. In the same way, modern people are prepared to give up their independence in exchange for
some technological lentils.
 The question now is whether people are prepared or not to realize that they are dominated by technology
. And to
realize that technology oppresses them, forces them to undertake certain obligations and conditions them. Their
freedom begins when they become conscious of these things. Forwhen we become conscious of that which
determines our life we attain the highest degree of freedom.

Quotes about Ellul

There is probably no other thinker who has thought as deeply
about propaganda in all its dimensions and ramifications as
Jacques Ellul. What sets him apart from other analysts is his rare if not
unique combination of expertise in history , sociology, law, and political
science, along with careful study of biblical and Marxist writings.

Randal Marlin in Propaganda & The Ethics of Persuasion, p. 31

Jacques Ellul is no pedantic theologian discussing ideas like a

dilettante whose convictions are never baptized in action. On the
contrary, in Ellul one finds that ideas andacts are so integral one
to the other that his decisions and actions in actual life are an
incarnation of what he thinks and writes.His witness as a Christian
has been nurtured in danger and turbulence, not in sanctuary or
detachment. He was a militant in theFrench resistance to the Nazis; he
has served in politics as Deputy Mayor ofBordeaux; he is distinguished
professionally in the law and in economics; he was among the remnant
who were concerned to expose and oppose the atrocities of the French Jacques Ellul is no pedantic
military in the Algerian war; he is esteemed in ecumenical councils as a theologian discussing ideas like a
creative theologian; he is a partisan of renewal andrelevance in the dilettante whose convictions are
Reformed Church of France; he became a Christian in consequence of
never baptized in action. On the
his immersion in the saga of theBible while engaged in the strife of the
world. In short, he is one who speaks with authority . contrary, in Ellul one finds that ideas
and acts are so integral one to the
William Stringfellow in his 1967 introduction to Ellul's,The Presence other that his decisions and actions
of the Kingdom, (1948) pp.2-3
in actual life are an incarnation of
It is, in fact, the essence of technique to compel the qualitative to what he thinks and writes. … In
become quantitative, and in this way to force every stage of human short, he is one who speaks with
activity and man himself to submit to its mathematical calculations. authority. ~ William Stringfellow
Ellul gives examples of this at every level.Thus, technique forces all
sociological phenomena to submit to the clock, for Ellul the most
characteristic of all modern technical instruments.The substitution of
the tempus mortuum of the mechanical clock for the biological and psychological time "natural" to man is in
itself sufficient to suppress all the traditional rhythms of human life in favor of the mechanical.

John Wilkinson, in the translator's introduction toThe Technological Society (1964), p. xvi

External links
Jacques Ellul works atJesus Radicals
International Jacques Ellul Society
Association Internationale Jacques Ellul
Wheaton College Library's Jacques Ellul page
Jacques Ellul at Anarchist Archive
Transcript of Ellul's Politics of God and Politics of Man
On the film The Betrayal by Technology, a 1993 portrait by ReRun Productions, on Jacques Ellul (broadcast twice in
the Netherlands on national TV
A fundamentalist critique of Ellul's theological views

Retrieved from "https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Jacques_Ellul&oldid=2344364

"

This page was last edited on 24 January 2018, at 22:00.

Text is available under theCreative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License

; additional terms may apply. By using this
site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.