Metz's Response to Secularization
From a Transcendental-Linear to a Utopic Theology of History
This chapter begins by examining Johann Baptist Metz’s early understandingofthemodernprocessofsecularizationandhiseffort topresentapositiveinterpretationofthisprocessinlightofCatholic theology.BytracingthemannerinwhichMetzapproachedthistask inhiswritingthrough1966,wewillseethatitwasthroughengaging theprocessofsecularizationthatadistinctiveeschatologyemerged in his theological program. His transcendental-linear theology of historypresentedaproductiveapologeticresource,allowinghimto affirmtheongoingvalidityofChristianityforthosewhoexperienced theprocessofsecularizationasathreattotheirfaith.Theadvantages of this tack, the legitimization of both Christianity and the secularizationprocess,complementhisearlyapologeticinterests.As wewillsee,though,encounterswithnewinterlocutors,particularly ErnstBloch,repositionedhisevaluationoftheculturalsituationand
theappropriatetheologicalresponse.Theimportanceofthepractical character of Christian hope, aswell asautopic understanding of historythatcouldallowforthepossibilityofthegenuinelynew, came to characterize Metz’s thought by the mid-1960s. While continuingtoaddressanincreasinglysecularizedsociety,themanner inwhichheapproachedthistaskwasinflux.Itwasherethathis promotion of an eschatologically framed “political theology” surfaced.
Theemergenceofacreativeandpracticaleschatology,however, wouldnotsignaladeparturefromMetz’sconcernwiththeprocess ofsecularization.Hecontinuedtoarguethatthisprocessneednot beexperiencedascontrarytoaChristianunderstandingoftheworld and history. Indeed, he repeatedly championed the Christian provenance of modernity, though we will see that this now was affirmed by a hope mediated within history rather than the transcendentalstructureofhistoryitself.Itwasnotwithoutreason, then, that by his first taking up the concept of secularization, eschatologymovedtothecenterofhisthought.Theveryrenewal ofeschatologythatMetzcalledforwasengenderedbythefutureconsciousness characteristic of the modern world; his eschatology emerged out of his apologetic engagement with secularization. Moreover, he insisted that eschatology underwrites secularization; eschatological hope determines the future-oriented dynamic of modernculture.
Yet,havingnowreconsideredthemannerinwhichheunderstood historytheologically,Metzwasbetterpositionedtolocatewithin theChristian’seschatologicalhopeaninherentresourcethatradically resists the identification of eschatology with the future-oriented dynamic that came to the fore with modernity. Thus, by the mid-1960s,eschatologywouldbegintoemergeasapotentsource ofcultural criticism. Readalongsidechapter2,onSchillebeeckx’s
earlyeschatologicalwritings,thischapterwillrevealtheimportant relationship between the theological engagement with midtwentieth-centuryinterpretationsofsecularizationanddevelopments in the doctrine of eschatology, the emergence of practical eschatologyinCatholictheology,and,ultimately,thebeginningsof anevenmorecriticalemploymentofChristianeschatologicalhope asitmeetsthechallengesofamodernworld.ThisstudyofMetz’s early writings will proceed in three steps: an investigation of his initialtheologyofhistory,inwhichMetzemploysatranscendentallinearframework;Metz’spoliticalturntoautopicunderstandingof historyandthepracticalcharacterofhope;andtheconsequencesof Metz’spoliticalturnforacriticalreadingofsecularizationandhis articulationoftheChristian’seschatologicalhope.
A Transcendental-Linear Theology of History
Secularization as the Advent of History
Inevenhisearliestwritings,itwasapparentthatMetzbelievedthat bythemiddleofthetwentiethcentury,WesternEuropeansociety hadenteredintoaprocessofsecularizationandwouldonlycontinue along that course. Though little agreement existed regarding the theological validity and consequence of that process, there was generalconsensusamongsociologistsandtheologiansalikethata new historical reality was emerging across the Continent. In engaging the issue, then, Metz’s primary interest was not with whetherthewidespreadsecularizationofEuropeancultureinfact wasinprogressbutwiththesignificanceofthatprocessformodern Christianity. What challenges does the secularization of society presentthebeliever,heasked,andwhatdoesthebelieverhavetosay inresponse?
