ANIMALS AND THE TRINITY

PART TWO

Disproportionate use of the goods of the earth, despoiling creation, harming other creatures, abusing other persons, are unnatural ways of being in relationship because God is not glorified by them.

                                           ~ Catherine Mowry LaCugna

            Last week, I began this discussion of the Trinity with a look at the work of Catherine Mowry LaCugna, who steers us away from speculation regarding God’s “inner life” and urges us to understand the Trinity by looking at God’s work in the world through the Son in the power of the Spirit and to respond with praise to God through the Son in the power of the Spirit.  She urges us, in short, to consider the Trinity as God’s way of being in communion with us, and allowing us to be in communion with Him, in an outpouring of love and response of praise.  This communion, she argues, will reshape who we are and how we order our lives. 

            It is clear from her writings that she intends to include all of creation - including all God’s creatures - in the scope of her vision.  So, in God In Communion With Us, she says a Trinitarian theology grounded in the economy of salvation understands that we are created to live in “authentic communion with God, with other persons, and with all God’s creatures.”[1]  In God For Us she explains the Trinity is “overflowing love, outreaching desire for communion with all that God has made” and that when we establish a new household of God, it will be “the dwelling place of all creatures.” [2]  But what, exactly, does this mean, and how do “all creatures” fit into her theological framework? 

Photo credit: David Wye

  Like so many other theologians from different disciplines, LaCugna fails to address the implications of her theological viewpoint for the day-to-day lives of the animals with whom we share the planet.  Nevertheless, the building blocks are there.  Indeed, the starting point for this issue is LaCugna’s own starting point: the Trinity is a theology of relationship.  In LaCugna’s model, the Father is always reaching out with through the Son and the Spirit in an overflowing love grounded in self-giving.  A God whose concern stopped with one species would not fulfill this vision.  The extravagance of creation belies the idea of stingy God who cares about only one creature.  So, LaCugna’s vision of God’s essence as being in relationship must encompass all creatures.  

            In addition, LaCugna grounds her argument in the economy of salvation, which, she argues, makes it clear that God reaches out in love to all that He has made.  Yet, in the economy of salvation, the traditional view is that God reaches out to save humans and Christ as the fulfillment of humankind.[3]  Moreover, Christ spoke only rarely about animals and never to address mistreating them, so is it a valid premise to argue that economy of salvation has anything to say about animals?  The answer is found in looking at the Scriptures as a whole, which tell the larger story of the economy of salvation and which have a great deal to say about animals, and particularly about God’s loving concern for their well-being.  God created the animals and called the animals good; he covenants with them; he feeds them; he is concerned when they are harmed by human sin.[4]  In addition, when Christ did speak about animals, it was always to remind us that God cares for them.  He feeds the birds of the air, for example, and not one sparrow falls without God.[5]  Paul also tells us in Romans that all of creation is groaning waiting for redemption.[6]  So, a Trinitarian vision grounded in the loving outreach of God as expressed in the economy of salvation does rightly encompass God’s love for animals. 

            When we consider that we are made in the image of this constant, outreaching love, our responsibilities to animals become as clear as our responsibilities to one another.  LaCugna argues that as we respond in doxology to God’s outreach we are conformed more fully to His image.  “Human beings are created in the image of the relational God and gradually are being perfected in that image (theōsis), making more and more real the communion of all creatures with one another.”[7]  That our conformity to the image of God should have implications for animal welfare is biblically underscored in two ways, and these are helpfully highlighted by LaCugna’s trinitarian theology.  First, the human creation in the image of God is inextricably linked with human interaction with animals.[8]  As Bruce Birch has observed, “It is as representatives of God that we are given dominion over the animals.”[9]  Thus, as God reaches out in love toward all of his creation, so we are commissioned to do the same.  Second, as we experience the Trinity through the economy of salvation, the image to which we are conformed is that not only of the community of equality and diversity LaCugna relies on for her feminist and political visions, it is the outreaching of the higher to the lower.  We are, in fact, conformed to the image of Christ, who “did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a slave . . .”[10] As this transformation develops, we cannot continue to regard ourselves (humans) as too important to consider the sufferings of those who are “only animals.”  “To participate in the life-praxis of Jesus we are called to confront that which thwarts the power of human personal and communal becoming, that which distorts relationships, and that which denies human well-being and human solidarity with all God’s creatures.”[11]  Becoming truly human means being conformed to imago Trinitas, reaching out in relation to all of creation, in “freely chosen self-transcendence toward the other.”[12]

