THE THEOLOGY IS ALL THERE,

NOW WHAT?

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world;

indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.

                                                                    ~     Margaret Mead     

            As I have tried to argue throughout this blog, concern for the well-being of our fellow creatures is not a novel idea in Christianity.  It is not some modern, secular import seeking to re-write the Bible and Church tradition.  Rather, it is an idea deeply rooted in scripture and present in our earliest Christian traditions and voices, even if it has often been a "minority report" (see my posts Parts One, Two, and Three).  It is an idea not only compatible with, but central to, who we are called by God to be, as creatures uniquely created in His image.  Recent biblical scholarship and theological insights make this call very clear.  So, if the pieces are all there, what do we do now?  This is no time to rest.

Kittens at the Washington Animal Rescue League.

            Now we, as a Christian community, as “Church,” must claim the implications of this theology and we must live what we say we believe. 
That means scholars have to realize – and write about – the implications of the theological positions they have already taken.  But even more importantly, it means that we, the Christians in the pews, have to bring these issues to our priests and ministers and Christian education directors and outreach coordinators and fellowship planners and housekeeping managers and anyone else who will listen.  It falls to us to show church leaders their role in bringing into the mainstream of Christian thought and practice the idea that we are each responsible for the dominion we exercise and for how we choose to reflect God’s image to our fellow creatures.  As Christians, we don’t get to sit silently wishing things were different.  We are called “always [to] be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have,” and to “do this with gentleness and respect.” 1 Peter 3:15.  We are also called to put our faith to work, because “faith without works is dead.” James 2:26.  If we do not take the lead, if we will not “speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves [and] ensure justice for those being crushed” (Prov. 31:8), who will?

Dogs in a puppy mill (public domain)

            First, the theology and its implications:  I have written in several posts about the work of Old Testament scholars who have re-considered what it means to be created in the image of God in light of recent archeological, language, and cultural understandings of the ancient world.  It is now nearly without dispute among such scholars that to be created in God’s image means to be created to reflect that image to the rest of creation – it is a vocation and a responsibility, not a substantive difference that somehow separates us from “the animals.”[1]  My posts such as Image of God: We Cannot Be Human Without The Animals, Dominion And Power, and On Image And Value, among others, discuss the work of scholars such as Bruce Birch, Bruce Waltke, Walter Bruggemann, Terrence Fretheim, and Richard Middleton, and develop this idea in more detail.  These scholars have recognized that the church has misconstrued what it means to be created in the image of God and to have been given dominion over the animals, and have argued that scripture requires us to care for the animals and does not permit exploitation.  They generally have not, however, gone on to examine any of the ways in which we interact with animals and how these scholarly insights might require us to change those practices. 

            Similarly, authors writing from a creation care perspective (see primarily these posts: Creation Care and Animals, Parts One, Two, Three, and Four), have built on the work of these and other scholars and addressed our obligations to be stewards of earth, but have fallen woefully short in addressing our obligations to animals, failing to recognize the differences in our obligations to inanimate nature and sentient creatures.  Likewise, Catherine LaCugna’s work regarding the Trinity (see my posts The Trinity And Animals: Parts One and Two), includes the injunction that we must not “harm animals;” yet, like others, she has failed to consider the sweeping implications of that statement.[2] 

Washington Post chicken photo: This Dec. 2, 2008, file photo shows a chicken farm just outside the city limits of Pittsburg, Tex. (AP Photo/LM Otero, File)

Yet, how we live is the critical question - in all of theology certainly, but especially as it relates to this point, because we live in such a way that we make decisions that impact animals several times a day, often without knowing it.  How can we fulfill our call to reflect God’s image to the animals if we do not stop to notice where the animals are in our daily lives?  This fundamental idea of who we are created to be has radical implications for factory farming, puppy mills, animals acts in circuses and aquariums, animal experiments, hunting, dogs chained in yards, animal fighting, clothing, cleaning supplies, and interactions with wildlife, to name just a few of the ways we impact animals.  There can hardly be a theological idea that has more to do with how we live than our obligation to reflect God’s love and compassion to our fellow creatures.  

