On Katechonic Space and the Problem of Naming the Katechon

Written in April and May 2024; Published in March 2026. #

The problem with using the katechon as a rationalization for action, is that with many parties involved and with a complicated (and malicious) information environment – it becomes harder to know if our countries are the good guys acting in self defense, or are the bad guys using a good-guy mask to gain sympathy while intentionally doing bad actions.

Eric Voeglin’s lesson for us is that it is wrong to immanentize the eschaton. Byrne Hobert and Tobias Huber’s lesson for us is that it is wrong to immanetize the katechon. But these two are not enough, because simply attempting to definitively name the katechon (even if one doesn’t work to bolster it) dramatically increases the risk of immanentizing it. Or, naming could lead to the problem of rationalizing no action in analyzing alternative options to the katechon at hand. Because if this possible katechon we see is still in place, then why do we need to worry about alternatives?

There are certain persons, institutions or technologies that clearly fit insinde the rules laid out by Christ and Moses as being Christian in nature. There are other persons, institutions and technologies that clearly fit in the Anti-christian list of qualities. The trouble is the space in between – which might be called Katechonic Space.

We cannot take any action without having some degree of knowledge and motivation, but perhaps maintaining the awareness that we could be wrong is the very thing that can prevent the worst from happening. Perhaps by confidently backing the Nazi regime and confidently declaring liberalism to definitely be the Antichrist, Carl Schmitt hastened (instead of preventing) the world state and moved us closer to the Antichrist instead of further away.

At best, we can define a fuzzy Antichrist, with a number of possible people that could act in the spirit of Satan as the Antichrist at any given present period. And at best, we can describe a fuzzy katechonic space, with a number of possible people, technologies, and institutions that could be acting to restrain the Antichrist. This space is not stable. People, technologies, institutions may enter and exit this space of consideration as a katechonic force over time. But as quick as they enter the space of possible katechon, they could also exit and flip to the otherside of being in clear control of the Antichrist.

By following the approach of outlining a space of possible katechons, with conditions that could prove or disprove the role (and possibly even outlining failure scenarios), we more easily prevent the trap that Schmitt fell into – in which he hastened the rise of anti-Christ forces in the name of the katechon. This keeps us in a the frame that only Lord God can know for sure, and can reveal it to us over time. This approach also keeps us in the frame of admitting that we are not in full control, nor will we ever have full control.

Further, the practice of belief and debate about people, institutions, and technologies being inside or outside the Katechonic Space is itself a likely katechon. The very existence of WATCHFUL discussion of possible Katechonic Space with a force that can restrain the Antichrist, is itself proof that some kind of katechon is still at work. Inverting this logic – we can see that disappearance of debate about katechons and their position in Katechonic Space could be taken as a sign that the Antichrist is alive and reigning.

I, Jeremy Welch, believe in the katechon, but I do not believe it is confidently knowable or that a katechonic position is permanent. Thus, I believe our time will be defined by the most important debates about people, technologies and institutions and where they may currently be positioned in relation to Christ and the Kingdom of God, the domain of the Antichrist, and the Katechonic Space between the two.