In ancient Middle Eastern cultures-- including Judaism-- there were a variety of actions that were thought to make a person ritually "impure". For example, working with leather, touching a dead body, and menstruating were all considered "unclean" behaviors. The person who engaged in such behaviors acquired an intrinsic taint that would be passed on to his children and anyone he touched. This intrinsic taint could only be removed by the bloody sacrifice of an animal. But because the person was so unclean, he could not come into the presence of God to offer his sacrifice. God could not bear the presence of such a filthy person. It was a catch-22. Fortunately for the filthy lower castes such as leather workers, there was a higher caste of priests who carefully kept themselves pure enough that God could bear their presence. These priests acted as mediators between God and the lower castes, offering sacrifices on their behalf while carefully avoiding physical contact with them.
Christians like to think they have moved beyond this old Middle Eastern way of thinking. Christianity no longer has castes, and the taint of ritual pollution is no longer thought to be transferable from person to person through physical contact. Christians have also done away with the arbitrary lists of things that are supposed to make one ritually impure.
In reality, though, Christian theology still operates according to an Middle Eastern logic. It's true that the list of sins has shrunk, and sin has been redefined in a more rational, less arbitrary way. But sin is still thought to intrinsically taint one's soul, which makes one too impure and unholy to enter the presence of God. Christians also still believe that one needs a pure high priest to perform a blood sacrifice on one's behalf in order to remove the taint-- specifically, the self-sacrifice of the utterly pure high priest Jesus Christ. This is really just a different version of the same old system of ritual purity and pollution that has been the bane of menstruating women for millennia.
9 comments:
This is a nit-picky point, but I don't think Judaism was an ancient Indo-European culture. Its roots are Semitic (see Language families).
Nonetheless, you make a good point about the continuation of the belief in purity and pollution.
Great post. I think you're absolutely right. This is precisely why I don't like the creditor-debtor-mediator analogy in Mormonism.
The analogy would suggest that we ought to be able to pay for our own sins, or otherwise reconcile them with God. But alas, we are told, we cannot avoid the debt, nor can we repay it. We therefore MUST accept the mediator who allegedly makes it all better if we adhere to these new rules which apparently we have no choice in accepting if we wish to avoid eternal damnation.
There's an interesting post at BCC here that poses the problem in terms of virtue. I think it applies here. The norm in Christian thought is we are to avoid being tainted by abstaining from certain behaviors. There isn't as much focus on developing virtue, or wisdom, or charity, etc.
Good catch, chanson. I didn't realize Semitic languages were considered Afro-Asiatic rather than Indo-European. These two cultural groups clearly shared the same assumptions when it came to purity and pollution, so now you've got me wondering about the path and direction of influence. Great, as if I didn't have enough research to do already...
I changed "Indo-European" to "Middle Eastern," which makes my point just as well.
jmb,
Yeah, I think the judiciary and pecuniary metaphors are pretty obviously ad hoc attempts to explain the atonement from a different cultural perspective.
I like the suggestion to think in terms of virtue instead of sin. One of the popular programs here at CGU is called "positive psychology". It basically tries to change psychology's traditional focus on treating dysfunction to a more "positive" focus on creating well-being. That paradigm has a lot to commend it.
Revised:
“It basically tries to change psychology's traditional focus on treating dysfunction to a more "positive" focus on creating well-being.”
I like that approach much better! Are there examples that you can think of, which make use of this paradigm shift in the current, official LDS church, i.e., the “old” way(s) of doing or viewing things as differing now from the “new” way(s)?
Calling it purity and pollution is not an appropriate comparison. The pollution laws had to do with outward things rather than ethical behavior. Would you suggest that relition should have nothing to do with ethical behavior? Jesus did away with hand washings and the eating or avoidance of certain foods. He allowed a menstrous woman touch him. That was stunning and counter-cultural in those days. It was a whole new paradigm like the difference between monarchy and democracy. In Mark 7 Jesus makes it clear what is important in God's eyes. He requires laws written on the heart and he sent the Holy Spirit to help us live that life that God desires for us. You have no idea what life would be like with those Judeo-Christian values. Think of reporter Laura Logan raped and nearly torn limb from limb by a mob of Egyptians while she was reporting on the ouster of Mubarak. Think of the drug lords of Mexico. Etc.
The problem is not with Christianity's ethics. The problem is with the idea that unethical behavior causes a person to be intrinsically tainted and to need a blood sacrifice to remove the taint and make it possible for them to enter the presence of God. Christianity was progressive for its time, certainly: an important step in the direction of a rational ethic. But its theology of sin and atonement remained rooted in an older cultural paradigm that doesn't have much appeal or validity for modern Western folk today. There are better, more constructive ways to think about ethics and virtue.
Post a Comment