What do you think?
Rate this book
Anarchy and Christianity
Jacque Ellul blends politics, theology, history, and exposition in this analysis of the relationship between political anarchy and biblical faith. While he clarifies the views of each and how they can be related, his aim is not to proselytize either anarchists into Christianity or Christians into anarchy. On the one hand, suggests Ellul, anarchists need to understand that much of their criticism of Christianity applies only to the form of religion that developed, not to biblical faith. Christians, on the other hand, need to look at the biblical texts and not reject anarchy as a political option, for it seems closest to biblical thinking. After charting the background of his own interest in the subject, Ellul defines what he means by the nonviolent repudiation of authority. He goes on to look at the Bible as the source of anarchy (in the sense of nondomination, not disorder), working through Old Testament history, Jesus' ministry, and finally the early church's view of power as reflected in the New Testament writings.
126 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1988
43 people are currently reading
1988 people want to read
About the author
Jacques Ellul
119 books446 followersBaptised Catholic, Ellul became an atheist and Marxist at 19, and a Christian of the Reformed Church at 22. During his Marxist days, he was a member of the French Communist Party. During World War II, he fought with the French Underground against the Nazi occupation of France.
Educated at the Universities of Bordeaux and Paris, he taught Sociology and the History of Law at the Universities of Strausbourg and Montpellier. In 1946 he returned to Bordeaux where he lived, wrote, served as Mayor, and taught until his death in 1994.
In the 40 books and hundreds of articles Ellul wrote in his lifetime, his dominant theme was always the threat to human freedom posed by modern technology. His tenor and methodology is objective and scholarly, and the perspective is a sociological one. Few of his books are overtly political -- even though they deal directly with political phenomena -- and several of his books, including "Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes" and "The Technological Society" are required reading in many graduate communication curricula.
Ellul was also a respected and serious Christian theologian whose 1948 work, "The Presence of the Kingdom," makes explicit a dual theme inherent, though subtly stated, in all of his writing, a sort of yin and yang of modern technological society: sin and sacramentality.
Educated at the Universities of Bordeaux and Paris, he taught Sociology and the History of Law at the Universities of Strausbourg and Montpellier. In 1946 he returned to Bordeaux where he lived, wrote, served as Mayor, and taught until his death in 1994.
In the 40 books and hundreds of articles Ellul wrote in his lifetime, his dominant theme was always the threat to human freedom posed by modern technology. His tenor and methodology is objective and scholarly, and the perspective is a sociological one. Few of his books are overtly political -- even though they deal directly with political phenomena -- and several of his books, including "Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes" and "The Technological Society" are required reading in many graduate communication curricula.
Ellul was also a respected and serious Christian theologian whose 1948 work, "The Presence of the Kingdom," makes explicit a dual theme inherent, though subtly stated, in all of his writing, a sort of yin and yang of modern technological society: sin and sacramentality.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 84 reviews
October 15, 2008
Very, Very Interesting. In many ways a way of speaking of the politics of Jesus from a slightly different angle. Mostly, this will be a good resource for interpretation of Christian's relationship to power.
July 7, 2021
Ellul's biblical exegesis is awful and his case for anarchy falls apart as a consequence. Nevertheless, I admire him for his integrity and I'm sure if I read his writings on technology we'd get along very well.
April 10, 2018
Sabbath Book #13 for 2018.
The faith handed to me in my youth was closely associated with the political right. I could not comprehend how a professing Christian could be anything but Republican. As a young adult in Chicago, I grew uncomfortable with Republican hypocrisies, and because of my involvement with the right as a publicist, I lost my faith. Disinterested in legislating morality and skeptical of politics in general, I shifted to Libertarianism.
But ten years ago, I followed my renewed faith into lives that are oppressed and dehumanized by the right and by market forces, and although my past mistakes kept me from adopting any firm ideology, I began leaning toward liberalism in its contemporary sense. In the meantime, I developed significant friendships with anarchists, and often found myself in agreement with their perspectives.
In the latest election, I was disgusted by the manipulations and appeals aimed at Christians by the Democratic party. I also felt a deep unease at corruptions within the party and its inevitably deep ties with the kinds of power it purports to resist or control.
Despite my activity on local and national issues (I demonstrate and I interview people I admire for a podcast and I have the numbers of all my local and national officials in my phone), I am deeply unsatisfied with my own understanding of politics. So I'm on this quest to discover a healthy relation between my faith and my political life.
Jacques Ellul's Anarchy and Christianity is a thrilling and short piece that explores two apparently opposed movements and encourages thoughtful conversation between them. Which I found a powerful and promising suggestion, regardless of my many disagreements with the steps Ellul takes to get there.
Of course, the primary problem, outside of deep-set and unquestioned antipathy between anarchists and Christians, is the fact that both terms are large umbrellas with numerous offshoots, deep internal disagreements, and varying dogmas. So Ellul does what he can. He defines the sort of anarchy he finds relevant to the conversation (the non-violent kind, which I find non-negotiable in light of the Gospels) and appropriately explores the Christian scriptures to discern the views of Christ and his early followers.
He states that his aim is just to show that of the available political positions, anarchism best aligns with Christianity. Ellul avoids many difficulties by limiting his scope.He does not hope to make anarchists into Christians or Christians into anarchists. He does not play out the conversation, but merely suggests that one should take place.
His case, especially from the Hebrew Scriptures and the life of Jesus, is compelling. He insightfully interprets Jesus's posture and teaching in regard to political powers, even unto the point of death. He demonstrates, however briefly, how the early church followed this example until it was corrupted by alliances with those powers.
