| God Loves Animals |
| Wednesday, 21 March 2007 | |
|
One of the criticisms that some in the animal rights movement make against Christianity is that we have an anthropocentric (human-centered) view of creation that leads to the disregard of nonhuman animals. I think that on the whole they're right. However, this trend appears to be reversing. There is a growing movement of Jesus-followers who understand that animals matter to God, and they should matter to us as well. We need to replace an overwhelmingly anthropocentric view of animals with a theocentric ethic. Animals matter because they matter to God. Sometimes those who aren't a part of the Christian community need to remind us of our biblical heritage. This is a case in point. Proverbs 12:10 says that "A righteous person cares for their animal." Exodus 23:12 reminds us that its not only humans that are supposed to take a sabbath day rest, but also animals. If you're interested in reading more of my thoughts on this issue, check out my Animals and Morality: Four Views. I know I'm interested in your thoughts. Click on the 'Add Comment' button below and let me know what you think.
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Hits: 5201 Trackback(0)
Comments (25)
 
John
There is a heritage within the church's history of those who have had varying degrees of theological and ethical concerns about the status of animals. St Francis and John Wesley are two examples of Christians with a particularly theology about animals, and in more recent years C S Lewis was noted for his theological views too. However, it has not been a major theme or concern in contemporary theology (if anything it has been ignored or relegated to the periphery). Unfortunately this neglect then accrues as one of the church's unpaid bills, and into which utilitarian and Kantian philosophies have emerged to take up the slack. Of course many neo-pagans and wiccans are also concerned about animals in their cosmologies, and the East Asian traditions of the Jains and Buddhists take a sacral view of all sentient creatures. The establishment of the RSPCA in 19th century England came about through the direct work of several evangelicals including Wilberforce. The RSPCA takes a "welfare" approach to the care and protection of animals, and much good has been done in its name in the various countries where it has been established. However, as in the Australian scene, the legislation that governs the RSPCA includes the peculiar expression "unnecessary suffering". This expression does lend itself then to some serious gaps in what the RSPCA can and cannot do. Its scope does not cover all animals in all contexts, so it has little influence over intensive industrialised forms of agriculture, the use of animals in lab experiments, and so on. I think that theologically the problem of animals does reflect serious omissions in our contemporary thought and praxis about a theology of the creation generally. I maintain that a proper understanding of Genesis discloses that humans are placed on earth as servants of God to serve God, and to act on God's behalf toward the rest of the creation. The notion of stewardship or guardianship is embedded in the high priestly role conferred on Adam and Eve (reminiscent of what the Psalms later describe as the servant-benevolent King of Israel who must serve like a slave and not lord it over his subjects). It is also the case that animals are featured in various prophetic visions, such as Isaiah's "wolf and lamb" lying down together in the new heaven and new earth. Similarly, Ezekiel discloses his visions of creatures on earth and in heaven worshipping God. Our appreciation of eschatology needs to reincorporate the whole biosphere as there is a new earth and new heaven and the proverbial apostolic word in Romans 8 reminds us that the entire creation groans awaiting the completion of salvation-history. It should also come to our minds that the Noahic covenant of Genesis 9 is made by God with the whole earth, including animals, and the Ark story itself attests to the important value that God places on these creatures. We lose sight of the fact that God has exclusive ownership of the animals ("he owns the cattle on a thousand hills"), and that God enjoys his creatures quite apart from his relationship with humans. While humans alone are deemed to be made in the image and likeness of God, that image bearing translates into our praxis in the mode of servanthood in the creation. The same motif of servanthood comes through the Sinai covenant (you are a kingdom of priests), and again in Jesus' ministry and teaching. It is worth noting in passing that the Australian-New Zealand journal Colloquium has a themed edition on animals that is scheduled for release toward the end of 2007. 1 report abuse
vote down
vote up
March 22, 2007
Votes: +0 
Philip,
Thank you for your thoughts. I find the potential implications of the RSPCA's "unnecessary suffering" quite troubling. Good to hear about Colloquium's forthcoming issue. You comment reminded me of your helpful "Animal Issues" links in the sidebar of your blog http://circleofpneuma.blogspot.com/ 2 report abuse
vote down
vote up
March 22, 2007
Votes: +0 
John, I agree it's an ethical issue that deserves greater attention. I've penned a fully response here.
http://mattstone.blogs.com/journeysinbetween/2007/03/a_righteous_man.html 3 report abuse
vote down
vote up
March 22, 2007
Votes: +0 
so true, i recomend folks check out the www.themeatrix.com which is a very clever way of raising attention to the care of animals we eat...
