Animals, Advent, and the O Antiphons

There are at least two things I love to do in Advent.  One is to pray the O Antiphons, and the other is to visit at least one of venues near me that has an international nativity display.  The O Antiphons always help to ground me through the close of Advent.  They keep me focused on the true meaning of Christmas - the coming of Christ - through the hubbub of preparations and celebrations that, while wonderful and rewarding in their own ways, are nevertheless a distraction from the hope of the season.

The international nativity displays always fascinate me.  I love to see how different cultures around the world have interpreted the nativity story.  I especially love the ones that are set, not in the ancient middle east, but in the culture that created the nativity.  It reminds us, I think, that Christ came not just once, long ago, but comes to each of us every day, right where and as we are, if only we will let Him.  I love to see the different materials used, the different levels of detail included, the differing degrees of reverence and whimsy, and - of course - the different animals that show up in the manger!  Christ is the savior of the world, near and far, with all its creatures.  No one culture or species can make an exclusive claim on God's all-encompassing saving grace. 

This year, with the animals in mind, I posted daily reflections on the O Antiphons on the Dominion In The Image of God Facebook Page.  I've collected them here and added some photos of nativity scenes from around the world.  Some of the nativity scenes are mine but most are from an exhibit at the Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints near Washington, DC.  While Advent is over and the "official" time for praying the O Antiphons is over for this holiday season, it is still Christmas until January 6, and there is never a wrong time to remind ourselves of our need for God's saving mercy.

ANIMALS IN THE BOOK OF JONAH

“And should I not be concerned about Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also many animals?”

                                      ~ Jonah 4:11

               I’ve been wanting to write about the Book of Jonah for some time now, and it is fitting that I am finally able to do so during the season of Lent.  Jonah’s story is deceptively simple, and with its action and adventure and animals and (some would say) fanciful elements, it is a favorite for teaching children.  Once we begin to dig into the story, however, we find that it is a profound story of faith, repentance, forgiveness, and the limitless nature of God’s love and care for all that He has made.  No wonder it is a staple of Jewish services on Yom Kipper, the Day of Atonement, perhaps the holiest day of the Jewish year. 

               Most of us remember the “whale” (which is never called a whale in scripture, but is identified in scripture as a “great fish”), but the Book of Jonah, not unlike the city of Nineveh, is filled with many animals.  (For brevity, this post assumes familiarity with the story.  The book is only four chapters long, however, and is worth re-reading. )  The great fish is provided by God to save Jonah; the fish returns Jonah to the dry land in faithful response to the word of God (in contrast to Jonah’s unfaithful response to God’s call); the animals in the city of Nineveh participate in the fast and wear sackcloth; they are called upon by the king to cry mightily to God and to turn from their ways; a worm follows God’s instructions to remove Jonah’s shady vine, and the animals of the city are expressly identified as creatures of God’s concern in the closing words of the book.              

               The story of Jonah is impossible without the animals.  They move the action; from scene to scene the animals are there, doing God’s work, crying out to the Lord, receiving His mercy.  They also underscore some of the central themes of the book, including faith, repentance, and the all-encompassing love of God.  They deserve, but rarely receive, our thoughtful attention.

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.

A NEW CREATION FOR THE ANIMALS, 
OR, DO ALL DOGS GO TO HEAVEN?

The wolf shall live with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the kid,

The calf and the lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them. . . .

They will not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain;

For the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.

                                                                  ~ Isaiah 11:6, 9

            Before my forced blogging hiatus as a result of a broken wrist, I was blogging my way through David Clough’s On Animals, Volume 1: Systematic Theology.  Although it has been some time since my last post on the topic, there is but one chapter left and I think it is time to let the last shoe drop.  As you know if you read those previous posts, I cannot recommend this book highly enough; it provides a very thoughtful and wide-ranging discussion of the place of animals – and humans – in Christian theology, considering our modern understanding of animal nature together with a careful reading of scripture and Christian tradition.  For Clough, taking animal welfare seriously is simply a matter of living in accordance with what Christians have always believed.  I am especially grateful for Clough’s emphasis on animal welfare as “a vital theological task,” which touches on nearly every element of what it means to be a Christian, and for the way he consistently urges us to look at and understand animals in new ways, asking us to appreciate their complexity, their individuality, and their place in the world.  Previous posts in this series are A Vital Theological Task, All Creatures of Our God and King, On Humans and Other Animals, The Heart of the Matter, and Do Animals Sin?  There is also a discussion with the author himself, Q&A With David Clough.  This post will look at Part III of Clough’s book, asking whether animals will be redeemed together with humans.