His work with other New Testament writers is more challenging for me. I find his interpretation of Romans 13 (a chapter I find very difficult in view of what surrounds it) unsatisfying. While his view of Revelation is compelling, it's also embattled, extremely political, and removed from most of the interpretations of the book I've previously explored. I look forward to further explorations.
I didn't give this book four stars because I agreed with its content, although I found much of it resonant. I give it high praise because of the lines of thinking it provokes for me. I'm looking forward to learning more, both from Ellul and from the scriptures he evokes so passionately.
The faith handed to me in my youth was closely associated with the political right. I could not comprehend how a professing Christian could be anything but Republican. As a young adult in Chicago, I grew uncomfortable with Republican hypocrisies, and because of my involvement with the right as a publicist, I lost my faith. Disinterested in legislating morality and skeptical of politics in general, I shifted to Libertarianism.
But ten years ago, I followed my renewed faith into lives that are oppressed and dehumanized by the right and by market forces, and although my past mistakes kept me from adopting any firm ideology, I began leaning toward liberalism in its contemporary sense. In the meantime, I developed significant friendships with anarchists, and often found myself in agreement with their perspectives.
In the latest election, I was disgusted by the manipulations and appeals aimed at Christians by the Democratic party. I also felt a deep unease at corruptions within the party and its inevitably deep ties with the kinds of power it purports to resist or control.
Despite my activity on local and national issues (I demonstrate and I interview people I admire for a podcast and I have the numbers of all my local and national officials in my phone), I am deeply unsatisfied with my own understanding of politics. So I'm on this quest to discover a healthy relation between my faith and my political life.
Jacques Ellul's Anarchy and Christianity is a thrilling and short piece that explores two apparently opposed movements and encourages thoughtful conversation between them. Which I found a powerful and promising suggestion, regardless of my many disagreements with the steps Ellul takes to get there.
Of course, the primary problem, outside of deep-set and unquestioned antipathy between anarchists and Christians, is the fact that both terms are large umbrellas with numerous offshoots, deep internal disagreements, and varying dogmas. So Ellul does what he can. He defines the sort of anarchy he finds relevant to the conversation (the non-violent kind, which I find non-negotiable in light of the Gospels) and appropriately explores the Christian scriptures to discern the views of Christ and his early followers.
He states that his aim is just to show that of the available political positions, anarchism best aligns with Christianity. Ellul avoids many difficulties by limiting his scope.He does not hope to make anarchists into Christians or Christians into anarchists. He does not play out the conversation, but merely suggests that one should take place.
His case, especially from the Hebrew Scriptures and the life of Jesus, is compelling. He insightfully interprets Jesus's posture and teaching in regard to political powers, even unto the point of death. He demonstrates, however briefly, how the early church followed this example until it was corrupted by alliances with those powers.
His work with other New Testament writers is more challenging for me. I find his interpretation of Romans 13 (a chapter I find very difficult in view of what surrounds it) unsatisfying. While his view of Revelation is compelling, it's also embattled, extremely political, and removed from most of the interpretations of the book I've previously explored. I look forward to further explorations.
I didn't give this book four stars because I agreed with its content, although I found much of it resonant. I give it high praise because of the lines of thinking it provokes for me. I'm looking forward to learning more, both from Ellul and from the scriptures he evokes so passionately.
January 17, 2011
I had high hopes for this book. Unfortunately, they were higher than Ellul could realistically meet. He states both in the introduction and conclusion that his aim is neither to Christianize Anarchism nor to Anarchize Christianity. Rather, he seeks throughout this slim volume to point to the early Christian hostility to authority and to the notion that Christians and Anarchists face the same enemies and nemeses.
His hostility to Islam is disconcerting, as he presents himself as someone learned in its analysis. Why include it at all, if the aim is to explore the compatibility of Christianity and Anarchism? I frankly wish he hadn't mentioned it at all rather than betraying a semi-triumphalist and unfortunately xenophobic tendency through its mention.
As to the type of Anarchism espoused, he mentions an affinity for Anarcho-Syndicalism. This is sensible, as it's quite close to the social relationship of the apostles in Acts. Still, he later veers closer to something like Ammon Hennacy's "One Man Revolution" idea in advocating conscientious objection to all of modern society. Ellul's idea is somewhat more social than Hennacy's inasmuch as he recommends creating "margin societies" or autonomous collectives outside the reach of the State. This type of resignation, however, helps nobody outside the reach of the collective. It is a kind of social boycott which can assuage the conscience of its participants but does little to nothing to help those still afflicted by the State writ large.
Finally, his rejection of any violence whatsoever also leads Ellul to reject Liberation Theology. He betrays a position of privilege here. The pacifism to which he subscribes is the same kind endorsed by White America during the Civil Rights movement: it is more like passivity than like non-violent resistance. It seems odd to accuse someone like Ellul of harboring anti-revolutionary sympathies, but no more odd than actually finding them in a text called "Anarchy and Christianity".
His hostility to Islam is disconcerting, as he presents himself as someone learned in its analysis. Why include it at all, if the aim is to explore the compatibility of Christianity and Anarchism? I frankly wish he hadn't mentioned it at all rather than betraying a semi-triumphalist and unfortunately xenophobic tendency through its mention.
As to the type of Anarchism espoused, he mentions an affinity for Anarcho-Syndicalism. This is sensible, as it's quite close to the social relationship of the apostles in Acts. Still, he later veers closer to something like Ammon Hennacy's "One Man Revolution" idea in advocating conscientious objection to all of modern society. Ellul's idea is somewhat more social than Hennacy's inasmuch as he recommends creating "margin societies" or autonomous collectives outside the reach of the State. This type of resignation, however, helps nobody outside the reach of the collective. It is a kind of social boycott which can assuage the conscience of its participants but does little to nothing to help those still afflicted by the State writ large.
