…fate operates when people give up…
May 22, 2006 · Print This Article
Here’s some food for thought from one of my favorite thinkers, Jacques Ellul:
“There are moments when history is flexible, and that is when we must put ourselves inside to move the works. But when the atomic bomb is dropped, it is no longer the moment to attach a parachute to it. It’s all over. I don’t believe in a permanent determinism, in the inexorable course of nature. Fate operates when people give up; when the structures of and the relationships between groups, special interests, coalitions, and ideologies are not yet rigid; when new facts appear that change the rules of the game; then at these moments we can make decisions that direct history, but very quickly everything becomes rigid and mechanical, and then nothing more can be done. One of my greatest disappointments is the extreme incapacity of Christians to intervene when situations are fluid and their habit of passionately taking sides when it is too late for anything but fate to operate. They are pushing the wheel of a vehicle that is already rolling downhill by itself.” ( p. 106-7 In Season Out Of Season, trans. Lani Niles, Harper & Row, 1982)
Would you say we are in a moment when history is flexible?
What “new facts: have appeared in our time?
What does Ellul mean in saying one of his “greatest disappointments is the extreme incapacity of Christians to intervene when situations are fluid and their habit of passionately taking sides when it is too late for anything but fate to operate?” Do you agree?
What structures of and relationships between groups, special interests, coalitions, and ideologies are not yet rigid and that we can influence?
What is the point of all of these thoughts in a “social justice” context?
“The world is more malleable than you think. You can wrestle it from fools.”
~ Bono
This is from the website of The Evanston Family Therapy Center; “The dominant descourses in our society powerfully influence what gets “storied” and how it gets storied. A discourse is a system of words, actions, rules, and beliefs that share common values. Particular discourses sutain particular worldviews. We might even think of a discourse as a worldview in action. Example: The meaning of the word “men” in the phrase “all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence. has changed as the discourses surrounding who can hold land, vote, and hold political office have changed. It originally referred to white, male, landowners. It now refers, in many minds at least, to adults of all genders and skin colors whether or not they own property.
Discourses tend to be invisible, that is, they are taken for granted as part of the fabric of “reality.”
I was not present for the last Sunday’s “Just Life” group discussion meeting. Lynn however, filled me in. Brian, it sounds like you are trying to make the invisible discourses that have been taken for granted in some elements of the Church in regard to community, wealth, and the sharing of resources more visible. I believe that Willow Creek is not alone in this. At times I hear reports in the media–both Christian and secular–that “Evangelicals” are part of, and instrumental in a growing shift in social consciousness about how we live, how we live together,and how “do” community. I believe that we can be an important part of this critical period and I am glad that the Church leadership is part of the “trail blaze.”
I am in the middle of reading Shane Claiborne’s book (which I picked up at Seeds the other night, “The Irrisistable Revolution.”) and I have been getting blown away! One statement of many caught my attention; if we are going to look at poverty we need to start looking at wealth.
I recently learned that Warren Buffet–a man who has accumulated great wealth as an investor/venture capitalist–has decided to give it all to the poor/philanthopy. I had read that he was moved by what he felt was the unfair tax policy in our country–being wealthy, he observed that he unfairly benefited while the secretary that worked in his building and who made less money was unfairly burdened. Mr. Buffet decided to take an action–an action that is congruent with the teachings of Jesus (actually first he spoke truth and then he took action). This leads me back to Shane’s book because Shane brings up the uncomfortable question of, “What would Christians and the Church look like if they/it took all of what Jesus said seriously–what if Jesus meant what he said?!?!” The interesting thing is that I don’t even know if Warren Buffet is a Christian!! Which reminds me of where Shane quotes Tony Campolo in observing that even if there was no heaven, living the WAY that Jesus taught would nevertheless be fulfilling in and of itself!
Maybe people like Warren Buffet and Shane Claiborne are evidence of something really good happening at a flexible period in history?