Book Review - Political Theology by Carl Schmitt

... and it's influences today

Feb 27, 2025

Introduction

Carl Schmitt was a German jurist & political theorist. Most controversially, he was a prominent member of the Nazi Party for a time. He carried a Nazi Party membership from 1933 to 1937, during the early years of the Nazi Reich. He played a major role in informing the philosophy of the Reich in its early days. He was in the Roman Catholic Church in his early years of life, but eventually he became disillusioned with it. His importance today is that he is a prominent thinker whom both the Left and the Right will appeal to, including many Christian Nationalists, such as Auron MacIntyre and CJ Engel and Stephen Wolfe.

As a brief reminder - just because someone appeals to a thinker, that does not mean that they accept the totality of that person’s system of thought. Nevertheless, who you appeal to should be considered as you make distinctions. In the case of Christian Nationalism, these men appeal to Schmitt (although not exclusively), especially for his friend-enemy distinction, which deals with the issue of public enemies. Carl Schmitt speaks of the friend-enemy distinction in his larger corpus of writing. I’ll write on that more another day. You will see that this friend-enemy distinction does connect with his Political Theology in various places.

I decided to start my analysis of Schmitt, by grabbing a copy of his book Political Theology. Political theology is particularly where political theory and Christian theology overlap. This is the place of foundations. As a pastor and a theologian, I am not as interested in the specifics of his policy, as the foundations of policy. What makes a man do what he does? A man who is interested in protecting nations from immoral policy, will do so in foundational work like this. This is where we get to take a sneak peek at his deck of cards, so to speak. Historical record seems to demonstrate that the specifics of policy for Schmitt were in many places fully inline with the policies of the Reich, even if later he became more critical of the Reich. In his defense before the Nuremberg Trials (at which he was acquitted), he claimed that he defended dictatorship, but not totalitarianism. It is possible that he was lying to save his own skin. Either way, dictatorship with no limiting principle, is in fact totalitarianism in seed form. He also writes a book called “Dictatorship” which I have not read yet. His books & thought were considered as important foundational work in the realm of political theory/theology for the Reich. I believe that as I dig in, you will see why both Left and Right appeal to his work. You should also see what that says about the foundations for political theory on both Left and Right.

Summary

In chapter 1, Definition of Sovereignty, Schmitt begins his work on political theology with an axiomatic statement to his work - “The sovereign is he who decides on the exception.” [Carl Schmitt, Political Theology (Chicago: the University of Chicago Press, tr 1985), 5] This is pivotal, foundational to Schmitt’s work. The “state of exception” includes “any kind of severe economic or political disturbance that requires the application of extraordinary measures.” (Ibid) This is not just a situation, to which a norm is applied. Rather, Schmitt’s principle works the other way around. The legal order is not based on “norms” so to speak. Schmitt argues: “the legal order rests on a decision and not on a norm.” (Ibid, 10). It is important then that Schmitt moves on to define law in this manner “All law is ‘situational law’” (Ibid., 13). The essence of the state’s authority is found in the “sovereigns” monopoly on deciding in the situation (Ibid). One might add to this the sovereignty of God. Schmitt does not speak about God here much except to speak of “the one” who represents God on earth, that is, the sovereign (Ibid, 10). Schmitt concludes this chapter by quoting from a Protestant theologian, Soren Kierkegaard, to defend his point that the exception is more important than the general (Ibid, 15).

Chapter 2 is entitled - The Problem of Sovereignty as the Problem of the Legal Form and of the Decision. Here, Schmitt goes on to distinguish between the concept of sovereignty and the concept of the state. States can still be states but they are not sovereign. “Sovereignty is the highest, legally independent, underived power.” (Ibid, 17). He pushes through a critique of legal positivism - the idea that law can be reduced to a system of norms in rules. He posits again, his central axiom that “The sovereign is he who decides on the exception.” He argues that the decision, rather than the legal form, is the true foundation of the legal order. In fact, the sovereigns ability to act in the exception, gives him the necessary legal power.