Finally, his rejection of any violence whatsoever also leads Ellul to reject Liberation Theology. He betrays a position of privilege here. The pacifism to which he subscribes is the same kind endorsed by White America during the Civil Rights movement: it is more like passivity than like non-violent resistance. It seems odd to accuse someone like Ellul of harboring anti-revolutionary sympathies, but no more odd than actually finding them in a text called "Anarchy and Christianity".
April 25, 2019
No me ha gustado. Creo que se arregla un poco en la parte final, pero contiene demasiadas cuestiones que me producen rechazo. No sé si me equivoco, por eso copio esta cita del libro, por si estoy metiendo la pata:
En resumen, creo que lo que intenta hacer Ellul con este texto es justificar la anarquía política a partir de la Biblia. Aunque resulta curioso descubrir esta interpretación tan peculiar del texto sagrado, yo no estoy de acuerdo. Realmente estaba buscando un texto que hablase de la anarquía intelectual, o filosófica, es decir: no dejarse influir por nada que no sea la verdad, la verdad que para los creyentes es Cristo; y la relación de esta forma de entender la vida con el cristianismo.
Para mí, esta anarquía intelectual no es más que una actitud ante la vida y no implica que haya que desobedecer la ley, o cosas así, que están asociadas al anarquismo político. El anarquismo intelectual al que me refiero es el de autores como Cervantes o Tolkien. Me siento decepcionado con este texto de Ellul, quizá en gran parte por error mío de esperarme otra cosa. También me gustaría contar con mayor preparación para poder rebatir más a fondo sus argumentos, pero de momento esto es lo que hay.
En resumen, creo que lo que intenta hacer Ellul con este texto es justificar la anarquía política a partir de la Biblia. Aunque resulta curioso descubrir esta interpretación tan peculiar del texto sagrado, yo no estoy de acuerdo. Realmente estaba buscando un texto que hablase de la anarquía intelectual, o filosófica, es decir: no dejarse influir por nada que no sea la verdad, la verdad que para los creyentes es Cristo; y la relación de esta forma de entender la vida con el cristianismo.
Para mí, esta anarquía intelectual no es más que una actitud ante la vida y no implica que haya que desobedecer la ley, o cosas así, que están asociadas al anarquismo político. El anarquismo intelectual al que me refiero es el de autores como Cervantes o Tolkien. Me siento decepcionado con este texto de Ellul, quizá en gran parte por error mío de esperarme otra cosa. También me gustaría contar con mayor preparación para poder rebatir más a fondo sus argumentos, pero de momento esto es lo que hay.
September 10, 2020
A good read, if a bit slight. Ellul's goal is not a "Christian anarchism" but rather an attempt to see if anarchy and Christianity are really so incompatible as they are generally portrayed. In doing so, he calls into question the loyalty to the state often seen as inherent in Christianity and attempts to ameliorate the disdain anarchists holds for the church.
Ellul defines anarchy as "first an absolute rejection of violence," and more broadly, a rejection of political and coercive power in the form of the state. (It's worth mentioning that Ellul resisted the Nazis and the Vichy government in France, and that he broke with Marx and communism after the Moscow trials. When he borrows Nietzsche's description of the state as "the coldest of all cold monsters," he does so with full knowledge of the evils the state is capable of.)
It's also worth noting that Ellul himself doesn't identify as an anarchist, because he rejects the possibility of an anarchist society as a destination that can be reached. Rather, as David Gill writes in the forward, "anarchism is a stance and a strategy, not a millenarian possibility." A stance, he'll argue, consistent with, if not outright essential to, Christianity.
I won't recap the full scriptural analysis which forms the core of the book, but briefly, I think Ellul's claim that the Old Testament is less than favorable towards kings is entirely fair, and while the New Testament section is a more uneven (Ellul, to his credit, admits when he's stretching to make a point) it is at least convincing enough to support a non-identification with and ambivalence towards state power.
A few cons: Ellul has the frustrating tendency of quoting himself constantly. The section I found most interesting, on the early (pre-Constantine) church's conscientious objection to the Roman government, seemed like a vital part of the conversation and Ellul treats it with barely a sketch in the appendix.
And, at a more basic level, I found it interesting that both Ellul and Leo Tolstoy (in The Kingdom of God is Within You) borrow heavily from American pacificist traditions (Anabaptist, Mennonite, and Quaker, Church of the Brethern, etc.) but apply them in a distinctly different, and more political, context in Europe. It doesn't disqualify either Ellul or Tolstoy's works, per se, but I do think it's worth being attentive to the ways in which pacificism is abstracted by them from traditions with non-violence deeply embodied in their communal practices/way of life.
Finally, though it's a minor point, this particular edition has a bizarre typographical error in the forward. Somehow, in any word where the letters "fi" appears, the next letters are omitted from the text. Thus "finally" appears as "fi ally" and "fifty" appears as "fi y." I cannot think of a single plausible explanation of how this might have happened, but it's there. Luckily, Ellul's primary text is unaffected.
Ellul defines anarchy as "first an absolute rejection of violence," and more broadly, a rejection of political and coercive power in the form of the state. (It's worth mentioning that Ellul resisted the Nazis and the Vichy government in France, and that he broke with Marx and communism after the Moscow trials. When he borrows Nietzsche's description of the state as "the coldest of all cold monsters," he does so with full knowledge of the evils the state is capable of.)
It's also worth noting that Ellul himself doesn't identify as an anarchist, because he rejects the possibility of an anarchist society as a destination that can be reached. Rather, as David Gill writes in the forward, "anarchism is a stance and a strategy, not a millenarian possibility." A stance, he'll argue, consistent with, if not outright essential to, Christianity.
