Bovenkant

Anti-ideologie als Ideologie

Geschreven door Michael Cline: 6 februari, 2008

Als Vrij Jacques de sectie van de Jesus Manifesto zou naar richten, heeft het geschrift van Jacques Ellul het Christelijke gevoel van de Anarchist helemaal over de bol, evenals voor veel van de schrijvers kuit geschoten die regelmatig tot deze website bijdragen. Ellul is een fascinerende denker die het weet hoe te om zinnen en ideeën met earnestness te vormen die generationalhiaten en sociaal-economische barrières kruist. Geef me vijf pagina's door de man en ik zal snel vijftien citaten die rond in om het even welk en alle contexten moeten worden geworpen kopiëren en kleven. Dat is de schoonheid van van hem kritiek-zij niet op een bepaald terrein van ecclesiology gezet blijven of bijbels spreiden studie-zij hun woeste paws en greep op elk gebied van ons leven uit. Dit kon niet waarder dan in het geval van zijn poging zijn Jesus en Marx, waar hij waar Christendom opmaakt tegenover wat hij „ideologie“ (zichtbaarst vertegenwoordigd door Marxisme) noemt. Maar ligt hierin het probleem: citeert aandrijving-langs ik wild terugtrok zich van zijn het schrijven voor alle doeleinden ontweek mijn greep. Eerder dan het zijn correcte bytes ik tegen anderen (u, zij kent die nog denken wij in een Christelijke natie, zij leven die eigenlijk denken de stemming de wereld, zij zal veranderen die geen directe conflicten tussen het Koninkrijk van God en het burgerlijke leven) zien kon gebruiken de correcte bytes waren in plaats daarvan het zelf aanklagen.

Het christelijke Anarchisme is enkel zo dichtbij aan het worden een ideologie zoals iets anders. In feite, is het aandringen over de eigenlijke identiteit van zulk een positie bewijs dat wij maar een paar stappen vanaf zich het aansluiten van de bij rangen van andere ideologieën zijn. Jacques Ellul reminds us of this when he writes, “Anything can be labeled an ideology, just as anything can become one: Nationalism, Socialism, Liberalism, Democracy, Marxism, Anti-Racism, Feminism, etc. 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” (p. 1). And so we must constantly critique our own theories, wipe our own lenses, and continually push against the necessity for forming an ideology around a particular thing, even if that thing is a simple as a prophetic impulse such as that found here at the Jesus Manifesto. When our prophetic impulse becomes another tool for forcing people to use our language (“you would be blind not to think America is an Empire”), in order to play our huddled game, we cease to perform a revelatory function based on who we believe God to be for today’s world. If there is any function that Christianity remains valuable for, it is to “discern the genuine issues of our time” as opposed to those who want to adapt the message to “fill the religious void every person has within himself” (p. 4). In the latter function, Christianity only performs as what Dietrich Bonhoeffer would call the “God of the gaps.”

But in remaining prophetic, we cannot come to the point where Christianity becomes a competing ideology. This happens whenever Jesus Manifesto becomes a forum for “distinguishing those who are right from those who are wrong…a will to convert at any cost in order to swell the ranks of a given church, a system for organizing society, or a moralistic system (teaching that behavior is objectively good or bad, according to a clear and timeless definition of good and evil).” Jesus Manifesto can only be valuable as a guiding light to those who are discovering the truth of the Kingdom of God in a world off-center. We certainly cannot water down the message so that joining the ranks is the only “natural” thing to do (a critique Ellul launches on French Socialism), but we also can’t create country club mentality around anti-country club ideals. The openness for dialogue and the space created for revelation is where Jesus Manifesto truly shines. Outside of this freedom, we become just another competing “ism.” The goal is not to mold ourselves into a system of thought that has a complete explanation for every counterargument, but to be authentically Christian. “Once fascinated by terrorism, a person can no longer see any different reality, any other truth. He begins to use terrorist language and becomes a terrorist” (p. 25). May Christianity (and the Jesus Manifesto) not become the latest “terrorism.”

mike.jpgMichael Cline is a freelance pastor and and over-employed learner who currently attends Bethel Seminary in St. Paul, Minnesota. When not snuggling with his wife, he’s blogging here.

for further reading . . .

