ANIMALS ARE PEOPLE, TOO

“Then the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey, and it said to Balaam, ‘What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?’ . . . The angel of the Lord said to [Balaam], “Why have you struck your donkey these three times?”

                                                        ~ Numbers 22:28, 32

“Animals are people, too.”  I used to say this with some regularly years ago – before I ever dreamed of becoming an animal advocate and when I was blissfully unaware of philosophical controversies over what makes a “person” – because it seemed self-evident to me that animals were unique individuals with their own viewpoints on the world and were therefore “people.”  Fast forward several years to when I was writing my proposal for my master’s thesis at Wesley Seminary. I included some language (I don’t remember what it was) potentially attributing “personhood” to animals.  My advisor warned, “Don’t go there.  You don’t need to, and you’ll only get yourself into trouble.”   

It was good advice, but I am going to “go there” today because I want to talk about justice. 

ASK THE ANIMALS AND THEY WILL TELL YOU:

A LOOK AT ANIMAL SENTIENCE, PART TWO

ANIMALS, EMOTIONS, AND AWARENESS

After a year Louis Leakey arranged for me to go to Cambridge University to work toward a PhD in ethology.  There I was criticized for my lack of scientific method, for naming the chimpanzees rather than assigning each a number, for ‘giving’ them personalities, and for maintaining they had emotions.  For these, I was told sternly, were attributes reserved for the human animal.  I was even reprimanded for referring to a male chimpanzee as ‘he’ and a female as ‘she’:  Didn’t I know that ‘it’ was the correct way to refer to an animal?

                                   ~ Jane Goodall[1]

            In Part One of this series on animal sentience, we saw what most of us already know, but what science has been slow to acknowledge: that animals – including even fish, crabs, and insects -- feel and are aware of physical pain.  We also saw that some of the things humans do to animals, like branding and tail docking, are known to cause real and lasting pain, but continue unabated.  In this Part Two, we will look at animal emotions.

            Animal ethologist Marc Bekoff writes, “Humans and animals share neural pathways when it comes to suffering,” and that includes the emotional element of suffering.[2]  The case against animal emotions is “bad biology,” Bekoff continues, “Scientific research in evolutionary biology, cognitive ethology, and social neuroscience supports the view that numerous and diverse animals have rich and deep emotional lives. . . . Emotions, empathy, and knowing right from wrong are keys to survival, without which animals – both human and nonhuman – would perish.  That’s how important they are.”[3] 

Happy, tail-wagging black lab

“Recognizing that animals have emotions is important,” he says, “because animal feelings matter. 

ASK THE ANINMALS AND THEY WILL TELL YOU:

A LOOK AT ANIMAL SENTIENCE, PART ONE

ANIMALS AND PHYSICAL PAIN

“But ask the animals and they will teach you; the birds of the air, and they will tell you; ask the plants of the earth, and they will teach you; and fish of the sea will declare to you.  Who among all these does not know that hand of the Lord has done this? In His hand is the life of every living thing and the breath of every human being.

                                                                                              ~ Job 12: 7-10

            In this blog, I have argued that our creation in the image of God is inextricably intertwined withour relationships with animals and that we are tasked at the creation with the job of reflecting God’s character to the animals.   I have also argued that how well we carry this out is fundamental to our very character as human beings, that Scripture’s teachings on the use of power are just as applicable to our use of power over animals as they are to our use of power over vulnerable human beings, and that our value as humans comes not from our creation in God’s image but from the fact that we are loved by God, which has implications for the value of other creatures, as well.  In later posts, I will address specific passages of Scripture to see what they may have to say about how we treat animals and look at more recent theological thinking about our relationships with animals and the creation care movement in general.  But first, I want to pause to take a brief look at some of the things science is learning now about animal sentience.  Understanding how animals understand and relate to the world is key to understanding our obligations toward them. 

"Knockout mice" at NIH

The New York Times Joins The Conversation

On Friday the New York Times published a wonderful article on the question of Christian perspectives on animal welfare.  We have a long way to go in making this a common issue of theological and ethical concern in faith communities, but this is evidence that we are clearly making strides in the right direction.  It's important to celebrate victories like these along the way!