I won't recap the full scriptural analysis which forms the core of the book, but briefly, I think Ellul's claim that the Old Testament is less than favorable towards kings is entirely fair, and while the New Testament section is a more uneven (Ellul, to his credit, admits when he's stretching to make a point) it is at least convincing enough to support a non-identification with and ambivalence towards state power.
A few cons: Ellul has the frustrating tendency of quoting himself constantly. The section I found most interesting, on the early (pre-Constantine) church's conscientious objection to the Roman government, seemed like a vital part of the conversation and Ellul treats it with barely a sketch in the appendix.
And, at a more basic level, I found it interesting that both Ellul and Leo Tolstoy (in The Kingdom of God is Within You) borrow heavily from American pacificist traditions (Anabaptist, Mennonite, and Quaker, Church of the Brethern, etc.) but apply them in a distinctly different, and more political, context in Europe. It doesn't disqualify either Ellul or Tolstoy's works, per se, but I do think it's worth being attentive to the ways in which pacificism is abstracted by them from traditions with non-violence deeply embodied in their communal practices/way of life.
Finally, though it's a minor point, this particular edition has a bizarre typographical error in the forward. Somehow, in any word where the letters "fi" appears, the next letters are omitted from the text. Thus "finally" appears as "fi ally" and "fifty" appears as "fi y." I cannot think of a single plausible explanation of how this might have happened, but it's there. Luckily, Ellul's primary text is unaffected.
May 15, 2018
This is a very honest read and is one of the freshest books on Christianity I have read. The author outlines the innate incompatibility of most forms of anarchy and Christianity and why most anarchists would not accept any Christian as a practicing Anarchist. On the premise of that predicament, Ellul barrels forward covering thousands of years of history and exegetes numerous scriptures, I believe all key scriptures both in the Hebrew Bible and the Greek Bible, that refer to authority or are used/have been taught as so by theologians, scholars, laypersons, and church leaders.
With such a blatant title, the book does not limit itself and touches various components to the Christian faith and life. For example faith itself and it’s crucial role in Christian Anarchy, the relationship with God and humans to God, Jesus’ figure and teachings, and freedom itself and how all this reconciles in a proclaimed Christian’s life when confronted by authority; specifically political authority.
To capture more of the takeaways from this book I’ll need to read it with others and discuss it, and most importantly, attempt to live a few of the practices mentioned. I recommend the read simply to challenge your general and traditional view of both Christianity and Anarchy. If you do, expect a new breath of interesting air that may encourage you to reframe how you view politics and authority, even if you are not a Christian or Anarchist.
With such a blatant title, the book does not limit itself and touches various components to the Christian faith and life. For example faith itself and it’s crucial role in Christian Anarchy, the relationship with God and humans to God, Jesus’ figure and teachings, and freedom itself and how all this reconciles in a proclaimed Christian’s life when confronted by authority; specifically political authority.
To capture more of the takeaways from this book I’ll need to read it with others and discuss it, and most importantly, attempt to live a few of the practices mentioned. I recommend the read simply to challenge your general and traditional view of both Christianity and Anarchy. If you do, expect a new breath of interesting air that may encourage you to reframe how you view politics and authority, even if you are not a Christian or Anarchist.
May 2, 2011
I was surprised at how readable this book was, and it was very interesting to hear someone expand on a lot of things I've thought about myself. Ellul doesn't go too deep, and some of his exegesis seems a bit questionable, but for the most part it was interesting reading and gave me plenty of things to think about. He discusses nonviolence and nonvoting and devotes quite a bit of time toward demonstrating that Jesus and the early Christians did not support political powers and hierarchies. His intent is not to convert anarchists to Christianity or Christians to anarchy, but just to demonstrate that the two beliefs can be held simultaneously without self-contradiction.
October 29, 2025
Insightful essay that offers a quite new perspective on texts like Romans 13 and what it means to be in Christ as it relates to the political authorities on earth. As always, Ellul is great at getting you to question the mainline narrative amongst Christendom on some of this stuff. Moving on to his work The Meaning of the City next.
December 31, 2009
A demoralizing disappointment, even though my expectations had been lowered ahead of time by Brad Belschner. Offers very little in terms of a sketch of what anarchy really means and looks like in practice, and his walk through the Bible is so oversimplistic and selective that I was embarrassed for him. Of course, I recognize he's trying to write a brief summary, and so he has to simplify, but there are two different kinds of simplicity. In one, the author is drawing on such a wealth of understanding that although his presentation is small, one recognizes that it is just the tip of the iceberg, supported underneath by a massive foundation lying under the surface. That's how O'Donovan writes. Or, the simplicity can be all that the author has to offer, so that when you try to dig deeper, you see that all you have is a thin, brittle piece of ice that can't bear any strain. That's how Ellul writes in this book at least. The only interpretations he offered that I found convincing were ones that I had already been convinced of elsewhere.
I'm also disappointed because there are also two kinds of anarchist/pacifists, and one kind (the Ellul kind) makes the other kind look bad. One can argue, with some persuasiveness, that we should not exercise dominion and violent judgment because this right belongs to God alone, and he does not delegate it to us. Or one can blindly insist, as Ellul does, that we should not exercise dominion and violent judgment because God doesn't; he is a God of love, not wrath, a God who never wishes to be called Lord or Master; and we should imitate him. And this is just watery and unbiblical, and makes sensible pacifism look dumb.
I'm also disappointed because there are also two kinds of anarchist/pacifists, and one kind (the Ellul kind) makes the other kind look bad. One can argue, with some persuasiveness, that we should not exercise dominion and violent judgment because this right belongs to God alone, and he does not delegate it to us. Or one can blindly insist, as Ellul does, that we should not exercise dominion and violent judgment because God doesn't; he is a God of love, not wrath, a God who never wishes to be called Lord or Master; and we should imitate him. And this is just watery and unbiblical, and makes sensible pacifism look dumb.