4 report abuse
vote down
vote up
March 22, 2007
Votes: +0 
quoting from Phil here; "I think that theologically the problem of animals does reflect serious omissions in our contemporary thought and praxis about a theology of the creation generally"- until we can see ourselves as a part of creation and not as somehow seperate from it we will struggle- I am not sure what this will mean practically for our day to day living but am certain that we have much to learn from ciltures who respect animals - even those they kill for food, for the life they represent their part in creation as a whole.
The need for a fully theocentric view is a challenge to us as we see ourselves uniquely made in the image of God- it places unique responsibilities upon us, responsibilities we have too often abused and misused. 5 report abuse
vote down
vote up
March 22, 2007
Votes: +0
Matt,
Thanks for raising this on your blog as well. I also really liked your post on (Midnight Oil frontman and now politician) Peter Garrett's thoughts on Christians, politics and ethics today. 6 report abuse
vote down
vote up
March 22, 2007
Votes: +0
Paul M,
Love that website. I haven't watched those before. Very well done. 7 report abuse
vote down
vote up
March 22, 2007
Votes: +0
Sally,
You raise a very important point about us needing to see ourselves as part of creation. I agree that we often miss that, and this has implications for how we view the rest of creation. 8 report abuse
vote down
vote up
March 22, 2007
Votes: +0 
I grew up on a farm. I lived around a lot of animals. Some were pets, some were food and money. I have no illusions about animals. I eat meat, drink milk and wear a leather belt and leather shoes.
And I believe that God's plan is for all of creation. So there.  9 report abuse
vote down
vote up
March 22, 2007
Votes: +0
Adam,
I think most of us who didn't grow up on a farm do have illusions about animals. Everything comes prepackaged. I do the same as you, though we normally try to buy free range, organic. I think most of us are sheltered from factoring farming, and the kind of research that is allowed to take place in universities around the world that is grossly unethical. 10 report abuse
vote down
vote up
March 22, 2007
Votes: +0 
Confession of an old, hardened ex-logger/trucker: I quit hunting tears ago after feeling really sad that I shot and wasted a deer because I didn't find it until days later. It still bugs me when I hit a bird or deer while driving.
But, I'm still a carnivore and I don't have the time to research where the meat came from.  11 report abuse
vote down
vote up
March 22, 2007
Votes: +0 
Simply put, I think animals should be regarded as an important part of God's overall creation but never placed over the value of human life. I don't intend to open a whole new debate on this issue as a result of that statement either.
 I'm subscribed to PETA's newsletter and I often read articles and watch the videos and my heart is heavy at the way animals are treated and abused around our world for the purpose of "humans" as well. I once had an employee to whom I gave my very much loved dog to as I just couldn't give her the care and companionship she needed. Her name was Roxy. Anyway, he called me one Sunday after I got home from church and said she had died. He had a "choker" chain on her and had her tied up to a tree with bushes around it and she got caught up in the bushes and in her attempt to get out, she had a stroke in the 100 degree weather. I'll always regret giving her away.  12 report abuse
vote down
vote up
March 22, 2007
Votes: +0
like Adam I have also lived on a farm- we farmed pigs and they were our source of income and food- but they were always well cared for and certainly not factory farmed- I don't think it is wrong to eat animals- but we must respcet them, many cultures have much to teach the pre-packaged West about respect!
13 report abuse
vote down
vote up
March 22, 2007
Votes: +0
Webb,
I always new you had a soft side 14 report abuse
vote down
vote up
March 23, 2007
Votes: +0
Shannon,
I don't think animals should be valued more highly than human life. I know you didn't want to start a discussion about this, but I don't think that it's even necessary to have one regardless. We should simply be thinking "How can we best take care of all of God's creation--humans, animals, the environment, etc?" I think all of creation can be cared for in a way that honors the Creator. 15 report abuse
vote down
vote up
March 23, 2007
Votes: +0
Sally,
That's where I'm coming from. Though I have to say I almost became a vegetarian after reading Peter Singer's Animal Liberation. There's lots of good reasons for doing so. Though I haven't taken that step personally yet, I may in the future. 16 report abuse
vote down
vote up
March 23, 2007
Votes: +0
I would encourage people to enrol in Animal Law courses (which one can audit as a non-lawyer). My wife and I did the very first animal law course in Australia in 2005. It was intriguing to learn about the status of animals at law, and since there is very little existing law it was necessary to look at philosophical and ethical questions.
