Jesus and Marx - Jacques Ellul

7/28/2019 Jesus and Marx - Jacques Ellul

1/92

Jesus and Marx:From Gospel to

Ideology

by

Jacques Ellul

translated by

Joyce Main Hanks

WILLIAM B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANYGRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

Copyright 1988 by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.255 Jefferson Ave. S.E., Grand Rapids, Mich. 49503

All rights reserved

Printed in the United States of America

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Ellul, Jacques.[Ideologie marxiste chr46tienne. English]Jesus and Marx: from gospel to ideology / by Jacques Ellul;

translated by Joyce Main HanksP. cm.

Translation of: Uideologie marxiste chr6tienne-includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 0-8028-0297-4

1. Communism and Christianity. 2. Ideology. I. Title.HX536.E4313 1988

261.7-dc19

88-10203CIP


2/92


3/92


4/92


5/92


6/92


7/92


8/92


9/92


10/92


11/92


12/92


13/92


14/92


15/92


16/92


17/92


18/92


19/92


20/92


21/92


22/92


23/92


24/92


25/92


26/92


27/92


28/92

MARGINAL NOTES 63

the same time a Marxist with respect to his concept of history and hismethodology of political and social action. We have been hearing this for

a long time: faith is a strictly private, inner matter, and you are free tobelieve whatever you like, as long as in practice you apply Marxism'sdirectives. In other words, Christian faith must have no ethical or politicaleffect; it belongs in heaven. Marxism deals with practical and concreteissues.

The above leads to the conclusion of these "marginal notes. Wehave discovered three hypothetical solutions to the problem ofreconciling Christian faith and Marxism: synthesis (which Ellenstein findsimpossible), the separation of spheres (but Christianity would then bereduced to the spiritual realm and forced to abandon any ethics orspecific political action), and the conviction that Christianity as thepractice of faith leads to the adoption of Marxism as Christian praxis.The last possibility seems to me to represent the tendency ofpresent-day Marxist Christians. I personally prefer to hold to the radicalcontradiction between the two, but see them as set in a framework ofdialectical conflict, rather than engaged in a mortal conflict destined toeliminate one or the other.


29/92


30/92


31/92


32/92


33/92


34/92


35/92


36/92


37/92


38/92


39/92

84 JESUS AND MARX

When people suggest "interpretation from within class struggle,"they are actually proposing apologetic interpretation: interpretationfalsified for a good cause. On the first level, as we have shown,involuntary, unconscious falsification takes place. But on this secondlevel, we are dealing with lying. For class interpretation fails utterly toreestablish the truth of the text; rather it involves interpreting for thebenefit of those whose side we have taken. We could compare the useof propaganda for the purpose of fighting propaganda, which never tendstoward a return to accurate information!

Taking a position in this class interpretation, then, means gettingembroiled in a maze of contradictions and relying on untenable

presuppositions. You question whether untenable presuppositions areinvolved? How about: "The text has no meaning; it receives its meaningonly when situated externally. We must place the text outside itself, inthe situation of class struggle, which precedes it. This thinking leads toa confused mass of contradictions: the text necessarily emanates fromthe ruling classes, and expresses their thought; it is situated within theclass struggle. But according to our presupposition, we must interpretthe text on the basis of the ideology of the dominated class: that is, wemust interpret it in a manner that contradicts it. In other words, we

superimpose on the text something it cannot have meant, but whichmeans a great deal to us. We return to the well-known methods ofapologetics and the Delphinian use of a poor, innocent text!

Each time we use the biblical text in order to prove we are right inhaving adopted a given theological or political option, we involveourselves in untruth-untruth in the theological sense, coming from thekingdom of the Prince of lies. Again, this is the only result of materialistexegesis based on class struggle.