February 1, 2013
Jacques Ellul started the book by saying in its introduction that Anarchy is an impossibility. My reaction was a variation of shipwrecked emotions, however, upon finalizing the book, Ellul marinated my mentality back into an inevitable conclusion of anarchistic devotion to the god that makes Law natural to humanity, including those who do not believe in Him.
I was always under the impression that only Christians could live in Anarchist societies (as do the Amish, Quakers and many Mennonites, as agrees Tolstoy and Voltaire. This book only mentions Christian perspective of the theory of Anarchism under Biblical circumstances and does not speak for others.
My recommendation for this book is nearly urgent for all Christians should pick it up and read it, whereas anyone else in today's society would only find room to mock it for absurdities that don't impress their stubbornness. After all, Christianity is a personal relationship with God. It is no institution nor corporation as even most Christians believe that it is.
I was always under the impression that only Christians could live in Anarchist societies (as do the Amish, Quakers and many Mennonites, as agrees Tolstoy and Voltaire. This book only mentions Christian perspective of the theory of Anarchism under Biblical circumstances and does not speak for others.
My recommendation for this book is nearly urgent for all Christians should pick it up and read it, whereas anyone else in today's society would only find room to mock it for absurdities that don't impress their stubbornness. After all, Christianity is a personal relationship with God. It is no institution nor corporation as even most Christians believe that it is.
January 28, 2009
Great analysis of Jesus' message and pre-Constantinian christianity. Shows how truly following Jesus looks a lot like anarchism.
November 3, 2024
Ellul' ANARCY AND CHRISTIANITY is probably inbetween Tolstoy's THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS WITHIN YOU and my own anarchist views. As an old-fashioned 20th century liberal theologian and universalist Ellul is closer to my evangelical faith than Tolstoy is, but still not a good fit. Like Tolstoy he is an interesting ethicist though lacks Tolstoy's rhetorical force. He is a creative exegete and at least attempts to outline a biblical theology of anarchism in the proper way. I found his exegesis at times insightful and interesting and equally often implausible. Both Ellul and Tolstoy have far more activist views than I do. While I see free love relationships and decentralized local decision making the ideal, Ellul (though pacifist) believes the Bible teaches nonviolent resistance to all state authority.
February 2, 2018
In this 100 page essay Jacques Ellul explores the relationship between Anarchism (the theory, not the violent revolution) and Christianity. He sees many similarities and shows that many texts in the Bible can be read in a way that supports the anarchist point of view. I really liked the essay and although Ellul's theological point of views are sometimes questionable (in my laymen opinion) and although he does not provide a clear path forward I believe this is a valuable contribution to progressive christian thinking.
April 8, 2024
As someone who grew up in a conservative catholic environment, I was enthralled with this book. It gave some validation to the foundational Christian theology that was originally ingrained in me, that I saw interpreted in an almost opposite way by the others in my community.
Overall, Ellul provided a really thought provoking perspective that I am glad to have read and sat with. It is something that will undoubtedly stick with me as I continue to try to understand and sort through America’s present political climate and how religion is ultimately entangled in it.
Overall, Ellul provided a really thought provoking perspective that I am glad to have read and sat with. It is something that will undoubtedly stick with me as I continue to try to understand and sort through America’s present political climate and how religion is ultimately entangled in it.
June 19, 2023
A great book. Good mix of political philosophy and the Bible. Just enough of both to give you something to think about without being preachy. I admire Ellul's intention to set out his case without trying to push his views on people.
November 26, 2025
This was such a wild ride!! I appreciate how Ellul is not trying to convince Christians to be anarchists or vice versa, he is simply positing his beliefs. I highly encourage this as an odd relatively short read!
October 15, 2020
Fantastic. Whether you agree with Christian Anarchism or not, read with an open mind, this book is a thought producing read. Highly recommend.
Read
September 15, 2024Vibes
July 31, 2021
This is a light afternoon read but shouldn’t be construed as a serious apologia for Christian anarchism. It’s a decent thumbnail sketch of the general trends and principles for anti-authoritarian followers of Jesus. Many of Ellul’s exegetical arguments are strained to say the least, however others strike true.
January 23, 2019
The best treatise on what "Christian anarchy" or "Christians who are anarchists" may look like. Ellul has no time for false dreams or oversimplified theologies. Rather, he's concerned with what is practical and faithful. How can a person really and truly be an anarchist in this day and age without being stupid; and how can a person avoid being an anarchist theologically but not practically?
Some of Ellul's interpretations of biblical passages seem a stretch, in particular his reading of Romans 13. Basically, though, whether we agree with Ellul or not, his interpretations enable us to think more deeply about the actual meaning of the relevant passages. Put together, it doesn't seem entirely possible to be anything other than an anarchist if one is Christian.
Some of Ellul's interpretations of biblical passages seem a stretch, in particular his reading of Romans 13. Basically, though, whether we agree with Ellul or not, his interpretations enable us to think more deeply about the actual meaning of the relevant passages. Put together, it doesn't seem entirely possible to be anything other than an anarchist if one is Christian.
June 24, 2015
I gave it five stars to acknowledge that it is essential reading for a Christian interested in anarchism. However, it is actually pretty sloppy as theology, religious philosophy, and as politics. He even wastes a few pages on anti-vaccination garbage. But it is short, and universally recognized as an important work on the subject. It influences, or is at least acknowledged, in almost all other books I've ever read on the subject. So, not very good, but an important part of the whole.
