Why Caring About Animals Is Central To What It Means To Follow Christ

Recently, I was invited to speak at the adult forum at Christ Episcopal Church in Rockville, MD.  I was, of course, delighted to accept.  I very much enjoyed the hour, and hope that the congregation did, as well.  I'm sharing below a copy of my remarks.  

Christ Episcopal Church, Rockville, MD

 

Dominion In The Image Of God –

Why Caring About Animals Is Central To What It Means To Follow Christ

Remarks at Christ Episcopal Church, Rockville, MD

September 30, 2018

Good morning.  Thank you for inviting me here to talk with you, and thank you for the work the St. Francis Flock is doing in raising the issue of animal welfare as a Christian concern, and thank you for your support of this important work, Rev. Simpson.  There is a lot that I could talk about today, but given our limited time, I thought I would try to lay out what I think are the foundational concepts for a theology of animal welfare, and then answer any questions the group may have. 

I want to start with what might strike you as a fairly startling proposition:  that caring for animals is not just an appropriate Christian concern, I believe it is fundamental to what it means to be human, what it means to be created in God’s image, and what it means to carry out God’s will on earth.  To support that idea, I want to focus on the creation stories, which form the foundation of our understanding of our place as humans in God’s creation.  Specifically, I want to focus on the idea that we are created in God’s image and given dominion over the animals. That’s an idea that traditionally has been used to excuse exploitation of animals, but I think it is telling something very different indeed – and something that goes beyond what many mean when they use the word “stewardship” in place of dominion.

AN OPEN LETTER IN GRATITUDE

TO THE MOST REVEREND MICHAEL CURRY,

PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH

"I do not want the Church to support animals simply to conform to secular pressure, rather I want the Church to see that its own Gospel requires opposition to cruelty."

                                                  ~Andrew Linzey, Creatures of the Same God 

Dear Bishop Curry:

               I do not mind telling you that as someone who tries to work for justice and compassion within the Christian community in general and the Episcopal Church in particular, I am often discouraged.  But on the eve of Easter this year, I was blessed to be in attendance at the Washington National Cathedral to take part in the Easter Vigil and to hear your wonderful and heartening sermon.  Your words have refreshed me and offered me encouragement, and for that I am grateful.  

               You spoke of us, a followers of Jesus, being Why Not People in a Why Weary World; of Christians – even Episcopalians – needing to press on with new ideas in both the Christian and secular communities to make the world a better place.  In world beaten down and made weary by seemingly intractable injustice, we, as followers of the risen Lord, are to hold on to hope, to continue to ask “why not” for a better world. You asked, and recalled others who asked:

•        Why not a world where children do not go to bed hungry?

•        Why not a world where we are all the children of God and we treat each other as God’s human family?

•        Why not scientific truth and knowledge instead of intractable fundamentalism?

•         Why not an empire that is better and more noble instead of one trading in human flesh?[1]

•         Why not a world where women and girls are given equal access to education?

Why Not People dream of new possibilities and know that all things are possible with God, despite all evidence to the contrary in a Why Weary World.  So, refreshed and encouraged, I will ask:

ARE YOU A GOOD WITCH, OR A BAD WITCH?

“I’m not a witch at all!”

                                                                         ~ Dorothy, The Wizard of Oz

With Halloween just around the corner, witches are making their annual appearances in decorations, costumes, advertisements, and more.  In traditional lore, before our modern sensibilities had tamed witches and made them sources of Halloween fun, they were quite frightening because of their unknown powers; it seemed they might bring harm in ways communities were unable to predict or defend.  But we humans have powers of our own, and, like witches, we wield our power in frightening ways.  

REFLECTIONS ON THE CONFESSION OF SIN

God of all mercy,

We confess that we have sinned against you,

Opposing your will in our lives.

We have denied your goodness in each other, in ourselves,

And in the world you have created.

We repent of the evil that enslaves us,

The evil we have done,

And the evil done on our behalf.

Forgive, restore, and strengthen us

Through our Savior Jesus Christ,

That we may abide in your love

And serve only your will. 

Amen.

            I am coming across this confession of sin more frequently in worship lately.1  It caught my attention the very first time I said it because of the repentance for “evil done on our behalf,” which strikes me as a very apt description of our societal treatment of animals who are not our pets. If only, I find myself thinking, those saying the confession had the vaguest idea that there was anything to confess in regard to their diet, their wardrobe, or their entertainment.  This line continues to pull at me each time I see or hear this confession, but it seems to me there is a great deal more here that relates to animals worth reflecting on.