40/92


41/92


42/92


43/92


44/92


45/92


46/92


47/92


48/92


49/92


50/92


51/92


52/92


53/92


54/92


55/92

A MATERIALIST READING OF THE GOSPELS 117


56/92

conception, must be total: it claims to account for everything-otherwise itfails to be materialist. It is ultimately impossible, since it would supposea set of facts and information no one in the world can have. To carry out

an effective materialist analysis, one would have to have not merely asummary and superficial idea of forces of production and productionrelations, but a complete and coherent knowledge (such as the one Marxtries to establish for the working class and the nineteenth-century Englisheconomy). But such knowledge is historically impossible. Thus onemust fill in for missing knowledge with overall labels or "pseudo-facts"invented out of whole cloth, or with patent distortions of facts we knowsomething of. At this point the reading becomes ideological.

The most one can say, therefore, is that he is attempting a readingwith a materialist intention and orientation-no more. The error lies, then,not in looking for a new means of explanation that would beunencumbered by centuries of accumulated meaning. Nor would it be amistake to bring the social and economic dimension to bear oninterpretation. The error consists of labeling these efforts "materialist,"thus giving the undertaking a spectacular, passionate flavor.Furthermore, the word materialisthas no genuine content in this case,since the author does not provide his ideological presuppositions, whichwould enable the reader to understand why one should attempt amaterialistapproach.

Thus I consider a "materialist" reading as one possibility amongothers. It is the expression of its author's commitment. It represents onepoint of view, but no more scientific or free from ideology than other sortsof readings: symbolic, allegorical, christocentric, critical, structuralist, or asimple, natural reading. But this pseudo-materialist reading becomesstrictly ideological (and even idealist) and anti-scientific when it claims tobe the only possible approach, seeing itself as exclusive, exhaustive,

complete, and able to uncover a meaning in the text that was previouslyobscured.


57/92


58/92


59/92


60/92


61/92


62/92


63/92


64/92


65/92


66/92


67/92


68/92


69/92


70/92


71/92


72/92


73/92

152 JESUS AND MARX

important the "constraints put upon a few intellectuals in the SovietUnion" (since obviously the Soviet Union cannot be faulted for anythingelse; p 106) To consider a completely different example Casalis


74/92

else; p. 106). To consider a completely different example, Casalis

does not hesitate to make a political translation of the word "bandit"(lestes), deciding it means "'member of a fighting band' of zealots" or"guerrilla" (p. 38). He then presents this as a scientific result (whereashe has twisted the Greek text!). Such examples indicate that the authorleaves no stone unturned in his search for ways to undergird hishypotheses.


75/92


76/92


77/92


78/92


79/92


80/92


81/92


82/92


83/92


84/92


85/92


86/92

ANARCHISM AND CHRISTIANITY 177

political orientation, nor that Christians should adopt an anarchistorientation. In other words, we must not fall into the same error withanarchism that has been made with respect to Marxism!

I h t i d t h t t h t i ll b li d (1) th t


87/92

I have tried to show, contrary to what is usually believed, (1) thatno radical contradiction exists between anarchism and the concreteconsequences of Christian faith in the sociopolitical area, whereas thereis a contradiction between Marxism and the implications of the faith; (2)that anarchism does not imply, as Marxism does, the elimination ofChristian specificity; (3) finally, that within the context of modem societyand our concrete historical situation, the determining and decisiveproblem is that of the universal power of the state. We must thereforeaim at that problem, which we can do, thanks to anarchism, whereas

Communism has shown itself incapable of responding to this challenge.On the contrary, each time it comes to power, it merely reinforces thestate.

Refusing a synthesis of Christianity and Marxism does not amountto "preaching submission" (M. Sevegrand, Le Monde, Dec. 1978). Onthe contrary, it means entering a differentrevolutionary way, another wayof questioning that is infinitely more radical and profound. MarxistChristianity thwarts and sterilizes this other way, for it means genuine

conformism to this world.


88/92


89/92


90/92


91/92


92/92

Date post:	03-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	wlad-garcia
View:	226 times
Download:	0 times

Jesus and Marx - Jacques Ellul

Documents