Three little Tamworth pigs on Flat holm Island 

By Sam Sam CC-BY-2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

            This is a refreshing alternative to the implications for animals of Augustine’s trinitarian outlook, which looked to human interiority as a reflection of God.  Among the analogies for the Trinity Augustine relied on were mind, love, and knowledge and memory, understanding, and will. [13]  In her writings, LaCugna talks about how Augustine’s inward-looking trinitarian theology has been used to justify a variety of systems of oppression.  Cruelty to animals is decidedly among them.  Augustine’s modeling of the Trinity on human interiority often used the touchstone of rationality.  Augustine was heavily influenced by Aristotle, and accordingly placed great stock in human “rationality,” a feature he believed set humans apart from other creatures.  According to Augustine, therefore, humans are “dissociated” from animals because of the animals’ “want of reason.”[14]  Therefore, according to Augustine, “by the just appointment of the Creator,” the animals are “subjected to us to kill or keep alive for our uses.”[15] 

St. Augustine

Aquinas built on this and argued that the “intellectual nature” alone exists for its own sake and that the imperfect is created to serve the perfect, “[t]herefore it is in keeping with the order of nature, that man should be master over the animals.”[16]  Moreover, Aquinas continued, “…the love of charity extends to none but God and our neighbor.  But the word neighbor cannot be extended to irrational creatures, since they have no fellowship with man in the rational life.  Therefore charity does not extend to irrational creatures.”[17]  Particularly when coupled with Descartes’ extension of this idea, that since animals are not “rational,” they are unable to suffer, this fundamental “dissociation” - or lack of fellowship between humans and animals - has been responsible for catastrophic animal suffering.  It is no wonder that Christianity is viewed with deep suspicion in much of the animal welfare community.  

            Indeed, that suspicion runs both ways, particularly in some conservative Christian communities.  Many fear that recognition of “animal rights” will lead to the obfuscation of the distinction between humans, who alone are created in the image of God, and other creatures.  Many animal rights groups, only too aware of the misuse to which the idea of human exceptionalism has been put, believe the best way forward is to argue that there is no distinction between humans and animals and that the Bible has it wrong.  LaCugna’s approach, therefore, not only offers a much-needed corrective for the church in understanding human relations with the rest of creation, and in particular with our fellow-creatures of God, but can also offer a means of healing between these two groups, providing a trinitarian framework for a theology of human responsibility for caring for those at our mercy instead of exploiting them, a responsibility founded on our unique creation in the image of God. 

Because we are created in the image of a God who is three distinct Persons in one, and who is able to reach beyond Himself to others, we are able to reach beyond ourselves without losing ourselves and without losing our distinctiveness in that communion.  Just as God does not lose his distinctiveness within the Trinity and as opposed to creation by being in communion with us, so we do not lose our distinctiveness as humans in a larger human community and as opposed to other creatures by being in communion with those creatures.

            When we recognize the Trinity in the economy of salvation and respond in doxology, we allow the Spirit to conform us to Christ and bring us into communion with the Father.  In that process of being transformed, LaCugna explains, we come to recognized that all of creation has its own inherent value and it is all cherished by God.  This is in direct opposition to Augustine and Aquinas’ view that the rest of creation is placed here solely for our use, that the animals are for us to “kill or keep alive for our uses,” and that we owe them no kindness.  Moreover, through LaCugna’s lens we recognize that our communion with God encompasses communion with all other creatures, and that just as God cares for those creatures, so we are to do the same as a means of responding in love to the love God has shown us in the economy of salvation. 

Photo by Wolfgang Sauber; license CC-BY-SA-3.0, via Wikimedia Commons

            Like all efforts to understand the Trinity, LaCugna’s approach must be handled with caution and in the recognition that attempts to describe the ineffable must always fall short in some ways and run the risk of skewing too far in one direction or another.  Nevertheless, LaCugna has taken a doctrine seemingly far removed from the daily life of the average Christian and explained it’s dramatic importance to the life of faith.  When we look to the economy of salvation to see who God is in our lives, we open ourselves up to being brought into communion with God and given the power to be in communion with both God and others, living into the image in which we are created.  The implications for daily life, as LaCugna notes, reach into all aspects of our lives. 

But still: what, specifically, does this mean for how we relate to animals?  LaCugna mentions only that we must not “harm” animals.[18]  Like her statement that ethical life should include “everything that supports and promotes the flourishing of persons,” this is not a particularly helpful direction.  Its ambiguity is particularly stark in a world where animals are affected by virtually every aspect of our lives, and few of us are aware of it. 