What struck me is that the field is dominated by people who are alienated from Christianity altogether and who really see the Church as one of the major causes of problems for animals. It seems to me that these views do need to be contested, and my law lecturer (a secular Jew) found that his own negative impressions required a rethink in light of the essays that my wife and I wrote. The animal liberation position of Peter Singer is based on a dubious utilitarian philosophy. However I must state that in his book he did a very careful job of describing intensive farming practices without resorting to emotive or exaggerated portraits/allegations. I must also say that in my law course experience I was disappointed to see so many practitioners (ie solicitors and magistrates enrolled) who knew very little about jurisprudence (philosophy of law), and thus they found it very hard going grappling with philosophical questions raised by Singer, Tom Regan, Steven Wise and other writers. There is as always a need for Christians to participate at the grassroots level, and in the academy on this area. It might also be worthwhile noting that the conservationist movement and the animal rights movements are at polar ends of the spectrum on the problems associated with animals generally. The conservationist perspective is possibly viewed in a more positive light by most people than the activist-liberationist-rights perspective. However, as I have pointed in my public discussions and writing it is possible to develop a very positive and practical stance on the rights issue from a distinctly biblical and theological standpoint without succumbing to the problems inherent in the secular philosophies. Anyway, it is great to see some discussion and reflection occurring here. 17 report abuse
vote down
vote up
March 23, 2007
Votes: +0
Philip,
Thank you for raising the animal law courses. With Singer, I hear you with his utilitarianism. For me it was especially his information on factory farming and research in places like university's that most grabbed me. 18 report abuse
vote down
vote up
March 23, 2007
Votes: +0 
The notion that animals are not taken seriously in academic theology doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. Look at any systematician who takes the doctrine of creation seriously and it is there, Panneberg and Barth obviously come to mind. Of course, the question of degree of emphasis is always there, but that is true of a lot of topics, not just this one.
I think the far more interesting question is why popular theology, vocational ministry curricula and church educational programmes don't really address the issue. 19 report abuse
vote down
vote up
March 23, 2007
Votes: +0
Fernando
The parallel topic on this blog that John has put up about creation takes note of the weaknesses in evangelicalism generally. The prominent theological voice specifically on animal theology is Andrew Linzey at Oxford. And of course Rosemary Ruether springs to mind in the eco-feminist stream. One of the weaknesses that I intuit in several of the works of systematic theology (Moltmann, Pannenberg, Barth) is that the discussions do not very often extend beyond the Biblical tradition into any extensive dialogue with the animal rights movement literature, much of which is highly critical and dismissive of Christianity (e.g. the writings of Peter Singer, Steven Wise, Steven Bartlett). The issues raised by these rights writers goes to ethical questions and matters of praxis. 20 report abuse
vote down
vote up
March 23, 2007
Votes: +0 
Phil - I'd add Micheal Northcott at Edinburgh Uni.
21 report abuse
vote down
vote up
March 23, 2007
Votes: +0
I've tried to post on the other thread, but for some reason an invlaid email message comes up - might try again tomorrow.
22 report abuse
vote down
vote up
March 23, 2007
Votes: +0
Fernando,
My apologies for this. Today's post addresses this. 23 report abuse
vote down
vote up
March 24, 2007
Votes: +0
That's cool - I'll get around to trying again once I've read the rest of the comments...
24 report abuse
vote down
vote up
March 24, 2007
Votes: +0 
animals have souls and God loves them.
When we die we will see the animals and people we loved. we will also see the ones we wronged, animals and people a like. can't have one without the other i don't think. Why humans are so cruel? It is so saddening, aren't we supposed to have compassion and mercy. We want mercy from God but then we do not have mercy for animals. I am disgraced to be human sometimes. The way animals are hurt is just horrible. They never done anything wrong. As a child I went to christian school. I read the bible, but even as a child i remember feeling so sad that no one talked about kindness to animals... it just was not talked about. My God loves all things. God don't care what fur or no fur, how intellingent, what species, what race, gender, what size brain. I don't beleive God created animals for humans to hurt and abuse. 25 report abuse
vote down
vote up
September 28, 2007
Votes: +0 Write comment
|
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
