7/27/2019 cain_1969

1/4

Jacques Ellul

Cain,theTheologian of1969

ELLUL. a lay leader of French Protestantism. isof the history of law and social '.history at the Uni

of Bordeaux. His writings so far translated includePRESENCE OF THE KINGDOM (Seabury) and THELOGICAL FOUNDATION OF LAW (Doubleday); asas THE TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY, PROPAGANDAPOLITICAL ILLUSION and A:CRITIQUE OF THE NEWMMONPLACES, all published .9y Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.s theological writings which will appear in English in the nearure include VIOLENCE: REFLECTIONS FROM A CHRISPERSPECTIVE; THE WILL AND THE DEED; THEO-OGY OF THE CITY, .An early issue of KATALLAGETE will be devoted toand reflections on the social ahd'theological

of M. Ellul. .

To me, the most striking feature in the currenttrends of the "new theology" is the old-fashionedquality of their efforts and constructions. It cannotbe denied that most of the theolC?gical affirmationstoday - concerning the death of God, the primacy ofthe love of humanity over faith in God, the dis-sociation of the message (Kerygma) from all reality all that was completely formulated and elucidatedlong ago in the works of Ludwig Feuerbach in the-nineteenth century. But we should also rememberthat in domg so, Feuerbach in no way meant toattack Christianity. On the contrary, he meant to savewhat could be saved. That is to say, over a centuryago Feuerbach had much the same preoccupation asour contemporary theologians, engrossed by thefailure of the Gospel to communicate to modernman - a finding which again leads theologians to callinto question the Gospel, not modern man. That,they feel, is their essential choice.Without pressing the' point at all, we can easilyobserve that the program to "demythologize" theGospel so that i t can be communicated to modern

KATALLAGETE

7/27/2019 cain_1969

2/4

man is not a new invention at all, but even before thecreation of the scientific spirit, we find it practicedalmost in the same terms and for the same reasonsproposed today by the seventeenth century Englishphilosopher, Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes, in Book III ofThe Leviathan lays down the principles of "a newhermeneutics." As for the theology of "the death ofGod," it was perfectly elucidated in very modernterms by Lodovice Antonio Muratori a t the end ofthe seventeenth century.These little examples, which could be multipliedvery easily, are not manifestations of vain eruditionbut are meant simply as a reminder that the "newtheologies" about which so much fuss has been madein recent years, are really very, very old. If it is truethat God Himself can make (and has promised tomake) all things new, man does, of course, succeed infabricating new things, but in spite of the greatnovelty of his scientific and technical equipment, manhardly succeeds in actually being new or in actuallyformulating his relationship to God in new terms. I tis a profound error to believe that we may resolvemodern man's incomprehension of the Gospel bymeans of the propositions of the "new" theologies,e.g.. tha t the Gospel and man in his present situationshould be brought together by new concessions by,or formulations of, the Gospel; that modern man'sscientific discoveries and his self-styled "coming ofage" leads to a new theology. Instead, I should merelylike to make a reminder: that contemporary theological affirmations find their meaning and their roots insomething entirely different from the scientific spiritof modern civiliZation. "New". theological affIrmations are always the ' ~ e n e w e d " protest by man againstGod, the reaffirmation of the excellence of what mandoes in the face of being called into question by Godand, finally, the assertion of the primacy of man'sintelligence over the way chosen by God for Hisrevelation. That is why we cannot and should notput much hope in the efforts of these "new" theologies to respond to the anguish of man, or to filltlie gap between the Gospel and modern society.Certainly the Bible knows about these efforts of managainst God. Indeed, as the evidence shows in theaccounts it transmits to us, the Bible oft times knowsthe presice contents of our most modern efforts.That is why Cain appears to me to be the oldest ofthe modern theologians.

Of course, i t is necessary to leave out thisaccount 's most spectacular features - generally theonly ones that are emphasized, such as God's apparent ly arbi trary choice in Abel's favor (a choice thatgenerations of interpreters have tried to justify), and

the murder of Abel. In fact, the Biblical narrativedefinitely much richer i f one does not let himself bobsessed by these two features. So I shall concentrat-upon two other aspects of the narrative. First, Caiis irritated by God's arbitrary choice of Abel, whicof course is not satisfactory to Cain. But we shoulnotice straightaway that

7/27/2019 cain_1969

3/4

are going to kill their neighbor. They probably wouldnot have the courage. But they ought to understandthat their theology - inspired as it is by the bestfeelings about man, affirming the validity of man inhimself, and regarding the horizontal relationship,the dialogue, the communication, as being the specialmeans of God's revelation - c.an have only that consequence. Man deprived of the vertical relationshipestablished by God can only become his brother'smurderer, precisely because he no longer has to answer any question other than the one he asks himself. I t is not meaningless to observe that it is definitely in the same intellectual circles that the theologyof the death of God and the theology of violence areelaborated.

