Jacques Ellul on Christian Anarchy

Ellul's last book, important as always.

It might be worthwhile to make a differentiation between Christian anarchy and Marxism, which looks to anarchy as the path to a new world order. Marxism endorses violence. Christianity cannot. 

Jacques Ellul, in his book Anarchy and Christianity (Eerdmans, 1988), notes that the achievements of both Gandhi and Martin Luther King were accomplished by virtuous means. By way of contrast, the Black Panther movement did not advance the cause of black liberation that it purportedly intended. 

Political power corrupts. And against this corruption people of conscience must take a stand. 

Ellul notes that once we rule out violence as an option, we must resort to persuasion, “the creation of small groups and networks, denouncing falsehood and oppression.” 

Dr. Glenn Martin, in his book Prevailing Worldviews, points out how the institution of slavery was ended in England without violence through persuasion, and the tireless efforts of a few important voices. Even though it took more than forty years, spearheaded by the Society of Friends (Quakers) and politician/philanthropist William Wilberforce, the abolition of slavery was ultimately  accomplished without bloodshed. 

By way of contrast, the U.S. experienced a torrid Civil War as a result of the activist revolutionary approach to the problem of slavery. Yes, there were some who sought slavery’s termination by peaceful means, but the revolutionary approach ultimately superseded the tireless efforts of the persistent persuaders. According to Martin, actions like the Nat Turner rebellion, which left eighty persons dead, set back the cause of peaceful negotiation, and helped fortify the deeply entrenched status quo of slavery. 

It reminds me of the story of the wind and the sun. Each made a bet to see who could force a desert traveler to remove his cloak. The wind went first, blowing fiercely, but the more savagely the wind assaulted, the more firmly the man clutched his linen. Then the sun took his turn, and we all know how that story ends. 

Lest I babble indefinitely, let me cite two additional observations from Ellul’s challenging book.

1. “Our experience today is the strange one of empty political institutions in which no one has any confidence any more, of a system of government which functions only in the interests of a political class, and at the same time of the almost infinite growth of power, authority, and social control which makes any one of our democracies a more authoritarian mechanism than any Napoleonic state.” ~ p. 22

2. “Most people, living heedlessly, tanning themselves, engaging in terrorism, or becoming TV slaves, ridicule political chatter and politics. They see that there is nothing to hope for from them. They are also exasperated by bureaucratic structures and administrative bickering.” ~ p. 23 

Let’s not be lulled into the stupor of non-thinking, quasi-acceptance of all that is, as if it cannot be any different. 

Of Hedgehogs and Foxes, with Applications to Current Events

An op-ed by Lance Morrow in today's Wall Street Journal used an Aesop's fable-style metaphor as a means of illuminating the problem with Critical Race Theory. He begins by citing an observation by political philosopher Isaiah Berlin regarding a statement by the Greek poet Archilochus: "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing."

Berlin's essay, published in 1953, suggests that the world is divided between hedgehogs and foxes. Hedgehogs like to explain things by fitting it all into one big, comprehensive super-explanation. Foxes take the approach that things don't work that way and that in fact many things are contradictory or have no explanation at all, or are at best incoherent. 

So begins Morrow's "The Hedgehogs of Critical Race Theory." The subtitle is, "They start with important truths--slavery was wicked--and get carried away into monomania."

MY PURPOSE HERE is not to discuss the pros and cons of CRT, but rather to note that this hedgehog approach to many issues has generally done more harm than good. Here are just a few examples off the top of my head.

McCarthyism
I think it's safe to say that the overzealous excesses of Senator McCarthy were driven by a monomaniacal Hedgehog worldview.

Cold War
By the end of the 20th century's two world wars, most of Western Europe had relinquished control of its colonies. On one level this was a victory for freedom as many parts of the world experienced self-rule for the first time in ages. On the other hand, this resulted in power struggles in many parts of the world. U.S. leaders took a Hedgehog view and interpreted all of these conflicts as a fight against the tentacles of Global Communism.

Marxism
Morrow points to Karl Marx as another example of Hedgehog thinking as Marx attempted to fit every problem in the world into a worker's struggle. (Saul Alinsky, in his Rules for Radicals, extended this same viewpoint into a Haves vs. Have Nots or Have Nots vs. the Status Quo.)

In fact, whether it be Global Warming/Climate Change, Critical Race Theory, Democracy, Environmentalism, Public Education or even Housing (e.g. The Housing Theory of Everything), there are hedgehogs who have distilled that issue into being the backdrop or foundation of all other problems in the world.

The WSJ editorial ends with this summation: "The hedgehog’s most profound character defects are moral vanity and self-righteousness—his fatal, paradoxical intolerance." Beware of dogmatists.

The biggest problem that I see with hedgehog thinking is what it does to dialogue. When hedgehog thinking makes everything else a threat, it kills communication, the primary way we develop solutions to complicated issues. What's needed is the Miracle of Dialogue.

* * *  

I believe the WSJ charges a small fee to read its content. If you're able, the full story can be found here:
The Hedgehogs of Critical Race Theory.

Fox photo by Linnea Sandbakk on Unsplash

Christian Anarchy

It might be worthwhile to make a differentiation between Christian anarchy and Marxism, which looks to anarchy as the path to a new world order. Marxism endorses violence. Christianity cannot.

Jacques Ellul, in his book Anarchy and Christianity, notes that the achievements of both Gandhi and Martin Luther King were accomplished by virtuous means. By way of contrast, the Black Panther movement did not advance the cause of black liberation that it purportedly intended.

Political power corrupts. And against this corruption we must take a stand.

Ellul notes that once we rule out violence as an option, we must resort to persuasion, “the creation of small groups and networks, denouncing falsehood and oppression.”

Dr. Glenn Martin, in his book Prevailing Worldviews, points out how the institution of slavery was ended in England without violence through persuasion, and the tireless efforts of a few important voices. Even though it took more than forty years, spearheaded by the Society of Friends (Quakers) and politician/philanthropist William Wilberforce, the abolition of slavery was ultimately accomplished without bloodshed.

By way of contrast, the U.S. experienced a torrid Civil War as a result of the activist revolutionary approach to the problem of slavery. Yes, there were some who sought slavery’s termination by peaceful means, but the revolutionary approach ultimately superceded the tireless efforts of the persistent persuaders. According to Martin, actions like the Nat Turner rebellion, which left eighty persons dead, set back the cause of peaceful negotiation, and helped fortify the deeply entrenched status quo of slavery.

It reminds me of the story of the wind and the sun. Each made a bet to see who could force a desert traveler to remove his cloak. The wind went first, blowing fiercely, but the more savagely the wind assaulted, the more firmly the man clutched his linen. Then the sun took his turn, and we all know how that story ends.

Lest I babble indefinitely, let me cite two additional observations from Ellul’s challenging book.

1. “Our experience today is the strange one of empty political institutions in which no one has any confidence any more, of a system of government which functions only in the interests of a political class, and at the same time of the almost infinite growth of power, authority, and social control which makes any one of our democracies a more authoritarian mechanism than any Napoleonic state.” ~ p. 22

2. “Most people, living heedlessly, tanning themselves, engaging in terrorism, or becoming TV slaves, ridicule political chatter and politics. They see that there is nothing to hope for from them. They are also exasperated by bureaucratic structures and administrative bickering.” ~ p. 23

To be sure, it would be nice if everything were black and white, which it will never be. But let’s not be lulled into the stupor of non-thinking, quasi-acceptance of all that is, as if it cannot be any different.