REFLECTIONS ON THANKSGIVING

“Tell the people: ‘Consecrate yourselves in preparation for tomorrow, when you will eat meat. The Lord heard you when you wailed, “If only we had meat to eat! We were better off in Egypt!” Now the Lord will give you meat, and you will eat it. You will not eat it for just one day, or two days, or five, ten or twenty days, but for a whole month—until it comes out of your nostrils and you loathe it—because you have rejected the Lord, who is among you, and have wailed before him, saying, “Why did we ever leave Egypt?”’”

                                                                              ~ Numbers 11:18-20

            One of my seminary professors, after one of my end-of-semester presentations on why what we’d spent the semester studying was relevant to animals, commented to me, “You are always so apologetic when you talk about this.  You don’t need to be.” With that encouragement in mind, I offer the following thoughts.  It is not my desire to ruin anyone’s Thanksgiving.  My family is as hide-bound as the next when it comes to holiday menus – and turkeys figure largely at both Thanksgiving and Christmas.  Allowances are made for my eccentricities.  But, as Matthew Scully has pointed out, we don’t answer to tradition, we answer to a God of mercy.  So, as we recover from one feast and speed headlong to the next (hopefully taking some time out for Advent reflection), I offer these thoughts.  

            Thanksgiving is a time of mixed emotions for me, as it is for many vegans.  I have so very much in my life to be thankful for, and I enjoy the opportunity to gather with friends and family, or to get away from it all and reflect – and I enjoy a wonderful meal.  But because this holiday, like no other, centers on eating meat, it is in many ways a painful time, as well. 

           

MORE FOOD FOR THOUGHT

Here is another very interesting and thoughtful blog on the subject of animals and Christianity for those of you who just can't get enough of this stuff.  I recommend it to your attention.  Theological Animal  

ON IMAGE AND VALUE

“God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good.”

                                                                     ~  Genesis 1:31

            It is something of a theological commonplace that human beings have a unique inherent value because we are created in the image of God.  So imbedded is this idea, in fact, that it is even right there in Wikipedia:

The Image of God (Hebrew: צֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים; tzelem elohim, lit. "image of God", "image of the Holy Spirit", often appearing in Latin as Imago Dei) is a real image, concept and theological doctrine in Christianity, Judaism and Sufi Islam which asserts that human beings are created in God's image and therefore have inherent value independent of their utility or function.[1]

By way of just a few recent examples of this idea in current theological writing: Dr. Denis Alexander of the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion has explained:

Theologians have spent many centuries mining the rich vein of the 'image of God' metaphor. Central to the idea is humanity with spiritual capabilities and responsibilities, equipped for moral decision-making and a relationally rich life in community. Historically, the idea has contributed to the conviction that each human individual has an absolute value, independent of their ethnicity, educational level, health status or income.

Dr. Art Lindsey of the Institute for Faith, Work, and Economics has likewise stated: 

Note that mankind is made in the image and likeness of God, meaning that human worth is connected to the Creator. If God is of great and inestimable worth, then human beings made in his image must be of great value. Note also that man and woman have equal dignity before God as his image-bearers.

And Dr. Ellen Davis has written:

Before anything else, creation in the image of God indicates that human life has both value and form: inestimable value and a form that is uniquely and richly expressive of divine intentions.[2]

I beg to differ.

           

BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE!

Today I saw this blog post by Charles Camosy on the Catholic Moral Theology Site.  Although C.S. Lewis is from a different time frame than the people I posted about yesterday, he is another greatly admired lay Christian who understood that our faith calls us to compassion for animals and ordered his life accordingly.  So I thought a cross-post would be in order.  Thanks to Dr. Camosy.  Enjoy.

50 Years After C.S. Lewis, a Brief Reflection on His Concern for Animals

MINORITY REPORT PART THREE:

ANIMALS, SOCIAL REFORM, AND CHRISTIANITY

IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY

“Cruelty to animals is as if man did not love God.”
                                                        ~ Cardinal John Henry Newman

            For those of us who care about animals, the silence of the church on the issue of compassion and mercy for animals is not only frustrating, it is a challenge to our faith.  When people ask us what animals have to do with faith or why we aren’t concentrating on “more important” issues involving human suffering, we sometimes want to (and some do) run from the church into the more welcoming arms of secular animal welfare organizations.  What kind of a God, we wonder, is silent in the face of a world filled to bursting with needless and extreme animal suffering at human hands?  What kind of a church fails to see the misery to which it contributes?