            “God of all mercy.”  Let’s start here.  This is the God to whom we pray when we say this confession.  We start that way because it is the very nature of confession to recognize that we are in need of mercy and forgiveness for a wrong done.  Can we ask for mercy if we are unwilling to show it to those in our power who have done no wrong?  

The Prodigal Son, Salvator Rosa

            “We have sinned against you.”  When we support or ignore mistreatment of God’s creatures, we sin not only against those creatures, but against the One who made them, cares for them, covenants with them, and entrusted them to our care.

ANGER MANAGEMENT & TRUE CONFESSIONS

Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths,

But only what is helpful for building up others according to their needs,

That it may benefit those who listen.

  

                              ~ Ephesians 4:29

            I’ll start right off with the confession:  I’ve been feeling a lot of anger lately.  Mostly it has to do with a ridiculous series of events related to my work involving (in my view) a serious injustice.  Of particular significance for this blog, my anger and lack of patience are spilling out of the workplace, and making me angry and impatient about things relating to animals and the lack of things I see and hear from the church relating to animals.  How can people continue to do X, I stomp about wondering, and why won’t the church speak up about Y?

            Now, my clients are excited that I am angry at work because they want me to fight for them.  But I worry about being, shall we say, too truthful about my views with the wrong people, with unhelpful repercussions.  Similarly, when I think about how to convince the church of the importance of engaging on the topics of animal suffering and how human responsibility for that suffering impacts us theologically, I worry these days about being a little too forthcoming; I forget that what seems utterly self-evident to me now never occurred to me at all until just a few years ago.  Unmanaged anger is almost never constructive, and usually hurts us more than the object of our fury.  

          

I AM CECIL

“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

We have all heard a great deal about Cecil, the lion in Zimbabwe who was killed by an American dentist on safari.  Cecil was not just any lion; he was a lion being tracked by researchers inside a national park.  He was well known for his magnificent black mane and he was a favorite with locals and tourists.  Nor was this just any hunting expedition.  This was a guaranteed kill outing and it is reported that Cecil, who, popular as he was, had become accustomed to humans, was intentionally lured outside the protections of the park with an animal carcass so that he could be “legally” killed.  And it was not just any kill.  Cecil was shot with an arrow, which failed to kill him, and he suffered for upwards of 40 hours – nearly two days - before he was finally found and killed with a shotgun.  He was then skinned and decapitated so the American, who had paid more than $50,000 for the privilege, could have his trophy.

            There is so much about this to be outraged over – and many people and nations have been outraged.  There is now a proposal in the senate to ban the import of animal trophies not just to animals on the endangered species list, but to those proposed for listing as well.  Botswana has banned sport hunting and exporting of wild animals, including lions, from the country.  Several airlines are now refusing to carry trophy animals. This tragedy has, at least, put a spotlight on this terrible “sport” and some good will result.   

            But is this a Christian concern?  The secular world is moving on this.  Does the church need to do anything?  Absolutely.

WHAT THE POPE DIDN’T SAY

Clearly, the Bible has no place for a tyrannical anthropocentrism

unconcerned for other creatures.

            ~ Pope Francis, Laudato Si, #68

            There have been a great many articles and blog posts about the recent papal encyclical tackling environmental stewardship, Laudato Si (or Praise Be), from Pope Francis.  The animal welfare community has joined the chorus, touting the many statements supporting a Christian concern for animals as a dramatic step forward for animals.  Without wanting to rain on anyone’s parade, and while recognizing that there is much in the encyclical for those of us who care about animals as theological matter to be excited about, I was both surprised and disappointed by what the Pope did not say.  The encyclical gives us cause for hope as a theological community at the same time that it underscores how far was have to go and how much work there is yet to do. 

The Pope has underscored, strengthened, and perhaps expanded church teaching on human responsibility for the environment, including animals, and he has made a strong showing that human welfare and the welfare of the environment are closely intertwined.  In the process he made important statements regarding how Roman Catholics, at a minimum, should understand other living beings.  He has provided us with good, strong tools to use in building theological arguments about how we should treat the animals we encounter on a daily basis.  But he has not used those tools to make the arguments himself, and he has not provided guidance on how what he has said should impact our relationships with animals.