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.  

          

Thank you, Sarx

I just wanted to share this link to Sarx.com, another site addressing animals and theology.  They were kind enough to ask me about how I came to understand animal welfare as a theological matter.  Here is my reply.  While you are there, check out some of the other great stories and resources on their page. 

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.

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

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

BUT WE’VE ALWAYS DONE IT THAT WAY

(AND ITS COROLLARY, WE’VE NEVER DONE THAT BEFORE)

Behold, I am doing a new thing; now it springs forth, do you not perceive it? I will make a way in the wilderness and rivers in the desert.
                                   Isaiah 43:19   

       Anyone who has ever been involved in church committees is familiar with the cry, “But we’ve always done it that way!”  Whether the topic is the order of service, the language of the prayers, the color of the carpet, or where the cups for coffee hour are stored, church folk are resistant to change.  Of course, this is not unique to church folk (try changing the menu for family holidays), but “the way things have always been” does seem to have a particularly strong pull in our places of worship. 

Dave Walker, Cartoon Church

Perhaps this should not be surprising, since – at least for many Christian traditions – worship is deeply tied with ritual, and when we come to our houses of worship, we want to feel welcome and secure and sure-footed, notwithstanding Anne Dillard’s excellent admonition that we should come prepared for anything, wearing crash helmets.[1]  Often we have treasured memories of walking down that carpet on our wedding day or with our newly-baptized infant; we remember how that one particular prayer got us through a difficult time and it comforts us to say it again every Sunday.[2]  In a rapidly changing world, we like to think that here, at least, we can rely on things to be as they have always been.  Introducing new practices is hard, can lead to conflict, and needs to be undertaken with care. 

            Introducing new ideas is even harder.  Introducing new ideas that ask people to change long-cherished practices is, perhaps, hardest of all.  For church leaders, balancing so many things and facing so many challenges (not least declining church membership), it might be too much to ask.  Even so:

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]

DO ANIMALS SIN?           

“The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.  So the Lord said, ‘I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created – and with them the animals, the birds and creatures that move along the ground – for I regret that I have made them.

                                                                          ~  Genesis 6:6-7

            Throughout his book, On Animals, David Clough consistently challenges our common human understanding of “animals” as simple creatures, wholly separate from humans.  Instead, he develops a complex image of our fellow creatures, urging us to appreciate the wide range of creatures with whom we share this planet, the richness and complexity of their lives, and many ways humans and other animals are alike.  In addressing the doctrine of atonement, he continues to invite us to broaden our understanding of other animals’ places before God, asking, among other things, whether animals sin and whether they are in need of reconciliation with God.     

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

IN CONVERSATION: 

Q&A With David Clough

"When Christians get the chance to think about these issues, they recognize that treating other animals better is an obvious step to take in putting into practice a faith-based view of the world."

                                          -  David Clough

   
         Not long ago, I reached out to David Clough, whose book On Animals Volume I: Systematic Theology, I've been discussing in my last few posts (here, here, and here).  We corresponded about his book and his thoughts about animal advocacy within the Christian community, where it stands now, where it may be going, and what we can do.  Here are some of his thoughts on these topics and others.

Q:      How did you first become interested in animals as a matter of theological concern?

A: Questions of origin are always interesting! I remember a classmate at school giving a presentation against laboratory research on animals when I was 14 that impressed me. I also remember sitting alone on a Scottish hill in the Cairngorms during a hiking trip, and witnessing a reindeer walk past only a short distance away, look at me in the eye for what seemed a long time, and then amble slowly off. I became vegetarian when I was 18. I’m convinced that my Christian faith was a key influence on this choice: a simple belief that that if it’s possible to live without depending on the suffering and killing of others of God’s animal creatures, that is obviously preferable for Christians. Since then I’ve been surprised at how few fellow Christians make a similar connection, and I think it was that puzzlement, a sense of wanting to explore the issue in depth, and a sense of the scandal in the way we treat other animals, especially in intensive farming, that motivated me to focus my academic work on the topic. I’d like to persuade fellow Christians that they have faith-based reasons for respecting the lives of their fellow animal creatures before God. 

THE LEAST OF THESE

Matthew 25: 41- 44, 45

Then he will say to those at his left hand, "You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels, 

For I was hungry and you gave me no food.

I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,

I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing,

Sick and in prison and you did not visit me.

. . . Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me."

May God give us ears to hear and eyes to see; and may God help us to do better.    


