IS VEGETARIANISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S INTENTIONS?
CREATION CARE AND ANIMALS, PART THREE

In my last two posts, here and here, I have considered the ways in which creation care has made great strides in moving us away from thinking of humans as entitled to exploit the earth, but has failed to bring us to accountability for our treatment of animals.   Too often, creation care authors consider animals as part of “nature,” to be grouped together with plants and waterways, rather than as individual sentient beings, more similar to humans than trees.  Norman Wirzba is a well-known agrarian theologian whose book, Food & Faith: A Theology of Eating[1], illustrates how failing to make this distinction can lead to conclusions that I believe are seriously flawed theologically, ethically, and practically.   

Wirzba proposes that choosing not to eat meat may be thwarting God’s intentions. Wirzba’s reasoning is complex, beginning with the inevitability of death and the Christian belief in death as a means to greater life.  He considers the ancient sacrificial system, which called upon its practitioners to give up something of value, and portrays all of creation as God’s eternal self-giving wherein all creatures feed on one another.  In this context, he theorizes, refusing to eat of God’s bounty, including the animals, is a refusal of God.

         Before I go further, let me say that this is a ridiculously long post, for which I apologize. Wirzba’s arguments, however, are complex, and I think it is important to try to do justice to the basis for his suggestion.  In addition, I think there are important implications for animals at many turns – each of which requires discussion.

Considering Wirzba’s points in more detail, he begins with the observation that “[e]ating is a daily reminder of creaturely mortality,” noting that without food, we will die, but in order to eat, we depend on “the deaths of others – microbes, insects, plants, animals.”[2]  Eating relates to our own mortality, as well:  “Jesus transforms the meaning of life . . . and death by placing both within the eternal self-offering that God is.”[3] Biological death is a ceasing to function, but the Christian understanding of death “is a self-offering movement in which an individual gives himself or herself to another for the furtherance of another’s life.”  To live well, therefore, we must learn to receive the gifts of others and to give of ourselves.  In this way, he argues, we acknowledge “the gifts of life sacrificially given” and we “participate in God’s own self-offering life as revealed in Christ.”  He goes on to posit creation “as the altar on which creatures are offered to each other as the expression of the Creator’s self-giving care and provision for life.”[4]  

With this backdrop, Wirzba considers the practice of animal sacrifice as a means of understanding life through death.  Wirzba argues that the practice of sacrifice in ancient Israel, a subsistence economy, would have required giving up something “integral to the economic well-being of the family;” thus the sacrifice of the animal became “a self-offering because in presenting the animal one also offered the hours of personal care that nurtured the animal to a full life.”  It was also an offering of one’s own future, since economic well-being depended on the health of the herd.[5]  Sacrifice is thus an act of self-offering in the giving up of something treasured and something important to one’s future and thus opening the way to communion with God.

Turning to creation, Wirzba asserts that “Creation, understood as God’s offering of creatures to each other as food and nurture, reflects a sacrificial power in which life continually moves through death to new life.” It is “the destiny of all creatures,” he says, “that they offer themselves or be offered up as the temporal expression of God’s eternal love.” Such offering, however, must give glory to God or it is not a “genuine sacrifice.”  Exploitation and abuse, therefore, have no role in this offering up.[6]

Wirzba then turns to vegetarianism as a way “to think more deeply about the nature of eating as an act that leads us into the life and death of creation.  It invites us to think carefully about how human eaters are best to approach and consume the gifts of plant and animal life.” In considering eating meat, he says, it is not “simply the animal’s life that is at stake; of equal, and sometimes greater, importance is the training and refinement of persons into a morally and spiritually sensitive humanity.”  Wirzba recognizes the merits of what he identifies as the three basic arguments in favor of vegetarianism, namely that it is healthier for humans, that animals consumed today are raised and slaughtered inhumanely, and that raising animals for food is an inefficient use of scarce soil, water, plant, and fossil fuel resources, but he nevertheless argues not only that eating meat is permissible, he suggests that choosing not to do so is problematic.[7]     

 

He concedes that Genesis, Hosea, and Isaiah all suggest that in the Garden and in the new creation vegetarianism is the ideal, but argues that the scriptures abound with stories of people eating meat and “there is little indication that Jesus was a vegetarian or that he, while protesting abuses, opposed the tradition of temple sacrifices.”[8]  He then argues that if Jesus believed the vegetarian diet to be ideal, we would have expected him to say something about it.  Moreover, he says, the Book of Acts and Paul’s letter to the Romans suggest that early Christians did not ban eating meat.  Considering Genesis 1 and 9, Wirzba points out that God gave plants and animals to humans for food and “this giving is a reflection of the self-offering that characterizes God’s creative and sustaining life from the beginning.”  He concludes that a refusal to eat meat “may signal an inability to appreciate appropriate death as a movement into and constitutive of life.”  He quotes Robert Farrar Capon: “It is by the death of chickens, chicory, and chickpeas that you have lived until today. . . . To reject death is to reject the only possible soil out of which life can come.”[9]  In short, according to Wirzba, vegetarianism runs the risk of being a rejection of God’s gift of “the death of others as God’s means of provision and salvation for the world” and therefore becomes “a refusal to accept creation on God’s terms.”[10] 