WE ARE PHARAOH AND PHARISEE

Almighty and everlasting God, who in the Paschal mystery has established the new covenant of reconciliation: Grant that all who have been reborn into the fellowship of Christ’s body may show forth in their lives what they profess by their faith; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.

                                                 ~ Collect of the Day, Second Sunday of Easter,

                                        Book of Common Prayer, p. 172-73

            As Christians observe the Great Fifty Days of Easter, it is time to reflect on the work that Christ has done for us on the Cross, giving us new life, reconciling us with God, and showing us what it means to be created in the image of God and how power and status are rightly used.  It is an opportunity, too, to consider where we fit into Easter story and its antecedent, the Exodus story.  In both of these stories, God breaks into the history of the world to free those who are prisoners and to help those who are unable to help themselves. 

            I think most of us, if we imagine ourselves in the Exodus story, imagine we are among the Israelites, laboring and yearning for freedom.  When we hear the Easter story, and the gospel stories generally, we like to think of ourselves as among the disciples.  In both cases, we are among the chosen.  To be sure, both the Israelites and the disciples are flawed in their ability to hear what God is telling them and to do His will, and we identify with those shortcomings and struggles, but they are, nevertheless, the ones in relationship with God. 

But in many ways Christians today are more closely aligned with Pharaoh and the Pharisees.  We do not hear the cries of those we oppress; we believe we are entitled to oppress certain others because of our God-like status as bearers of God’s image; and we believe that our particular status before God means we do not need to be concerned with those not in our favored group.  Like Pharaoh and Pharisee, if we do not open our eyes, our ears, and our hearts, we will pay a price.

In the Exodus story, Moses seeks freedom for his people, but Pharaoh refuses.  Moses returns time and again, each time warning of a new plague if Pharaoh will not free the Hebrews. Pharaoh, however, hardens his heart and the plagues come, each one worse than the last. Pharaoh would not hear the cries of the Israelites, and he would not let them go, both because he benefitted from their misery and because he did not believe their misery mattered. He let greed, vanity, and pride rule his heart.  In the end, the entire nation of Egypt and Pharaoh himself suffered great devastation because of that greed, vanity, and pride, and Pharaoh learned he was not so powerful after all.

Tissot, Moses Speaks to Pharaoh

THE WHOLE LOGIC OF BEING CHRISTIAN
"Cruelty is the worst of heresies."
                                               Humphrey Primatt 

     I have tried to argue in several of my posts that the theology of animal welfare is not just something for animal lovers to be concerned about.  It is fundamental to our very creation in God's image, something Bruce Waltke has called "fundamental to . . . the entirety of scripture."[1]  Moreover, our relationships with animals are grounded in our understanding of the right use of power, a theme that runs throughout the Bible.  David Clough has called understanding these relationships "a vital theological task," and Matthew Scully has explained that these relationships have to do with "the whole logic of being Christian."  We cannot understand who we are as human beings in relationship to God if we do not understand who we are as human beings in relationship to the animals.  Whether we consider ourselves "animal people" or not, we cannot disregard our fellow creatures if we want to follow Christ

     With that in mind, I wanted to repost this essay from September 27, 2013, an early post in which I tackled one aspect of this theme. 

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.”[2]  Birch adds, “We are not absolute monarchs in the world but trustees or stewards acting in behalf of God’s sovereignty as Creator.”[3]  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.”[4]  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.[5]

ON HUMAN VALUE, CHILDREN, AND POLAR BEARS    

“We care for creation because we love the God to whom it belongs and because we long to see God’s glory enhanced through creation and God’s pleasure in creation served through our loving care.”

                                      

                                                                Christopher Wright 

     I want to do two things in things in this post.  First, more or less in the spirit of "throwback Thursday," I want to link again to a post I did in November of 2013, On Image And Value.  That post considers some of the same issues raised in last week's post from a different angle.  Last week's post considered the significance of the incarnation for animals, arguing that because the incarnation was an event of cosmic significance, humans cannot use the fact that God was incarnate as a human to set ourselves apart from or above the rest of creation.  Likewise, in On Image and Value, I consider the traditional idea that humans have inherent value, as distinct from the rest of creation, because humans alone are made in the image of God.  I argue instead that human value and  the value of all of creation comes from the fact that we loved by God.  Our creation in God's image does not set us part in terms of value, but imposes on us responsibilities.  If we can be said to have greater value, it is only because we are called upon to fulfill those important responsibilities to care for creation and in particular the animals.  These two concepts are closely related, and I think it is worth considering them together.


