Reading notes: Propaganda: Jacques Ellul
Jul. 13th, 2026 11:43 am![[personal profile]](/%20https://www.npmjs.com/package/ocr-https-www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
methylethylThis book is a beast. It's gonna take me the next three years to finish reading it. Part of that is that every few pages, I have to stop, re-read, and then take notes, maybe copy out a huge block quote. Some observations from Chapter V on the interaction between propaganda and Christianity, from a book published in 1965. Before cable TV, cell phones, and the internet. Before Veggie Tales or Angel Studios or Pure Flix, Ellul answers the question I don't think anybody was even asking yet: why can't we have good Christian movies/music/TVshows? Why does every attempt at Christian media suck? We can't even run a good radio station.
Because propaganda.
It's not a level playing field. It's like if all the fast food joints are adding a little cocaine to their food, and we're asking: why can't anybody get a successful restaurant going that just serves healthy normal food?
Anyway, he highlights the dilemma churches face in an environment of total propaganda:
1) don't make propaganda, and gradually get left in the dust, all your members feeling disempowered and out of step.
2) Do make propaganda. And here Ellul says something unexpected:
"this dilemma is surely one of the most cruel with which the churches are faced at present. For it seems that people manipulated by propaganda become increasingly impervious to spiritual realities, less and less suited for the autonomy of a Christian life."
!!!
The medium itself, propaganda, makes people 'impervious to spiritual realities.'
So if the church doesn't engage in propaganda, its adherents are still chewed up by the propaganda machine, pulling them inexorably away from God.
But if the church tries to pick up that cursed tool and use it... it might keep parishioners coming to church, but they'd still be pulled away from God. The content is irrelevant: that's what the tool does.
(insert rant about TV and videotainment here)(spoiler: don't touch it, it's evil!)
Further on:
"Christians often claim they can separate material devices from propaganda techniques-- i.e., break they system. For example, they think they can use press and radio without using the psychologial principles or techniques that these media demand. Or that they can use these media without having to appeal to conditioned reflexes, myths, and so on. Or that they can use them from time to time, with care and discretion.
"The only answer one can give to these timid souls is that such restraint would lead to a total lack of effectiveness. If a church wants to use propaganda in order to be effective, just as all the others, it must use the entire system with all its resources; it cannot pick what it likes, for such distinctions would destroy the very effectiveness for which the church would make propaganda in the first place. Propaganda is a total system that one must accept or reject in its entirety.
"If the church accepts it, two important consequences follow. First of all, Christianity disseminated by such means is not Christianity. We have already seen the effect of propaganda on ideology. In fact, what happens as soon as the church avails itself of propaganda is a reduction of Christianity to the level of all other ideologies or secular religions."
He goes on to point out specific centuries where the Roman Catholic church tried this, and became debased, compromised, and institutionally ossified: "From the moment the church exposes itself to the conflict between sociological determinants and a contrary inspiration that comes from God and is directed toward God-- from the moment the church uses propaganda and uses it successfully, it becomes, unremittingly, a purely sociological organization. It loses the spiritual part, for it now transmits only a false Christianity; it subordinates the essence of its being to sociological determination, it submits to the laws of efficiency in order to become a power in the world, and, in fact, it succeeds: it does become such a power. At that moment it has chosen power above truth."
He concludes that propaganda itself has had a more deleterious effect on Christianity than any anti-Christian doctrine ever achieved.
Because propaganda.
It's not a level playing field. It's like if all the fast food joints are adding a little cocaine to their food, and we're asking: why can't anybody get a successful restaurant going that just serves healthy normal food?
Anyway, he highlights the dilemma churches face in an environment of total propaganda:
1) don't make propaganda, and gradually get left in the dust, all your members feeling disempowered and out of step.
2) Do make propaganda. And here Ellul says something unexpected:
"this dilemma is surely one of the most cruel with which the churches are faced at present. For it seems that people manipulated by propaganda become increasingly impervious to spiritual realities, less and less suited for the autonomy of a Christian life."
