Off-topic musings for the theologically inclined

[_CaliforniaKid]

I posted the following on my blog today. It is a summary of my second-favorite theology text (behind Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Cost of Discipleship), The Meaning of the City by Jacques Ellul. It's difficult to explain why I like it so much. Maybe because it understands history and the Bible as a narrative, all of which is going somewhere. Maybe because it contains some deep thoughts about how God can appropriate human fallenness into the divine economy. (Religion makes a lot more sense to me if I can attribute the weird stuff-- like sacrifice and temples-- to human innovation.) Maybe just because Ellul was such a darn good writer that the book feels like it could be a sacred text in its own right. In any case, I hope you enjoy.

----

The Meaning of the City is French theologian Jacques Ellul’s attempt to grapple with the soteriological meaning of urbanization. Ellul’s instinct was to be suspicious of such a development. He was similarly wary of technology, which he felt could fundamentally impede spirituality, so it is hardly surprising that he should depict the emergence of the city as a negative development in salvation history. Ellul traces the city’s origins to Cain. When Cain was cursed to wander the earth, he reportedly feared that someone might kill him. God responded to this fear by placing a mark on Cain to ward away potential assailants. Cain, however, was unsatisfied with the security God proffered. He sought to create his own security by the creation of the world’s first city.

The story, however, does not end with Cain. Ellul’s book is concerned in large part with the city of Jerusalem, which God has adopted and turned into a holy city. To Ellul, this seems an unlikely development. The election of Jerusalem is not what we would expect from the warrior God of the nomadic Hebrews. The city is fundamentally opposed to him. Why would he adopt it? Jerusalem, moreover, is the worst of the worst. Why does God not choose a different city, or better yet start a new city? This paradox, according to Ellul, is full of meaning. In it we can discern God’s character and the nature of his plan for interaction with humankind.

In Ellul’s construction, the city is a place of open rebellion against God. It is a symbol of humans’ lack of trust in God, a search for security apart from him. That is its nature; it is fundamentally opposed to him. Ellul calls it a “counter-creation” (102), man’s prideful response to God’s perfect creation. Every city is identified with a fallen angel that is the spiritual force behind the city. These angels would like nothing more than to subvert the authority of Yahweh. In light of these characteristics, God has cursed the city. It seems clear what action he should take in this situation. He should separate his faithful from the cities and then destroy them, as he did with Lot’s family and Sodom and Gomorrah. Yet God does not choose to do so. He chooses the city of Jerusalem and makes it a holy city, adopting the counter-creation as his own. He chooses to meet man where he is, to drive out the fallen angels, to separate the city from its negative spiritual identity. God works tirelessly to heal the city, to cure it, to incorporate it into his purposes.

Not only does God resist the urge to destroy all of man’s cities, but he also resists simply starting a new city. He chooses to take what man has already created, to adopt it, and to very slowly correct it. When this process is finally completed, the reality of the old Jerusalem will give way to the reality of the New Jerusalem. It would be easy for God to find a nice empty little spot of land and build a city like the New Jersualem, one separate from all of man’s creations, one without a negative spiritual identity. But instead he chooses to adopt and transform the old Jerusalem.

That he chooses Jerusalem at all is very strange. It is a pagan city built by the Jebusites. It is a city full of bloodshed, a city so impure that Israel spurned it during its initial conquests in the Judges period. It is also a city of idolatry, and for this nearly all the prophets will condemn it. Even King David, who consecrates the city to Yahweh, does not understand. He insists upon building a temple within its walls. He places the Ark of the Covenant on the mount. These become political symbols more than symbols of consecration. They become symbols of power more than symbols of holiness. Jerusalem is certainly not an easy case. From the day God chooses it, he seems to be locked in an endless struggle with it. He destroys it again and again, exiles its inhabitants over and over. And to what avail? Seemingly none. But God does not give up. Each time he rebuilds the city. Each time he rebuilds the temple. He seems determined that these things be healed, that they be separated from the negative spiritual powers that drive them, and that they become entirely pure and devoted to him.