      Second, and on a related note, I want to comment on an article I saw today, somewhat surprisingly, in the environmental law trade press.  The article provides yet another example of Christians talking about creation care and seeing only part of the picture, and thereby missing a critical element of God's call to us.  Today's Energy and Environment News ClimateWire included an article about religious groups seeking to raise the issue of climate change from various Christian perspectives to the Congress and to congregrations.  The article discusses a number of different groups and views.  One of the groups discussed was the Evangelical Environment Network, which makes presentations to conservative churches about the biblical mandate of environmental stewardship and the need to address climate change.  According to the article, Mitch Hescox, the president of the organization, attributes the skepticism about climate change among some conservative Christians to "the fact that evangelicals are typically conservative and Republican, and that climate change has long been framed as a partisan issue."  He counters, however, that, "'It's not about Al Gore, it's about Jesus,' Hescox said he tells groups. 'And it's not about polar bears. It's about our children.'"  (Here is a link to the article, although it is a subscription only publication.) 

     Why, I wonder, can it not be about both polar bears and children?  And what is wrong with it being about polar bears?  The article quotes Hescox as saying that "[t]here is a biblical responsibility for caring for God's creation," but the dichotomy he presents between polar bears and children, one worth taking action to protect and other not, suggests that he does not consider polar bears to be part of that creation.  It suggests that the real reason to protect creation is to benefit humans and implies the rest of creation - including polar bears and other animals - is of value only to the extent it is useful to humans.  Of course, we can't assume that a few quotes in one article adequately represent Hescox's views or the views of the Evangelical Environment Network.  It is nevertheless a disappointing statement and one that echoes all too clearly the history of a church unwilling to see the inherent value of our fellow creatures and desiring instead to set humans above and apart from the rest of creation.   As the two posts discussed above make clear, this statement expresses a vision of God's incarnation, of God's grace, and of our call to live into the image of God that is too small. 

Photo credit: Steve Amstrup, US Fish & Wildlife Service

THE HEART OF THE MATTER

Animals and the Incarnation

“The fundamental New Testament assertion concerning the incarnation, therefore, is not that God became a member of the species Homo sapiens, but that God took on flesh, the stuff of living creatures.”

                                                ~   David Clough

            As we emerge from the Christmas season, and in part as a follow-up to my recent post about animals and heaven, I thought it appropriate this week to pick up again with David Clough’s book, On Animals, to consider what he has to say about the incarnation.[1] 

In the incarnation, God became human. What does that have to do with animals? Quite a lot, actually.

Opening Part Two of his book, Clough quite rightly calls “the person and work of Jesus Christ . . . the heart of the matter” in developing a theology of animals.  I believe this is true in two ways; Clough’s focus in on the second.  First, whatever we do as Christians, the person and work of Jesus Christ must be the heart of the matter, and whatever activities we engage in, we must ask ourselves whether we are following where he would lead.  Our relationships with animals and our theology of animals are no different.  But second, in developing a coherent and consistent system of theology, while we may logically start at the beginning with the doctrine of creation, we must quickly conclude that we cannot understand either our creation in the image of God or its corollary our dominion over the animals, without considering that perfect image of God, Jesus Christ, and his dominion over all of creation.   

Guido Reni - Saint Joseph and the Christ Child

POPE FRANCIS AND THE ANIMALS

“And the Word became flesh and lived among us . . .”

                     ~ John 1:14

“Man and beast thou savest, O Lord.”

                        ~ Psalm 36:6b

            There has been a great deal of press coverage about Pope Francis and a statement he was reported to have made to console a young boy who had lost a pet.  “Paradise is open to all God’s creatures.”  The statement immediately filled the internet with all manner of people weighing in on what this might mean for Christians.  I posted a link to this story about the statement on the Dominion In The Image Of God Facebook page.  It got quite a number of views.  Then it turned out he didn’t say that after all (although Pope Paul VI apparently did).[1]  According to the Regions News Service, what he really said, citing the Apostle Paul in a discussion of the End Times, was that the new creation was not the annihilation of all that is, “but the bringing of all things into the fullness of being.”  The New York Times’ corrected story quotes him as saying, “Holy Scripture teaches us that the fulfillment of this wonderful design also affects everything around us.”  The Religion News Service has a very helpful story about how the Pope’s statement became transformed through interpretation and errors in reporting. 