December 5, 2019
An intellectual fraud, Jacques Ellul continues the Continental tradition of proving anything by going from the conclusion to the arguments. In this case he has to reconcile for himself his Communist tradition with his Catholic tradition. And yea, the poor guy's knowledge is too limited to know that his "christianisme" is actually just Catholicism.
January 9, 2011
Ellul was maddeningly talented, so why he didn't develop the thoughts crammed in here a bit more is a mystery to me. He was certainly capable of going into more detail here, and I wish he had.
April 17, 2021
Between 3.5 stars and 4...
Positive: It effectively bridges the gap between anarchy and Christianity, and provides Christians with an introduction to a "new" political (or apolitical) framework with which they can approach the world.
Negative: Many of the more specific arguments in this book are not well supported, and Ellul is forced to address very complicated ideas in very simplistic (and perhaps sometimes mildly inaccurate) terms.
Ellul is kind of the epitome of phrase "jack of all trades, master of none". As the description states, this book combines theology, history, political science, general religious studies, and more in his analysis of the compatible relationship of (nonviolent) anarchy and Christian faith. The issue is, Ellul is not really a historian. Or an expert theologian (I would say). Nor a scholar of either the Old Testament or the New Testament, or even Jewish literature on the whole.
The result is a wonderful summary of ideas an arguments, and an introduction to an extremely useful framework... but essentially, only that. Many of the points Ellul makes are good, and I trust they would stand up to firm investigation, however, other quite significant arguments are left nearly wholly unsupported.
A prime example of this occurs fairly early on in the book; Ellul takes quite literally TWO pages to explain how he views the entire nature of God. These two pages are dedicated to showing how the God of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament is not a "supreme master", but rather, a God of love. This is an extremely complicated topic, and its been debated by theologians, Hebrew Bible experts, NT experts, and philosophers for hundreds of years. Two pages. And this point is very important to his argument; this perception of God, in Ellul's eyes, nullifies the traditionally anarchist idea of the Christian God as a master they'd be controlled by, thus making Christianity compatible with anarchism. However, the poor support for this point evidently does not completely clear up the contradiction for the reader (at least in my eyes).
Other problems likewise occur when Ellul addresses the NT, particularly the epistles, in support of his argument. One large blunder for me is his reference and usage of 1 Timothy and Titus as authentically Pauline texts, while the LARGE majority of NT scholars agree that they are not.
However, I must also acknowledge that Ellul does not claim to be an expert in any of these fields, nor is his point to make a large and detailed theological or historical argument. He is trying to bridge the gap between anarchy and Christianity, and this he does very well. Nonetheless, most readers will read this book as if Ellul is an expert of all the things he addresses, and of this we must be very cautious. He does not have the final word on any of these things.
This book is a wonderful introduction to the world of anarchism and Christianity, and I would definitely recommend that anyone interested in any vaguely related topic should read it. However, read it with a grain of salt; his arguments MUST be supplemented with the arguments of more qualified individuals in their respective fields.
Positive: It effectively bridges the gap between anarchy and Christianity, and provides Christians with an introduction to a "new" political (or apolitical) framework with which they can approach the world.
Negative: Many of the more specific arguments in this book are not well supported, and Ellul is forced to address very complicated ideas in very simplistic (and perhaps sometimes mildly inaccurate) terms.
Ellul is kind of the epitome of phrase "jack of all trades, master of none". As the description states, this book combines theology, history, political science, general religious studies, and more in his analysis of the compatible relationship of (nonviolent) anarchy and Christian faith. The issue is, Ellul is not really a historian. Or an expert theologian (I would say). Nor a scholar of either the Old Testament or the New Testament, or even Jewish literature on the whole.
The result is a wonderful summary of ideas an arguments, and an introduction to an extremely useful framework... but essentially, only that. Many of the points Ellul makes are good, and I trust they would stand up to firm investigation, however, other quite significant arguments are left nearly wholly unsupported.
A prime example of this occurs fairly early on in the book; Ellul takes quite literally TWO pages to explain how he views the entire nature of God. These two pages are dedicated to showing how the God of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament is not a "supreme master", but rather, a God of love. This is an extremely complicated topic, and its been debated by theologians, Hebrew Bible experts, NT experts, and philosophers for hundreds of years. Two pages. And this point is very important to his argument; this perception of God, in Ellul's eyes, nullifies the traditionally anarchist idea of the Christian God as a master they'd be controlled by, thus making Christianity compatible with anarchism. However, the poor support for this point evidently does not completely clear up the contradiction for the reader (at least in my eyes).
Other problems likewise occur when Ellul addresses the NT, particularly the epistles, in support of his argument. One large blunder for me is his reference and usage of 1 Timothy and Titus as authentically Pauline texts, while the LARGE majority of NT scholars agree that they are not.
However, I must also acknowledge that Ellul does not claim to be an expert in any of these fields, nor is his point to make a large and detailed theological or historical argument. He is trying to bridge the gap between anarchy and Christianity, and this he does very well. Nonetheless, most readers will read this book as if Ellul is an expert of all the things he addresses, and of this we must be very cautious. He does not have the final word on any of these things.
This book is a wonderful introduction to the world of anarchism and Christianity, and I would definitely recommend that anyone interested in any vaguely related topic should read it. However, read it with a grain of salt; his arguments MUST be supplemented with the arguments of more qualified individuals in their respective fields.
May 23, 2022
Wow, this is a challenge to read for personal reasons. As I was reading Ellul, I feel both convicted and at times wanting to question some of his conclusions. Ellul wants the anarchist to respect the Christian faith, and visa versa. His major premise is that Jesus showed a way of non-violence or pacifism, I am not convinced by this point so this book at the same time is hard to agree with all of its conclusions. Having noted this, Ellul explains his Marxist background and how the violence of the Christian Faith becomes an issue for Marxist. But if one embraces a Universal hope, sand if one moves beyond metaphysics then Christianity can once against reclaim a place in society. In this way, their is an understanding that the Anarchist view of religion could be corrected.