!!!
The medium itself, propaganda, makes people 'impervious to spiritual realities.'
So if the church doesn't engage in propaganda, its adherents are still chewed up by the propaganda machine, pulling them inexorably away from God.
But if the church tries to pick up that cursed tool and use it... it might keep parishioners coming to church, but they'd still be pulled away from God. The content is irrelevant: that's what the tool does.
(insert rant about TV and videotainment here)(spoiler: don't touch it, it's evil!)
Further on:
"Christians often claim they can separate material devices from propaganda techniques-- i.e., break they system. For example, they think they can use press and radio without using the psychologial principles or techniques that these media demand. Or that they can use these media without having to appeal to conditioned reflexes, myths, and so on. Or that they can use them from time to time, with care and discretion.
"The only answer one can give to these timid souls is that such restraint would lead to a total lack of effectiveness. If a church wants to use propaganda in order to be effective, just as all the others, it must use the entire system with all its resources; it cannot pick what it likes, for such distinctions would destroy the very effectiveness for which the church would make propaganda in the first place. Propaganda is a total system that one must accept or reject in its entirety.
"If the church accepts it, two important consequences follow. First of all, Christianity disseminated by such means is not Christianity. We have already seen the effect of propaganda on ideology. In fact, what happens as soon as the church avails itself of propaganda is a reduction of Christianity to the level of all other ideologies or secular religions."
He goes on to point out specific centuries where the Roman Catholic church tried this, and became debased, compromised, and institutionally ossified: "From the moment the church exposes itself to the conflict between sociological determinants and a contrary inspiration that comes from God and is directed toward God-- from the moment the church uses propaganda and uses it successfully, it becomes, unremittingly, a purely sociological organization. It loses the spiritual part, for it now transmits only a false Christianity; it subordinates the essence of its being to sociological determination, it submits to the laws of efficiency in order to become a power in the world, and, in fact, it succeeds: it does become such a power. At that moment it has chosen power above truth."
He concludes that propaganda itself has had a more deleterious effect on Christianity than any anti-Christian doctrine ever achieved.
Thoughts
Date: 2026-07-13 09:57 pm (UTC)I thought that Touched by an Angel did a good job of showing Christian values through action, rather than just talking about it.
The music in Sister Act was brilliant, but the movie also made a very apt observation:
"Deloris: I was thinkin' more like Vegas, y'know, get some butts in the seats.
Reverend Mother: And what next? Popcorn? Curtain calls? This is not a theater or a casino.
Deloris: Yeah, but that's the problem. See, people like going to theaters, and they like going to casinos, but they don't like coming to church. Why? Because it's a drag. But we could change all that, see? We could pack this joint."
That's a real dilemma. How do you make spiritual activities exciting enough to pull people in? The movie pointed to exactly the solution that many black churches have used, which is vibrant music. Not everyone is into that, but quite a lot of people are.
>>It's not a level playing field. It's like if all the fast food joints are adding a little cocaine to their food, and we're asking: why can't anybody get a successful restaurant going that just serves healthy normal food?<<
People aren't uniform, though. They want and need different things. Fast food spreads because many people will pay for speed and convenience even if the food is garbage. The rise of fast casual indicates that some people will pay a little more for food that is higher quality. And we still have sit-down restaurants that rely on great food rather than speed. It's a range.
Religion is the same way. Some churches are bouncy and others are quiet. Quakers practice Silence because they're all about listening to God. Different styles for different tastes.
The thing about propaganda is it talks the walk. It's shallow. There are churches that walk the talk. They don't go nuts with ads. They ask, "What would Jesus do?" and then they go do that. A few examples locally:
-- Savior Roofing. I smile every time I see one of their trucks. Sure, what else would the God of Carpenters be doing?
-- One church hands out free ice water at summer street fairs.