As secularization is a notoriously difficult concept to define, it is important that we begin by looking at the particular way in whichMetzunderstoodthesecularizationprocess.Althoughhemade it clear that he was aware of a range of both theological and nontheological interpretations of secularization, it is his own use ofthetermthatinterestsushere.1 Theearliestappearanceofwhat wouldbecomehis“secularizationthesis”(Säkularisierungsthese)can befoundina1957articleentitled“Die‘Stunde’Christi.”2 Though thesecularizationofEuropeansocietywasnotyetacentralissue inthisarticle,itwasherethathemadeanearlyattempttospeak ofthe“historicalpower”ofJesusChrist(Geschichtsmächtigkeit),an importantthemethatwouldreappearinotherearlywritingsandwill beexaminedinthefirstpartofthischapter.Hisdissertation,written underKarlRahnerandpublishedin1962, Christliche Anthropozentrik, inwhichheattemptedtocorrelatetheformalstructureofThomas Aquinas’stheologywiththeanthropocentricshiftcharacteristicof modernepistemology,alsoprovidedMetztheopportunitytoreflect ontheriseofsecularizationinmodernity,though,again,onlybriefly andbywayoffootnote.3 Itwouldbewiththepublicationofhis firstmajorcollectionofessays,in1968,underthetitle Zur Theologie der Welt thatMetzdirectlyturnedhisattentiontothetheological significanceofsecularizationasasociohistoricalphenomenonand placeditatthecenterofaprogrammaticagenda.Containingessays
1.AlongwiththeworkofTalcottParsons,KarlLöwith,andHansBlumenbergcitedinthe introduction of this study, throughout Zur Theologie der Welt (Mainz, Ger.: MatthiasGrünewald,1968)MetzreferencestheworkofanumberofProtestanttheologians,including theinfluentialwritingsofFriedrichGogartenandtheAmericanHarveyCox.Schillebeeckx isamongthenumerous Catholic theologians cited.Thistextwaspublished inEnglish as Theology of the World,trans.WilliamGlen-Doepel(NewYork:Herder&Herder,1969),and subsequentlywillbeabbreviatedincitationsas TW.
2.Metz,“Die‘Stunde’Christi:EinegeschichtstheologischeErwägung,” Wort und Wahrheit 12 (1957):5–18;see16–17.
3.Metz, Christliche Anthropozentrik: Über die Denkform des Thomas von Aquin (Munich:Kosel, 1962),see132n22.
writtenbetween1962and1967,thefirsttwopartsofthiscollection, whichincludeessayswrittenthrough1966,provideourpointof entryinthischapterintohiseffortstoengagemodernEuropean society. Read alongside a number of other uncollected articles published during this period, these writings reveal a theologian searchingforanadequateresponsetothechallengesofhistimeand, consequently,atheologicalprojectintransition.
The most developed account of what Metz understood by the historicalprocessofsecularizationappearsinanessaydeliveredat anacademicconferencein1963andlaterpublishedin Theology of the World as“TheFutureofFaithinaHominizedWorld.”4 Here, wefindthesocialanalysisofmodernculturethatwouldorienthis theological project throughout much of the 1960s. In this essay, Metzcharacterizedsecularizationasthetransitionfromadivinized to a hominized world, a process he claimed parallels modern epistemologicaldevelopments,inwhichthereisareorientationof thought from the known object to the knowing subject.5 In the divinizedworldofthepast,menandwomenencounteredtheworld assheer“nature”(Umwelt).Itwasthepregivendefaultcontextof humanexistenceand,assuch,wasexperiencedasmysteriousand beyond human control. The world as nature provided the nourishmentandresourcesneededtosustainlifebutalsobestowed inexplicable catastrophe and death. The precariousness of human existencewasbeyondaddress,withprotectionanddangercoming
4.Thisessaywasfirstpublishedas“DieZukunftdesGlaubensinhominisiertenWelt,” Hochland 56 (1964): 377–91, and was edited for compilation in Zur Theologie der Welt. For Metz’s briefreflectionsontheconferenceinalaterinterview,seeEkkehardSchusterandReinhold Boschert-Kimmig, Hope against Hope: Johann Baptist Metz and Elie Wiesel Speak Out on the Holocaust, trans.J.MatthewAshley(NewYork:Paulist,1999),21.Firstpublishedas Trotzdem Hoffen: Mit Johann Baptist Metz und Elie Wiesel in Gespräch (Mainz,Ger.:Matthias-Grünewald, 1993).