            Whatever the Pope’s actual words, the story got a lot of people talking about whether we will, indeed, see our pets and other animals in heaven.  

St. Blaise with animals

ON HUMANS AND OTHER ANIMALS

More on the Doctrine of Creation in David Clough’s On Animals, Vol. 1

I said in my heart with regard to human beings that God is testing them to show that they are but animals.  For the fate of human beings and the fate of animals is the same; as one dies, so dies the other.  They all have the same breath, and humans have no advantage over the animals . . .

                   ~ Ecclesiastes 3:18-19

            If it is true that the purpose of all of creation is to be in relationship with God as Trinity, as I discussed in All Creatures Of Our God And King, what does that mean for the place of humans in creation, and what does it mean for the place of other animals?  How are humans and other animals the same; what sets them apart?  What sets humans and other animals apart from the rest of creation? 

            In Chapters 2 and 3 of David Clough’s On Animals, he seeks to put all these pieces together.   As he did in Chapter 1, Cough surveys a number of traditional answers to these questions and considers how they stack up against what scripture has to tell us.  The fundamental point to keep in mind, Clough reminds us, is that, “[i]n the face of many philosophical and religious views that posited various forms of continuity between God and creation, Christian theologians have insisted on the importance of a clear boundary between the two” (p. 26). 

Clough calls this a “radical and distinctively Christian insight” which undermines all attempts to build a hierarchy of creatures:  we are all, humans, other animals, angels, stars, and rocks, created by and separate from God.  We may seek to be with God, but we may not seek to be God.  Thus, “we must recognize that our basic relationship to creation is to recognize that we are part of it” (p.27).  

FOLLOWING UP ON LAST WEEK'S POST (Updated Oct 5)

"In a report this year, the World Health Organization called antibiotic resistance 'a problem so serious it threatens the achievements of modern medicine.'"

                                                                                       - Reuters 

     Update:  Here is yet another article on the relationship between human and animal suffering.  This one is coauthored by Paul Shapiro from the Humane Society of the United States and Eric Nicholson of the United Farm Workers.  It addresses ag-gag laws and their impact on both animals and workers in factory farms: Industry Hides Animal Cruelty Instead of Ending It.   This one opens by saying that workers at a factory farm that is a member of the Darigold Cooperative in Washington have been advised that employees caught taking photos or videos of the facility will be "subject to immediate dismissal."  The article continues: "We have been hearing from many Darigold farmworkers about poor treatment of both cows and workers. Too often, workers are forced to milk sick and injured cows instead of helping the cows get treated. Too often, workers bring their own drinking water to work because of filthy conditions at the dairy."

 ---------------------------------------------

     Here are some links to a couple of things I saw this week that relate to my post last week.  The first one is an article from Reuters regarding the use of antibiotics in the poultry industry and its impact on the rise of antibiotic-resistent "superbugs:" 

Farmaceuticals: The Drugs Fed to Farm Animals And The Risks Posed To Humans.

Here's how it opens:  "Major U.S. poultry firms are administering antibiotics to their flocks far more pervasively than regulators realize, posing a potential risk to human health."

     Here is an article from Huffington Post by Moby, discussing the connections between factory farming and harm to the environment and world hunger- it includes a lot of excellent information, including this tidbit, "It takes around 15 pounds of grain to make one pound of beef - which can feed a couple people for a few hours. In comparison, 13 pounds of grain fed to humans directly can feed 13 people for most of the day."  Save The Humans.

       Finally, here  is a photo posted on Facebook by VegNews Magazine:  

       Animal welfare is not just about what's good for animals.  For Christians called to live in the image of God, however, even what's good for animals should be enough.

    

10 REASONS FOR CHURCH LEADERS TO CARE ABOUT ANIMAL WELFARE 

 “Pain is pain, whether it is inflicted on man or beast, and the creature that suffers from it, whether man or beast, being sensible of the misery of it while it lasts, suffers Evil.”

