This book on sin – why bother?

‘Why?!’

That cry – simultaneously one of exasperated disbelief, plain bemusement and gently derisory humour – has been the most frequent response to the news that I am currently working on the doctrine of sin. It expresses good-humoured doubt that sin is worth taking seriously as a means for speaking about reality. In part, the humour reflects a now-conventional association (especially in sensationalist reporting) between the language of sin and what are seen to be trivial (though often as titillating) peccadilloes and temptations. But such trivialisation itself reflects the fact that the language of ‘sin’ has fallen largely into disuse in general public (but also in much Christian and theological) discourse as a language for talking about the pathological in human affairs. In part, that reflects the general secularisation of our culture (discussed in this chapter); in part, the suspicion that Christian understanding of sin might be counter-moral and/or counterscientific (discussed in the following chapter); in part, the suspicion that sin is a language of blame and condemnation (encouraged by its flourishing in religious enclaves where it is used to whip up artificial and disproportionate senses of personal guilt and shame – addressed implicitly throughout Part III). For all these reasons, sin-talk may be thought anachronistic or dangerous, and it is easy to see how the idea that it yet holds descriptive, explanatory and interpretive power in relation to the discernment and understanding of pathologies in human affairs might appear bemusing, exasperating or just plain laughable.