 This proposal is entirely unpersuasive.  First, in saying that the moral formation of humans is more important than the life of the animal taken, Wirzba relegates animals to the role of mere means to human ends rather than acknowledging their inherent worth as creatures loved by God.  Second, his arguments that Jesus and the early church did not condemn meat eating shed little light on the relative merits of vegetarianism or meat-eating.  Similar arguments been made with regard to many social issues, such as slavery and the oppression of women, neither of which was condemned directly by Jesus or the early church, but both of which we view in a different ethical light today.  Third, he fails to address the fact that only plants were given as food in “the beginning” (Genesis 1 and 2), and that the animals were given only when the world had fallen into sin.  Creation on “God’s terms,” as described in Genesis, Isaiah, and Hosea, does not include eating meat.  It may be that in the world as we know it, all of us – including humans – become food for others in one way or another, but that is not to say that is God’s original intent. 

  Moreover, it is unclear how non-human animals “offer themselves up” as food for others.  In fact, they are simply taken by others, human and non-human, whether they will or no.   Nor does he address how meat as “self-sacrifice” works in a post-Cross world, where animal sacrifice to God is no longer called for.  Indeed, the idea of creation as “God’s offering of creatures to each other as food,” posits a troubling picture of God’s original intention for the world being one of suffering and death in a kill-or-be-killed setting, in contrast to the image of creation expressed in Genesis, Isaiah, and Hosea, with all creatures living peaceably together. 

 In addition, of all the ways the American culture rejects death, the failure to eat meat is not among them.  For people who choose not to eat meat out of concern for animals, particularly in the modern world where almost all meat comes from factory farms, the decision is a rejection of wanton and unnecessary death, preceded by a life of suffering.  Capon notwithstanding, the death of chickens is simply not necessary for human life any more than the death of dogs or cats or other humans.[11]  For most of us, eating meat is a choice, not a necessity.[12]  While Wirzba argues that even vegetarian diets result in the deaths of microbes, plants, field rodents, and insects[13], surely that is no justification for adding more deaths to the toll.  Do we not have an obligation to minimize death even where we can’t eliminate it?  While death may be a part of life for both humans and animals, there is no reason to suppose that unnecessarily cutting short an animal’s life is to be disregarded any more than unnecessarily cutting short a human’s life. 

Most significantly, if living into the sacrifice of God means self-offering so that another may live, isn’t the decision to do without meat (even humanely raised meat) so that animals may live a more appropriate means to that end?  Whatever self-offering may have been involved in ancient Israelites giving up a lamb to the altar of God, that dynamic is simply not in play in today’s Western world, culturally, economically, or theologically, where people are no longer subsistence farmers raising their own animals for food.  In the slaughterhouse, there is no suggestion that the animals’ lives are being offered to God (with the possible exception of kosher slaughter). [14] There is no self-offering in requiring an unconsenting, sentient creature to be brought to a premature death almost certainly filled with fear and pain in order to please one’s own palate.  The way of the cross (and the image of God) is in offering one’s own life, not in taking the life of another.   

Nevertheless, considering eating meat as a means of appropriating death as a way to life, Wirzba argues that “as creatures made in the image of a self-giving God, humanity’s most fundamental task is to participate in God’s self-offering life dedicated to the nurture and well-being of all creatures raised and eaten.”  This means, he says, that we cannot eat without concern for the well-being of plants, animals, and soils and that “domesticated animals, and fields and forests, must be treated with a view to their health and flourishing” [15]  While this is indeed a laudable sentiment, once again it seems to assume a false equivalence among animals, plants, and soils, thereby underscoring Wirzba’s a failure to understand animals as sentient individuals. Treating animals with a view to their flourishing requires considerations, including consideration of the value of life and the animals’ desire to live, that simply have no relevance for plants or soils. 

Addressing modern industrial practices, Wirzba draws a sharp contrast between these practices and the care required to produce an animal fit for sacrifice in ancient Israel, which sanctified the farmers and shepherds and developed care and compassion.  Many of these modern practices, he insists, must stop, not only for the sake of the animals, but also because they make profitability the measure of all things to the ruin of the soil and the water.  “It is not enough to refrain from the eating of meat if the rest of one’s food is produced and consumed in ways that exhaust, degrade, or destroy creation’s life.”  He goes on to describe a world in which industrial agricultural practices are changed, soil restored, monoculture disappears, and factory farms are eliminated.  He notes, rightly, that this will require a dramatic reduction in the number of animals produced for food, but does not seem to acknowledge that such a reduction would only be possible if much of the population were nearly, if not completely, vegetarian.  Nevertheless, he suggests that this vision is one that would require “self-offering care” so that “animals can be eaten in ways that respect their integrity and well-being and honor God.  But for this condition [to] be met, it is crucial that these animals be accorded the attention and care that reflects God’s own self-giving care for creation.” [16]  While one can applaud the move to humane animal husbandry, and while Wirzba is correct that if we are going to eat animals in a theologically defensible way, this is the direction in which we must move, he misses the point Andrew Linzey identifies as a minimal ethical proposition:  “To kill or inflict suffering without justification is wrong.”[17]