After dealing with the Anarchist, Ellul argues a type of anarchy from the Biblical narrative. In reading the whole text, he finds local self-governance as the best type of governance. Families in the early times voted or choice leaders for a specific task not for unlimited time. If this is what anarchism could be, then my understanding of anarchism stands corrected. For Ellul, the best governance is one that is based on the voice of families or groups or ground up. Even in Judges, Gideon’s Son is judged for taking that permanent position. One might ask about David? Ellul’s explanation was not that he was king but instead that David’s long tenure led to moral failure. It would be better if he was kept in check and called through the community. After David, the kingship of Israel is corrupted with a cycle of violence. In fact, the kingship of Jesus is what the kingship of David should have been. In a radical way, Jesus calls out what is God out of the Kingdom of Caesar. Instead, the act of a servant is the radical and political call. Even in the Cross, one finds that Christ embraces violence to Himself in order to bring about the resurrection. Christ, for Ellul, is a pacifist.
Much more could be mentioned, although I agree with much of Ellul’s observation I would draw a different perspective. Out of all the anarchist philosophies, Ellul mentions that his position is mainly in agreement with the Anarcho-Syndicalists. In reality this means that one looks at the situation around them and acts within the system. Much like Daniel in the Scriptures, one is to be faithful to God within the system. This brings an odd tension within Ellul of both cooperation and rebellion against the State. I would have to consider more about Ellul’s philosophy but I think he is headed in the right direction.
After dealing with the Anarchist, Ellul argues a type of anarchy from the Biblical narrative. In reading the whole text, he finds local self-governance as the best type of governance. Families in the early times voted or choice leaders for a specific task not for unlimited time. If this is what anarchism could be, then my understanding of anarchism stands corrected. For Ellul, the best governance is one that is based on the voice of families or groups or ground up. Even in Judges, Gideon’s Son is judged for taking that permanent position. One might ask about David? Ellul’s explanation was not that he was king but instead that David’s long tenure led to moral failure. It would be better if he was kept in check and called through the community. After David, the kingship of Israel is corrupted with a cycle of violence. In fact, the kingship of Jesus is what the kingship of David should have been. In a radical way, Jesus calls out what is God out of the Kingdom of Caesar. Instead, the act of a servant is the radical and political call. Even in the Cross, one finds that Christ embraces violence to Himself in order to bring about the resurrection. Christ, for Ellul, is a pacifist.
Much more could be mentioned, although I agree with much of Ellul’s observation I would draw a different perspective. Out of all the anarchist philosophies, Ellul mentions that his position is mainly in agreement with the Anarcho-Syndicalists. In reality this means that one looks at the situation around them and acts within the system. Much like Daniel in the Scriptures, one is to be faithful to God within the system. This brings an odd tension within Ellul of both cooperation and rebellion against the State. I would have to consider more about Ellul’s philosophy but I think he is headed in the right direction.
September 9, 2021
This was my first introduction to Jacques Ellul. Having spent the last couple of years hearing Christian Anarchism vaguely spoken of, I finally decided to forego my assumptions about the category and listen in to this short essay.
Ellul does a splendid job stating and remaining within his aims for the essay. In general, I understand that he is trying to make the case that anarchism (properly understood) partnered with a repudiation of all forms of violence is a legitimate option for Christian people.
The reason for four stars instead of five is that there were times where Ellul's conclusions do not appear to resolve all of the tensions created by his vision of Christian Anarchism. But perhaps he understands this. One of my favorite lines from the book is as follows: "The true anarchist thinks that an anarchist society --with no state, no organization, no hierarchy, and no authorities--is possible, livable, and practice. But I do not. In other words, I believe that the anarchist fight, the struggle for an anarchist society is essential, but I also think that the realizing of such a society is impossible." (p. 19)
One of the core strengths of Ellul's work in this book is his ability to succinctly and boldly state his conclusions. Ellul states his observations so baldly that the reader has permission to reengage the scriptures and see if his conclusions align with the evidence. For instance, "the first Christian generation was globally hostile to political power and regarded it as bad no matter what its orientation or constitutional structures." (p. 59) Statements like these invite reflection and critique, and for that I am grateful.
One final strength worth noting is the second half of the essay titled "The Bible as the Source of Anarchy." From the Gospels, the Revelation, to Peter and Paul, Ellul covers a lot of ground and cites compelling evidence that anarchism accords with the authoritative sources.
My invitation as a reader to other Christian people would be to take up the opportunity to sit with this work. Anarchy and Christianity was thought refining and will not soon leave my consciousness as a navigate my life as a person of faith.
Ellul does a splendid job stating and remaining within his aims for the essay. In general, I understand that he is trying to make the case that anarchism (properly understood) partnered with a repudiation of all forms of violence is a legitimate option for Christian people.
The reason for four stars instead of five is that there were times where Ellul's conclusions do not appear to resolve all of the tensions created by his vision of Christian Anarchism. But perhaps he understands this. One of my favorite lines from the book is as follows: "The true anarchist thinks that an anarchist society --with no state, no organization, no hierarchy, and no authorities--is possible, livable, and practice. But I do not. In other words, I believe that the anarchist fight, the struggle for an anarchist society is essential, but I also think that the realizing of such a society is impossible." (p. 19)
One of the core strengths of Ellul's work in this book is his ability to succinctly and boldly state his conclusions. Ellul states his observations so baldly that the reader has permission to reengage the scriptures and see if his conclusions align with the evidence. For instance, "the first Christian generation was globally hostile to political power and regarded it as bad no matter what its orientation or constitutional structures." (p. 59) Statements like these invite reflection and critique, and for that I am grateful.