5.ForMetz’sunderstandingoftherelationshipbetweenhominizationandmodernepistemology, particularlyasthisrelatestotheinfluenceofAquinas,see Christliche Anthropozentrik,41–95.
fromthesameincomprehensiblesource.Nature,andnothumankind, reigned sovereign in such a world. Metz argued that it was by approaching the world from this cosmocentric perspective that natureitselfpredictablyfunctionedastheprimarylocusofreligious life.Menandwomenbestowednaturewithdivinequalities,finding initthepowerofGoddirectlyrevealed.Inadivinizedworld,the fluxofanimmediatelynuminizednaturereflectedtheoutworkingof divineprovidence.
The process of secularization initiated a shift from this cosmocentricperspectivetoananthropocentricviewinwhichthe world now could be appropriated as “history” (Mitwelt). The emergence within modernity of a secularized worldview exposed thehistoricityofhumanexistenceand,thus,markedtheadventof history itself. In the wake of this process, Metz argued, humans experience the world no longer as mysterious and uncontrollable naturebutasahistoryinthemakinginwhichmenandwomen arethe“masters”ofcreation.Thehumanpersondiscovers“thathe ismoreandmoreremovedfromtheenfoldingunityofapre-given natureandexperienceshimselfastheactivesubjectivityofnature which stands over against it and interferes with it, planning and transforming, in order to construct a world out of it.”6 Humans themselves are now the demiurge responsible for the world. A hominizedworldnolongerreliesonthelogicofmythandmagic foundinthereligiousimaginationofadivinizedworld.Thenature thathadembracedorattackedthehumanseeminglyondivinewhim now was seen as ordered according to natural laws accessible to humanunderstandingandcontrol.Theworldbecamematerialfor manipulationandcouldbesubduedandmanagedbyhumanhands. An explosion of scientific and technological advancements in the
modernerafollowed,fosteringanewconfidenceandprogressive optimismregardingwhathumansthemselvescouldaccomplishinthe world.Secularization,therefore,inauguratedhistory;itdedivinized a world experienced as nature and transformed it into a world experienced as history, fostering the historical consciousness of freedom.
Metz’s Secularization Thesis as Apologetics
Metz took up the question of secularization because he was concernedthatmanyChristianswereexperiencingthisprocessof hominization, in which the human person comes to reign as sovereignovernature,asafrighteningcrisisorshatteringoffaith.7 What once seemed to proclaim the work of God now was seen tobetheworkofhumansalone.“Whatshinesoutoftheworld today,primarilyanddirectly,arenotthe vestigia Dei,”hewrote,“but the vestigia hominis.”8 Ahominizedworldwaswithoutmagicand mystery.Seeminglyaffirmingthezero-sumtheory,theprocessof secularizationhadremovedGodfromtheworld,leavingthedivine nowhere to be found and the believer distraught and unsure of where to turn. Metz insisted that theology could not ignore the pastoralconsequencesofthisphenomenon.Iftheologywastoavoid descending into an ahistorical “mythology” unable to address the livedexperienceofChristians,itmusttakeupitsresponsibilityto
7.Seeibid.,60and14.Thelattercitationappearsinthefirstchapterofthetext,“HowFaith SeestheWorld:TheChristianOrientationintheSecularityoftheContemporaryWorld,”an editedtranslationof“WeltverständisimGlauben:ChristlicheOrientierunginderWeltlichkeit derWeltheute,” Geist und Leben 35(1962):165–84.Thoughthisparticularunderstandingofa crisisoffaithwasnotyetpresent,Metz’searlierefforttorespondtowhathedescribedasmen andwomen’s“deliberateefforttoforgetthecomingofGod”isnotableinasmallmeditationhe publishedfortheAdventseasonin1959.See The Advent of God,trans.JohnDrury(Paramus, NJ:Newman,1970),n.p.;originallypublishedas Advent Gottes (Munich:ArsSacra,1959).
8. TW,61.
accompanythemodernpersonforwhomthededivinizationofthe world had made God invisible.9 Secularization demanded of the theologiananewapologetictack.
