Social criticism and eschatology in M. Walzer and J. B. Metz

This dissertation explores the relation of Christian eschatology to political theory. Specifically, the question is whether and how eschatological images can be a source of social criticism. On the basis of Johann Baptist Metz's political theology, eschatology is understood in relation to free and moral human practice, and not as a matter of theory or possible knowledge claims. The basic claim is that eschatology can be socially critical even in modern, secular societies at the same time, however, it must take seriously the developments in modern political theory, especially concerning the plurality of these societies and the consequent establishment of a private sphere in them.A critical eschatology is formulated in terms of images adapted from the work of Metz and from the political theory of Michael Walzer. For Metz, the apocalypticism of Christianity should be a recurrent "interruption" of the smoothly functioning systems and abstract discourses of modern society. His eschatology is therefore primarily critical: it criticizes human efforts to justify political institutions, which too often merely cover up the suffering of those at the margins of society. By focusing on interruption as a contemporary interpretation of apocalyptic eschatology, moreover, Metz criticizes those eschatologies that are too individualistic, as well as those that see history as a smooth, continuous evolutionary process.Walzer's political theory, on the other hand, is shown to be guided consistently by the hope for an eschatological community of intense conversation: he has referred to this community as the "messianic age." Particularly characteristic of this hope is its inclusion of conflicts and tension, but not coercion. This inclusion of conflict (but not force) is in marked contrast to the utopian images of perfect harmony that Walzer criticizes.Drawing upon the work of both, this dissertation argues that images drawn from particular religious traditions can serve as a ground for effective social criticism. "Conversation" is shown to require "interruption," and vice versa, to make for a more adequate eschatology. Hence the final proposal is for a more complex hope, which aims at an eschatological community of conversation and interruption.