            The answer, it seems to me, is not the God we meet in the Bible, and it is not the church as it is called to be.  I am not the first to believe this, and in these Minority Report posts, I hope to bring to the fore our deeply rooted traditions that recognize the bonds between compassion for animals and holiness and the repeated calls from a variety of faith perspectives within the church for reform on this issue.  I hope to underscore, as these long-standing, if often unheeded, voices in our tradition have underscored, that this is not a matter of abstract theology, but it touches in a very real way who we are and how we live our day-to-day lives.

          

ST. ALBAN’S FORUM: CROSSING THE DIVIDE

“Shalom means that all human beings live together as siblings, at peace with one another, and with God and in right relationships with all of the rest of creation.”
                                                                      ~The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori 

This past Sunday, I was honored to be the guest speaker at the adult forum at St. Alban’s Episcopal Church in Washington, DC.  The Rev. Jim Quigley and I discussed why animals matter from a theological perspective, followed by Q&A from the audience.  Our conversation was broad ranging and the questions were insightful and thought-provoking.  I want to write today about some of my reflections coming out of that discussion, which seemed to me to highlight the many ways we can build bridges and make connections – both among and within species.  It brought to mind (stay with me here) the homily by Katharine Jefferts Schori at her installation ceremony as Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church in 2006.  In it, she talked about the Jewish concept of shalom, in which the whole world rests, together, in peace and harmony:  

Shalom means that all human beings live together as siblings, at peace with one another and with God, and in right relationship with all the rest of creation.  It is that vision of the lion lying down with the lamb and the small child playing over the den of the adder, where the specter of death no longer holds sway.  It is that vision to which Jesus points when he says, "today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing."  To say "shalom" is to know our own place and to invite and affirm the place of the rest of creation, once more at home in God.

MINORITY REPORT – PART TWO: 

JOHN WESLEY AND HUMPHREY PRIMATT

We may pretend to what religion we please, but cruelty is atheism.
We may make our boast of Christianity; but cruelty is infidelity. We may trust to our orthodoxy; but cruelty is the worst of heresies.

                                                                  ~ Rev.  Humphrey Primatt 

This post picks up the discussion I began earlier addressing the fact that, while the church as an institution may have been silent about -- or even hostile to -- the idea of animal welfare as a Christian concern, there have always been people of faith with a different view.  John Wesley and Humphrey Primatt were two eighteenth century Anglican clergy who understood our obligations for mercy toward animals as a matter of faith and spoke publicly about it. 

John Wesley, who founded the Methodist tradition, addressed the issue most directly in his 1771 sermon, The GeneralDeliverance.  Humphrey Primatt is much less well-known today, but he tackled the issue head-on in a tract of some 300-plus pages titled ADissertation on the Duty of Mercy and the Sin of Cruelty to Brute Animals, published in 1776.  They do not agree on all the theological particulars, but they do agree that we have an obligation as followers of Christ to be merciful to all God’s creatures. 

OPENING OUR EYES - TO CHICKENS

“Think occasionally of the suffering of which you spare yourself the sight.”
 
                                                                    ~  Rev. Dr. Albert Schweitzer  

            I was going to post today Part Two of my discussion of the minority voice within the Christian tradition that has always recognized our obligations to our fellow creatures.  An article in the Washington Post this week, however, made me change my plans because I think it demands that we stop and pay attention.  This is what we, as people of faith, need to open our eyes to, to open our mouths about, and to open our hearts for.

            On October 29, the Washington Post published this article, titled USDA Plan To Speed Up Poultry-Processing LinesCould Increase Risk Of Bird Abuse.  Here is the opening sentence:

Nearly 1 million chickens and turkeys are unintentionally boiled alive each year in U.S. slaughterhouses, often because fast-moving lines fail to kill the birds before they are dropped into scalding water, Agriculture Department records show.

This is under the current system, which allows slaughter lines to move so fast that 140 chickens or 45 turkeys can be slaughtered in one minute.  The new regulations will allow 175 chickens or 55 turkeys per minute to speed to their deaths.  I encourage you to read the entire article.  While it is not graphic, it does detail the process by which chickens and turkeys are slaughtered, the problems that come with the astonishing speed with which the birds are killed, and the potential additional problems with the new regulations.  It also points out that poultry, by far the largest percentage of animals slaughtered for food in this country, are not protected by the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. 