Inhistreatmentofthesubjectwrittenin1962andlaterpublished in Theology of the World as“HowFaithSeestheWorld:TheChristian OrientationintheSecularityoftheContemporaryWorld,”wefind theclearestandmostcompleteexpressionofMetz’ssecularization thesis.Atthecenterofhisapologeticresponsestandsthebeliefthat themoderncrisisoffaithbetraysaninsufficientappreciationofthe Christiantheologicaltradition.Theprocessofsecularizationneed notbeexperiencedascontrarytoaChristianunderstandingofthe world,norshouldChristiansresistitsrealizationinworldhistory.In hisownwords,hesoughttoconstruct“apositiveinterpretationof thispermanentandgrowingsecularityoftheworldinthelightof Catholictheology.”10 Supportingthispositiveinterpretationwould betheboldclaimthat,ratherthanhavingarisenagainstChristianity, themodernprocessofsecularizationwasfundamentallyChristianin characterandprovenance.Indeed,itisthroughthisprocessthatthe worldultimatelyfulfillsitscreatedpurpose.Secularizationrepresents thegrowingawarenesswithinhistorythatGodhasgiventheworld tohumanswiththeauthoritytogovernandcultivate.
According to Metz, it is the protological and christological structureofhumanexistencethatdeterminedthemoderntransition fromanexperienceoftheworldasthereignofnuminousnature
9.Ibid.,14.
10.Ibid.,13n1.Asismentionedearlier,Metzwaswellawarethatothertheologianshadengaged insimilarprojects,butwhathefoundlackingintheseeffortswasthisgenuinelypositive interpretationofthegrowingsecularityoftheworld.Heacknowledgedthatinmanycases theologianshadadvocated“alessinhibitedopennesstotheworld,”butheequallycriticized them for maintaining the “obvious assumption that the secularity of the world as such is somethingthatisactuallycontrarytotheChristianunderstandingoftheworldandmust thereforebetotallyovercomebyChristianmeans.”ProminentamongthoseMetzcriticizedin 1962wasYvesCongar(TW,14–15).Wewillhaveanopportunitytoreturntotheseremarks inchapter2.
tothatoftransformablehistory.Morespecifically,hearguedthata hominizedworldviewismadepossiblebecauseofthewayinwhich creation and the incarnation transcendentally orient the human persontowardtheworld.Consequently,Christianunderstandings ofprotologyandChristologyuniquelyclarifythehistoricityofthe world that only through the course of secularization was now experiencedasconstitutinghumanexistence.
BeginningwiththesignificanceofChristiancreationfaith,and revealing the influence of Aquinas’s theology of creation that he examinedin Christliche Anthropozentrik, 11Metzgroundedthemodern subject’sexperienceofautonomyandfreedomupontheprotological distinction between the Creator and the created. The God of creation,heargued,doesnotusurphumanautonomyandfreedom but,rather,grantsandsecuresit:“Themajestyofthefreedomhe bestowsisthatheistheonewhotrulyletsthingsbewhattheyare. Heisnotincompetitionwith,butthe‘guarantor’oftheworld.”12 God’sexistenceisthesustainingsourceofcreatedexistenceand,thus, thetranscendentalgroundofhumanfreedom.Increating,Goddoes notseektodivinizethatwhichiscreatedbutestablishesandaccepts humanity precisely as that which is different from God’s self. As transcendentCreator,Godletstheworldbetheworld.Needlessto say,MetzwasnotseekingtodescribethetranscendentGodofthe deisthere.TheradicaltranscendenceoftheCreatordoesnotalienate Godfromcreationbutdenotesadistinctionthatallowsforintimacy withoutconfusion,freedomandautonomywithoutestrangement.
Whilegroundingtheexperienceofautonomyandfreedomina secularizedworlduponthenondualisticdivine–humanrelationship established in creation, Metz argued that only through the
11.WewillbrieflyexamineAquinas’stheologyofcreationinchapter2,whereSchillebeeckxmore explicitlyappropriatesAquinas’swritingswithregardtotheprocessofsecularization.
12. TW,27.
incarnationwasthedefinitiveandeschatologicalacceptanceofthe “worldlinessoftheworld”realizedandmademanifestinhistory:“In JesusChrist,manandhisworldwereacceptedbytheeternalWord, finallyandirrevocably....[W]hatistrueofthisnaturethatChrist acceptedisalsofundamentallytrueoftheacceptanceofmanand hisworldbyGod.”13 Complementinghisunderstandingofcreation, Metzbelievedthattheincarnationshouldbeconstruednotasthe divinizationoftheworldbutratherasGod’shistoricalacceptance oftheworldasthatwhichisnotdivine.Fromtheperspectiveof Christology, the autonomy and freedom of the world are compromisedonlyifachristologicalmonophytismispresumedin whichthatwhichishumaniscollapsedintothedivine.Properly understood,itispreciselyinthepersonofJesusChristthattheworld issetfreetobetheworld.