                                                          ~  Rev. Humphrey Primatt, A Dissertationon the Duty of Mercy and the Sin of Cruelty to Brute Animals (1776)

       
      Animal welfare as a theological concern is generally disregarded in Christian churches.  When we ignore the suffering of animals, however, we ignore human suffering and Christian development, as well.  In today’s world, where so many animals suffer as never before, understanding the connections between human problems and animal welfare is increasingly essential in addressing congregational needs.  If we are serious about social justice, world hunger, immigration, deforestation, climate change, environmental stewardship, bringing the kingdom of God, or living into the image of God, we must care about animal welfare. With that in mind, I propose, as a start, the following list of reasons why understanding the issues central to animal welfare – and in particular factory farming – is critical to a Christian understanding of how humans are called to live in relation to God. 
 
            1. Factory farming disproportionately affects vulnerable populations.

     Factory farming is not only horrific for the animals, the laborers in these facilities and in the high speed slaughterhouses they supply do work that is difficult, dangerous, and poorly paid.  As Food Is Power explains:

A large percentage of factory farm workers are people of color including migrant workers from Mexico and other parts of Latin America. . . . An unknown percentage of full-time and part-time workers are undocumented. Employers find undocumented workers to be ideal recruits because they are less likely to complain about low wages and hazardous working conditions.

Sustainable Table has this to say about conditions workers might complain about:

HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO DOMINION IN THE IMAGE OF GOD

 Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves; 

ensure justice for those being crushed.
                                                                           Prov.31:8, New Living Translation

      

             One year ago today, I made my first post on this blog, wherein I observed, "While there is virtually no area of human life where we may not say 'all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God' (Rom. 3:23), in perhaps no arena is there greater ignorance of sin than in our relations with animals, to whom we rarely give a thought."  I explained, "It is my hope that in learning to fulfill the responsibility given to us at the creation to treat animals with mercy and compassion on God’s behalf, we can not only make the world a better place for animals, but we can become more fully human as God intended us to be, growing into God's image and drawing closer to Him as we care for what is His."  Here is a link to that first post.   What Is This Blog All About?

              That remains my hope and my prayer.  Thanks to all of you who have checked in throughout the past year.  I hope you will continue to read these posts and that you will find in them something you can use to help make the world a better place for the other creatures of God with whom we share this planet and in so doing, grow in your own walk of faith.  

           Meanwhile, don't forget to check out this week's new post, On The Loss Of A Pet, as well.  

Photo credit: David Wye

ON THE LOSS OF A PET

Loving God, you brought this beloved animal into the life of N. [and N.] to share kindness, joy, and faithful companionship: Receive our thanks and praise for the

community between your animals and your people, and all the ways in which we bless each other’s lives; in your goodness, Blessed Creator, hear our prayer.

                                          ~   From the Service At The Loss Of A Beloved Animal, Episcopal Church

              In a recent edition of Christianity Today’s blog, Her-meneutics, Karen Swallow Prior offers a beautiful reflection on the loss of a pet.  I have had the honor of meeting Prior at events hosted by the Human Society of the United States Faith Outreach Department and I follow her on Twitter (@LoveLifeLitGod).  I am very grateful for such an eloquent and heartfelt voice for animals in the Christian community.  Nevertheless, I must take issue with a portion of what she says.  (For a related post, see Praying For Pets.)

            Prior opens her reflection recounting a time when, just days after having lost a pet, she had to travel to a conference, where she was still so overcome with grief she could not eat.  She writes:

If I had been mourning the death of a person, my life would have been understandably put on hold. I wouldn’t have been expected to go to work the day following her death. I could have cancelled my trip.

. . .

When a family member dies, the bereft are offered sympathy, support, and condolences, from meals and visits, to cards and flowers, to the funeral service, burial, and beyond. Not so when the family member that dies is a pet.

When we mourn the loss of a pet, we mourn alone.

Then, although acknowledging that the love we feel for our pets is very real, as is the loss we suffer when they are gone, she says, “I’m not going to argue that it should be otherwise.  Nor will I argue that the death of a pet should be treated with the same moral, emotional, or social weight as the death of a person. It should not.”  Here is where I take issue with Prior.  I think we enter deep waters here, and need proceed carefully, both pastorally and theologically.

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. 

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