Talk:Jacques Ellul

technique

i returned section title back to "On technique" since the concept means more than just technology. This is explained numerous times throughout "The Technological Society" and elsewhere. The Forward by Robert Merton, the Translator's Introduction by John Wilkinson, and the Notes to the Reader section all address this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.110.207.158 (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

influences under photo need citations under Article's "Life and influences"

Proudhon, Blumhardt, and Berdyaev are listed as people that influenced Ellul under his photo on the Article. However, the source for these claims are not listed under the Article's "Life and influences" section. I request that if these individuals were indeed influences of Ellul, that sources clarifying how they influenced him be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijaz19 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

it has been a month with no additional clarification added regarding the above "influences" therefore, i am going to remove them.Ijaz19 (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Source 24 (The Thought of Jacques Ellul: Toronto studies...)

I think the author is only Fasching, but the Wiki Article source lists both Fasching and Ellul as authors. Please correct me if I am mistaken in thinking it is only Fasching. 68.163.54.106 (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If the only author of the above source is Fasching then is the quote that of Fasching or that of Ellul?

It has been a month with no additional clarification so I went ahead and removed the quote stated as something Ellul said, but cited from a Fasching work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijaz19 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Sacred Reality

Citation for sacred reality quotation is not from an Ellul work. Therefore, can somebody clarify if this quotation is actually something Ellul said or something that was said by Fasching? 68.163.54.106 (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It has been a month with no clarification. Therefore, I went ahead and adjusted the sentence on sacred reality to include clarification that it was something said within a Fasching work.Ijaz19 (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Beast comment

Regarding addition of "Ellul identified the State and political power as the Beast in the Book of Revelation.[17]" I think this statement should include citation from a work of Ellul. The source is currently of a work by Christoyannopoulos, Alexandre68.163.54.106 (talk) 01:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It has been a month so I went ahead and added wording to clarify that the Beast comment is cited from a Christoyannopoulos, Alexandre work. Ijaz19 (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, it would be interesting to know which Beast is being referred to. Ijaz19 (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

neo-orthodoxy?

I've just learned that Karl Barth rejected claims that he was a neo-orthodox so it would be good to cite the current claim here that Ellul is one (given their similarities in theology).

it has been more than a month so I am going ahead and changing wording to state that some have considered him within the neo-orthodox tradition. a citation for this is still needed. Ijaz19 (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Untitled

there are no sources cited within the article, even though there are a few quotes. I think I recognized a few of them from The Technological Society, but I would have to go back and check and for right now I simply don't have time (I'm a grad student and it's the middle of the semester, things are starting to get busy!) Orpheus42 12:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

A majority of the content of this article seems to be taken from http://www.regent.edu/acad/schcom/rojc/mdic/ellul.html.129.62.116.124 04:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I have made additions/revisions to this Article on Jacques Ellul in January 2011. These changes are not from web-based sources, but rather from Ellul's books and conversation with Patrick Troude-Chastenet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijaz19 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Anarchist?

This article identifies Ellul as a "Christian anarchist", citing his book Anarchy and Christianity. But reading that book, I find Ellul stating that he is not really an anarchist. Ellul writes that he is "very close to one of the forms of anarchism," but he then proceeds to emphasize what separates him from the "true anarchist" as follows: "The true anarchist thinks that an anarchist society -- with no state, no organization, no hierarchy, and no authorities -- is possible, livable, and practicable. But I do not." Jacques Ellul (Geoffrey W. Bromiley, tr.) Anarchy and Christianity, p.19 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981). Granted, Ellul's book contains many contradictions and at points perhaps verges on incoherence, with Ellul stating just four pages later that "Anarchy . . . has a bright future before it. This is why I adopt it." Id. Still, I have to ask -- is it proper for this article to identify Ellul as an anarchist, when Ellul characterized the anarchist vision is an impossibility, and bluntly denied that he was a "true anarchist"? Eric Alan Isaacson 16:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

But of course this just resorts into the same kindof superficial, reading of literal phrases and tag words and not delving into specific concepts. We should be able to look past any particular shift in Ellul's usage of such a vague and empty term as "Anarchism" and try to identify the characteristics of the state or social order he envisioned when he used that term in a given passage. - Caleb King (Jan 23, 2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.25.46 (talk • contribs) 07:30, 24 January 2008

