"Christian Responsibility for Nature and Freedom.

"
Cross Currents 35, no. 1 (Spring 1985): 4953.

JACQUES ELLUL

CHRISTIAN RESPONSIBILITY FOR

NATURE AND FREEDOM

Editorial note his is a condensed response to a debate that goes

back at least to Max Weber's Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capi
tahsm (1904) and probably to St Augustine's The City of God
(begun 413) In its typically modern form, the issue concerns the
extent to which C hnstianity has exercised a formative influence
on Western economic and technological d e v e l o p m e n t Most
recently, the work of the American historian Lynn White, J r (see
especially his ' he Historical Roots of Our Ecologie Crisis" [1967]
and Medieval Religion and Technology [1978]), and broadsides by
the German philosopher Carl Amery (see Das Erde der Vorsehung
[1972], translated into French as Fin de la providence [1976]) have
raised the issue anew Christianity has been accused, in White's
words, of bearing 'a huge burden of guilt" for the conquest of
nature and, as Amery and others have implied, of responsibility
for creating a decadent, individualistic social culture (For a good
brief discussion of these works from a nonChristian, a Christian,
and a Jewish perspective see the "Symposium on Religion and the
Rise of Technology," Research in Philosophy and Technology, vol 6
[1983], pp 175204 ) Ellul, incorporating elements of such charges, provides a sue cinct response that summarizes his own reading of Christian history, and his "ethics of freedom " T h e article
appeared in Combat Nature, whole no 54 (Jan Feb 1983), pp
1617

It is c o m m o n today to b l a m e Christianity for c o n t r i b u t i n g to t h e d e t e r i o r a t i o n of n a t u r e a n d the rise of t h e centralized a u t h o r i t a r i a n state

A l t h o u g h t h e a r g u m e n t is often oversimplified a n d e x a g g e r a t e d , it contains a n e l e m e n t of t r u t h which can be s u m m a r i z e d as follows C h r i s t i a n
lty has played with fire a n d g o t t e n b u r n e d
T h e scenario can be quickly sketched T h e p r e a c h i n g of J e s u s (follow
ing Moses a n d t h e p r o p h e t s ) p r o c l a i m e d a total liberation of h u m a n i t y
f r o m powers, legal systems, social morality, religion As a result Christianity (I m e a n t h e real t h i n g practiced by t h e first C h r i s t i a n g e n e r a t i o n s )

SPRING, 1985

49

freed people from prevailing religions on the condition that, from the
beginning, it was not and would not itself become another religion. It
destroyed the traditional sacredness attached to things and to nature.
Then it proclaimed the complete and free mastery of humanity over the
environment, over the world, in which human beings seem to belong in
total control. God emancipated humanity. And this fact was all the more
remarkable in that this unknowable, ungraspable God is also absolutely
transcendent. Finally, Christianity individualized in the extreme: the
value of the individual was raised above that of any social group. What
counts in Christian preaching is the "thou" separated from the crowd,
from the masses.
This nevertheless created an unlivable situation. For every point mentioned so far, the Christian message contains a counterpoint. People are
freed from everything, yes, but this freedom is inconceivable without a
conversion to God and a life within the love of God and neighbor. People become individuals, yes, but this change is viable only if together
with others they form a new community, of a different type, set up in
another manner than in the past and able to replace all others: the
church. We receive unlimited control over the world which is no longer
sacred, yes, but on condition that this world is understood as the creation of God. The sacred is no longer within the world, but the world,
being the work of God, the gift of God, should be totally and perfectly
respected. Yes, but as I have already said, this God is transcendent in
saying which, we must not forget that he is incarnated in Jesus, so that
we have the image of God on earth. He is as close (and even more so) as
the gods of other religions.
From Institution to Oppression
In this way Jesus' preaching destroyed the whole ancient order, but
reconstructed a new order. His followers were not thrown into the void,
the desert, the "what-ever-you-want." They were given new roots in religion as well as in morality, politics, and an attitude toward nature. But
these roots, which should have allowed the reconstruction of a world
based on liberty and love, did not take hold. And it is here that everything went haywire.
People profited from the message of Jesus without accepting all the
consequences, without submitting to the orientation of creation in a new7
world of new obligations and indications. They were liberated from
everything, and at the same time called to build a new society, a new
morality (of love and liberty), and to establish a relationship of respect in
which the interests of other people and things would come before their
own. And always they were to make known the presence of God, a God
both absolutely transcendent and, in Jesus Christ, absolutely present.
50