Again,then,theradicallytranscendentGod“doesnotremovethe differencebetweenhimselfandwhatisother,butratheracceptsthe otherpreciselyasdifferentfromhimself.”14 Itisintheincarnation thatGod’sacceptanceoftheworldasnondivine,asworldly,ismade historically manifest.InJesusChrist, forthefirsttime,theworld isrecognizedastrulyworld,andatthesametimeGodisrevealed tobewhollydivine.Itisinandthroughtheincarnationthatthe processofsecularizationisletlooseinhistory,revealingboththe sovereignty of God and the freedom of humanity. The modern processofsecularizationshouldbeunderstood,consequently,asthe historicalcontinuationoftheincarnation.Theapologeticvalueof Metz’s position is clear. There is no need for a crisis of faith surrounding this process; indeed, secularization is the historical extensionofthatwhichwasaccomplishedinChrist.Ratherthan envisioningthemasinherentlyincompatible,Metzbelievedthereis
13.Ibid.,26.
14.Ibid.
anintrinsicconnectionbetweentheChristianfaithandthemodern world.
Metz’s Secularization Thesis as a Theology of History
Ifcreationandtheincarnationrevealthehistoricityoftheworld at this early stage in Metz’s writing, it is important that we also considerhowheconceptualizedthetheologicalcharacterofhistory during this period. Although he first considered this question in 1957withthewritingof“Die‘Stunde’Christi,”itisintheessay from1962presentlyunderconsiderationthatMetzdirectlylocated thisquestionwithinthecontextofsecularization.Thetheological foundation he developed for secularization, in which the process isapproachedfromtheperspectiveofprotologyandChristology, herecanbeseentoinformhistheologicalunderstandingofhistory inthreesignificantways.First,itallowedhimtorepositiondivine transcendencetemporally;second,itmadeitpossibleforMetzto speak of the incarnation as the condition for the possibility of authentic history; and finally, he could contend that history is eschatologically determined by the historical power of the incarnation.
Tothefirstpoint,Metznotedthatitwasthroughtheincarnation thatGodappearedinhistoryastheGodofhistory.Again,divine transcendencemustnotbeseentoengenderestrangement.Through JesusChrist,transcendencebecomesahistoricalreality:“Godisno longermerely‘above’history,heishimself‘in’it,inthatheisalso constantly‘infrontofit’asitsfree,uncontrolledfuture.”15 Inthe incarnation,Godwasrevealedasthegroundofhistoryaswellasthe groundofbeing.Inturn,divinetranscendencebecomesatemporal
15.Ibid.,22–23.
categoryaswellasanontologicalcategory.Fromtheperspective ofahominizedworld,then,God’sradicaltranscendencenolonger shouldbeapproachedasanexclusivelystaticclaimaboutontological otherness.Suchaclaimwouldfailtoaccountfortheramifications ofsecularization:“GodforusisnotmerelyaGodwhoisalways the same, colorlessly and facelessly present as the numinously shimmering horizon of our being. . . . Transcendence itself has becomeanevent.Itdoesnotsimplystandaboveandbeyondhistory, butisstilltocomeinhistory.”16 Inthewakeofsecularization,Metz believed,tospeakofdivinetranscendenceistomakeatemporalclaim concerningtheinexhaustiblemeaningofhistory.
Second, Metz warned that the “historical power” (Geschichtsmächtigkeit)ofChristisnotlikethatofanyothersingle historicalfactor,norisChristtobeunderstoodassimplythegreatest ormostsignificantfactorwithinhistory.TheWordofcreationand salvationisnotoneamongmanyfinitebeingsintheworld,actingin historyascreaturesactinhistory.TheWord“doesnotmerelyreign over history,byappearinginit(besideotherhistoricalphenomena) andsettingupauniversalkingdominit(beside other‘kingdoms’), but he reigns within it by historically giving it its basis.”17 The historicalpowerofJesusChrististhatwhichfoundsthepossibility ofhistory.Christ,itcanbesaid,istheverybeginningofhistory. It is the incarnation that sets the world free to be the world as historyratherthannature.Theincarnationisnotmerelya“‘principle’ thatis applied subsequently within history(toparticularphenomena), buttheinnerprincipleofhistoryitself;itscoordinatingpoint,its finalground...its‘fulfillment,’itsabsoluteconcretion,inwhich alone what is earlier and what is later in time become genuine history.”18 Undoubtedly, the incarnation is a historical event. But
16.Ibid.,22.