-- The hole-in-the-wall eatery at the mall has a prayer board, a blessing board where you can pre-pay for food that broke people can claim, and a rack of free Narcan.
-- Another town's events are fed by a church's food line with at-will donations, so everyone can eat whether they have money or not.
All different activities, all based on doing God's work in the world, all based on meeting people's needs, all excellent means of outreach that would snag the attention of someone looking for a church. Because those acts aren't purely secular, they show that members of that church care about ... shepherding in general, you could say ... and that congregation would probably be satisfying to join. And it's completely different from the places that dole out food or clothes with strings attached, and their whole tone makes you feel like a bad person for needing help. :/
>> The medium itself, propaganda, makes people 'impervious to spiritual realities.' <<
I would've said that propaganda tends to erode clear thinking and mindful choices, which could certainly reduce spiritual awareness. I think "impervious" is too far, because it doesn't affect people the same way. I find propaganda irritating and off-putting rather than attractive or convincing.
>>So if the church doesn't engage in propaganda, its adherents are still chewed up by the propaganda machine, pulling them inexorably away from God.
But if the church tries to pick up that cursed tool and use it... it might keep parishioners coming to church, but they'd still be pulled away from God. The content is irrelevant: that's what the tool does. <<
This ignores the other things that churches could be doing which are important. It comes back to meeting people's needs. A church that does this well has no need of propaganda, because people will encounter it directly and talk about it. So what are some needs that go unmet today? High on the list are meaning and belonging, two things that a good church excels at. So many jobs are pointless, and people move around so much, that life today often feels hollow, unsatisfying, and isolated. Not only spiritual worship but acts of care and kindness create deep meaning, and a good congregation is a tight-knit group of people who help each other weather challenges.
>> For example, they think they can use press and radio without using the psychologial principles or techniques that these media demand. <<
Tools are just tools. You can put into media anything you want. A radio can carry "Mass for Shut-ins" or classical music or rude lyrics or a cooking lesson or a talk show with people screaming at each other. Same with print publications. A newspaper could contain church events or cars for sale or world leaders acting like imbeciles. They contain only what people choose to put in them, and different people make different choices.
>> He concludes that propaganda itself has had a more deleterious effect on Christianity than any anti-Christian doctrine ever achieved. <<
That part is probably true. Indulgences leap readily to mind.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2026-07-13 11:52 pm (UTC)I suspect Ellul would broadly agree with you in that: Churches don't *need* to engage in propaganda, and shouldn't. They need to BE THE CHURCH, and God will take care of the rest.
But possibly he would disagree about devices/media/tools. He specifically excludes things like broadcasting the occasional mass on TV, from his parameters for propaganda. That is literally just showing what is happening at the church. Information without spin, interpretation, psychological manipulation: that doesn't qualify in his book. FWIW I saw maybe two episodes of Touched by an Angel, ever, but it seemed like a perfect illustration: while on the surface it had a positive and somewhat Christian message, it was also *profoundly* emotionally manipulative. So it gets back to: can you be a Christian and spread the Christian message, effectively, through TV media, without engaging in that sort of highly unethical psychological manipulation?
I think to a large extent it's a very difficult subject (propaganda, that is) to discuss because in any technological society, it's kind of like discussing traffic sounds, or air. We are sort of aware of it when we think about it specifically, but most of the time we tune it out. That doesn't prevent it having a huge effect on us, but we often don't notice the effect, or don't connect the cause and effect.
Pure Angel Flix or whatever...
Date: 2026-07-17 03:43 pm (UTC)If you haven't, I recommend going right out and doing that.
I paid it forward so someone else can watch "Young Washington" for free...there might be a free seat waiting for you!
Davie
Re: Pure Angel Flix or whatever...
Date: 2026-07-17 05:52 pm (UTC)20 years ago, maybe, but my audio/visual processing glitches have gotten worse with age to such an extent that... I'll leave concerns about movies to them that can still watch them.