Yes, but I think it is still fair to call Ellul an anarchist so long as the latter term is qualified by 'Christian'. In this sense there is no contradiction or incoherence: according to Ellul's Christian belief human authority/hierarchy is a necessary evil, a product of the Fall (this view is what also separates him from mainstream Christianity and makes him a 'radical'). Incoherence in Ellul's thinking most likely stems from the assumption that because he believes authority/state organization is necessary he also deems it legitimate. Ellul's 'anarchist vision' is ultimately bound up with the Christian eschatological vision, when 'God is all and in all' and there is no need or context for human authority (the New Jerusalem). In other words the anarchist ideal is desirable for lovers of freedom but outside of the recapitulation of humankind, the final intervention of God, it is impossible. With respect to Ellul's statement that 'Anarchy has a bright future before it' one needs to consult his other works on technology and the state (The Technological Society, 1954 and The Technological System, 1977). In the technological society, where social regimentation and state planning are perfected techniques, human authority, paradoxically, becomes redundant and even taboo (the 'master' becomes the 'employer'; the 'ruler' becomes the 'management'). The anarchist vision thus has a bright future on two levels: firstly because it is the natural response of human freedom/hope vis the modern technological determinism; secondly because the technological society, the society of the future, will in any event make human authority more and more implausible/irrelevant. (talk) 07:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Andrew E

Jacques Ellul was an anarchist. I am a board member of the International Ellul Society and have read just about everything he wrote. Here is a quote to quell the discussion: "About twenty years ago, a sociologist who was making a survey of the political leanings of French Protestants and who knew perfectly well that I was an anarchist classified me as a Rightist, not far from the monarchists for that very reason. To the 'good' Left of the Marxists, anarchists are false brothers, dreamers, unscientific people. . . ." (Ellul, Jacques. "Anarchism and Christianity." Katallagete 7, no. 3 (Fall 1980): 15). Ellul also tried to join the situationists, an anarchist organization, which would not allow him to do so, because he was Christian. There are dozens of quotes from him in interviews and articles where he talks about being an anarchist.Alexis-Baker 04:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Since anarchy seems to always come up when discussing Ellul I decided to begin an "On anarchy" section. I hope this is acceptable. I think there are many other areas that also need work as has already been stated by others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijaz19 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Righteous Among the Nations

List of Righteous Among the Nations by country lists Jacques Ellul as one. I can't find any source for that.

Any help?.. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 04:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I added it in the article. Gugganij (talk) 23:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Incensistency: posthumously awarded the title Righteous among the Nations by Yad Vashem in 1981 but date of death is 1994. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orecht (talk • contribs) 11:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Jacques Ellul on Roman Catholicism

The entry seemed to imply that Jacques Ellul had anti-Catholic views or was even anti-Catholic, but this is far from true. He had a view of Christianity to be above different religious denominations, being in that sense greatly ecumenical. I can quote directly from his book Anarchy and Christianity[1]: "Hence we have to eliminate two thousand years of accumulated Christian errors, or mistaken traditions, and I do not say this as a Protestant accusing Roman Catholics, for we have all been guilty of the same deviations or aberrations. (...) There has always been a Christian anarchism. In every century there have been Christians who have discovered the simple biblical truth, whether intellectually, mystically, or socially. They include some great names, for example, Tertullian (at first), Fra Dolcino, Francis of Assisi, Wycliffe, Luther (...), Lammenais, John Bost, and Charles de Foucauld." (p. 7) So he also greatly admired some great Catholic personalities, whom he saw as predecessors of his Christian anarchism, like St. Francis of Assisi and Blessed Charles de Foucauld. There are many other examples that we can find in his work that he was very far from anti-Catholic.Mistico (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Jacques Ellul Criticism of Islam

Jacques Ellul wasn't anti-Catholic, by the contrary, but he was very critical of Islam, from what can be read in Anarchy and Christianity: "I have shown elsewhere that the biblical God really has nothing in common with Allah. We need to remember that we can read anything we like into the word "God". I have also shown that apart from some names and stories the Bible and the Koran have nothing in common." (p. 6) I think this perhaps could be expanded to show his critical view of Islam in the entry.Mistico (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• He says some similar stuff in The Subversion of Christianity, but there he also acknowledges the ways Christianity borrowed many ideas (not all of them good) from Islam. Check out that chapter as well. Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I am still a initiate to the work of Jacques Ellul. I am from a Catholic background and I am familiar with the Liberation Theology and their beliefs that socialism can be seen as one of the main purposes of Christianity in general. I just recently started to read Jacques Ellul, because I felt interested by his belief that anarchy could be seen as having the same objectives of Christianity. It's a challenging idea but I will have to become more familiar with his writtings to have a better conclusion about his beliefs, and eventually add more to this entry. The French Wikipedia entry also mentiones his criticism of Islam and support for the State of Israel.Mistico (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Ellul's: The Political Illusion

It is amazing to me that Jacques Ellul's views on politics, as written in the book, The Political Illusion, are not now being discussed (because politics is such a stalemate in the USA). Ellul's book and ideas need to be re-issued, with 21st century commentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.90.148 (talk) 07:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jacques Ellul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203034829/http://ellul.org/?page_id=126 to http://ellul.org/?page_id=126

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)