In all of this Ellul sees evidence that God is devoted to man, that he intends to honor his covenants, and that his love is far deeper than man can comprehend. God’s plan is not to start over. It is not to re-create. It is to adopt, and to heal. These are the truths behind the apparent paradox of Jerusalem’s election.

The tale that Ellul has spun here, the fabric of myth and social critique that he has so beautifully woven, is one that I find personally compelling. I cannot profess to know the meaning of the city, but my subjective judgment sees in it both the potential for great evil and the potential for considerable good. I do not know whether the time will come when God personally redeems the city, or whether this is entirely our work. But it is our work for the present, regardless of the eschatological, religious, or non-religious categories we place ourselves in. It is time to take a long, hard look at our cities and the injustices they represent, and to begin to be agents of transforming grace within their walls.

-Chris

[_Gadianton]

One of the biggest problems with God's birds-eye view, with his goal being a gigantic mass of adobe huts connected by streets paved with gold, adorned with gigantic pearls, and encompassing roughly the size of the moon's surface, is that he's looking at a city backwards. If God wanted purity, and ubiquity, he's not going to get it out of a city. A city even centered around a temple is only superficially grounded in the Lord. Lurking beneath is the startling discovery of market forces, specialization and trade, division of labor, economies of scale, all of which make the city, the hub of trade and market transactions, possible. The problem is, once you've got that far, the forces are already in place and cultural intersections are unpreventable.

[_huckelberry]

Gadianton, I find myself wondering why God would be interested in mud huts and disturbed by market forces, specialization of labor, trade and perhaps you could add technological developement found in cities. Perhaps I should ask Mr Ellul. I have read some theologians but not this particular fellow.

I am curious why cities should be seen as more of a problem than wandering herders. The general summary That God choosing Jerusalem (or is it going along with Davids choice?) is an example of God intending healing and Gods own faithfulness to purpose is a pretty standard observation. I find Jerusalem interesting because it is an example of culture melding. Its presence is strong counterexample of against belief in the value of lineage purity or Isrealite exclusivity.

If I knew a bit more about the reasons that Mr Ellul is troubled by cities it might be easier to discuss further. Marxist?

[_Blixa]

Gadianton, I find myself wondering why God would be interested in mud huts and disturbed by market forces, specialization of labor, trade and perhaps you could add technological developement found in cities. Perhaps I should ask Mr Ellul. I have read some theologians but not this particular fellow.

I am curious why cities should be seen as more of a problem than wandering herders. The general summary That God choosing Jerusalem (or is it going along with Davids choice?) is an example of God intending healing and Gods own faithfulness to purpose is a pretty standard observation. I find Jerusalem interesting because it is an example of culture melding. Its presence is strong counterexample of against belief in the value of lineage purity or Isrealite exclusivity.

If I knew a bit more about the reasons that Mr Ellul is troubled by cities it might be easier to discuss further. Marxist?

I believe Ellul was a self-described anarchist, but I think he had some background in marxism. I've never read him and only know him in passing, i.e., references made by other writers I've read over the years. Because my interests pretty much lie outside of religious studies I've never followed up on him. Perhaps I should? If I remember correctly, his work also has a critique of technologism or a focus on the role of increasing technology/technologist ideology in human history, but maybe I'm misremembering.

[_Ray A]

I posted the following on my blog today.

CK, I was going to click on to your blog, but, frankly, I think you're a boring poster. No offence intended. I suppose I should click it before making that crass judgement. Why don't you say something ignorant, like Scratch? Or like the forst (I mean, "first") post you did when you posted on FAIR. Now that was idiotic, but interesting. You've just turned into a boring old fart. You don't read Scratch's posts, and I bet he doesn't read yours.

