Abominations

In his current book, "What Jesus Meant", writer (and practicing Catholic) Garry Wills quotes a letter that someone sent via the internet to an Evangelical preacher, who had raged against the "abomination" of homosexuality. I reproduce the letter below, condensed.

"Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from you, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination--end of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's laws and how to follow them.

Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor to the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there degrees of abomination?

Leviticus 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my eyesight. I have to admit that I wear glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

I know from Leviticus 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?"

(end of quote)

The idea of abomination arose from the fear of the "unclean," which in turn arose from the fear of the "unnatural." One whole class of the "unnatural" entails the mixing of different kinds of things--of milk and meat, for instance, or planting two different kinds of seed in the same field, or mingling two kinds of yarn in the same garment (Lev. 19:19). Another class of the "unnatural" has to do with the idea of function: the function of eating is to sustain bodily life, the function of sex is procreation, and so on.

Yet it is quite acceptable, even among Christian fundamentalists, to extend eating beyond survival to celebration and fellowship. Why, then, cannot sex be extended beyond procreation to an ideal of intimate communion between two individuals? Two individuals of the opposite sex, of course. But why not also of the same sex? After all, with same sex, one obeys the old tribal law of "not mixing different kinds of things" (Garry Wills, What Jesus Meant, 2006, pp. 32-39).

note: this entire post lifted with all due respect from noted geographer Yi-Fu Tuan's homepage, http://www.geography.wisc.edu/~yifutuan/