17.Ibid.,23.Seealso“Die‘Stunde’Christi,”5.
theologicallyconstrued,andmoregermanetoMetz’searlyposition, the incarnation constitutes the transcendental structure of history itself;JesusChrististheconditionforthepossibilityofauthentic historyandhumanfreedom.
Finally, it is important to emphasize for our purposes, and to understandproperlywhatMetzwasseekingtoaccomplishatthis early stage in his writing, that the emergence of the modern hominized understanding of the world was not dependent upon the idea of the incarnation. Metz’s secularization thesis is not his attemptatahistoryofideas,norissecularizationmerelytheresult ofchurchteachings.Rather,Metzwassearchingforawaytospeak ofhistoryashavingbeeneschatologicallydeterminedbythepower of the incarnate Son of God.19 History in the perspective of the incarnationhasauniquechristologicaldynamicandinnerteleology inwhichaChristictranscendentalsubjectispersistentlycomingtobe inhistorythroughtheveryprocessofsecularization:“The‘spirit’of Christianityispermanentlyembeddedinthe‘flesh’ofworldhistory andmustmaintainandproveitselfintheirreversiblecourseofthe latter.”20 Secularization,aswehaveseen,istheprocessbywhichthe incarnationcontinuestobemadehistoricallyeffective.Secularization is historical progress theologically understood; it is a “historically irreversibleprocess”transcendentallydeterminedbytheChrist.21The incarnation “reveals the world not only in its general historicity, butaboveallinits eschatological character.Inanhistoricalmovement forwardthat[theworld]cannotitselfknow[,]ithastoattainanend thathasalreadybeenpromisedtoit.Itmustitselfbecomewhatit alreadyisthroughthedeedofJesusChrist.”22 Secularization,itcan
18. TW , 23n13.
19.See,forexample,“Die‘Stunde’Christi,”10,and TW,23n13.
20. TW,16.
21.Ibid.
22.Ibid.,25.
thereforebesaid,isaneschatologicaleventinthatthroughit,history progressivelybecomeswhatitalreadyisintheincarnation.
Thus,byMetz’sengagingsecularizationfromtheperspectiveof creationandtheincarnation,hisearliesttheologicalunderstandingof historycametosupportwhatmaybedescribedasatranscendentallinearmetaphysicsofhistory,inwhichthefutureisdeterminedby anddeduciblefromthebeginning.23 Thisunderstandingofhistory inturnestablishedaneschatologicalvisionofhistoryinwhichwhat ishopedforstandsindirectcontinuitywiththatwhichhasalready beenrealized.24Continuityisthemarkofaneschatologicallycharged history. The future is transcendentally determined by the past. Nothing“whollynew”isrevealedinhistory,accordingtoMetz,for everythingisdrawnfromtheincarnationofChrist:“Asitmoves forward,theworldpassesevermoredeeplyintoitshistoricalorigin andplacesitselfmoreandmoreseriouslybeneaththestarandthelaw ofitsbeginning,whichis:acceptancebyGodinJesusChrist.”25The processofsecularization,then,isthegradualrealizationinhistory ofthatwhichhasbeenrealizedalreadyinChrist. Itwasforthis reasonthatwhenMetzwroteofthehistorically neues duringthis earlyperiodofhiscareer,heoftenfounditnecessarytoputquotation marksaroundthewordinordertorestrictwhatwasmeantbythe term.26 And when that was not the case, he was sure to qualify the term carefully. World history, he averred, “no longer reveals anythingofaradicallynewnature,butdrawseverythingfromwhat
23.SeeFrancisFiorenza,“TheThoughtofJ.B.Metz,” Philosophy Today 10,no.4(1966):250.