In chapter 3, Schmitt moves more directly into political theology with a chapter entitled Political Theology. He now draws lines between political theory and theology, between his particular view of the sovereign and the legal system and miracles in theology. He writes: “The exception in jurisprudence is analogous to the miracle in theology.” It is clear that Schmitt is responding to the rationalism of the 1700s and 1800s in his political thought. He speaks of the theology and metaphysics that banished the miracle from the world. The rationalism of the Enlightenment does not deal with the exception or the miracle. He responds to many modern atheistic or “Marxist” governments with the need for a God to exist for political order. In response to the removal of royalty and kings, he suggests, rather, a dictatorship (which should be distinguished in his thought from totalitarianism).

Chapter 4 is a chapter On the Counterrevolutionary Philosophy of the State. Here he delves deeply into the counterrevolutionary theology of three Roman Catholic philosophers who were responding to the French Revolution: that is - Joseph de Maistre, Louis de Bonald and Donoso Cortes. de Maistre emphasized authority and order over abstract reason, imagining the sovereign as almost divine. de Bonald rejected the idea of the contract between individuals of Rousseau, favouring hierarchy and organic social structures. Finally, favoured dictatorship to endless discussion, arguing that liberalism would lead to collapse. In the midst of this, the church is a bulwark in the midst of revolutionary upheaval, but it should be added, in its support of the state. The church interests him as a political actor, not a moral guide. In its public facing role, it is to support the actions of “the sovereign”. He defines the church in terms of its political task. All of this pushes for Schmitt’s main thesis: that “Sovereign is he who decides on the exception.”

Analysis

Schmitt is definitely a product of a 20th century world that was becoming increasingly disillusioned with Enlightenment thought, particularly the rationalistic aspect of it. He is also clearly responding to some major concerns that arose from the French Revolution and atheistic Marxism.

In the mix, one might make true statements, but we also have to take into consideration the framework, the axioms, the epistemological foundations of the man’s work.

… the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend

As the saying goes: the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. And so it is my aim here to break down some of the major issues in the thought of Schmitt.

Statism

It should be clearly stated from the start that both Marx and Schmitt are statists. Marx is left-wing. Schmitt is right-wing. Marx tries to get rid of God and replace Him with the all-encompassing state. Schmitt retains God (or some nebulous form of God), but tries to eclipse Him with the all-encompassing state. It should strike one from reading Schmitt that the concept of God is useful to Him, but not necessary. As such it is idolatrous. It is idolatrous in that it goes back to the “emperor-worship” of the Roman empire.

Authoritarianism

For Schmitt, there is no limiting principle to the authority of “the sovereign”. Rutherford’s concept of “the king under the law” or Van Prinsterer’s concept of a king bound by a constitution is foreign to Schmitt’s work, especially since he believes that constitutional monarchy can be set aside during times of emergency for a dictatorship. The public good trumps a constitution. To be more accurate - what the dictator defines as the public good trumps a constitution. Thus, if the end of national sovereignty can be acheived, then whatever means necessary should be used to achieve that end. After all, the sovereign determines the exception.

This is the next problem.

Situational Ethics - Relativism

Schmitt applies a type of situational ethics to the authority of the sovereign as well as to the national judiciary. He rejects normative ethics as positivism.

This is contrary to historic Christian ethics wherein there are universal and eternal principles that we can reach out to in order to develop rights, constitutions and laws. This does not undermine the authority of the magistrate, but rather, it limits the authority of the magistrate.

Christian wisdom is the ability to apply “the norm” to “the situation” or “the exception”. For this there needs to be a God, whose Word is appealed too. There needs to be rights given from God. There needs to be a Higher Law, a Higher Court to appeal too.

I can only imagine how Schmitt would have felt about the theonomists. Not because he would have quibbles with how they do their exegesis or with their Biblical hermeneutic. That doesn’t matter so much to his system of political theory. But because the project of the theonomists stands fundamentally opposed to his system of political ethics & theory.

The same could be said of more general protestant ethics, which seeks to derive at least core principles from the Word of God, to determine the God-ordained limits of power in the home, in the church, in the business place and in the public square.

There is debate between Protestants and Roman Catholics on these topics, but that debate does not exist within Schmitt’s Political Theology.

Ultimately, Schmitt’s judicial theory is relativism. Relativism is the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute. While he does not deny the existence of God, God exists for his own ends, as a support pillar the power of leviathan.

The Church

At best, the church exists to buttress the power of “the sovereign”. The Church is a bulwark against revolutionaries - like those of the French Revolution. This is the public facing role of the church. In Schmitt’s system of political theory, the church is primarily a political actor and not a moral guide.