All we need now is some academic to chime in about reading posts properly.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Gadianton, I find myself wondering why God would be interested in mud huts and disturbed by market forces, specialization of labor, trade and perhaps you could add technological developement found in cities. Perhaps I should ask Mr Ellul. I have read some theologians but not this particular fellow.

I am curious why cities should be seen as more of a problem than wandering herders. The general summary That God choosing Jerusalem (or is it going along with Davids choice?) is an example of God intending healing and Gods own faithfulness to purpose is a pretty standard observation. I find Jerusalem interesting because it is an example of culture melding. Its presence is strong counterexample of against belief in the value of lineage purity or Isrealite exclusivity.

If I knew a bit more about the reasons that Mr Ellul is troubled by cities it might be easier to discuss further. Marxist?

Have you ever heard of Reinhold Niebuhr's book Moral Man, Immoral Society? The premise was essentially that when human beings get together and create socieities, structures, and organizations, those groups will tend to act immorally in their own self-interest. Their purpose gets perverted from its original intention, and becomes about the perpetuation of the organization. If Niebuhr is right, then I suppose cities would fit the bill.

Blixa is right that Ellul was a bit of an anarchist. I think he felt that human beings are more capable of acting morally when they act apart from structures and strictures of society. It doesn't help that he lived through World War 2 and saw the way that people went along like sheep with whatever the establishment wanted. Even the Christian churches became Nazi pariahs.

Just a thought: as cities get bigger and technology advances, wars get more and more devastating. It is true the governments impose a certain amount of order on our individual interactions, but the trade-off is that they further their own interests by creating disorder at a much more macroscopic level. Ellul may have been on to something in seeing cities and technology as a real danger. But I also think he was onto something in The Meaning of the City when he talked about the redemption of the city. To abandon cities and dissolve governents, at this point, is a totally unworkable solution. We have to open our eyes to the dangers of ciies and technology and find a way to fix and redeem them rather than wishing we could cast them aside.

CK, I was going to click on to your blog, but, frankly, I think you're a boring poster. No offence intended. I suppose I should click it before making that crass judgement. Why don't you say something ignorant, like Scratch? Or like the forst (I mean, "first") post you did when you posted on FAIR. Now that was idiotic, but interesting. You've just turned into a boring old fart. You don't read Scratch's posts, and I bet he doesn't read yours.

lol! Thanks, Ray. I'll try to work some ignorance into my posts now and then for entertainment's sake. Out of curiosity, what was the first post I posted on FAIR? I tried to look it up, but they don't seem to archive back that far. I don't deny that I was pretty idiotic one upon a time. You shoulda seen some of the conversations I had on whyprophets. Nor do I deny that there may be a residue of said idiocy still subsisting within this heart of mine. But hopefully I've come a long way. (Or maybe not hopefully? It sounds like it's the idiots that get the readership.)

:-)

-Chris

[_huckelberry]

chris, I wouldn't worry too much about Rays post, it sounded like a sort of involuntary neurological twitch.

I like Rienhold Niebuhr. I thnk his suspicion of organizations would apply to villages, groups of herders, schools, message board communities and utopian escapies from society as well as cities however. Perhaps for Ellul cities represent the human inclination to equate growth in power with improvement. They could be a symbol of that even if the reality of that is hardly limited to cities. It is possible to think of wwii as a turning point in the growth of imperialism justifying itself as the natural process of cultural developement. At least a bit of caution toward that view has resulted from that enormous disaster.

[_cksalmon]

I'm just posting to say I don't find Chris boring. But, mainly, to show off my new sig line.

CKS

[_CaliforniaKid]

I'm just posting to say I don't find Chris boring. But, mainly, to show off my new sig line.

CKS

lol! nice.

My first blog post was about Ben Affleck and predestination. That one was for you.

[_Mister Scratch]

I'm just posting to say I don't find Chris boring. But, mainly, to show off my new sig line.

CKS

I don't find him boring, either. I am not always excited/interested in some of the headier stuff he deals with, but I most definitely appreciate his insight.