To avoid harming animals, therefore, means more than not personally abusing them.  It requires each of us individual, and the Church as a whole to take stock of our daily lives and consider honestly the ways we impact animals through a thousand decisions, and to be open to new ways of doing things that allow animals to thrive, as God intended.  To follow her directive and avoid harming animals, we must consider what we eat, what we wear, where we live, what personal and cleaning products we use and whether they are tested on animals, what means of entertainment we support, and our attitudes toward companion animals, just as a start.  If we seek to be in communion with all God’s creatures, we need to recognize the majesty of God’s creative work not only in jaguars and pandas, but in chickens and pigs and cows and in tigers and elephants in the circus as well as in chimps and dogs and, yes, even mice, in labs.  If we are to recognize that these creatures have an inherent value and exist for purposes other than simply to serve our needs, we must reconsider the ways in which we neglect even the most basic demands of decency and mercy toward them to satisfy every human whim.  Whims for high volumes of very low cost meat and dairy, which can only come from the atrocities of factory farming; whims for delicacies such a foie gras and white veal, which can only be had by cruel treatment of birds and calves; whims for entertainment such as circuses, which necessitate dangerous and uncomfortable travel and housing conditions and often cruel training practices; whims for trophy hunting, which involves the taking of life in the name of “sport” only; and whims that cause us to fail to keep our lifetime commitments to companion animals when they become old, or sick, or inconvenient.[19]  

If we are going to live in communion with animals, we must recognize their claims on us.  We must learn that there are circumstances in which human interests or simple convenience cannot come first.  LaCugna’s injunction not to “harm” animals requires more than refraining from personal cruelty; it requires an examination of the systems of cruelty built into our daily lives and the ways we can step away from them.  It requires changing the way we live. 

Andrej Rublev

            If Catherine LaCugna is right, if the doctrine of the Trinity is a “practical doctrine” with “radical” consequences for life, then living in doxological response to work of God in creation requires that we stop hiding our heads in the sand about the cruelty we support and that we stop pretending that animal suffering doesn’t matter.  As LaCugna observes, “being perfected in the image of God, entails specific ethical demands.”[20]  The good news is that as we are so perfected, we are given the freedom to fulfill those demands with joy, realizing that in so doing, we become more fully human, more fully who we are intended by God to be. 

---

[1] LaCugna, Catherine Mowry. "God In Communion With Us." In Freeing Theology: The Essentials of Theology in Feminist Perspective, by Catherine Mowry LaCugna, 83-114. New York: HarperCollins, 1993, p. 92.

[2] LaCugna, Catherine Mowry. God For Us: The Trinity & Christian Life. Chicago: HarperCollins, 1973, pp. 15-16.

[3] There are theologians today, for example, David Clough, who are arguing that God’s saving work in Christ includes all of creation and specifically all creatures, but that is a discussion for another post. 

[4] Gen. 1:20-25; Gen. 9:9-17; Hos.2:18; Ps. 104:27-30; Jon. 4:11.

[5] Matt. 6:26, 10:29.

[6] Romans 8:22.

[7] LaCugna, God For Us, p. 292 (emphasis added).

[8] Genesis 1:26, 28.

[9] Birch, Bruce C. Let Justice Roll Down: The Old Testament, Ethics, and Christian Life. Louisville: West Minster/John Knox Press, 1991, 88-89.

[10] Philippians 2:6-7.

[11] Medley, Mark. "Becoming Human together: Imaging The Triune God." Perspectives in Religious Studies. Fall 1996: 289-316, p. 313.

[12] LaCugna, God For Us, p. 289; Medley, Mark. "God For Us and With Us: The Contributions of Catherine LaCugna's Trinitarian Theology." Lexington Theological Quarterly. Winter 2000: 219-234, pp. 226, 230.

[13] E.g., Augustine, On The Trinity, quoted in Rusch, William G., The Trinitarian Controversy. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980, pp. 170 et seq., discussing the “trinity” of mind, love, and knowledge, based on the mind’s knowledge of itself.  See also, LaCugna, God For Us, pp. 93-101 discussing various triads used by Augustine to describe the Trinity, such as memory, understanding, and will.

[14] Augustine, City of God, quoted in Linzey, Andrew, and Paul Barry Clark, eds. Animal Rights: A Historical Anthology. New York: Columbia University Press, 2004, p. 60.

[15] Id.

[16] Summa Theological, quoted in Linzey & Clarke, p. 63.

[17] Id., p, 104

[18]  LaCugna, God For Us, pp. 346-47.

[19] I recognize there are times and circumstances in which keeping companion animals is simply not possible at all or not without dramatic sacrifice, but shelters are full of animals given up for slightest of reasons.

[20] Id., p. 346