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.

AND THE SECOND IS LIKE UNTO IT

Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.  This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.  On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

                                                                        ~  Matthew 22:36-40 (KJV)

But wishing to justify himself, he said to Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"

                                                           ~  Luke 10:29 (NAS)

            I don’t think it stirs much controversy to say that we cannot claim to love God if we do not love our neighbor, or to say that loving our neighbor does not mean that we have nice, warm feelings about that neighbor or even that we think highly of him or her; rather it is to say that we are willing to reach out to help when that person is in need or that – at the barest minimum – we refrain from treating him or her with cruelty.  It is to say that we have a responsibility for that person’s well-being. 

            Scripture, both the old and new testaments, makes clear that this is a central tenant of the Judeo-Christian faith.  Christ calls it the second great commandment, likens it to loving God, and says that on it (and on loving God) depend the rest of the scriptures.  Because we can’t really get around this requirement, since ancient times we have instead been trying to ease its burden by limiting the definition of “neighbor.” 

Jesus with the Pharisees - Gustav Dore

ALL CREATURES OF OUR GOD AND KING

The Doctrine of Creation in David Clough’s On Animals, Vol. 1

All creatures of our God and King
Lift up your voice and with us sing,
Alleluia! Alleluia!

                                                        ~ Hymn, based on a poem by St. Francis

            What is the purpose of creation?  Where do humans fit into that purpose?  And where do other animals fit?  Are other animals – and the rest of the non-human creation – created solely for human benefit, or is something larger at work?  What separates humans from other animals?  What does it mean to be created in the image of God?

These are some of the questions David Clough seeks to tackle in Part 1 of his book, On Animals, Volume 1: Systematic Theology.  Last time, I looked at Clough’s introduction, which urges theologians to take the question of animal welfare seriously because it is one that touches on nearly every aspect of what it means to be Christian and because our relationship with animals has changed dramatically and nearly without question in recent decades.  It is time, he argues, to pull back the curtain, to pay attention to what we are doing and why, and to ask whether it is compatible with what we say we believe.  In order to do that, we need to consider the place of animals in fundamental Christian doctrines.   One of those fundamental doctrines is the doctrine of creation, which Clough addresses in Part One of his book.  This post will start at the beginning and ask, what is the purpose of creation? 

Photo credit: David Wye

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

ANIMALS AND THE TRINITY
PART ONE

 “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.”

                         ~ Catherine Mowry LaCugna, God For Us [1]

                        The Trinity!  Yikes!  Like many Christians, for much of my faith journey I had a fairly vague notion of the Trinity and found struggling to come to terms with how three are one to be a fairly esoteric and largely impossible task, without much bearing on the actual practice of my faith.  Then I read Catherine LaCugna and everything changed.  Suddenly, I saw that the practice of my faith was only possible because of how the Three are One. 

            I also saw that God as Trinity has radical implications for Christian ethics – including, yes, the ethics of how we relate to animals.  This post and the next one will seek to explore what our Christian understanding of God as Trinity might have to say about animals.   

Andrej Rublëv

           

WHY HAS THE CHURCH TRADITIONALLY TAKEN A DIFFERENT VIEW?

[I]rrational animals . . . are dissociated from us by their want of reason, and therefore by the just appointment of the Creator subjected to us to kill or keep alive for our uses . . . .

                                               ~ St. Augustine, The City of God, Book 1

            If it is true, as I argued in earlier posts, that our creation in the image of God imposes on us an obligation to care for our fellow creatures, that Scripture tells us that how we relate to animals is reflective of our character, and that Scripture’s teachings on the right use of power extend to animals as well as humans, why has the Church traditionally taken the view that we owe no duty of care to animals?  To understand that, we need to consider early conceptions of what it meant to be created in the image of God and where those conceptions came from.[1]

Because Scripture says that humans alone are created in the image of God, most theories about what that might mean centered on those traits that were believed to set humans apart from other animals, including our rationality, moral consciousness, capacity for relationship, sense of responsibility to (or ability to be in relationship with) God, and even our upright posture and facial expressiveness.[2]  In his book, The Liberating Image, Richard Middleton attributes the diversity of opinion on the subject to the infrequency with which the phrase appears in scripture and the fact that until quite recently, most interpreters have disregarded the context of the phrase as it appears in Genesis 1.  Instead they have relied on “extrabiblical, usually philosophical, sources to interpret the image and end up reading contemporaneous conceptions of being human back into the Genesis text.”[3]  One of the earliest and most significant philosophical influences was Aristotle, with his theory of a natural hierarchy whereby plants were meant for the use of animals, and animals for humans.[4]  Augustine and Aquinas, both hugely influential, drew heavily on this idea.   

                                                               St. Augustine