Political theology and the theology of politics: Carl Schmitt and medieval Christian political thought (1).

• Author: Gray, Phillip W.

In societies where religion plays a strong and important role, the institutions of the society reflect the religion. Yet in societies where religion plays a more secondary role to say that all political concepts are secularized theological concepts is an overstatement. While Carl Schmitt does make a persuasive argument on the role of religion in political thought, he is also mistaken. In this article, I shall attempt to show that political concepts in the medieval period were built upon theological ideas but in a way different from that described by Schmitt. Toward that end I'll describe the difference between "political theology" and a "theology of politics" and focus on the revelatory political theology of the medieval period as contrasted with the "re-paganized" theology of Schmitt. Finally, by reviewing the process of papal decline with particular emphasis on the writings of Martin Luther, I shall argue that the political theology Schmitt describes reflects a post-Reformation loss of competing "exception-bearers" in the West and that this loss has had profoundly negative consequences for Western civilization.

What does the term "political theology" mean? There is no limit to what it can mean: all theology may be considered "political" (from a postmodern perspective), or certain modern ideologies may be termed "political religions" (as, e.g., in Voegelin's writings), and so on. The work of Carl Schmitt presents another perspective. For Schmitt, political theology is the structure of political concepts as related to their origin in theological concepts. Within Schmitt's view of the political, the theological notion of God transfers to the political sovereign a final and total authority in the person of a main decision-maker in extreme emergencies, an "exception-bearer" with whom the power of the state ultimately lies. The notion of the Absolute in religion is used in conceptualizing the Absolute in the state, starting with the "divine right of kings" and extending to the crisis of Schmitt's own time.

Is Schmitt's idea of political theology, both in itself and in connection to the rest of his thought, correct? It is partially correct, but not in the way that Schmitt believes. His understanding of the connection between theology and politics is one-sided and misleading. The problem is that he begins his examination of political theology at the time of Bodin and the absolutizing of the theory and practice of monarchy while ignoring earlier European experience. The particular historical period at which Schmitt chooses to begin his study is significant because institutional religious insight into the political and (more importantly) religious insight informing the political were much diminished by the time "divine right" doctrines held sway. This leads the reader of Schmitt to understand theology through politics rather than politics through theology. Beginning his study at an earlier point in Western history might have expanded his overly narrow view of political theology. Still, Schmitt's analysis does clarify the modern situation, but in doing so it clarifies the problematic nature of post-Reformation political theology compared with that of the time before Luther.

Although Schmitt ignores the distinction, medieval political ideas were shaped much differently than their post-Reformation counterparts. The resulting error on Schmitt's part is his failure to take sufficiently seriously the theological understanding of politics. This is where the distinction between "theology of politics" and "political theology" comes into play.(2) Political theology has at least two, sometimes overlapping meanings. One is the sense of Schmitt that politics begins to appropriate notions from theology as societies secularize, thus making politics a matter of theology; the other is the ideological use of theology to mask political motivations. Both forms of political theology spring from secularization. The theology of politics, on the other hand, starts from an explicitly theological framework. This theological framework can be either natural or revelatory theology, and in the medieval period it was both. Politics was seen in the context of the powers of humans and also within a larger realm encompassing objective rights, natural order, and divine obligations. Moreover, revelatory theology came to contextualize politics even more than natural theology, as Christian notions of being, existence, and charity had political ramifications that had not been anticipated by the pre-Christian thinkers. Revelatory theology of the Catholic strain adds another element as well: the institutional. To put it bluntly, the relation between politics and theology in Western history cannot be understood without a discussion of the Roman Catholic Church, which is dependent on an explicitly revelatory theology. By looking at the interactions between the church and the various political bodies during the middle ages, the theology of politics in action, or "revelatory" political theology, is clarified. Schmitt's political theology, on the other hand, having its origins after the Reformation, reflects what might best be referred to as a "natural" political theology from which virtually all traces of direct revelatory insight have been removed. Schmitt's theology is, for lack of a better term, "re-paganized."

Political Theology and the Exception

For Schmitt, political theology is an explanation of how political concepts were formed in the modern state. These political concepts are both structurally and conceptually similar to those of theological systems. In describing political theology, Schmitt writes:

All significant concepts of the modern theory of state are secularized theological concepts not only because of their historical development--in which they were transformed from theology to the theory of state, whereby, for example, the omnipotent God became the omnipotent lawgiver--but also because of their systematic structure, the recognition of which is necessary for a sociological consideration of the concepts. The exception in jurisprudence is analogous to the miracle in theology.(3) The God involved in this definition is rather abstract. This God is omnipotent, and miracles are possible in His system; but there is no mention of divine history, creation acts, various prophets, the Resurrection, or much else that is historically concrete. God is, in terms of anything specific, rather plain--a sociological construct really, which is a point of importance below.

Schmitt considers political theology through his sociological method, according to which society is shaped by reigning metaphysical understandings. Schmitt writes:

The metaphysical image that a definite epoch forges of the world has the same structure as what the world immediately understands to be appropriate as a form of its political organization. The determination of such an identity is the sociology of the concept of sovereignty(4). With the passage of time the metaphysical image changes. When the idea of a sole sovereign reigned (Schmitt places this idea in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries), political systems reflected this sole-sovereign notion, such as in Hobbes. Later, influenced by more diffuse ideas of God and/or metaphysical reality, politics shifted more towards democracy, or as Schmitt puts it, "[e]verything in the nineteenth century was increasingly governed by the conception of immanence." (5) However, with this immanence came an inability to make decisions in desperate times, so that, while notions of sovereignty changed, determining where sovereignty actually lay became problematic. The problematic role of immanence is reflected best in Schmitt's understanding of the emergency or "the exception."

The notion of the exception is central in Schmitt's thought. Indeed, he begins the first chapter of his Political Theology with the claim, "Sovereign is he who decides on the exception." (6) For Schmitt,

[t]he exception, which is not codified in the existing legal order, can at best be characterized as a case of extreme peril, a danger to the existence of the state, or the like. But it cannot be circumscribed factually or made to conform to a preformed law. In dealing with political theology, Schmitt sees the use of the theological concept of God's sovereignty as providing the state with a model of political sovereignty. The exception is important to Schmitt, for it must be remembered that he is not concentrating on routine situations. As George Schwab explains, "[f]or Schmitt the sovereign authority not only was bound to the normally valid legal order but also transcended it.... [Schmitt's] sovereign slumbers in normal times but suddenly awakens when a normal situation threatens to become an exception." (7) While Schmitt refers to Bodin's notion of sovereignty, (8) he more accurately owes his intellectual lineage to the English author Thomas Hobbes. Schmitt says about Hobbes's formulation:

The form that [Hobbes] sought lies in the concrete decision, one that emanates from a particular authority. In the independent meaning of the decision, the subject of the decision has an independent meaning, apart from the question of content. What matters for the reality of legal life is who decides. (9) Schmitt is here presenting the groundwork for his political theology. As the sovereign takes on the elements of divine sovereignty the decision of this newly deified entity becomes important. For the remainder of this article, I shall refer to those with the ability to decide when there is an exception and to make a decision during it as "exception-bearers": those who have to bear the decisions during an exception, but who also bear the power to declare that an exceptional situation exists. Like God, this exception-bearer could make the needed decisions without hindrance and must be the final and sole authority. Schmitt believes liberal democracy, a system that diffused and...