We ought to retain a second aspect of the Biblical narrat ive: even after t he murde r, God continuesto be Cain's protector while informing him of hisnew condition. Cain will be a wanderer , but he isplaced under the pro tect ion of God, who puts thefamous "sign" on him. Even if (;ne does not acceptW. Vischer's interpretation of it as the sign of Yahweh,of salvation and particularly of the Cross (which is avery well-established interpretation), it is the sign ofthe alliance that God establishes with Cain. In anyevent, the H ~ b r e w word for "sign" itself derivesfrom a verb meaning "to make an agreement with."There again, Cain does not want to know anythingabout this sign, this protection, this promise. Again,he rejects the vertical relationship and he takes hisdestiny in hand. At the same time, he refuses to accepteither his situation as a wanderer (he builds a city andlives there), or his situation as a man under the protection of God. Rather, his city will be his protection,as well as the iron instruments which his decendentswill forge (Tubal Cain: even the name of Cain means"lance"). All of this is placed under the sign thatCain chooses. He calls both his son and his city"Enoch," which means "initiation," and I believe thatboth senses of this word are meant here: ' ~ t o initiateinto secrets and rites" and also "to start." Cain laysdown his beginning (opposing the one which God haddecided for him) in a secret, conf identia l world that is, a world closed to God. If Cain is shown tobe the ancestor of the arts, technology, the sciences,animal-rearing, etc., it is not at all for the reasons. ./given in the s u p e r f ~ c i a l exegesis of some modern in-terpreters, viz., that Israel distrusted "civilization ,"bu t as !he result of a much more profound insight.Insofar as the world of the arts, technology, thesciences, animal-rearing, etc., is the world of man, theworld of which man wants to be the sole master,where man will assure himself of his. situation and

protect himself, then only the Hero who broke thevertical relationship with God (which Adam did nodo, despite the rupture) can be th e initiator of itThe Biblical account is not a judgement against sciencand progress but against what they signify for man inhis situation o f rupture with God.

To say, as the "new" theologians say: "sciencehas permitted man to come of age; he therefore nolonger needs to take recourse to this primitive d i v i n i t yto whom he formerly appealed as a Father in order toobtainsuch-and-such advantage. Now, man is star.tirighis own history, etc. . . ." is precisely say thaCain has reached his summit. As a consequence othis progress, it is only a pretence to formulate atheology the very thing Scripture shows us to havbeen Cain's "theological formulation" from the verybeginning, and from which just this sort o f progresresulted. In refusing his situation, th e condition madfor him by God, in refusing God's beginning, anfinally in refusing the grace and protection of Godit is Cain who initia tes the history of humanity. BuCain thinks that he can lead history positively, for hpretends to be able to assure by his own means whaGod proposes. In fact, Cain succeeds. Lemach, Cain'descendent, in the "Song of the Sword," shows uthat if God promised to avenge Cain seven times if his attacked, Lemach succeeded in avenging himselseventy-seven times. His vengence is much bettermuch more efficacious and much more successful thaGod's. And here we are in the middle of the theologof the efficacy of the human enterprise, the theologo f culture and historical positivism. This always turnthe argument around! For what use is i t to appeal tGod in a society where man is completely successfuwithout God? And to go further: under these condtions, what place can God still have in the heart othis kind of man? most assuredly, one does not neevery many theological treatises to reply: the fourtchapter of Genesis replies from the beginning: absoutely none! And to go still further: under these conditions, goes that God really exist? Or does He hava reason to exist? There again one does not have tlook very far. Our text replies from the beginningfor that man, God indeed no longer exists. The onldifference is one of emphasis: man asks himself abouthat God; God questions us about that man. At anrate we see to what great an extent Cain is a modertheologian.

Others have already become aware of this. Ifact, it is surprising that among our theologians whnow glorify the fall of Adam by saying t he that Fais entirely positive, that thanks to it man has won hfreedom and his initiative, no one has undertaken

KATALLAGET

7/27/2019 cain_1969

4/4

glorify Cain. But since these theologians simply reproduce the old heresies, we can be assured that thisone will also soon reappear.

We know that in the second century there existed the sect of the Cainites, "because Cain made therace of the strong, Sodom terrified the world with itspunishments and i t is by means of Judas that Godwill save the world." Therefore, glory be to Cain andJudas! Cain was right to stand up to this demiurgeGod, who was a malevolent spirit imposing ancoherent law on man. This God must be scorned andresisted. Cain, creator of the arts and sciences, wasthe true emanation of wisdom and the higher principlethat God, the vile pseudo-creator, wanted to upset.With other motivations and with other formulations,this is where we are today - near, very near, to thisold gnostic proclaimation. The Cainites had morecourage and coherence than our theologians. But theyacted with the same clarity - they had made theirchoice, a choice as false as the one which is presentedto us today, because i t is not between Abel and Cain,or even between Elohim and Cain. The choice is between Jesus Christ and Cain. Like the Cainites, ourtheologians claim to show that conciliation betweenthe two is possible. But it is still the same error: inorder to save man as he is, man with his eminentworks, then only the sacrificed one, the redeemerJesus, should be retained. All the while, an abstractionis made of the relationship between Jesus and His

Translated by George Haskell Vernard who is on thefaculty at Berea College. Berea. Kentucky.

Father on the one hand; on the other, the Old Tetament is rejected, for the Cainites considered it to ba lying revelation of the false God, while our contemporary theologian considers it to be a collectioof myths from which a reality in accord with contemporary nian, can be extracted. Such a procedurof course, allows them to ignore the little story oCain, and to dismiss it as a myth, perhaps simply aaetiological myth of the tribe of the Kenite"s. Therfore, our new theologians can avoid being challengeby it.

This placesus in a very comfortable situation. Wcan forget the Cainites and cast Cain into the auroborealis of myth. We can ectatically proclaim that ware in a radically new situation; that it is necessaryseek a coherent response to that situation; that mdernity, secularism, rationality, science, etc., is a sitution that has nothing in common with the worldvieof the Bible. Therefore, we can say that it is necessafor us to extricate ourselves from all the old formultions and old theologies in order to be able at lastcommunicate with this man who, for the first t imehistory, is adult , has come of age. But i t is precisewith regard to this pretension that Ecclesiastes, dsignating this modern adult to us as the theologiaand this modern theologian as no one but Caireplies, "Vanity of vanities ... there is nothing neunder the sun."