Political Economy, Social Sin, and the Task of Theology in Schleiermacher's "Natural Law" Defense of Queer Desire

What does it mean for theology to seek liberation in the context of structural sin and oppression? This paper attempts to develop an answer to this question through a constructive (counter?)reading of F.D.E. Schleiermacher's little-known reflections on the morality of same-sex desire. It argues that a central task of theology in the context of democratic decay in which intractable theological and partisan divides enable dictatorial rule is the formation of new ecclesio-political coalitions that allow for the breaking in of new, theo-political possibilities. This requires troubling existing divides on subjects of theological concern by identifying how existing theo-political discourses and institutional formations - even if aimed towards liberation - may yet be stymied by the "weight of social sin" and the ways in which structural conditions may make constructive dialogue impossible. 

The generation immediately following the reforms of the 1792 Allgemeine Landrecht in Prussia saw a drastic transformation of society as political philosophers shifted from theorizing the household as the basic sexual and economic unit to that of the nuclear family as the basic sexual unit and civil society and the state as the basic economic unit (Hull 1996, Yeomans 2023). It is in this context that Schleiermacher develops his account of marriage, the family, and sexuality (Guenther-Gleason 1997). Thus, Schleiermacher will develop an analysis of non-heterosexual desire in the context of a broader political-economic analysis of the way in which the conditions of sexual, psychic, and social reproduction may or may not coincide. Condemning approaches that treat the issue solely as a matter of individual will rather than a question of "common existence", Schleiermacher will suggest that queer desire points towards "the failure to coincide of the external conditions necessary for the formation of an independent life" (Ethik 1812/13). Schleiermacher's political-economic reframing of sexual ethics thus leads him to consider whether or not disordered socio-economic conditions can justify an embrace of queer desire. Although Schleiermacher ultimately concurs with the traditional judgment that sees same-sex desire as intrinsically disordered, he does so in a way so as to level a condemnation of attempts to affirm or deny the morality of queer desire that does not simultaneously represent a commitment to structural reform of the socio-economic conditions that lead to a disjunction between sexual and social reproduction. Because Schleiermacher's analysis of queer desire as an "abnormality" is contingent upon his embrace of the nuclear family as the basic unit of sexual, social, and economic reproduction, those who do not share such a commitment may modify Schleiermacher's argument so as to end up with what might seem to be an oxymoron: a natural law argument for the naturalness (and even desireability) of queer desire under alternative social and political-economic conditions. 

When read against the backdrop of Schleiermacher's account of social sin in the Glaubenslehre, what emerges is the opening of a political theological vision that attempts to disrupt a seemingly intractable culture-wars debate by taking a discourse that has often taken for granted an individual focus (whether as individual "sin" or by appeal to civil rights and constitutional protection in the form of non-discrimination) and providing a political-economic reframing that identifies addressing systemic economic inequality as a means of engaging disagreement over queer desire as a point of common focus. By offering a theological focus on the ways that social sin (with regard to the failure to provide the social and economic conditions for balanced sexual and social reproduction) has distorted the discourse over sex and sexuality, it attempts to highlight how collective agreement over the need to address the structural conditions that contribute to or exacerbate the formation of desire can allow for a reframing of the debate over what queer individuals may owe (or be owed) by society. While it will not be persuasive to all, both the theological and political-economic reframings are important if a lasting alternative to the Trump coalition and neo-liberal centrism is to be found. A theological focus on the ways that social sin (with regard to the failure to provide the social and economic conditions for balanced sexual and social reproduction) has distorted the discourse over sex and sexuality is inadequate as a basis to ground a new coalition on account of the fact that Christians alone cannot serve as a governing majority in most democratic states. At the same time, an exclusive focus on "kitchen table issues" without a concern for the ways in which sexuality - and the way it has divided churches - remains one of the central issues behind the culture wars cannot hope to address the theological motivations behind Christian nationalist support of the Trump coalition.

The paper attempts to bring new developments in Schleiermacher studies that has sought to situate Schleiermacher's theological project alongside a recovery of his political philosophy and his efforts to effect reform during the Prussian Reform Movement (Wolfes 2004, Rose 2011, Arndt et al. 2019, Arndt 2019, Adair-Toteff 2020, Kinlaw 2022, Vander Schel 2023) and make them useful for constructive purposes in a way that does justice both to Schleiermacher's insistence on theology's orientation towards the church and its praxis and something akin to Hanna Reichel's vision of theology as akin to conceptual design (Reichel 2023). It picks up on the work of scholars who have sought to interrogate and creatively subvert traditional "natural law" rejections of queer desire (see esp. Rogers, Jr. 1999, Ford, Jr. 2018) and who interrogate queer desire in the context of political economy (D'Emilio 1993, Drucker 2015, Puar 2017). In keeping with the presidential theme of freedom, the paper attempts to offer an example of a concrete proposal to illustrate the necessarily and distinctive role of theology and the church in seeking liberation in a context characterized by the political capture of conservative Christianity and the political impotence of the Democratic coalition. It singles out sexuality as a key locus of attention in the hopes of inspiring similar approaches on other issues that will need to be addressed if a lasting politically-viable alternative to Trumpism is to be found.