Protestant Theology and the separation of Church and state

Protestantism is sometimes spoken of as a modernist force in the political realm because of its insistence on the separation of Church and state. But upon closer inspection this vision of Luther’s movement begins to blur. This is a consequence of the peculiar nature of those "un-political" movements that emerge in times of political conflict and turmoil. These movements function similarly to non-interventionist foreign policies in an economically globalized world: just as non-intervention invariably amounts to intervention, so un-political movements amount, roughly, to political movements. Indeed, as Martin van Creveld explains in The Rise and Decline of the State, by advocating for a separation of the political and theological domains, the Reformation became, in effect, a theological political power:

“From the beginning one reason why Luther in particular gained so much more support than previous reformers was precisely because of his insistence that the movement he led had no revolutionary overtones; he believed that religion should not be allowed to invade the realm of secular power. This position led him to write vicious tracts in opposition to the Peasants’ Revolt of 1525; in 1530 it was formalized when his collaborator, Melanchton, drew up the Confession of Augsburg and quoted Christ’s words to the effect that His Kingdom was not of his world. Other leading reformers, notably Zwingli, Calvin, Bucer, and Beza, dedicated some or all of their works to the secular rulers of the day in the hope of gaining assistance in spreading their views.”

A passage from Political Theology II in which Schmitt re-iterates an argument from the first Political Theology is useful here:

How should a theology, which explicitly separates itself from politics, be able to put an end, theologically, either political authority or a political claim? If the theological and the political are two substantially separate spheres - toto caelo [completely] different - then a political question can only be dealt with politically. The theologian can reasonably declare the closure of issues of political significance only by establishing himself as a political voice which makes political claims. Whenever he gives a theological answer to a political question, either he simply ignores the world and the sphere of the political or he attempts to reserve the right to impact directly or indirectly on the sphere of the political. It is therefore either a renunciation of any theological competence in political issues (the theologian remains pure in his pure element), or it is the opening of a conflict of competences, a kind of contestation of authorities.

The political opportunism of the Reformation gives the lie to the sanctimonious modernism of certain Protestant theologians who enthusiastically proclaim their support for the separation of Church and state and assert the “impossibility” of any political theology. Even ostensibly anti-political actions have political consequences. Indeed, by assuaging the fears of earthly princes, the Reformation conquered large sections of Christian territory.