            If there is near unanimous scholarly consensus that as bearers of God’s image we have an obligation to reflect that image outward to other creatures, shouldn’t there also be near unanimous agreement – and substantial ink spilled – regarding the idea that things must change?

            Happily, this gap is beginning to be filled, and more books are taking this issue head on.  (I have updated my Resources page to reflect those books I am aware of.)  The work of Andrew Linzey, of course, is voluminous and addresses our obligations to animals from a number of perspectives.  There are some collections of essays by various authors addressing the topic, as well, including Creaturely Theology and A Faith Embracing All Creatures, and more comprehensive works such as David Clough’s On Animals: Systematic Theology, Charles Camosy's For Love Of Animals, Daniel Miller's Animal Ethics and Theology, and Michael Gilmour's Eden's Other Residents.  I hope to discuss some of these books in coming posts.  So, the scholars are starting to do their work, looking directly at the implications of what the community of faith has already declared to be true. 

            Now it is our turn.  We, as people of faith concerned about animals, can only do so much talking with one another.  As I think about this blog, I often ponder whether and how it can have an impact.  If you are reading this blog, you probably already agree with me that this is an issue that church must take up – or at least that it is an issue that relates to our faith.  So, it is my hope that this blog and the pages that support it (Resources, FAQ, What You Can Do, etc.) will provide you, my readers, with ideas and resources to take to your own faith communities, so that you will have the tools and information to approach your church leaders; and when you are asked, “What does religion have to do with animals,” you can explain why the answer is “everything” not just with religious generalities, but with well-grounded theological principles and references.

            I am deeply grateful for every Facebook “like” and “share” and every click on these posts, from Facebook or any other source, and every comment.  I hope you will share this blog with your friends and those in your faith community.  It is critical that we keep the conversation going among ourselves to share our insights and to discuss how the Spirit is moving among us.  All of that, however, will be for naught if we do not also take the conversation to those who may be unaware of why animals are theologically important, and who may be reluctant to learn.  It is a tragedy that the church is sometimes the last to recognize suffering and injustice.  Martin Luther King, Jr., said “We must learn that passively to accept an unjust system is to cooperate with that system, and thereby to become a participant in its evil.”[3]  The church, by failing to speak out against the myriad ways we systemically harm animals, by failing to incorporate an awareness of our obligations to animals into our everyday theology, participates in the evil of animal cruelty.  When we fail to do what we can to open the eyes of the church, we participate in that evil, as well. 

            It is my hope that we will come to a time when, not only will many churches have animal ministries in various forms, not only will there be blessing of the animals services, adoption events at churches, vegan options at community meals, and other events that recognize the theological value of helping animals in need, but we will hear references to our need to care for the animals in sermons, not just on special occasions dedicated to animals or the environment, but as part and parcel of our every day, ongoing life as Christians.  Only when our churches weave our obligations to animals into their everyday theological teaching and practice, will Christians understand that animal welfare is an everyday theological obligation in their lives, as well.
            We have a long way to go, but we are on the road. The theology is all there.  Now we just have to live as though we believe it. 

On The Road.  Photo: Lois Wye

---

[1] Humans, of course, are animals.  David Clough, in his book On Animals: Volume 1 Systematic Theology, London: Bloomsbury, 2012, Part I, Chapter 2, has a wonderful discussion of the attempts by various theologians and philosophers to distinguish humans from other animals, and how those systems have all failed, particularly in light of modern scientific understandings.

[2] These theological insights come at the same time that science is telling us more and more about the surprisingly rich and varied intellectual and emotional lives of animals, which means they have been suffering even more than we knew. 

[3] King, Martin Luther, Jr., Strength To Love, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963, p. 18, from the sermon, “A Tough Mind And A Tender Heart.”