On Collective Responsibility and Guilt

Many modern Western Christians are highly resistant to the idea that there could be such a thing as collective or communal moral responsibility or guilt.  How can I, many ask, be morally responsible for something that someone else has done?  Such an attitude stems from the  individualism of modern Western culture, which deeply affects us Christians who live in that context.  We tend to think of ourselves as independent, atomized moral agents, each going about our lives and making our own personal moral decisions.  In this atmosphere, it is difficult to think of moral responsibility as something that is collective or communal in nature.  However, when we turn to look at what Scripture has to say about moral responsibility and guilt, we can clearly see that there is a communal, collective aspect to these realities.

Collective Responsibility in Scripture

In the Old Testament, we do not see God seeking out various individuals and forming personal relationships with them.  Rather, we see God elect an entire people group, Israel, and form a covenant relationship with them as a collective whole.  Every individual Israelite had a relationship with God because they were a member of that covenant people, and as a member of that covenant people.  Of course, there are many stories of God having special dealings with particular individuals in the Old Testament.  But this is within the context of the broader reality of God’s relationship with His covenant people as a whole.

Time and again, we see the communal, collective nature of God’s relationship with the people of Israel play out in terms of collective moral responsibility and guilt.  From the very beginning, when God formed His covenant relationship with Israel, He promised blessings on Israel if they would be faithful and curses on them if they would be unfaithful (Deut 28-30).  These blessings and curses are not for particular faithful or unfaithful individuals, but for the nation as a whole, and include the promise that the whole nation will be sent into exile if they persist in disobedience.

As Joshua led the Israelites in a conquest of the Promised Land, they conquered Jericho, and God commanded that all the plunder be given to the LORD’s sanctuary.  “But,” the author of Joshua tells us, “the Israelites were unfaithful in regard to the devoted things; Achan son of Karmi, the son of Zimri, the son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, took some of them.  So the LORD’s anger burned against Israel” (Josh 7:1).  Notice that, although only one Israelite actually sinned, “the Israelites” were considered to be unfaithful, and God was angry with all of Israel.  As a result, God allowed Israel to be defeated in battle, and thirty-six Israelites (none of whom were individually guilty of the theft) were killed (Josh 7:5).  It was only after the stolen items were returned and Achan was executed that God’s anger against Israel was ended.

During the course of God’s covenant relationship with Israel, we see many other examples of moral responsibility and guilt being assigned to the nation of Israel as a corporate entity, rather than merely on an individual basis.  When the nation of Israel, generally speaking, fell into sin and unfaithfulness, God would send judgment and punishment upon the entire nation, for example, letting Israel be conquered by their enemies.  This was the case even though not every individual member of Israel was individually guilty of this sin.  The prophet Daniel, though he was, individually speaking, a righteous and blameless man, prayed a prayer of confession and repentance, repeatedly confessing that “we” have sinned (Dan 9: 4-19).  Rather than contrasting his own individual righteousness with the sinfulness of most Israelites, Daniel saw himself in solidarity with the nation of Israel as a whole and thus being a participant in its guilt.  

This sense of collective moral responsibility and guilt functioned across time as well.  We can see this in Daniel’s prayer of confession, which includes confessing the sins of his ancestors, and we see the same thing in Nehemiah’s prayer of confession in Nehemiah 1: 4-11.  The authors of Kings and Chronicles do not present the Babylonian exile merely as a punishment for the wickedness of the generation that was alive at that time.  Rather, they present the exile as a result of the guilt that Israel had built up over many generations, which finally reached a breaking point.  

In the New Testament, there may be to some extent more of an emphasis on individual responsibility, due to the fact that membership in God’s covenant people is based on a decision to follow Jesus as His disciple, rather than being a given based on ethnic descent.  Yet, since we are dealing with the same God and the same (albeit transformed) covenant people, we should assume a basic continuity with the Old Testament with regards to the issue of collective responsibility and guilt.  We have no reason to think there is a sharp or decisive break with the Old Testament idea of collective moral responsibility.  Thus, we should understand that church communities, and not just Christian individuals, have moral responsibilities and can incur moral guilt.

None of this means that individuals do not have individual moral responsibilities and cannot be individually morally guilty.  In both the Old Testament and the New Testament we see God deal with individuals with regards to moral responsibility, praise, blame, and punishment.  It is not an either/or matter.  Human beings have both individual and collective moral responsibilities, and both are significant.  But in our highly individualistic culture, it is important to emphasize the fact that there is such a thing as collective moral responsibility and guilt.  

“We” Are Guilty

So if there is such a thing as collective moral responsibility and guilt, what does this mean?  Does this mean that all Americans are guilty of the sins of America?  Does this mean that all men are guilty of sexism, even if they are not individually sexist?  Does this mean that all white people are guilty of racism, even if they are not individually racist?

Such are ideas touted by the proponents of critical theory, which divides society into classes of oppressed and oppressors and sees morality as essentially about dismantling systemic structures of oppression.  According to critical race theory, for example, white people as a whole are guilty of racism, and black people cannot be guilty of racism in any meaningful sense. Critical theory can be a useful tool for unmasking hidden structures of injustice and highlighting the systemic nature of some sins.  However, from a Christian perspective, it also has serious problems.  As I discuss here, for Christians, oppression is just one sin among many, and the poor and oppressed are perfectly capable of committing serious sins.  And a Christian ethic that is centered around the development of virtue and love even for one’s enemies will often come into serious conflict with an ethic that reduces morality to dismantling systemic structures of oppression.^[1]For an insightful analysis of how Christianity is and is not compatible with critical theory, see this excellent blog series: … Continue reading

Additionally, there is, I believe, a serious problem with a Christian saying that “we” (Americans) are guilty of the sins of America or that “we” (white people) are guilty of the sins of the white race.  The problem is this: who is the “we”?  If you are a Christian, the “we” should be the Church.  In the Church, “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28).  The walls of division between race, class, and gender have no place in the Church, since we are all united in one family, a holy society that should provide our primary sense of communal identity.

Can anyone imagine the early Christians feeling that they were guilty of all the sins of Roman society?  Of course not.  The early Christians did not think they were guilty of the sins of Roman society.  Rather, their attitude was that “they” (pagans) did those evil things, while “we” (Christians) did not.  The early Christians understood very well that they were a holy nation called out from the midst of an evil world, and that it was membership in this holy society that defined their identity, not the fact that they happened to live in the Roman Empire.  It is vitally important for the American Church to recover this sense of the Church being a holy nation living as exiles in the midst of a fallen world today.  

So, Christians who happen to live in America should not necessarily feel that they are guilty of the sins of America.  Christians who happen to be white should not necessarily feel that they are guilty of the sins of the white race.  What they should feel guilty of are the sins of the Church.  

Having said this, we must acknowledge that the American Church has been to a significant extent complicit in the sins of America and the sins of white racism.  So, to the extent that the American Church has been complicit in these sins, American Christians should confess their sin, repent, and seek to make amends, even if they are not individually guilty of these sins.  For there is such a thing as collective moral responsibility and guilt, and the members of the American Church must take this into account when considering their sin.  As a Christian, I must recognize that “we” (the Church) may be guilty of a sin, even if I have not personally committed it.