In Schmitt’s system of political theory, the church is primarily a political actor and not a moral guide.

It should be of no surprise then by 1933, around 700 clergy had already been arrested in the Nazi Reich [Hugh Martin, Christian Counter-Attack: Europe’s Churches against Nazism (London: Student Christian Movement Press, Ltd., 1943), 34]. “Between 1933 and 1939, 7000 of these pastors (1300 of them Protestants) were imprisoned, by the end of 1942 the figure had risen to 12000, while in 1943 they were still being arrested for what the Nazis called speaking ‘disloyally’ about the actions and institutions of the State: in other words denouncing totalitarian paganism.” (Ibd, 25)

It was common in that time to speak of pastors who protested the evil of the Nazi Reich as “too political.”

If the church is solely a political actor and not a moral guide. If in its public facing role, it is subservient to “the sovereign” dictator, whether benevolent or not, then the only response is to arrest pastors who speak with a prophetic voice. Like Micaiah, after he stood boldly before Ahab, all the pastors can do is be carried off to prison before a lawless magistrate, who considers himself as a representative of God, while persecuting the prophets of God.

Left-wing & Right-wing Politics

Over the years I have identified somewhat with the right-wing, if not vocally, then in my head. I’ve done so because as it is popularly understood, “the right”, so to speak, is often associated with Christian values. I suspect that are many others like me. That is not necessarily true in every situation.

On an ideological level. Schmitt might be associated with right-wing politics and Marx with left-wing politics. But it is not all that simple. Wikipedia claims that Schmitt’s philosophy has been used to justify Chinese political theory, for whatever that is worth. I’ve listened to a number of podcasts where both the left and right appeal to his theory. And even though Schmitt defended himself against accusations of totalitarianism at the Nuremberg trials and then eventually lived in America until the 1980s, I’m sure he knew what he was doing and some of the massive moral flaws in his system. I’m sure other experts could go into that more in-depth.

As Christians we do have to be associated with the work of guys like Schmitt, because the old gods of pagan statism can come in various forms. Wherever the work of men like Schmitt and Marx are heavily relied on, you will find statism. So watch and pray, lest you fall into idolatry.

A term is a term is a term. So use it whatever way you want. But when it comes to ideology, whether that be right-wing or left-wing, watch your step and watch out for statist and relativistic influences like those that Schmitt uses. They undermine the truth & reality that God is our absolute sovereign. For the Christian in the political sphere (or any sphere), make a beeline to the throne of King Jesus, and there render your homage:

“For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete.” (II Cor. 10:4-6)

In other words, don’t offer that pinch of incense to Caesar. Even if you are working in his courts.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Exception

As I write this, I am looking back at 5 years of Schmittian politics, in principle.

I’ve tried to explain to fellow dearly-beloved Christians that the king is not above the law and that it is possible for the civil authority to be lawless or to break the law and have received a stout resistance. Categorically, it does not make sense to many Christians that the sovereign is under and not above the law.

In 2022, our Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, used the emergency measures to crack down on protestors of the tyrannical lockdown regime. He did so from his place of power in Ottawa. Actually, if I recall, he decided to hide away in his cottage and direct it all from there. He claimed that it was an existential threat to the state, and so warrant such emergency measures in the city of Ottawa. Whether this was lawful or even true, did not much concern him or his state-sponsored media. At least the CPC finally started listening.

Various pastors who took a public-facing stance against “the sovereign” in the public square were fined and arrested.

As I write this book review, parliament is prorogued, our elected officials are not meeting and we are waiting for the Liberal Party to elect the next Prime Minister of Canada. The question that lingers in the minds of many is whether there will be a fair election, if it will be rigged or if Mark Carney will call a state of emergency (in light of the proposed tariffs from America) and hold onto power until the end of 2026.

You see, Schmitt’s principles can be used by a huge variety of men in a democratic society, with no moral light to guide it. Justin Trudeau (and then potentially Mark Carney) is our dictator.

In light of that, Prime Minister Trudeau has combined Marxist principles with Schmittian principles, whether wittingly or unwittingly. Humans are complicated creatures. The hunger for power knows no bounds.

