Though the discourse of sin might be absent, it is still the case that we observe the misbehaviour of others and want to hold them to account…We still very much recognise that people do the wrong thing and that there needs to be judgment, restitution, apology, and some form of redemption. Only without reference to some external norm (i.e. God), then the standard against which someone is judged becomes merely an expression of that which is fashionable – which is a rapidly shifting and uncertain standard.

But there are some unresolved tensions in thinking morally about the human person that emerge for a post-sin culture. One is the question of agency or will. If there is no concept of blame, then there can be no concept of credit, either. If we should not punish, then we also should not applaud. My success is just as much a result of factors not down to me as my failure is. If the system creates my evil, then it also produces my saintliness.

At this point, morals and ethics collapse into incoherence.

But also: if acts and desires that emanate from my person are not in some sense attributable to me, then I am not in any sense a free and responsible being. Describing those factors that influence my moral decision-making is a useful exercise, but must it become reductive and eventually fatalistic? I may be genetically predisposed to theft, but am I therefore destined to steal?

Now, this is thorny stuff for philosophers, and not just theologians. How to rightly describe our agency remains a very complex problem. But just because it can’t be well described doesn’t make our intuition that we are responsible for what we do entirely wrong. It is mysterious, but it is a mystery that comes from having to balance two truths: that what we do and desire attaches to us in some way, becomes part of us, for good or ill, and is attributable to us. 

Read More