24.ThoughMetz’sunderstandingoftheeschatologicalstructureofhistorywouldsoonevolve,we shouldnotethathispositionduringthisperiodlargelyparalleledthepositionbeingdeveloped byhismentor,KarlRahner,duringthisperiod.See,forexample,Rahner,“TheHermeneutics ofEschatologicalAssertions,”in Theological Investigations (London:Darton,Longman&Todd, 1966),4:326–46.ForahelpfulstudyofRahner’seschatology,seePeterPhan, Eternity in Time: A Study of Karl Rahner’s Eschatology (Selinsgrove,PA:SusquehannaUniversityPress,1988).
25. TW,33.
26.See,forexample, Zur Theologie der Welt,14.
isofChrist.”27 Themodernprocessofsecularizationisahistorically “new”happening,butitshistoricalrealizationismadepossibleand determinedbythe Geschichtsmächtigkeit oftheincarnation.
InlightofthiswayinwhichMetzaccountedfortheeschatological characterofhistoryduringthisearlystageinhiscareer,hewascareful to denounce a theological understanding of history that betrayed anunfetteredworld-optimismoranuncriticalbeliefininevitable progress.Worldhistoryisintrinsicallycoextensivewiththehistory ofsalvation,butthetwocannotbeidentified:“Wecannotandmust notsimply identify theactualmodernprocessofsecularizationwith thesecularityoftheworldthatChristmadepossibleandintended.”28 Metzengagedandaffirmedsecularizationasatheologicallypositive processfundamentallyChristianincharacter.Butitwasprecisely inlightofitsChristiancharacterthathesimultaneouslyattendedto thepersistentambiguityofsecularization,anambiguityhefound christologicallysignifiedinthecross.Thecrossuniquelyrevealsboth God’sdefinitiveacceptanceoftheworldandtheworld’songoing rejection of that acceptance mistakenly received as an attack on human autonomy and freedom. The cross reminds the Christian thatthecourseofsecularizationwithinhistorymustbeapproached judiciously,forGod’sacceptanceoftheworldprovokestheworld’s freeprotestationevenasthatacceptanceestablishestheconditionfor thepossibilityoftheworld’sautonomy.
Thehistoricalfreedomestablishedintheincarnation,then,can besetagainstGod’sgiftoffreedom.Intheessayfrom1962already considered,Metzwarned,“Thesecularworldofmoderntimeswill always appear also as contradicting, protesting, shutting itself off secularistically from its origins.”29 In the essay published in 1964,
27. TW,33.
28.Ibid.,40–41.
29.Ibid.,40.
hedevelopedthiswarningevenfurther.Thehominizationofthe modern world, he insisted, offers no guarantee of genuine humanization,thehistoricalflourishingofhumanfreedom.Infact, thismodernprocessintroducesauniquedangerintohumanhistory: “[N]otonlytheworldasnaturebutalsomanhimselfthreatensmore andmoretobecome‘manipulatable.’Notonlyishe,assubject,in charge of the hominization process, but he is more and more in dangerofhimselfbeingdegradedtotheobjectofallthisplanning.”30 At great human cost, the very freedom gained with the rise of secularizationcanbreakdowninitsaftermath.Significantly,atthe time,Metzresistedattributingthisdangertothestructureofthe modernworldassuch.Indeed,heinsistedthatonlybyacceptingthis historicaldevelopmentcanmenandwomenovercomethisdanger andrealizegenuinehumanization.31 WewilllookcloselyatMetz’s reevaluationofthispositioninchapter5ofthisstudy.Nonetheless, hisresistancetoanuncriticalbeliefinhistoricalprogress,andhis recognition of the dangers that accompany construing history accordingly,wasalreadyclearlyevident.
Ithasbeennotedelsewhere,however,thatevenhavingattendedto theambiguousandevendangerouscharacterofsecularization,Metz’s presentationofthisprocessasanongoingadventoftheincarnation left Christianity poorly positioned to address the failings and limitations of the modern world.32 By offering a transcendental analysisofhistory,heattemptedtoidentifythetheologicalorigins thatdeterminethehistoricalrealizationofsecularization.Asaresult, the progressive optimism of modern society was theologically
30.Ibid., 74. It is likely that here Metz is drawing on Max Weber’s influential concept of instrumentalrationality(Zweckrationalität),thoughWeberisnotcitedandMetzdoesnotuse theterm.Aswewillseeinchapters5and6,thisconceptwillreceiveanincreasinglycentral roleinhisevolvinganalysisofthemodernsituation.