In a modern society where we have a glorious array of nutritious, satisfying, and delicious plant-based food options readily available, and where the perfect sacrifice has been made on the Cross, rendering animal sacrifice redundant at a minimum, where is the justification for taking life?  Animals are sentient creatures with inherent value to God, and we honor that, sacrificially, when we care for them and do not require their lives in return.[18]

Wirzba’s failure to address the value of animal lives as something other than a means to human ends undermines his analysis and once again demonstrates why, in fulfilling our obligations of right dominion over the animals, we need to address animals as sentient beings with needs that go beyond the needs of the environment. 

---

[1] Wirzba, Norman. Food & Faith: A Theology of Eating. Cambridge: Cambidge Universtiy Press, 2011.

[2] Wirzba, p. 110-11.

[3] Wirzba, p. 111 (emphasis original).

[4] Wirzba, p. 112.

[5] Wirzba, p. 118.

[6] Wirzba, pp. 126-27.

[7] Wirzba, pp. 130-31.

[8] Wirzba, p. 132.  There have been many arguments regarding whether Jesus was a vegetarian. See, e.g., Phelps, Norm. The Dominion of Love: Animal Rights According To The Bible. New York: Lantern Books, 2002, pp. 125-36; Webb, Stephen¸ “Didn’t Jesus Eat Lamb?” and Alexis-Baker, Andy, “Didn’t Jesus Eat Fish?” both in A Faith Embracing All Creatures. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2012.   There is no mention in scripture of Jesus ever eating meat except for one piece of fish after the resurrection (Lk. 24:41-43), and this, too, is debated, so some argue he was vegetarian. Nevertheless, others argue from the culture of ancient Israel that he must have eaten meat occasionally.  Whether or not Jesus ate meat, however, does not settle the question for people living in modern Western cultures, where different ethical questions are posed, in part because of the way animals are treated, and in part because of the greater food resources available.  

[9] Capon, Robert Farrar, Food For Thought, quoted in Wirzba, Food & Faith, 133.

[10] Wirzba, pp. 132-35.

[11] Wirzba’s analysis does not address whether this sacrificial self-offering includes all animals or only the ones we are culturally pre-conditioned to view as food – a moving target around the world and throughout history.  Is it a refusal to accept creation on God’s terms to refuse to eat a dog?

[12] There are parts of the world where food resources are scarce and eating such meat as may be available may be necessary for adequate nutrition.  That is certainly not the case in the United States or in many other parts of the world.  See my FAQ for my own views on eating meat, which I believe is a personal decision to be made in light of relevant facts and individual situations.

[13] Again, Wirzba fails to distinguish in this list the sentient from the non-sentient.

[14] Kosher slaughtering laws are intended to kill food animals as quickly and as painlessly as possible. See, e.g., Judaism 101: Treatment of Animals, http://www.jewfaq.org/animals.htm..  Whether this objective is always met in today’s world is a matter of debate, but the intention of humane treatment remains unchanged.  See, e.g., Conservative Rabbi: Stunning Before Slaughter, http://judaism.about.com/od/kosherdietarylaws/f/stunning.htm and “Kosher Slaughtering Proves Humane” by Rabbi Menachem Genack, Jewish Journal.com, December 30, 2004 (responding to an undercover investigation of cruel practices at a large kosher slaughterhouse), http://www.jewishjournal.com/opinion/article/kosher_slaughtering_proves_humane_20041231.

[15] Wirzba, p. 135

[16] Wirzba, p. 136-37.

[17] Linzey, Andrew. Creatures of the Same God. New York: Lantern Books, 2009, p. xi.

[18] Issues of animal welfare aside, it is surprising that Davis and Wirzba fail to directly urge a plant-based diet or a dramatically reduced consumption of meat in view of the environmental devastation and long term unsustainability of animal agriculture, which contributes more greenhouse gas to the atmosphere than the entire transportation sector, uses vast land and water resources inefficiently, and, for factory farms, requires massive animal waste lagoons which result in air and water pollution, to say nothing of the individual and public health issues associated with factory farming.  See Putting Meat on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in America, a report of the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production.

---------------------
Photo credits:

Book cover: Lois Wye

Swiss mountain: David Wye

Vegetable garden: mym [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Field mouse: Zorba the Geek [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons 

Painting, Sacrifice of Noah: Giovanni Martinelli [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons 

Hen in a garden: Nigel Wedge from Fife, Scotland (Thyme) [CC-BY-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons