Spiritual Pollution, Part 8: The problematic logic of purity metaphors in the church

Last post we noted that our cognitive processes, and, thus, our theological thinking, is largely dominated by metaphors. These metaphors provide us with an inferential logic that allows us to reason effectively.

And the same goes for theological discussions. Metaphors structure theological discourse and it is important to pay attention to the metaphor you are working with. Why? Because, as I've just noted, metaphors have a "logic" that structures the inferences we make. Metaphors make certain conclusions appear, from the vantage of the metaphor, "reasonable." This sounds very vague, so let me get right to the point.

As I noted in my last post, an influential sin/salvation metaphor is the purity metaphor. In this metaphor, sin is "pollution," being "unclean," "filth," etc. Thus, salvation is a "cleansing," a "washing," a "purification."

This metaphor runs deep in the Judeo-Christian tradition. The beginnings of the metaphor is seen in Leviticus 16 with the Day of Atonement. On the Day of Atonement the sociomoral "uncleanness of the Israelites" (v. 19) was to be purified: "because on this day atonement will be made for you, to cleanse you. Then, before the Lord, you will be clean from all your sins" (v. 30). Later, the Day of Atonement becomes a significant metaphor in the New Testament as the early Christian church attempted to understand its own salvation. This is most clearly depicted in the Christian salvation ritual of baptism where sins are "washed away." In this metaphor, it is not the water, but the blood of Christ that effects the cleansing. As the Christian hymns testify, Christians are "washed in the blood of the Lamb" and are thus made "white as snow."

As a general metaphor, applied to all humanity, the purity metaphor functions humanely. That is, we can agree that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." If sin is "uncleanness" then we are all unclean; we are all polluted and, thus, offend a Holy God. So far, so good.

But what is problematic is that the disgust/contamination/purity structure is deployed unevenly across the domain of sin behaviors. Most sins appear to be understood via ambulatory or performance metaphors. Sin is understood as a "mistake" or a "stumbling." After committing these sins we "pick ourselves back up" and "try again" to "do better." Thus, these sins tend not to evoke a visceral loathing of self or other.

But some sins are often and uniquely characterized by contamination metaphors and thus carry the psychological freight of disgust: loathing, strong aversion, visceral revulsion. Consequently, although all sins are considered to be theologically equivalent, they are not psychologically equivalent. This is because sins are structured by different metaphors, each with a unique "logic" or way of reasoning about the moral failure. And the psychological and metaphorical logic of "contamination sins" make these sins special stumbling blocks both intrapersonally and interpersonally. We have already observed this in prior posts. Anything that activates sociomoral disgust is morally problematic. And purity metaphors activate sociomoral disgust. Over the next few posts I want to work through a couple of concrete examples where both purity logic and sociomoral disgust trip up the church, but I'd like to give a quick example today:

Christian communities agree that materialism and consumerism are wrong (especially given the way we neglect the poor), but the metaphor for self-indulgence is frequently one of "weakness" or "failure" rather than "pollution." But we do, often, speak of "Sexual Purity." And there are consequences for using that metaphor. Sexual sins generate a sense of loathing (both intrapersonally and interpersonally) that excessive shopping just doesn't seem to evoke in Christians.

And that, to me, is a problem.

So, to sum up, purity metaphors are deeply embedded in the Judeo-Christian tradition. However, purity metaphors tap into and activate a psychological force--sociomoral disgust--that we have learned creates interpersonal distance. This means that if the Church truly wants to love people she will need to understand how purity metaphors operate and how they can be dangerous. Given both the ubiquity of purity metaphors and their potential for harm, this analysis seems to be a very important undertaking.