Sin, Shame, and Resonance: Affordances and Dis-affordances of the Doctrine of Sin in Young People’s Theologizing

This paper explores the affordances and dis-affordances (Reichel, 2023) of the Lutheran doctrine of sin by attending to an ambiguity in a qualitative study of how young people in the Church of Norway theologize about existential dilemmas related to sin and shame. Our paper is situated within a contemporary turn in academic theology that emphasizes theologizing in everyday life, religious practices, and the doing mode of theology (Astley, 2002; Müller, 2021; Henriksen, 2019). The material of the study consists of focus group interviews with young research participants in two youth ministries located in different parts of the country, each shaped by distinct theological traditions.The theoretical frameworks employed in the paper are Reichel’s theory of theology as design, and in particular the concept of affordance offered in the book After Method (Reichel, 2023) and Hartmut Rosa’s theory of resonance in Resonance (Rosa, 2019).

The doctrine of sin may be said to have lost its relevance not only in society but also within church (Menninger, 1973; Taylor, 2000; Guðmundsdóttir, 2023). Moreover, feminist theologians in particular have highlighted the need to revisit the concept of sin, calling for an examination of how certain interpretations of the doctrine have contributed to oppression rather than liberation (Thompson, 2004; Trelstad, 2006; Lowe 2010; Mercedes 2010). A special issue of the Lutheran theological journal Dialog (2023) highlights the ambiguity of sin and shame, including what in Reichel’s terminology might be called dis-affordances of the doctrine of sin. These contributions underscore how design flaws in the doctrine of sin can be damaging, particularly when the doctrine is not contextualized or designed to address the experiences of users on the margins. Yet, they also draw attention to the liberating possibilities of this doctrine. In Lutheran theology, then, the doctrine of sin carries an inherent ambiguity: on one hand, it is one of the most central doctrines, yet on the other, it remains highly contested. 

Reichel makes the case that just as environments and furniture have affordances, or possibilities for use, doctrines also have affordances (Reichel, 2023). A critical analysis of doctrines can, therefore, reveal not only their affordances but also their dis-affordances – aspects that limit or even contradict their intended purpose. For example, Reichel points out how feminist and womanist theologies have demonstrated that forensic atonement theories, which were designed to provide comfort and liberation, can instead exacerbate the suffering of oppressed women. In such cases, the intended affordance is unavailable to these women, exposing what Reichel terms a design flaw. Such flaws may be either unintentional or intentional. Furthermore, Reichel asserts that in order to explore the affordances of doctrine, academic theology must seek feedback from its users –those whom a certain theology impacts.

Do such dis-affordances and design flaws suggest that the traditional Lutheran doctrine of sin is outdated and should be replaced by other concepts, such as shame? This paper argues no. Rather, we make the case that there remains an untapped resource within Lutheran theology that can address not only experiences of guilt and sin but also experiences of shame. To make this argument, we take as our point of departure an ambiguity found in our study of how young people theologize on the topics of sin and shame. On the one hand they identify dis-affordances within the doctrine of sin, making them critical of certain theological applications, such as the categorization of all human beings as sinners (doctrine of original sin) or how the doctrine has been used to the condemnation of LGBTQ+ relationships. However, at the same time, they find the practice of confessing sin ‘delightful,’ such as writing prayer notes at a prayer station during worship or youth group activities. Interestingly, while they describe seeking forgiveness for sin and guilt as liberating, they emphasize that they have no corresponding space to address their experiences of shame.

The study reveals an unresolved ambiguity – the liberating force of the doctrine of sin, as theologized by the young people, is not connected to what they describe as their primary existential dilemma – a profound sense of shame, of not being good enough or of being despised and rejected by their peers. We suggest that an untapped resource in the Lutheran doctrine of sin could address this feeling of shame. Thus, the affordance of the doctrine could be made more relevant to the young people’s lived experiences if theological discourse on sin were to integrate the language of shame more explicitly. To make such a move we draw on Hartmut Rosa’s theory of resonance (Rosa, 2019).

The young people interviewed expressed the feeling of being wrong, which, using Rosa’s language, can be interpreted as categorial inadequacy. This feeling of categorial inadequacy was conceptualized in shame-language as a failure to be their true selves, to be the best version of themselves, and as a fear of rejection by their peers. Rosa considers such experiences of exclusion and disregard as characteristic of what he terms a desert of alienation, a state that makes individuals feel unwelcome in the world. However, Rosa suggests that this existential stigma is central to what the Christian concept of original sin addresses. He further argues that the feeling of categorical inadequacy is a fundamental human existential fear—one that can prevent a person from being open to being touched by the world (experiences of resonance), including by the transcendent. In an effort to protect oneself, the individual becomes curved in on oneself —which is, in fact, at the very heart of the Lutheran concept of sin.

Following Rosa’s argumentation, we contend that the affordances of the doctrine of sin could be liberating for young people in this context if it were articulated in a way that acknowledged and incorporated their experiences of shame – their experiences of being existentially inadequate. By integrating the language of shame more explicitly into Lutheran theology, the affordances of the doctrine of sin could resonate more deeply with young people’s lived experiences, providing a framework not only for guilt and forgiveness but also for existential struggles of inadequacy and rejection.