            This is not a fun read, but it is an important one.  As people of faith, we do not have the luxury of closing our eyes to the suffering we support with our purchasing decisions.   As people created in the image of God, we are called to reflect God’s image to all of creation.  R. C. Sproul has said, “When we sin as the image bearers of God, we are saying to the whole creation, to all of nature under our dominion, to the birds of the air and the beasts of the field: ‘This is how God is. This is how your Creator behaves. Look in the mirror; look at us, and you will see the character of God Almighty.’”  We might add that this is what we are saying to the birds of the poultry production plant, as well. 

           

MINORITY REPORT –PART ONE: ANIMALS AND THE SAINTS

“The saints are exceedingly loving and gentle to mankind, and even to brute beasts ... Surely we ought to show them [animals] great kindness and gentleness for many reasons, but, above all, because they are of the same origin as ourselves.” 

                                                                         ~ St. John Chrysostom 

            The Christian tradition, on the whole, has not been kind to animals.  As we have seen, the dominant voice in the history of the tradition has held that animals were created for the benefit of humans.  Therefore, as Augustine explained in The City of God, animals are “subjected to us to kill or keep alive for our uses,” or as Aquinas expressed it in his Summa Theologica, “charity does not extend to irrational creatures.”[1]  This viewpoint has had devastating consequences for animals and, I would argue, for humans.  It is a viewpoint that is alive and well today as our culture uses and abuses billions of animals every year for human convenience and entertainment. 

            But there has always been another voice in the Christian tradition, a voice pleading for compassion for our fellow creatures, a voice that recognizes our obligations to animals.  In this post, I want to take a brief look at the earliest part of that tradition, considering how stories of the lives of the saints recognize the connection between compassion for animals and holiness.  In coming posts, I’ll look at some of the writings of John Wesley, Humphrey Primatt, and social reformers like William Wilberforce, whose faith compelled them to plead for – and act with - mercy and compassion toward our fellow creatures.  

Saint Blaise.with animals

           

IMAGE OF GOD: WE CANNOT BE HUMAN WITHOUT THE ANIMALS

“God’s resolve to create in the divine image is coupled with a commissioning to have dominion. . . . It is as representative (image) of God that we are given capacity for power in the world.”

                               ~ Bruce Birch

In last Friday’s post, I took a very brief look at some of the traditional understandings of what it means to be created in the image of God and how that has led to the perspective that humans, separated from the rest of creation with the gifts of reason and will, are privileged in creation.  We saw that these traditional understandings of our creation were heavily influenced by philosophical ideas from different times and places and that those philosophical views about what it meant to human were grafted onto theological interpretations of our creation in God’s image.  In particular, many theologians, notably Augustine and Aquinas, were strongly influenced by Aristotle, including Aristotle’s view that there exists a natural hierarchy, with the “lesser” things in creation existing for the benefit of the “greater.”  Thus, the church traditionally reasoned, animals were created for the benefit of humans, which was fully in keeping with our privileged status as the only creatures in God’s image and thus (it was thought) the only creatures capable of being in relationship with God.  We shall see in a later post that there have always been Christians who have felt that compassion for animals is a necessary part of what it means to be Christian, but the mainline traditional view, that animals were created for human benefit, has resulted in a great deal of suffering by God’s creatures and has kept humans from living more fully into the purpose for which we are created. 

Aristotle

 Before I turn to what I call the “minority report” on animals from the Christian tradition or the consequences of the church’s mainline traditional view, however, I would like to take a closer look at how modern Old Testament scholarship is changing our understanding of what it means to be created in the image of God.  Over the last few decades, as scholars have come to better understand ancient cultures in which the stories of the Old Testament were preserved and written down, a new perspective has arisen that has garnered nearly unanimous support among those scholars.  This perspective underscores, in keeping with all Biblical teaching on power and privilege, that our creation in God’s image brings with it significant responsibility, answerable to God.  

