Don’t Immanentize the Eschaton

I see the phrase only occasionally, "Don’t Immanentize the Eschaton", but it is something of a redline between the idealism of totalitarian system thinking and the tragic view of classical liberals. From Wikipedia:

In political theory and theology, to immanentize the eschaton means trying to bring about the eschaton (the final, heaven-like stage of history) in the immanent world. It has been used by conservative critics as a pejorative reference to certain projects such as Nazism, socialism, communism, anti-racism and transhumanism. In all these contexts it means "trying to make that which belongs to the afterlife happen here and now (on Earth)". Theologically the belief is akin to Postmillennialism as reflected in the Social Gospel of the 1880-1930 era, as well as Protestant reform movements during the Second Great Awakening in the 1830s and 1840s such as abolitionism.

It is a tricky balance. I do reject the immanetization of the eschaton but the tragic view at the heart of classical liberalism cannot be accepted as a reason not to pursue the amelioration of tragedy. The pursuit of improvement without the fanaticism of the totalitarian is the mark to be aimed for.

Thinking about immanetization of the eschaton makes me wonder when I first came across the phrase. It appears to have been popularized by William F. Buckley in the 1960's but I don't think I became aware of it till sometime in the past ten or fifteen years. The injunction is closely related to a slightly different consideration from the Bible, under what circumstances can man return to Eden?

In junior or senior year of high school, the Debate Club had a debate on whether man could return to the Garden of Eden through his own efforts. The crux of the issue was Genesis 3:23-24:

23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

If, all these decades later, I recall the debate correctly, the crux was whether man could "earn" his way back to Eden or whether access to Eden was entirely at the discretion of God. While I forget the words, I do recall one of our more gifted debaters, thunderously declaring, in old Tent Revival style, that man could not re-enter Eden through his own efforts. Perhaps he waved a Bible in his right hand but that might be a trick of the memory, garnishing the argument.

I just recall the effectiveness of the performance over the words. He was heavy set, dark complexioned, from the South and delivered his speech with a marked accent. It was very Inherit the Wind. The net effect was very old prophet and was one of my earliest clear recognitions of the difference between the antiseptic logic and reason of an argument versus the rhetorical delivery of an argument.