CROSS CURRENTS

Yet the drama that has taken place has been one of destruction without a
corresponding construction.
T h e world which was reconstructed found itself with an authoritarian
state, the preaching of Jesus changed into a religion, the church made
into an oppressive religious society, and the individual on his own except
for external social controls With regard to nature, people came to consider themselves absolute masters. This was the failure. Social institutions outweighed grace at the time when the seeds of anarchic freedom,
unrestrained individualism, amorality, and exploitation were sown.
When the barriers erected by faith and by the primitive church were
eventually destroyed by the weakening of spirituality, by the
institutionalization of the church, the implications of Christianity
became visible and effective. Thus it is true that Christianity has played a
historical role in contributing to the deterioration of nature and the rise
of the authoritarian state, but only to the extent that it has lived through
the destructive aspects of Jesus' preaching and that, with few exceptions,
the new person, the new world, and new relationships failed to be born.
Now, in our present situation with regard to nature and freedom, Christianity has an even greater part to play. It is not at all a question of going
back to the Middle Ages, to Christian domination in a "Christian" society. Such an idea is ridiculous. What is needed is an authentic
re-thinking of the biblical message to see how it can be inserted into the
contradictions and dialectic which now obtain between nature and freedom. In this regard I would like to suggest three simple lessons.
Stewardship and Love of Nature
The first concerns the idea of management or stewardship. Since
nature is no longer sacred, man is taken to be the lord of nature. But the
essential thing has been forgotten: This nature is the creation of God,
who handed it over to Adam and Eve not to do with as they pleased,
but to manage and care for in the name of God.
What does this mean? From the perspective of the Hebrew Scriptures
it means two things. It means that God does not want to rule over his creation directly; he does not want creation to be an object that runs exactly
the way he sets it up like some automatic mechanism. God places people
in nature precisely so that everything will not be submitted mechanically
to some over-riding power, but in order to introduce the element o
freedom, a will other than his own. God places an intermediary between
himself and his creation in order "to give room to play." This in turn
means that humanity (in the image and likeness of God) is called to act
toward creation in the same way God does, although without his total
power. And this God is given the name love. If God created, it is
through love; if he gives independence to creation, it is through love.
We must treat nature in the same way, managing it not for blind and
SPRING, 1985

51

egotistical profit, but through love. Such are the implications of the first
chapters of Genesis.
With this understanding we are a long way from any interpretation
implying some absolute human control. For the manager or steward
clearly has to account for his stewardship. The same idea returns over
and over again in the teachings of Jesus. Human beings are accountable;
they must answer to someone. And even if we do not accept biblical
faith, this point should be retained: human beings manage the world for
someone else whether it be the rest of humanity or future generations. We live today at a time when this responsibility has burst forth into
full view, and we are now in danger of being judged by the consequences of our actions.
Accepting Finitude in All Things
T h e second lesson I would draw from the Bible is as follows. Human
beings appear to be limited from three points of view. They are subject
to finitude, thresholds, and boundaries.
Finitude refers to the fact that we and the world in which we find ourselves have finis. There is a limited amount of time in which we are
born and die. Growth is finite. Resources are finite. Space is finite. This
is the way life is, and we cannot do anything about it. From beginning to
end the Bible gives us this teaching and requires us to accept living
under such conditions. Each time we try to escape, a catastrophe results.
Finitude is a strict limitation on our freedom. It makes us participate in
the necessity of nature.
Furthermore, there are "thresholds" (as illuminated by Ivan Illich),
i.e. points at which some tendency is reversed, where the increase in
something produces an effect contrary to what was expected as when
an excess of medication produces a new illness. We have here an "automatic" reaction which is another limit on our freedom. T h e Bible likewise provides plenty of examples to warn that we must be careful to keep
our actions from going beyond such thresholds.
Finally, there are "boundaries" with regard to the possibilities of
human freedom. Limits or boundaries are the ultimate expression of
human freedom, which chooses not to do what can be done. After all,
when "Thou shall not kill" becomes a boundary to human action, then
true humanity becomes possible. Certain actions are possible, but for
reasons that are selfchosen and selfimposed, we freelv decide not to
exercise these actions. It is at this point that we are truly free, and not
when we extend our actions, our power, or our strength indefinitely. In
other words, when we establish either a law, a morality, or a rule of conduct and set ourselves some path, it does not matter which. On h then
does there arise a responsibility for management or stewardship; with
the nature we have been given we can do manv things, so that we must

52

CROSS CURRENTS

place boundaries on ourselves in order not to risk everything. The Bible

is an expression of this kind of choice.
Beyond Non-violence
This brings us to a third element. I have just discussed the example of
voluntarily limited power. This is precisely the example of Jesus, who
always chose non-power (which goes much further than non-violence).
If there is an "imitation of Christ" it can only be along these lines. The
choice for non-power, however, calls into question our manner of dealing with nature, animals, and other people, the foundations and patterns of our military and technicized society, and finally our idea of freedom as autonomy, absolute independence, sovereignty, etc. The choice
of non-power is also our freedom in relation to our "natural tendencies."
Nature provides an example of the struggle for existence and survival of
the fittest. If we play this game (as we have done), power is increased
indefinitely, since we are conditioned purely and simply by necessity.
Such a way of life expresses a fatality. On the contrary, in the midst of
this world of fatality, we must introduce a freedom which can be
expressed only in the decision for non-domination, non-violence, nonalienation from the other, and non-exploitation (whether of the natural
environment or other human beings).
I think these three lessons sum up the whole biblical message. The
catastrophe has been that Christians have rejected such a way of life.
They have profited from autonomy without assuming responsibility,
respect, non-power, expressions of love. If Christians were to return to
the source of the biblical message and recover these basic givens, then
they would provide stronger reasons than ever before for ecology and,
at the same time, with the conviction that this is the teaching of God,
they would introduce into the ecology movement the courage and hope
necessary to sustain this difficult enterprise.
Translated by KATHARINE

SPRING, 1985

TEMPLE

and

CARL MITCHAM

53