“Don’t immanentize the eschaton,” or whether we might need utopias after all #ActonU

Last updated on: August 5, 2015 at 1:35 pm by Edwin Woodruff Tait

“Don’t immanentize the eschaton,” or whether we might need utopias after all #ActonU 2015-08-05T13:35:33-05:00 Edwin Woodruff Tait

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

More of our “correspondent on the spot” at Acton University! Follow the Twitter feed from the conference here and read his first two posts here:

By Edwin Woodruff Tait

All first-time “students” at Acton University are required to take a series of four “foundational courses” on the first full day of the conference. While this is frustrating in some ways for those of us who have been thinking about some of these issues for a while already and would like to move on to the more “advanced” topics, I can see why they require this.

It’s helpful to go into the rest of the conference with a clear sense of the basic assumptions about Christian perspectives on political, social, and economic issues on which the rest of the speakers are building. Since one of my goals in coming here was to clarify my understanding of the “Acton ideology” (if indeed there is such a thing) and to correct any unfair prejudices I had on the subject, hearing this broad overview on the first day was actually extremely helpful.

I’ve already covered the first of the foundation lectures, Samuel Gregg’s talk on Christian anthropology. The remaining three were Michael Miller on Christian views of politics, Jennifer Roback Morse on economics, and Charles Self on freedom. I’ll summarize each talk separately with some specific reactions to each, and then close with some overall remarks on what the foundation courses tell me about the Acton perspective and how far I agree or disagree with that perspective.

Miller’s central thesis was that Christianity, by its very nature, limits government. He began with the story of St. Ambrose holding Emperor Theodosius accountable for the massacre of the citizens of Thessalonica, refusing to allow him to receive communion or even enter the church until he did public penance for his actions. Miller contrasted this event with the common pagan idea that the emperor was divine. Christianity is intrinsically incompatible with any idea of the divinity or absolute authority of the state. Modern discussions of limited government, such as those of John Locke, build on (and, according to Miller, actually “hollow out”) traditional Christian ideas.

Other basic Christian political principles, according to Miller, include the primacy of the family over politics, private property, the right of free association, a rejection of utopianism, and the pursuit of the common good. Within these parameters, there is room for Christians to take a wide variety of political positions (by the time he was done listing all the things he thought Christians couldn’t believe, this wasn’t as generous a claim as it initially appeared to be).

Miller qualifies the principle of respect for private property by agreeing with Aquinas that private property is not an absolute right. I think his language reflects the tension in Catholic social teaching between the medieval view (in which private property is an appropriate and necessary human arrangement but was not present in the “state of nature”) and Leo XIII’s affirmation that private property is a fundamental right. On the common good, Miller made the important point that this is not a matter of a “utilitarian calculus.” You don’t work out what will cause the most benefits for the greatest number of people and call it the “common good.”

For instance, even if you could prove by every tangible measure that it was better for children to be raised by the state than by their parents, it would still be contrary to the common good, because it’s contrary to human nature to raise children in such an impersonal way. There are intangible goods that flow from the nature of the person and which can’t be measured by polls and scientific studies. I think this is an extremely important principle of great relevance to many of the economic issues discussed at Acton University.

Anti-utopianism was a major theme in Miller’s talk as well as in both of Gregg’s lectures. And that didn’t surprise me. I’ve heard “don’t immanentize the eschaton” over and over again from various friends over the years. And of course Gregg is right that a dream of a perfect society inevitably turns into a nightmare when people try to impose it by force. But it seems to me that people often use the label “utopian” to shut down any attempt to change society for the better that they happen to dislike for ideological reasons.

What is the line between “utopianism” and simply seeking to promote peace and justice? “Don’t immanentize the eschaton” often seems like a rallying cry for defenders of the status quo, a call to complacency and cynicism. That’s clearly not how the Acton speakers mean it. But it seems to me, so far, that they are far too quick to assume the worst of their ideological opponents and to shut down legitimate criticisms of capitalism by labeling them “utopian.”

Stay tuned for posts on talks by Jennifer Roback Morse & Charlie Self–and what on earth Jonathan Edwards has to with taking your produce to the farmers’ market.

Edwin Woodruff Tait is a freelance writer, farmer, and consulting editor for Christian History magazine. He blogs at Ithilien and tweets as @Amandil3. (Extra points if you get the Tolkien reference.)

Conferences

Economics

Acton University

Catholic social teaching

common good

utilitarianism

utopia

Previous Post

June 18, 2015

We can't create heaven on earth: more from #ActonU

Next Post

June 18, 2015 Is there really enough to go around for everybody? #ActonU

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Art Audio posts Bible and Work Book Review Books Budgeting Calling Common Good Community Development Conferences Discipleship Economics Entrepreneurship Ethics Faith and Family Faith and the Marketplace Faith and the Workplace faith and work History of Work and Vocation Leadership Local Church Meaning New Blogger News Prayer Relationships Seminaries Theology of Work Uncategorized Video posts Vocation Worship Resources

Select a Month April 2026 October 2025 September 2025 July 2025 April 2025 January 2025 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 May 2024 March 2024 February 2024 December 2023 November 2023 August 2023 July 2023 April 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 May 2022 April 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 June 2021 May 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 January 2020 December 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 April 2018 March 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God"?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Paul James Peter John