Brian Janaszek has written a response to my article on Jacques Ellul that merits a further response. Janaszek argues that neocalvinists do not take seriously enough the critiques of Ellul and Ivan Illich of institutions. He further charges that neocalvinists are guilty of triumphalism. I will not try to speak for all neocalvinists on this latter point. I know that some have indeed entertained what might be called postmillennial enthusiasms in assuming that the christian way will score a decisive victory in the present age.
But this is not what my critique of Ellul is all about. I make no claim that well-meaning Christians will inevitably succeed in reforming all the institutions in which they find themselves. Like every human effort, there will be successes and failures. Moreover the successes will always be tainted by the effects of sin, while the failures will never entirely efface the creational goodness that God in his mercy upholds through his common grace. Janaszek writes that
technology can bring about good, as can a government, or a school, but we cannot expect that these things will be completely turned back to God until this world passes away. To expect anything else would be an attempt to immanentize the eschaton. And while technology has in some ways made our lives better, this is a doubled-edged sword, as such progress often reduces the quality of our lives in other, less obvious ways.
Off hand I cannot think of a neocalvinist who would disagree with this. Kuyper and Dooyeweerd would certainly affirm this augustinian insight. In a fallen world it could hardly be otherwise.
My own critique of Ellul (leaving out Illich, whom I do not know at all well) is that, while he correctly pinpoints the destructive potential of modern technology under the guise of an autonomous Technique, he is wrong to view it as uniquely destructive or as a source of evil in the world. Janaszek again:
Ellul was, much as his contemporary Ivan Illich, distrustful of institutions (schools and governments, for example) as vehicles for the work of Christ. Institutions would simply become corrupt over time (as a result of sin), and while there is also the possibility for reform, the cycle would repeat itself. Illich, more than Ellul, saw this clearly, even at work within the family. Relying on the State, or a school system, to change culture [is] at best wishful thinking, and at worst rather dangerous.
Yet surely we must admit that institutions are not the unique repositories of sin? Sin is located in the human heart's rebellion against God's ways. Disobedience cuts through every human endeavour and relationship, whether these take the form of abstract institutions in a national capital city or of face-to-face friendships within the context of the rural village. Why be distrustful of institutions and not of the next-door neighbour? Why distrust technology and not one's own motives in desiring to fulfil one's life aspirations? To be sure, institutions are capable of being abused, but so is everything for which human beings are responsible before God. Institutions are no more caught up in sin than any other element of human life. If Ellul did indeed recognize this in his voluminous writings, then I will be pleased to have it pointed out to me.
If there is a moment of truth in Ellul's argument, it is perhaps in recognizing that, because of their impact on such large numbers of people, institutions may be more quantitatively destructive than a simple friendship going awry in a small town. Similarly, nuclear energy's destructive potential is greater than that of the simple act of whittling a piece of wood, however much both are caught up in human sin. Yet I believe Ellul is saying much more than this. Hence my critique.
Again here's Janaszek:
For both Ellul and Illich (and this is most visible in Ellul's Presence of the Kingdom, true Christian action was the act of rolling up one's sleeves and doing the dirty work of meeting the needs of your fellow man. For Ellul, this meant working with "troubled" youth and fighting for the preservation of the [French] sea coast. Christian action begins with a supple heart, listening for God's call, and more often than not, when this call comes, the Christian is simply asked to act. Ellul offers no specifics, no policies, no programs (in fact, he says [specifically] such things can be antithetical to real Christian action)--simply the exhortation that the Church (that is, the body of believers) help those that need it. For the Neocalvinist, however, Christian action often takes the form of [policy] and program. Government can be reformed (in the Christian sense) and used for the work of Christ. And (to get back to the point of Ellul's essay) Technique, being a part of the created order, should be molded by Christian hands.
Meeting immediate human needs and formulating policies and programmes are by no means antithetical; each has its proper context. If a friend comes to your door in the middle of the night indicating that he and his family have been flooded out of their house, it's not necessary to call a committee to come up with a general policy for dealing with domestic deluges. On the other hand, in the context of the state, or political community, the lack of carefully researched and worked out policies can be fatal to the public interest. Recent history is littered with failed christian attempts to enter the political arena armed with good intentions and little else. This is not responsible political action.
I am grateful that during his life Ellul was involved in concrete efforts to help his fellow human beings in obedience to the gospel. But as a political scientist looking for policies serviceable to doing justice within the larger institution of the state, I simply do not find Ellul all that useful. Distrust of the state may be warranted in specific circumstances, but as a general principle it will leave us high and dry. This is why I believe that the neocalvinist vision behind the WRF, the Center for Public Justice and other likeminded organizations makes for a far better alternative. It recognizes that there is no substitute for doing one's homework in thinking through, to begin with, the normative task of the state and, subsequently, the policies and programmes serviceable to doing justice in a world caught up in the drama of creation, fall and redemption in Jesus Christ.
No comments:
Post a Comment