Human power must be limited by God himself who gives men authority (and limits men’s authority) in various spheres.

By What Standard?

The question is an epistemological one that is rooted in a recognition of an anthropological nature. Men’s minds have been clouded by the effects of sin. The sovereign is but a man. So how can you give the sovereign that much power over the exception? I’m not an anabaptist. I have never been one. I have grown up and still am in a tradition that holds to the Three Forms of Unity which rejects an anabaptist vision for church-state relations. I have seen these themes throughout historic Reformed theology - all the way from the Belgic Confession, to John Calvin, to Abraham Kuyper.

Maybe Schmitt is saying that “the sovereign” is not affected by sin in the same way as most men are. But how so? How did he get out of “Plato’s cave”? It strikes me as a major anthropological problem to think that a human sovereign in the state is somehow “above it all.” History has proven that the sovereign can indeed do vile & terrible things. The friend-enemy distinction does not override the moral terminology of “vile & terrible”. Schmitt’s Reich proved it all over again. You can’t defend a dictatorship and then play “shock and awe” when he ends up… being a dictator. Any human authority with no limiting principle will slide towards totalitarianism. Soft totalitarianism gone unchecked will go into rigor mortis.

You can’t defend a dictatorship and then play “shock and awe” when he ends up… being a dictator.

This is why it is central to the thought of both Dutch thinkers Van Prinsterer and Kuyper that the sovereignty of God is pivotal to the proper rule of nations. Sadly, many of the children of Kuyper in the Gereformeerde Kerken in the Netherlands went along with the deceptive philosophy of the Nazi Reich in the years of 1939-1944. Others did not, but were persecuted for their faithful witness to the higher reign of Christ.

Here is my central critique of Carl Schmitt: “By what standard will you govern?”

If the sovereign decides what is a conscience issue, what is a sphere of Christian liberty, then there is no talking back, there is no place for protest. The direction of a dictatorship, if gone unchecked, is a totalitarian regime. This is why a truly Biblical Calvinism in its full consistency poses a threat to such regimes. A secularized Calvinism or a Calvinism subjugated to Schmitt is impotent.

That is why I appreciate the theonomists, even when I disagree with their exegesis/hermeneutic from time to time. I would even consider myself a theonomist, under certain definitions. It is not limited to the theonomists, since throughout Reformed history Puritans, Presbyterians, Dutch Reformed and Anglicans alike have protested the evils of their day & age. Nations are not governed by a standard that is relative to the sovereign in power. There is no such thing as relative morality. There is something such as wisdom guided by the light of God’s Word, the kind of wisdom by which kings reign in righteousness (Prov. 8:15).

Conclusion

In conclusion, the statist theory of men like Schmitt has had a devastating impact on western nations. Even if a western nation decides not to reject God as Marx did, nevertheless, it is possible to make His people subservient to a state that eclipses God. The relativizing of law to an exception deliberated over solely by the sovereign without a Bible in hand, is also deeply dangerous.

Upon a close analysis of Carl Schmitt, there are many idols buried under his house. Actually, they are on open display to those who will open their eyes and see. He promotes a state that is fundamentally autonomous from God’s eternal laws and norms. If the magistrate is an idol-smasher, then these idols of statism should also be dragged into the town square and destroyed. This antichrist idolatrous philosophy should be ground into powder and all those who promote it should be made to drink it.

As we enter into a period of the recovery of Protestant political theory, there is no reason not to read Schmitt. Christians are permitted to read him and Nietzsche and Marx (I now have all three authors on my bookshelves). In College I was required to read Nietzsche and Marx, as well as other pagans such as Plato, Aristotle, Darwin & others. It can be helpful for scholars and political theorists to spar with such men. But there is a lot more sound political philosophers and theologians to read. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas (I have some reservations about his system within the context of broader church history), John Calvin, Junius Brutus, Johannes Althusius, Samuel Rutherford, Groen Van Prinsterer, Abraham Kuyper, J Gresham Machen, Francis Schaeffer, Douglas Wilson, Joe Boot.

Know your Bible.

Above all. Know your Bible. Cling to wisdom. Bow the knee to King Jesus. Pursue knowledge and insight. By faith, imagine & work for a better day.

Finally, a word from Bonhoeffer:

Nathan Zekveld

Discussion about this post