I’m continuing to make my way through Jacques Ellul’s Anarchy and Christianity (Anarchie et Christianisme, 1988), which, at the very least, is a thought-provoking study. The book’s second major section is entitled “The Bible as the Source of Anarchy,” and it features Ellul’s commentary on a number of scriptural issues and figures, from the Davidic monarchy to the writings of St. Paul. The overarching finding of Ellul’s exegesis is that the Bible juxtaposes obedience to God with obedience to “politics and political authority.” Ellul does not view this as a theoretical possibility, rooted, for example, in a historical-critical analysis of biblical literature. As he puts it, “We do not have here early Christian interpretation but the position of Jesus himself.” With this in mind, Ellul expands on a number of passages that indicate Jesus’ distrust of and even hostility towards political power “no matter what its orientation or constitutional structures.”
After cycling through a number of gospel readings (Matthew 4:8-9, Matthew 17:24ff [pictured above], Matthew 20:20-25, Mark 12:13ff), Ellul turns his attention to the writings of St. Paul. Here, he concedes, the issue is more complicated. After all, the classical interpretation of texts such as Romans 13:1-7 is that Christians have a duty to obey “the power that is from God as though it were itself God.” According to Ellul, however, this conclusion is based on a literal reading of Romans 13:1 (“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers”) that fails to contextualize Paul’s statement. Indeed, starting with Romans 12:1 and continuing through the end of Romans 14, Paul offers an extended commentary on how Christians are to prioritize “the will of God and love” over the “trends and customs and currents of thought of the society in which we live.” “Be not conformed to this world,” writes Paul, “but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God” (Romans 12:2). If Paul is writing to convince Rome’s Christian population to defer to political rulers, the injunction “be not conformed” is rather peculiar. What, then, is Paul really getting at?
Ellul’s answer is somewhat surprising, particularly since it clashes with our current political discourse, which is frequently carried out with zealous acrimony on outlets such as Facebook and Twitter. First, Ellul assumes that, in imitation of Christ, Paul rejects the temptation of political power. In other words, Paul “belongs to that Christian church which at the first is unanimously hostile to the state, to the imperial power, to the authorities.” And yet, precisely as a Christian, Paul cannot thereby recommend that Christians despise or hate those who wield political power. Instead—and here is the truly countercultural move—Christians are called to pray that political leaders will be converted, that they will renounce state power and entrust themselves to God alone. As Ellul writes:
Paul is saying in effect that we are to pray for all people. Included are kings and those in high office. We are to pray even for kings and magistrates. We detest them, but we are still to pray for them. No one must be excluded from our intercession, from our appeal to God’s love for them. … We cannot want the absolute death of political foes. Certainly our prayer will not be a kind of Te Deum. It will not be prayer that they remain in power, that they win victories, that they endure. It will be prayer for their conversion, that they change the way they behave and act, that they renounce violence and tyranny, that they become truthful, etc. Yet we will pray for them and not against them.
In this way, concludes Ellul, Christianity is able to unite an anarchistic social vision with Jesus’ commands to love God and neighbor. “Your only true weapon,” says Ellul, “is to turn to God, for it is he alone who dispenses supreme justice.”
"Christians despise or hate those who wield political power. Instead—and here is the truly countercultural move—Christians are called to pray that political leaders will be converted, that they will renounce state power and entrust themselves to God alone." Interesting to learn more from Ellul on anarchy. I can get how someone who's been deeply influenced by Kierkegaard could resonate with Ellul, too. In Ellul's conception, does organized political power come across as something that is (always, or inevitably) intrinsically hostile to God? Ellul's way is turning from political power, toward God, to avoid and overcome temptation and evil, and to live with the integrity, but also the vulnerability and risks that follow?