  • None Found

Comments

8 Responses to “Anti-Ideology as Ideology”

  1. Nathan on February 6th, 2008 3:01 pm

    Well said.

    “The goal is not to mold ourselves into a system of thought that has a complete explanation for every counterargument, but to be authentically Christian.”

    Indeed some of Jesus’ most profound replies used no words, offering display of an alternate path rather than argument or debate. This is a point very well taken.

  2. non-metaphysical stephen on February 6th, 2008 10:08 pm

    > “Anything can be labeled an ideology, just as anything can become one: Nationalism, Socialism, Liberalism, Democracy, Marxism, Anti-Racism, Feminism, etc.”

    This quote reminds me of Ellul’s comment that every social movement is tempted to make Jesus in its own image, and then turn that image into an idol.

    Thanks for the reminder!

  3. Jordan Peacock on February 6th, 2008 11:25 pm

    Thank you for writing this.

    Like the commonly quoted “it’s a relationship with Jesus” when you get inducted into a religious system, the now common “Jesus isn’t conservative or liberal” is in danger and actively becoming a shorthand for religious Democrats.

    Anything that avoids this is an aid, and the strongest medicine to help is dissent. If you disagree with the posts here, do so, please. Build the community with love, respect, and a hammering process of discussion and action.

    Peace.

  4. Michael Cline on February 7th, 2008 7:18 am

    Jordan, some of that is what I was hoping to pick up on, so I am glad you see it too. It’s one of the hardest lines to walk, to be both open to newcomers, and yet to not water down the message so all can join in without genuine conversion. Usually, in our zeal to convert, we allow the message to slide into a more comfortable zone, for instance into the “religious left” because it has more appeal. We will deny in day and night, but the truth remains. Thanks for your insights!

  5. Geoff Holsclaw on February 7th, 2008 7:44 am

    michael,

    thank for the reminder. ideology is such a sticky issue. since the time ellul was writing, our society has made such an ironic turn that it is nearly impossible to distinguish ideology from its critique. As Žižek notes, the form of our culture always anticipates its own critique through an ironic distance (Politics is hopeless but we have to do something…or, Of course I know TV rots my brain but LOST explicates some important themes of our cutlure…). He says that the hermeneutics of suspicion, which initially functioned as an exterior and critique of current culture, circa 1920-1960, has been preemptively absorbed by our consumer society.

  6. Michael Cline on February 7th, 2008 8:51 am

    Geoff,

    When you mention the “hermeneutics of suspicion,” is Zizek talking about the tradition from Nietzsche to Ricoeur? I haven’t read Zizek and feel like I’m swimming in water way over my head. There were times in reading Ellul that I said to myself “is Ellul not crafting his own ideology here?” But in my opinion, if Ellul’s thoughts (or anyone’s for that matter) becomes an ideology, it is not by his own fault, but by what the masses do with it. True or untrue?

  7. Renee on February 7th, 2008 7:44 pm

    Important to remember. It’s something we’re all susceptible to - judging the judgmental and in turn becoming their mirror image.

  8. Casey Ochs on February 7th, 2008 10:04 pm

    “For the Kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power.” Pentecost changed everything and I think we ignore this fact at the risk of becoming irrelevant. Indeed, without Pentecost our theology becomes another idea-ology competing in the marketplace of opinions. The Church was birthed at Pentecost when people saw that the Kingdom of God was in fact among them. This reality revolutionized the early Church’s view of the world. If we eliminate the incarnational, or miraculous from our theology than we will become just another ism, co-opted by the very system we’re trying to prophetically proclaim the Gospel to. If we truly wish to drive the money changers out of the temple then we need true Pentecost now more than ever.

Got something to say?





Bottom