Whatever Became of Sin? Karl Menninger and the Disappearance of Moral Responsibility

In 1973, psychiatrist Karl Menninger published Whatever Became of Sin?, a book examining the disappearance of the concept of sin from modern society, particularly in psychology and psychiatry.

Menninger begins with a provocative question:

'Is no one any longer guilty of anything?'

He observes that we acknowledge anxiety, depression, and feelings of guilt, but we seem increasingly reluctant to acknowledge sin. Wrong things are being done, but is no one responsible for them?

Menninger argues that the disappearance of the word 'sin' represents a significant change in how we understand human behavior. Instead of regarding people as morally responsible for their actions, we increasingly understand their behavior in terms of psychological disorders, environmental influences, and other factors outside their control.

As he puts it:

'The disappearance of the word "sin" involves a shift in the allocation of responsibility for evil.' (p. 17)

Menninger traces some of this change to the development of modern psychology. Hypnosis challenged traditional assumptions about responsibility by demonstrating that people could be influenced to act without being fully aware of what they were doing. Psychoanalysis emphasized unconscious motivations, while behaviorism sought to explain human behavior in terms of environmental conditioning.

These developments offered new ways of understanding human behavior, but they also raised questions about personal responsibility. If our actions are determined by unconscious forces or environmental conditioning, to what extent are we responsible for what we do?

Menninger also observes that responsibility for dealing with human wrongdoing increasingly shifted from the church to the state. Some sins were reclassified as crimes, while other forms of wrongdoing came to be understood primarily in medical or psychological terms.

Has Christianity Offered a Better Alternative?

I think Menninger raises an important concern. There is a tendency in modern psychology to explain behavior in ways that diminish personal responsibility, and this does seem to undermine the idea that sin exists.

But I wonder whether Menninger is able to go beyond criticizing modern psychology to offer a better alternative.

Part of the reason for the popularity of modern psychology, I think, is the superficial and judgmental understanding of human behavior that many Christians embraced, particularly in the pietist movements and the era of Prohibition.

Is Christianity really just about behavior? Is the Christian understanding of sin simply a matter of identifying what people are doing wrong and telling them to stop?

The Bible presents a much deeper understanding of human nature. Consider the psychology present in the Psalms, Proverbs, the Sermon on the Mount, and Paul's epistles. These writings address not simply outward behavior but the thoughts, motivations, fears, desires, and self-deception that lie behind our actions.

Jesus, for example, did not simply condemn murder and adultery. He examined the anger and lust that lie behind them. The biblical concern is not merely with correcting behavior but with understanding and transforming the heart.

Has the church adequately captured this understanding of human nature? Has it developed an approach to counseling that gets at the deep issues modern psychology has been trying to address while also maintaining a biblical understanding of moral responsibility?

If Christianity offered a genuinely deep understanding of human nature, wouldn't that be attractive? Wouldn't it provide an alternative to both the superficial moralism that has sometimes characterized Christian teaching and the tendency in modern psychology to explain away personal responsibility?

Menninger's book raises important questions. But I think the more important challenge is not simply to bring back the word 'sin.' It is to recover the depth of the biblical understanding of the human person and develop an approach to counseling that takes both psychological suffering and moral responsibility seriously.