PRAYING FOR PETS

“Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like children,

you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”

                                                             ~ Matthew 18:3

            In church this morning, I listened to a delightful presentation on the children’s worship service.  The speaker talked about some of the things that are different between that worship and worship in “the big church,” including the fact that in the children’s worship, “we probably pray for pets more often.”  This observation made me consider why we don’t pray for pets in “the big church.”  It’s a question that seemed worthy of a brief reflection, and a minor detour from my discussion of the image of God.  

            I think the reason we don’t pray for pets as adults in church is that it seems silly or trivial; it seems like a topic not worthy of God’s attention.  I would argue that nothing could be further from the truth.

WHY HAS THE CHURCH TRADITIONALLY TAKEN A DIFFERENT VIEW?

[I]rrational animals . . . are dissociated from us by their want of reason, and therefore by the just appointment of the Creator subjected to us to kill or keep alive for our uses . . . .

                                               ~ St. Augustine, The City of God, Book 1

            If it is true, as I argued in earlier posts, that our creation in the image of God imposes on us an obligation to care for our fellow creatures, that Scripture tells us that how we relate to animals is reflective of our character, and that Scripture’s teachings on the right use of power extend to animals as well as humans, why has the Church traditionally taken the view that we owe no duty of care to animals?  To understand that, we need to consider early conceptions of what it meant to be created in the image of God and where those conceptions came from.[1]

Because Scripture says that humans alone are created in the image of God, most theories about what that might mean centered on those traits that were believed to set humans apart from other animals, including our rationality, moral consciousness, capacity for relationship, sense of responsibility to (or ability to be in relationship with) God, and even our upright posture and facial expressiveness.[2]  In his book, The Liberating Image, Richard Middleton attributes the diversity of opinion on the subject to the infrequency with which the phrase appears in scripture and the fact that until quite recently, most interpreters have disregarded the context of the phrase as it appears in Genesis 1.  Instead they have relied on “extrabiblical, usually philosophical, sources to interpret the image and end up reading contemporaneous conceptions of being human back into the Genesis text.”[3]  One of the earliest and most significant philosophical influences was Aristotle, with his theory of a natural hierarchy whereby plants were meant for the use of animals, and animals for humans.[4]  Augustine and Aquinas, both hugely influential, drew heavily on this idea.   

                                                               St. Augustine

St. Francis Day: How To Be A Blessing To The Animals

Let everything that has breath praise the Lord"

                                          Psalm 150:6 

            If you have read the About Me section of this blog, you know that my journey toward understanding animal welfare as a theological concern began with an idea to include animals who really need a blessing – shelter pets in need of the blessing of a loving home – in a St. Francis Day Blessing of the Animals service.  To that end, I contacted the Washington National Cathedral and the Washington Animal Rescue League (WARL) and arranged just such an event.  (The event, that year and in all the years following has included animals from both the WARL and the Washington Humane Society, as well as representatives from both organizations and the Humane Society of the United States Faith Outreach Department.)  It seemed fitting, therefore, that as I begin this blog, I should mark St. Francis Day by presenting the remarks I made at that first blessing event, before I had any idea where this road would lead or how central this issue would become to me. 

            These remarks were in the year following Hurricane Katrina and present at the event were dogs WARL had rescued from that disaster.  The remarks also reference then-pending legislation.  While Katrina and some of those bills are in the past, there are always animals in need of rescue from natural or man-made disasters and there are always legislative issues requiring our attention.  The remarks, therefore, remain just as relevant today as they were when they were first made.

            Finally, by way of introducing these comments, I would like to observe that St. Francis has become quite tame and domesticated in our modern understanding.  We picture him surrounded by birds and bunnies, praising the sun and the moon.  This does him a great disservice.  St. Francis was a radical theologian, who walked away from a life of wealth and comfort to live in poverty and serve the unwanted – be they human or animal.  He calls us to a radical faith based in service and grounded in the understanding that all of creation belongs to and is loved by God.  St. Francis tells us that caring for the animals as God cares for us is not a part-time theology for the children and their pets – it is the way we are called to live every day.  

DOMINION AND POWER – PART TWO

I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you;

I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.