One final strength worth noting is the second half of the essay titled "The Bible as the Source of Anarchy." From the Gospels, the Revelation, to Peter and Paul, Ellul covers a lot of ground and cites compelling evidence that anarchism accords with the authoritative sources.
My invitation as a reader to other Christian people would be to take up the opportunity to sit with this work. Anarchy and Christianity was thought refining and will not soon leave my consciousness as a navigate my life as a person of faith.
February 27, 2024
Primeros pensamientos: más o menos. Creo que me aburrió el hecho de que una gran parte del libro sea interpretaciones bíblicas, y no muy buenas en eso. Si bien respeto y me adhiero a interpretaciones innovadoras, cuando las pronunciamos debemos reconocer que es un ejercicio de pensamiento que no se encontraba en el texto original (es decir, creo que hay que perderle el miedo a estar en desacuerdo con la Biblia, y admitir nuestras diferencias en amor). Sin embargo, lo que ocurre aquí es una inyección de anarquismo a historias bíblicas que poco tenían que ver con ello.
No es que me disguste particularmente, su interpretación de Jesús ante Pilato como una resistencia silenciosa fue interesante, pero habría otros caminos que podría tomar. Recorrer a otros anarquistas cristianos, encontrar similitudes entre el anarquismo y la teología, ver cómo el texto bíblico o patrístico puede, inconscientemente, desencadenar un significado anarquista.
Aun así, Ellul tiene mucho que ofrecer. Su perspectiva de Dios es interesante: no coerce a nadie con manifestaciones de poder grandiosas, no es su omnipotencia en sí la que es digna de alabar, sino su capacidad de amar, son sus proezas de amor más que sus proezas militares las que merecen nuestra atención. También es un universalista, convencido de que la Salvación es para todos los humanos.
Y donde más brilla es en los segmentos personales. Como anarquista, tiene dos diferencias con el anarquismo tradicional, más allá de la religión: su defensa de la no-violencia y su rechazo a creer que una sociedad anarquista puede existir (optando, en cambio, por organizaciones anarquistas elaboradas "desde abajo"). Como cristiano, es un protestante, admirador de Karl Barth y sirvió como sacerdote y pastor por 20 años. Y sus esfuerzos, no por reconciliar ambas identidades (está convencido de que Jesucristo lleva uno al rechazo del poder) sino por lograr la paz entre anarquistas y cristianos, son admirables.
En resumen, no está mal porque es un libro corto, pero esperaba algo distinto.
No es que me disguste particularmente, su interpretación de Jesús ante Pilato como una resistencia silenciosa fue interesante, pero habría otros caminos que podría tomar. Recorrer a otros anarquistas cristianos, encontrar similitudes entre el anarquismo y la teología, ver cómo el texto bíblico o patrístico puede, inconscientemente, desencadenar un significado anarquista.
Aun así, Ellul tiene mucho que ofrecer. Su perspectiva de Dios es interesante: no coerce a nadie con manifestaciones de poder grandiosas, no es su omnipotencia en sí la que es digna de alabar, sino su capacidad de amar, son sus proezas de amor más que sus proezas militares las que merecen nuestra atención. También es un universalista, convencido de que la Salvación es para todos los humanos.
Y donde más brilla es en los segmentos personales. Como anarquista, tiene dos diferencias con el anarquismo tradicional, más allá de la religión: su defensa de la no-violencia y su rechazo a creer que una sociedad anarquista puede existir (optando, en cambio, por organizaciones anarquistas elaboradas "desde abajo"). Como cristiano, es un protestante, admirador de Karl Barth y sirvió como sacerdote y pastor por 20 años. Y sus esfuerzos, no por reconciliar ambas identidades (está convencido de que Jesucristo lleva uno al rechazo del poder) sino por lograr la paz entre anarquistas y cristianos, son admirables.
En resumen, no está mal porque es un libro corto, pero esperaba algo distinto.
May 28, 2022
I've heard of and read about Ellul's ideas for years, and finally I've finished one of his books. Others to come! Here is a short dialogue between Christianity and Anarchy, and in particular the Christian's relationship to power. Ellul is brilliant, balanced, and convincing. Likely, I'll return to this one, and I hope to read some of his others.
Here are a few quotes:
The primary role of human beings is to be those who respond to God's love. They are created to love (this is what is meant by the image of God).
The decisive contention of the Bible is always that we cannot know God, that we cannot make an image of him, that we cannot analyze what he is. The only serious theologians are those who have practiced what is called negative theology - not know what God is but saying only what he is not.... We cannot say anything positive about God. (I said above that God is love, and that is the one positive biblical declaration, but love is not a conferred "being.") This is the point of the great statement of God to Moses in Exodus 3:14: "I am who I am." ... As Karl Barth said, when God reveals himself to us, he reveals himself as Unknowable.
These quotes are not central to the argument, but I love them.
Hopefully I can return to this short book someday to reflect and write more.
Here are a few quotes:
The primary role of human beings is to be those who respond to God's love. They are created to love (this is what is meant by the image of God).
The decisive contention of the Bible is always that we cannot know God, that we cannot make an image of him, that we cannot analyze what he is. The only serious theologians are those who have practiced what is called negative theology - not know what God is but saying only what he is not.... We cannot say anything positive about God. (I said above that God is love, and that is the one positive biblical declaration, but love is not a conferred "being.") This is the point of the great statement of God to Moses in Exodus 3:14: "I am who I am." ... As Karl Barth said, when God reveals himself to us, he reveals himself as Unknowable.
These quotes are not central to the argument, but I love them.
Hopefully I can return to this short book someday to reflect and write more.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 84 reviews