_________________________________________________________________
Photo credits: 
Horse: eXtensionHorses CC-BY-SA-2.0 via Wikimedia Commons
Puppy mill: public domain
Dog in the snow: Radu Sigheti/Reuters, TheStar.com
Battery caged chickens:  Maqi CC-BY-SA-3.0  via Wikimedia Commons
Pigs in gestation crates: Farm Sanctuary
Monkey in lab: public domain

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).  

FOOD IN PRAYER, PRACTICE, AND PLANNING

        

         As we plan for feasts this holiday season, here are three things to keep in mind:

 First, here is an article by Bruce Friedrich in Reflections, a publication of the Yale Divinity School: Toward A Divine Diet.  In it, Bruce (whom I've mentioned before), talks about faith and veganism.  He addresses the many impacts of eating animals, discusses food choice as a way of prayer, and suggests, "Eating connects us to the processes that go into producing our food, and by choosing to eat plants, and not animals -- as it was in the beginning and as it will be -- we can all begin to live God's peaceful vision for all of God's creation." 

    Second, and by way of contrast, here is Mark Bittman in the Washington Post with an article entitled "How A National Food Policy Could Save Millions Of American Lives," addressing the sorry state of our current national food policy, and the grievous implications that has on our health.  While he does not discuss food as a theological issue, what he has to say shows that we are reaping what we have sown in our disregard for our roles as stewards of God's animals, God's planet, and God's people. 

     And finally, here are some amazing-sounding cruelty-free holiday recipes from the Choose Veg blog, so we can all develop our own compassion-based diet in celebration of God's compassion toward us and all that He has made. 

      Eat plants, pray to God, love His creatures.  Amen.

Eating connects us to the processes that go into producing our food, and by choosing to eat plants, and not animals – as it was in the beginning and as it will be – we can all begin to live God’s peaceful vision for all of God’s creation. - See more at: http://reflections.yale.edu/article/risk-our-food-our-water-ourselves/toward-divine-diet#sthash.qrGfK6eV.dpu

Eating connects us to the processes that go into producing our food, and by choosing to eat plants, and not animals – as it was in the beginning and as it will be – we can all begin to live God’s peaceful vision for all of God’s creation. - See more at: http://reflections.yale.edu/article/risk-our-food-our-water-ourselves/toward-divine-diet#sthash.qrGfK6eV.dpuf

Yet slowly but surely, faith communities are recognizing that food matters – that food choices are not just political, but spiritual too. And as more of us do, the dire ramifications of meat consumption, as well as the inevitable cognitive dissonance of expressing mercy for animals while habitually killing and eating them, will disintegrate. - See more at: http://reflections.yale.edu/article/risk-our-food-our-water-ourselves/toward-divine-diet#sthash.qrGfK6eV.dpuf

Yet slowly but surely, faith communities are recognizing that food matters – that food choices are not just political, but spiritual too. And as more of us do, the dire ramifications of meat consumption, as well as the inevitable cognitive dissonance of expressing mercy for animals while habitually killing and eating them, will disintegrate. - See more at: http://reflections.yale.edu/article/risk-our-food-our-water-ourselves/toward-divine-diet#sthash.qrGfK6eV.dpuf

Yet slowly but surely, faith communities are recognizing that food matters – that food choices are not just political, but spiritual too. And as more of us do, the dire ramifications of meat consumption, as well as the inevitable cognitive dissonance of expressing mercy for animals while habitually killing and eating them, will disintegrate. - See more at: http://reflections.yale.edu/article/risk-our-food-our-water-ourselves/toward-divine-diet#sthash.qrGfK6eV.dpuf

A Vital Theological Task

“I agree with Barth, however, that theology is finally fruitless unless the results of its reflections are brought to bear on questions of practice.”

“The animal question is a properly theological one in the sense that it raises and illuminates issues concerning the adequacy and coherence of Christian doctrine in the areas of trinity, creation, covenant, incarnation, atonement, eschatology, Christology, pneumatology, and beyond.”

                    ~ David L. Clough,

                                                        On Animals, Volume I: Systematic Theology

            We should seek to live according to what we say we believe, and our relationships with animals touch on nearly every aspect of what it means to be Christian.  These are two animating themes underlying David L. Clough’s book, On Animals, Volume I: Systematic Theology.  Since they are also two animating themes underlying this blog, you will not be surprised to learn that I am a big fan of this book.  Clough comes at these issues by delving into fundamental Christian doctrines to see where and how animals, and our relationships with them, might fit into or be informed by those doctrines.  I want to consider a number of ideas Clough discusses and I will do so over the course of several (not necessarily consecutive) posts in coming months.  Today, I just want to consider Clough’s forward and introduction, by way of setting the stage and explaining why I am so excited about this book. 

My dog-eared copy