31.Ibid.,76.
32.See Rebecca S. Chopp, The Praxis of Suffering: An Interpretation of Liberation and Political Theologies (Maryknoll,NY:Orbis,1986),67.
legitimated in advance and, thus, only subsequently could be evaluatedandcalledintoquestion.Metz’sapologeticaffirmationof theinnerconnectionbetweensecularizationandtheChristianfaith cameatahighprice.Withinhistranscendental-lineartheologyof history, the transhistorical identification of the incarnation and secularization presumed an essential continuity that, though ambiguous,riskedcompromisingtheChristianvoiceasitengages secular culture. Christianity, inadvertently for sure, had taken its placeamongtherearguard.Whatevertheconsequencesofmodern mores,Metz’spositionmadeitdifficulttodirectanystructuralor systemiccriticismagainsttheongoinghistoricalprocessitself,leaving Christianitytoidentifymereabusesandmisapplications.
Ashisprojectcontinuedtodevelop,Metzwouldreevaluatethe mannerinwhichhelinkedChristianityandmodernitywithprecisely this concern in view. This will be clear in what follows. It is importanttoremember,however,thatduringthisperiod(1962–64) Metzwasconcernedprimarilywithreestablishingtheviabilityof Christianity in a new historical context. He wanted to locate a vantagepointfromwhichtoaffirmtheongoingsignificanceand validity of Christianity for those who experienced the process of secularization as athreat to their faith, not avantage point from whichtocriticizethatprocess.Aswehavejustseen,Metzsurely recognizedthedangersthataccompaniedthehistoricaldevelopments ofthemodernworld.33 Nonetheless,secularizationhadunleashedin worldhistorytheveryessenceofChristianity,andtheprospectsof modernitycertainlyappearedpromising.Tothatpoint,Metzargued
33.Thoughhisconcernsremainedlargelyunderdeveloped,in Christliche Anthropozentrik Metzalso hadwarnedthatcaremustbegivennottodetachtheprocessofhominizationfromitsChristian originslestthefreedomachievedwiththeriseofmodernityslipaway(128).Aswewillsee inchapter5,theseconcernswilltakecenterstageinhislaterwork.Atthistime,however,his primaryinterestwaswithantimodern“Christianphilosophies”thatsettheChristiantradition overagainstmodernphilosophicalthoughtconstruedasalienandincompatiblewiththefaith, preciselythetheologicalpresumptionunderwritingazero-sumtheoryofsecularization.
thatin“termsofthetheologyofhistory,”thepowerofevilinthe worldwas“alreadyonthedecline.”The“‘princeofthisworld’is already‘castout,’”becauseofGod’sdefinitiveacceptanceoftheworld inJesusChrist.34Itisjustsuchaclaim,cominglessthantwentyyears aftertheatrocitiesofWorldWarII,thatmayrevealmostclearly Metz’sunderstandingoftheeschatologicalcharacterofhistoryatthis earlystageinhiscareer.Heapproachedhistoryfromtheperspective oftheincarnationandexplicitlywarnedagainstanuncriticaland simply optimistic view of historical progress by attending to the distortion of freedom signified by the cross. Nonetheless, within his transcendental-linear theology of history, secularization was positionedasa“historicallyirreversibleprocess”;historicalprogressis transcendentallydeterminedasthe“spirit”ofChristianityirreversibly provesitselfinthe“flesh”ofworldhistory.
The Political Turn to a Utopic Understanding of History and the Practical Character of Hope
The Provocation of Ernst Bloch: The Possibility of the New in History
In1963,thesameyearhereceivedanappointmenttotheUniversity ofMünsterasprofessoroffundamentaltheology,Metzparticipated intheconferenceatwhichhedelivered“TheFutureofFaithin a Hominized World.” Notably, the organizing theme for this conference,heldinWeingarten,WestGermany,was“TheFuture ofMan.”ItwastherethatMetzmetforthefirsttimeErnstBloch,a left-wingrevisionaryMarxistwhoseuniqueandrevolutionarywork onthephilosophyofhopeMetzadmittedlyknewverylittleabout.35
34. TW,25n21.
35.SeeSchusterandBoschert-Kimmig, Hope against Hope,21–22.