Sin and Grace Rediscovering Key Theological Concepts
At first glance, the words 'sin' and 'grace' appear to be antiquated terms to contemporary discourse. Even within theological discussions, there appears to be a hesitation to use such terms – as if they immediately stop the conversation or push it into an inhibiting realm. However, these twin concepts help to articulate the relationship between humanity and God and the question of how deeply humanity is defined by evil. This research track's two sections attempt to reassess our notions of sin and grace and how they impact a contemporary theological anthropology.
Evil, Freedom and Responsibility in Perspective
Today the brokenness of the human condition is omnipresent theme. Influential secular thought systems suggest that humanity’s freedom and responsibility are in fact minimal. The image arises of humanity as a toy of blind forces (angst, survival of the fittest, Wille zur Macht, economical logic, lust,…) in a merciless universe. Deterministic views are often spread about particularly in Darwin’s name. How can right be done, within the current philosophical and scientific framework, to the intuition of the Christian tradition, which both refuses to reduce humanity’s responsibility and, at the same time, does not want to minimize the radicality of evil. The question becomes then, which conversation partners does theology have today to develop in a credible manner the tension between sin and grace?
Humanity under Pressure from Global Phenomena: Toward a Renewed Political Theology?
One of the criticisms of the traditional view of sin concerns the reduction of evil to the level of the individual – a fault for which the modern personalistic approach itself is also reproved. In the wake of Gaudium et spes, liberation theology developed a sensitivity for the social dimensions of evil through the notion of ‘structural sin.’ It is striking that at the beginning of the new millennium a new generation of theologians and even philosophers are going back to the idea of ‘political theology.’ It is obvious that the old parameters have drastically changed under the influence of processes such as globalization, climate change, and the increasing polarization between cultures. The question of the political role of religion – both for the good (contributing to the development of a global ethos) as for the bad (religiously inspired violence) – is an extremely current question with important consequences for the believer and the non-believer alike. The focus on structures and political dimensions of evil might again result in minimizing the personal responsibility of individiual persons. Hence, how then to balance structural sins and personal responsibility? Once again the anthropological question appears to be a handy catalyst for theological reflection.