                                                          ~ Ezekiel 36:26

            I wanted to do an addendum to my most recent post on dominion and power because in the last few days a particular incident has been in the news and making the rounds on the internet that illustrates some of the concepts I was talking about in that post.  According to the story as summarized by the UK's Daily Mail:

·         ‘Under Wild Skies’ [a program on NBC Sports] is hosted by Tony Makris, a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association

·         In a highlighted reel from this week's episode, Makris travels to Botswana and hunts an elephant, shooting it several times before it dies

·         Makris laughs as the animal lets out one last groan after the final shot and then he jokes about wanting to hunt for birds

·         Makris celebrates the hunt by drinking champagne

·         Some NBC Sports viewers are now calling on the network to cancel the show

More on this story is available from the Huffington Post and other sources.  There is much to comment on here, and none of it is encouraging.  First, there is the chilling aspect of the “sport” of trophy hunting itself – the taking of life for pure entertainment value.  Second, there is the raw cruelty of laughter in the face of the clear pain and terror of another creature.  Third, there is the brutality of the killing, which required several shots and clear suffering before the elephant died. All of it celebrated with champagne.  There is nothing of God’s dominion here.   

           

DOMINION AND POWER

He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

~ Micah 6:8

The second half of Genesis 1:26 tells us that, coupled with creation in His image, God gave us dominion over the animals.  Bruce Birch explains, “God’s resolve to create in the divine image is coupled with a commissioning to have dominion. . . . It is as representative (image) of God that we are given capacity for power in the world.”[1]  Birch adds, “We are not absolute monarchs in the world but trustees or stewards acting in behalf of God’s sovereignty as Creator.”[2]  Moreover, because our authority over animals is a delegated power, it is not absolute; it is answerable to God, who ultimately rules over all.  This delegation of power over creation comes with an “implied moral norm [that measures] human actions by reference to their faithfulness in reflecting God’s will and ultimate rule.”[3]  Likewise, Christopher Wright explains, that exercise of power over creation “must reflect the character and values of God’s own kingship” and requires careful reflection on the character of God.[4]

  The Ruler we are to represent, as Walter Brueggemann explains, is “one who governs by gracious self-giving.”[5] Citing 2 Cor. 4:4 and Col. 1:15, Brueggemann argues that Christians are to view their dominion through the lens of Jesus Christ, whose “identity as God’s image on earth is evident in his readiness to turn from himself toward creation . . .”[6]  Jesus shows us that it is the nature of God to look after the interests of others, even those of “lesser value.” 

Moreover, as Terrence Fretheim explains, this duty of nurturing care “centers on the animals.”[7]  It is the animals to whom we owe this precious duty.  The animals are intended to know the character God through interactions with humans.  The entire structure of creation as God intended it, Fretheim contends, is intended to bring “the world along to its fullest possible creational potential.”[8]  Dominion is, Fretheim says, “a power-sharing relationship” with God, connoting “care-giving, even nurturing, not exploitation,” and imposes on humans the responsibility to “relate to the nonhuman as God relates to them.” [9]

If we are sharing power over creation – and in particular over the animals – with God, that should lead us to ask: what is the right exercise of power? 

WHAT DO ANIMALS HAVE TO DO WITH CHARACTER?

“If you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who deal likewise with their fellow men.”

                                                       ~   St. Francis of Assisi

     

      If it is true that our exercise of dominion over animals is intertwined with our creation in God’s image, then it is also true that how we relate to animals is reflective of who we are.  God tasked humans with, indeed in the NIV translation of Genesis 1:26, God created humans for the express purpose of, reflecting God’s character to the rest of the creatures through the exercise of dominion.  How we exercise that dominion, then, is reflective of what we were created to be and to do – and thus, of who we are. 

            This connection has been recognized in Scripture, in theology, in philosophy, and even in modern law enforcement.  How then is it that faith communities continue to ignore the impact of large-scale institutionalized animal cruelty on who we are and how we relate to God?

The connection between how we relate to animals and our central character is a theme that runs quietly through much of Scripture.  In Proverbs, for example, we learn that caring for one’s animals is a sign of righteousness (Prov. 12:10).   Moses found his bride and his father-in-law Jethro after helping Jethro’s daughters to water their sheep (Ex. 2:15-22).  He also discovered the burning bush while tending his father-in-law’s sheep (Ex. 3: 1-2).  The Midrash[1] explains “how Moses discovered the burning bush while he was carrying a stray sheep back to the flock.  It was not great strength that qualified him as a leader, nor a sharp mind, good looks or personal wealth. It was his great compassion for the smallest and weakest among his charges that made Moses fit to lead the nation.”[2]