Evaluating Ellul

David Neff talked to the following individuals to get their critical reactions to the book, Money and Power. A summary of those remarks, categorized by subject headings, is presented here.

On Economic Systems: Any ideology that posits, as conservative economics does, that the ultimate good is materialism, is in league with idolatry. Ellul is right: if we fall captive to a system’s analysis of problems, we bypass the moral and ethical questions.

On the other hand, it is not necessarily true that systems betray us into a flight from individual responsibility. There is plenty of room for prophetic activity and action. One of Ellul’s central arguments is, “Don’t be naïve about money and its power. And don’t be naïve about systems either. Arm yourself with the ethics of the kingdom. And then judge those systems and your own actions in the light of that kingdom.”

On the Poor: It is important that we not romanticize the poor. If we do, we contribute to their dehumanization. They are sinners like everybody else. Often the only thing separating them from the wealthy is opportunity or inheritance. The myth about the rich is that they earn it. The truth is that most inherit it. The falsehood with regard to the poor is that they are inherently lazy and like it that way. Ellul is helpful in breaking through both myths and helping us understand what the Bible says about being truly rich.

On Materialism: It is ironic that, at last, we have a consensus in this country that says the Marxists have been right all along—the good life can be understood in material terms. And a significant number of Christians agree with that consensus.

On Culture: I agree with Ellul: our cultural systems contain patterned exploitation. They contain our selfishness institutionalized. But they are also expressions of our God-given creativity to be developed to the glory of God with a sense of humility and the realization that they are not the final word.

Let me illustrate with the question, “What is a Christian businessman?” Ellul might say that that’s not an appropriate question because the grace of God cannot be systemized.

It is more helpful to take the perspective of one Bill Krutza, who asked 200 people—“Christian businessmen”—what they meant by that term. They said they had Bibles on their desks and religious mottoes on their letterheads; they prayed before they met clients; they encouraged employees to hold Bible studies on their own lunch hours; and they gave their personal testimony when they spoke to a group. Alternatively, these businessmen could have considered basic issues raised by their business—such as limiting their competitiveness, maintaining good employee relations, hiring high-risk people, making an equitable profit.

On Economic Systems: I appreciate Ellul saying that it is not just a system, but it is how we operate in that system that makes it helpful or hurtful.

Some systems, however, are less conducive to exploitation than others. For example, in the Philippine market system there is a personal relationship between the buyer and seller. If another seller should offer produce at a lower price, the buyer won’t buy it because of this relationship. Conversely, the seller will try to make sure he always has some goods for his buyers. There is a humaneness to this economic system. There is a ceiling on how many relationships you can maintain and how much profit you can make.

On Giving: Ellul creates a dichotomy between selling and giving. Giving, he would say, is God’s way. But selling and giving are on a continuum. Giving usually involves some sort of response from the recipient. Even when you’re giving to the poor, there is some aspect of exchange or reciprocity. The same kind of thing is not given back to you, but something is returned to you, a future generation, or someone else.

Ellul says we should not discriminate between recipients when we give. That may be good for the giver, but it is not necessarily good for the receiver. Take the well-meaning Christian who gives money to some mission operation perpetuating structures keeping the poor poor. There are times when our right hand should not know what our left hand is doing. But there are also times when we have to use our common sense to be good stewards.

On Stewardship: I agree with Ellul’s major point: namely, that we live in a secular, materialistic world. The question is, “What should the Christian’s attitude be in this kind of a world?”

Ellul says that the Christian owes everything to God. Nothing belongs to himself. I agree with that. For example, Deuteronomy 8:17–18 clearly teaches that the ability to gain wealth is a gift of God. Ellul is correct. But is he saying anything new? The problem is not the basic approach to stewardship. The problem is how to get Christians to do what they are supposed to.

On Tithing: If we could get all Christians to tithe, most of the financial problems of our churches would be solved. The Jews under law did better than Christians under grace. The Jews were meticulous about tithing. And if the Jews were that careful under law—and they weren’t even redeemed in many instances—isn’t it strange that Christians under grace are so slothful?

On Money: Money is like sex. Whether it is good or bad depends on how you use it. Wealth in itself is neutral. John Wesley said, “Make as much as you can. Save as much as you can. Give as much as you can.”

There is no doubt that wealth may bring with it the possibility of using it wrongfully. But you cannot say that money or wealth in itself is sinful.

On Individual Responsibility: Ellul cannot lay down any prescriptions about what I ought to do, because I must function under Scripture by the power of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit may intend for somebody to give up everything. But because someone else does it doesn’t mean I should do it. In our stewardship, there is one principle to remember: He who knows the will of God for everybody else doesn’t know the will of God for himself.

On Money: What should concern the believer is not money (something necessary for economic exchange) but wrong attitudes toward money. Similarly, it is not wealth per se but the improper use of wealth, along with wrong attitudes toward wealth, that deserve condemnation. Every Christian, rich or poor, needs to recognize that whatever he possesses is his—temporarily—as a steward under God. Wealth that is accumulated in a dishonest way or that becomes a controlling principle in one’s life is subject to condemnation. Wealth resulting from honest labor and wise investment, handled by people who recognize they are God’s stewards, is not.

On Capitalism: The capitalism that Ellul writes about is a caricature. But he is hardly alone in this regard. All critics of capitalism find it much easier to attack a straw man. Ellul’s claim that capitalism affirms the neutrality of human nature is false. Capitalism is a system of voluntary exchange in which basic human rights are protected by law. These laws protect us from force, fraud, and theft—hardly an arena of moral neutrality. In truth, capitalism (which should not be equated with the economic practices of the United States) neutralizes human greed. The market system forces even selfish businessmen to serve others by offering them products or services that the customer is willing to exchange for.

On Ellul’s Use of Scriptures: Three examples of Ellul’s injudicious handling of Scripture are his claims that: (1) the New Testament condemns wealth; (2) the Bible hates the rich; and (3) Christians sin if they save money for their future. Much of Ellul’s confusion results from his failure to draw a clear distinction between money (anything that may be used as a means of exchange) and Mammon (which is money personified and deified). Ellul is absolutely right in saying money often assumes a sinister power over human lives. But whenever this happens, money (something ethically neutral) has become Mammon.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.