I have been working on a dialogue with Dr. Koyzis for an upcoming issue of Comment about our perspectives on Jacques Ellul. This is a re-write of my initial response to Koyzis’ essay which will not appear in Comment. No need for it languish on my computer.

Jacques Ellul has always been a difficult nut to crack. His vast body of work, which covers sociology, technology, theology, and philosophy, often seems at odds with itself, a product of the dialectical methods Ellul used. Add to this his on again, off again relationship with Calvinism (he was a member of the French reformed church, yet often critiqued Calvinism and embraced Barthian thought, all the while displaying a rather Calvinist sense of humanity and God’s grace), and it is difficult to grasp the perspective from which Ellul writes. Often, one must take Ellul with a grain of salt, realizing the man was not always attempting to construct a framework of thought or theology, instead analyzing a given area of thought and critiquing particular aspects of it. David Koyzis, wearing his Dutch-tinted glasses, examines Ellul’s “Technique and the Opening Chapters of Genesis,” Ellul’s essay on the place of Technique in the Created Order, and comes away unimpressed with Ellul’s conclusions. Because Ellul rejects technology and institutions as part of the Created Order (they are, rather, methods with which we deal with the effects of the Fall), Koyzis sees no compelling reason for Ellul (or an Ellulian, if such a person exists) to embrace the Cultural Mandate or even seek to redirect activities in this world back toward God. Essentially, Ellul leaves us hopelessly adrift in this world, separated from God and unable to change things for the better.

Dr. Koyzis outlines three basic problems with Ellul’s view of creation before and after the Fall. On one point, I am in agreement–that Ellul’s vision of the Created Order is rather suspect (as any Calvinist should be). On his third point, however, I must disagree. Koyzis says:

Third, if Ellul is correct in his view of creation and sin, then it is not clear how we can go about living the Christian life, either as individuals or as communities. Given that the fall into sin introduced something ontic and unprecedented into creation?and not merely its misdirection in the Augustinian sense?redemption cannot be the restoration of that creation. It does not reorient the totality of our life in this world in an obedient direction, because, as Yoder puts it, “we have no access to the good creation of God” this side of the fall into sin. It is structurally impossible for us to live in accordance with the pristine wholeness of the original creation, because it no longer exists. All that remains for us is to fall back on the Bible as the sole source of direction for our “spiritual lives” while grudgingly accepting?what else can we do??the imperatives of the larger world in so-called secular life…

Indeed, in this particular essay, Ellul gives little direction for a life of Christian action. But just as we do not dismiss Abraham Kuyper because of his racist remarks, nor should we dismiss Ellul because of his view of Eden. In fact, one does not need to look much further than Ellul’s biography for a vision of the Christian life on Earth–his work spanned programs for “troubled” youth to ecological activism focused on the French seacoast. His theological insights hardly prevented him from a life of action focused on the redemptive work of Christ. A better outline of Ellul’s “vision” for a life of Christian action can be found in his book Presence of the Kingdom, an examination of how a Christian should live in this present age. This vision is founded on the action of the Church (that is, the body of Christ), which Ellul says stands at the point where God and the world meet. God calls the Christian to stand ready, with a supple heart, listening always for the direction of Christ.

Koyzis continues this line of thought by questioning whether Ellul’s influence would motivate Christians to engage in “cultural transformative” activities and seeking to restore institutions like the State, the educational system, and the family. This is a loaded question. First, it assumes that particular institutions were a part of the created order, and second, it assumes that Ellul believes that we have no hope of bringing Christ’s redemptive work into this world. As for bringing Christ’s redemptive work into the world, again, this is the point of the Presence of the Kingdom. Ellul is skeptical of many institutions (particularly the State), but he would not deny that those institutions could do the work of Christ. His desire is for a life of Christian action, always ready to listen to the guidance of our God. This means, of course, that one could be called to a life of service in the government, or a labor union. But what of the place of institutions in the created order? Koyzis assumes that governments, labor unions, and schools (for example) would have developed even without the Fall. If unions exist to protect the rights of workers, what would they do in a world without sin? And what of the government? Yes, the role of the State extends beyond simply the legislation and execution of law–it provides for the infrastructure of its citzens–and we can imagine the State still doing its work without the Fall. Yet we can also imagine the State being unnecessary without the effects of sin, as communities and individuals, unblemished as they would be, working together to provide for each other.

One final note: Koyzis is troubled by the “discontinuity” of the created order and its post-fall manifestation. The analogy often used is this: for the Calvinist (often Neo- or not) creation can be seen has a mirror of God. The Fall, however, has titled the mirror away from God and focused it on something else. This leaves us with the ability to slowly tilted the mirror back to God and reflect His full glory. For Ellul, the Fall has cracked the mirror, and only God can repair it. Therefore, we must attempt to work around the damage to see God for who He is. As a result, Technique and the various institutions we have created are necessarily sinful, but they are our response to the Fallen world, and therefore those efforts may often fall short of what God truly desires for us. This warning is worth considering. Technique, as much as it has bettered our lives, may not be what God has intended for us. Yes, the Cultural Mandate has commanded us to draw potentialities out of Creation, but not every development is necessarily one that draws us closer to our Creator.

Posted on 12 October 2006