ARE CHURCH LEADERS SENTIENT?[1]

The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?

                                                                 ~  Jeremy Bentham, 1748-1832

                    An Introduction To The Principles Of Morals And Legislation

            I apologize that this week I have not had time to write a reflection on scripture and animals.  I did, however attend a two-day conference this week entitled The Science of Animal Thinking and Emotion: Sentience as a Factor in Policy and Practice, and I’d like to offer just a few thoughts on why I attended this conference, what I learned, and why the church should care. 

            The conference was sponsored by the Humane Society Institute for Science & Policy and featured scientists and policy makers from a wide range of disciplines and from around the world.  We learned about studies being done regarding the emotional and intellectual lives of dogs, chimps, bonobos, fish, farm animals, prairie dogs, and crocodilians.  We heard about the impacts the advances in our understanding of animal sentience has had in the European Union, strides being made in China, and the role of media in shaping public understanding and opinion of proper treatment of animals.  It was a very full two days. 

      The purpose of the conference was to bring together scholars, policy-makers, and others interested in understanding what we know – and don’t know – about how different kinds of animals experience the world and how that should shape public policy toward the treatment of animals.  I went because it seems to me that understanding how animals experience the world should be critical in developing our theological understanding of who we are and how we should relate to animals – that is, understanding sentience is critical to understanding the obligations imposed on us in the gift of dominion, and how we can best reflect to our fellow creatures the image of the God who created us all. 

            If policymakers accept that changes in our understanding of animal sentience should bring changes in laws regarding their treatment, shouldn’t church leaders and theologians understand that this knowledge, especially combined with recent scholarship about what it means to be created in the image of God, should affect our ethical and theological obligations toward them – and that, because their suffering is real and lasting and largely imposed by humans, it matters theologically?

            One of the things that struck me about the conference was the fact that there seems to be little debate among scientists now regarding whether or not animals are sentient – that is, aware of the world around them and what is happening to them.  They have both intelligence and emotions.  The questions now being asked are in what ways are different species sentient?  The conference speakers and attendees, of course, made an animal-friendly crowd, and we certainly did not address all species, so I don’t want to overstate this point, but there were plenty of well-credentialed scientists in the audience who questioned speakers about the limits of their research and conclusions, so had the underlying premise been a matter of serious scientific debate, I am confident it would have been addressed. 

            Another thing that struck me was the efforts made to understand the animals’ experiences from the animals’ points of view.  So, for example, there was discussion about the folly of trying to measure animal intelligence against human standards – or against the intelligence of other species.  One speaker noted that when he is asked by reporters whether dolphins are smarter than chimps or a three-year-old human, or some other animal, he responds that he will answer that question if the reporter can tell him whether a hammer is a better tool than a screwdriver.  As Jonathan Balcombe has put it, comparing animal intelligence cross-species is like comparing the way animals move.  “Do fish move better than horses?  . . . Animals are as intelligent as they need to be.”[2]  This perspective strikes me as a significant step forward in understanding the inherent value of animals because it lets the animals be animals, functioning in their own worlds and accomplishing their own objectives - and it values those objectives, without needing to compare the animals to humans or make the animals’ objectives relevant to humans.  This, it seems to me, is where the church at large falls so woefully short: in recognizing the inherent value of animals (their value to the God who made and loves them) wholly apart from their value to, or relationship with, humans. 

            So, here is where we are:  there is general scientific consensus that mammals, at least, are capable of suffering physical pain, that they have emotional lives, including happiness and sorrow.  There seems to be growing consensus that same can be said of fishes. 

There is recognition in many parts of the world that this imposes moral or ethical obligations on the way humans should treat animals.  The Treaty of Lisbon agreed to by the European Union in 2009, for example, includes this language from article 13:

In formulating and implementing the Union's agriculture, fisheries, transport, internal market, research and technological development and space policies, the Union and the Member States shall, since animals are sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals, while respecting the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the Member States relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage.[3]

The broad exception here is unfortunate, but nevertheless, here is language that expressly recognizes that animals are sentient beings and that this fact imposes obligations and limitations on humans.  Europa (the official web site of the European Union) explains the significance of this language this way: “This puts animal welfare on equal footing with other key principles mentioned in the same title i.e. promote gender equality, guarantee social protection, protect human health, combat discrimination, promote sustainable development, ensure consumer protection, protect personal data.”[4]

            I find myself asking this question, again:  “Hello? Church? Are you there?”  The question in the title of this post, Are Church Leaders Sentient?, is, of course, intended to ask whether the church and its leaders are aware of what is happening around them, of how the world is advancing scientifically and ethically while the church gets left behind in this critical element of understanding what it means to be human and to exercise power ethically and with mercy. 

The God in Whose image we are made reaches ever outward, inviting us into relationship, yet the church largely supports a human culture that constantly looks inward, denying that our fellow creatures are capable of relationship.  And we do it mostly because to do otherwise would be inconvenient or because we don’t consider animal suffering important enough to take up our precious time.   

            In many cases, of course, the church is silent because the leadership really is just unaware of the issue of animal welfare.  Trying to raise this issue within the church – or a local parish, however, does require overcoming the real roadblocks of inconvenience and perceived insignificance.  As I continue to ponder ways to get the church to grasp what we know about animals, the realities of how we treat them, and the implications of that for who we are as people of God, I leave you with references to two more recent articles about animal sentience, demonstrating that this remains a topic of public interest, and the titles of two books I learned of the at the conference that I am very much looking forward to reading:   

            The first article is from Modern Farmer magazine, addressing the intelligence of pigs: Pigheaded:How Smart Are Swine? 

            The second is from the Washington Post regarding whether lobsters and other invertebrates feel pain: Do Lobsters And Other Invertebrates Feel Pain? New Research Has Some Answers 

            The first book is Chasing Doctor Dolittle by Con Slobodchikff, Ph.D. regarding animal language. 

The second is Dragon Songs by Vladimir Dinets, Ph.D. regarding what turns out to be the remarkable lives of crocodiles and alligators. 

            Those of us who care about animals and their suffering and happiness, and those of us who recognize that how we behave toward those without power shapes who we are as human beings and as people in relationship with God, need to be creative and persistent in raising this as an issue the church must address.  Eventually, we will make the church “aware.”

Photo credits:  
Prairie dogs: By U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters (prairie dogs kiss  Uploaded by Dolovis) [CC-BY-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
Clown fish: By Jenny (JennyHuang) from Taipei (Flickr) [CC-BY-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

---

[1] Definition of “sentient:” from Mirriam-Webster’s online dictionary:  (1) responsive to or conscious of sense impressions <sentient beings>; (2) aware; (3) finely sensitive in perception or feeling.  Example: sentient of the danger posed by the approaching hurricane.

[2] Balcombe, Jonathan. Second Nature. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010, p. 31.  Balcombe was also a speaker at the conference.  It is important to note here that intelligence is far from the only measure of sentience, I highlight here by way of example.  There are many other ways to be aware of the world.  As Jeremy Bentham observed so long ago, the salient question for our obligations toward animals is whether and how they suffer.  Today we can add to that whether and how they are happy.

[3] Europa, official website of the European Union, Health and Consumers page: http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/policy/index_en.htm

[4] Id. Thus, for example, the EU has banned the continuous use of gestation crates and the use of battery cages.