I don't actually own a book copy of Jesus and Marx, but for a time Jesus Radicals had a section on Ellul that featured some of his out-of-print books as pdf files, and so I obtained a pdf copy. (The section is still there, but Jesus and Marx is not.) I've actually found going through the text in pdf form preferable to going through it in book form, because I tend to only print out a few pages at a time (and therefore go through the text slower and more methodically) and it's easier to write marginal notes on a sheet of paper than on book pages.
That being said, here are my notes for the first chapter:
Page 1:
Ellul's conception of ideology seems, to me, woefully inadequate. He first criticizes the myriad of meanings the word "ideology" can have, depending on the scholar, but then goes on to give a rather vague definition:
"An ideology is the popularized sentimental degeneration of a political doctrine or worldview; it involes a mixture of passions and rather incoherent elements, always related to present realities."(1)Note: Political doctrine is pure while ideology is not. Does this mean (unsullied) political doctrine is outside the realm of ideology?
But Ellul's version of ideology becomes even more strange:
"Often an ideology springs up to parry an ideology-free practice. Male domination for example, has no explicitly formulated ideology; feminist ideology arises to oppose it. Capitalism is a practice with no explicitly formulated ideology; socialist ideology arises to oppose it. Afterward, capitalism will produce an ideology of 'defense.'" (Ellul, 1)It seems that Ellul is mixing ontology and epistemology here. Just because early capitalism did not have an explicitly articulated ideology doesn't mean that the ideology did not exist. (Indeed, Žižek argues that we now experience ideology as non-ideology -- but let's not throw one thinker against another just yet.)
To be fair to Ellul, however, the ideology-free understanding of early capitalism makes some sense if ideology is confined to the sphere of explicit, popular doctrine. It's just that this version of ideology is vastly different than the kind of thing that they introduce into basic sociology courses -- and consequently, what I have in mind when I hear the world "ideology." I suppose this divergence of meaning could be attributed to the influence of Freudian theory of Marxism -- that is to say, the influence of the idea of the unconscious (this would certainly explain Žižek). Not having read Marx (oh, reading list!), I can't say whether this brief interpretation of the history of Marxist theory is accurate or not, but it's worth keeping in mind. Either way, I think it's good to permit at least one charitable reading of a text, so I'll proceed keeping Ellul's version of ideology in mind.
Pages 2 and 3:
Ellul recognizes Christianity as an ideology, but he distinguishes between Christianity-as-ideology and "pure" Christianity. (Perhaps in the same way he distinguishes between "pure" political doctrine and ideology?) For Ellul, "pure" Christianity -- I think it might be appropriate to use the Žižekian term, "kernel" -- is radically anti-ideological, in that "biblical revelation necessarily entails iconoclasm, that is, the destruction of all religions, beliefs, ideolatrous images, and fads." (2) (I'm thinking of Galations 3:28 here.) Furthermore, the kernel of Christianity is founded on radical God-given freedom. Consequently, the Christian (in the pure sense, not the ideological sense) is specifically called to critique ideology, because ideological confines attack Christian freedom.
This leads Ellul to acknowledge the epistemological problem I raised earlier: How to recognize ideology? Ellul nods his head to Marx and Nietzsche, saying that their critiques of Christianity (as ideology) are valid, but also argues that it would better if this work was taken up by Christians.
However, Ellul's formulation of the method of the Christian critique is rather vague. He mentions that Christians must stop reading the Bible to find arguments or justifications for their positions (because this merely produces ideology) and instead interact with the Bible as an kind of interrogation -- God questions the believer about their thoughts, behavior, church, etc. (I suppose this would be termed "conviction.") Furthermore, the believer must be sociologically aware -- i.e. of popular trends -- so that they may resist the alluring ideologies present in the mass actions (or inactions) of groups.
Pages 4 and 5:
Finally, Ellul remarks than critiques of ideology are historically specific, so the Christian critic must not think that their critique will be longstanding. Ellul points to Marx, who constructed a thorough, specific critique of his historical moment -- but this critique, when divorced from historical context, merely became an ideology. Christian critique of ideology, for Ellul, must always center on the present -- a present which is intimately connected to the future via the here-but-still-yet-to-come temporality of the Kingdom of God. Thus, the Christian critique of ideology is really prophecy -- that is, the understanding of the current historical moment in relation to the known future (i.e. the Kingdom of God).
This is all well and good, but I'm not sure how Ellul can even use the category of ideology, since it is rooted in a materialist theory (Marxism). Maybe this is at the heart of my confusion. Ellul doesn't seem to speak of ideology in material terms -- in contrast to the Althusserian understanding of ideology as always manifested in the material -- but rather in spiritual terms. I'm not sure if I think this is limiting or restricting... or neither.
Well, I'm only five pages into the book. I'm guessing he'll elaborate further.
Posts
