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.  

          

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:

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. 

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

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

Living Legacy:  Faith Voices on Animal Protection (Updated 11/1/14)

        Here is a great new three-part video series from the Human Society of the United States Faith Outreach Department.  In this series, three notable animal advocates, whose faith inspires their concern for animals, speak about three such figures from the past.  HSUS explains: 

• Eric Metaxas discusses William Wilberforce, an evangelical member of Britain’s Parliament, best known for championing the equal rights of all human beings through the passage of the Foreign Slave Trade Act (1806-07). Wilberforce also passionately fought for the welfare of animals, seeing a direct link between how humans treat animals and how they treat their neighbors.
• Dr. Karen Swallow Prior discusses Hannah More and her commitment to reforming culture. More, a close friend of William Wilberforce, advocated for the abolition of slavery and the improvement of morals, education, religion and animal welfare.
• Dr. Jerry Root discusses C.S. Lewis and the concern he had for animals throughout his life. A writer and Christian apologist, Lewis is best known for his fictional work, especially The Chronicles of Narnia, and for his nonfiction such as Mere Christianity and The Problem of Pain.

Here is a link to a discussion of the series in Desert News.   As noted in that article, and as these videos make clear, there is a long history of people committed to living into their faith taking up the banner of animal welfare,even if the topic is rarely addressed in our faith communities:

The forgotten faith connection
Animal welfare activism, like environmentalism, is often associated with liberal politics and secular culture in American society.

Prior said that's likely because faith leaders stopped talking about the issue in their communities, leaving other social issues to fill the void.

"Anytime the church fails (to address) a topic, then other voices are going to pick it up," she said. "And they're not going to pick it up in the same way we would."

Metaxas shared a similar sentiment in one of the Wilberforce videos, explaining that, "Many people write it off as a left-wing obsession, but the reality is that the roots of it comes from people of faith."

In fact, for 34 of the Humane Society's 60 years of operation, the organization was under the leadership of an ordained pastor. John Hoyt, a Presbyterian minister, served as president from 1970 to 1992 and Paul Irwin, a Methodist minister, from 1992 to 2004.

We are in good company, indeed, when we argue for Christian concern for animals -- and when we argue that how we relate to animals is an important issue of faith, and that the concern for animals and the concern for humans goes hand in hand. 

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

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. 

ARE CHURCH LEADERS SENTIENT?[1]

The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?

                                                                 ~  Jeremy Bentham, 1748-1832

                    An Introduction To The Principles Of Morals And Legislation

            I apologize that this week I have not had time to write a reflection on scripture and animals.  I did, however attend a two-day conference this week entitled The Science of Animal Thinking and Emotion: Sentience as a Factor in Policy and Practice, and I’d like to offer just a few thoughts on why I attended this conference, what I learned, and why the church should care. 

            The conference was sponsored by the Humane Society Institute for Science & Policy and featured scientists and policy makers from a wide range of disciplines and from around the world.  We learned about studies being done regarding the emotional and intellectual lives of dogs, chimps, bonobos, fish, farm animals, prairie dogs, and crocodilians.  We heard about the impacts the advances in our understanding of animal sentience has had in the European Union, strides being made in China, and the role of media in shaping public understanding and opinion of proper treatment of animals.  It was a very full two days. 

COMMON CREATURELINESS:

CREATION CARE AND ANIMALS, PART FOUR

“For the fate of humans 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; for all is vanity.  All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again.”

                                                                  ~ Ecclesiastes 3:19-20.

            In my last three posts, I have looked at the work of various creation care authors who, while making many excellent points regarding our right relationship with the earth, have failed to address our right relationship with animals.  At least one author, however, shows us how a “green theology” perspective can specifically address our obligations to animals.  
          In his book, Living With Other Creatures: Green Exegesis And Theology[1], Richard Bauckham considers how the church has traditionally understood its relationship with animals and reconsiders that relationship, analyzing several scriptural passages that deal directly and indirectly with animals.  He considers two issues in particular, the ecological setting of first century Palestine and Jesus’ role in ushering in the kingdom of God, “in order to show that the kingdom includes the whole of creation and that some of the acts in which Jesus anticipated the coming kingdom point to the redemption of the human relationship with the rest of creation.”[2]  He does this, however, without conflating animals with non-sentient creation. 

           

WHALES ARE NOT TREES:

CREATION CARE AND ANIMALS, PART ONE

God intends our care of the creation to reflect our love for the Creator.
                                                       ~   Dr. John R. W. Stott  

In the last several decades a theological movement variously known as “creation care,” “green theology,” “ecotheology,” or similar terms has taken hold in the church.  Theologians writing from this perspective have done yeoman’s work, arguing for a re-imagining of our understanding of “dominion,” away from an idea of unfettered power and toward and idea of “stewardship,” that is, responsible care and management, of the earth and its resources.[1]  Several recent authors addressing this theme have argued that we are to look to Christ as the perfect image of God, which tells us beyond any dispute that “dominion” cannot be understood as power without responsibility.   This last argument may sound familiar to readers of this blog, as I have argued from this same perspective in developing my own arguments about our relationships with animals. 

The main focus of creation care, however, is environmental stewardship, and its proponents often fail to understand or address the distinction between animals as sentient individuals, and the earth, water, and sky, to which we also owe important and related, but differing, responsibilities.  

Photo credit: David Wye

 Creation care, then, is a helpful step away from the traditional understanding of humans as entitled to exploit creation for solely human benefit, but it is insufficient, as currently articulated, to bring us to terms with the cruelty inherent in our current societal relationship with animals and the ways we, as members of faith communities, support that cruelty.  To the good work of these creation care authors we must add an awareness of the theological significance of the suffering of other creatures and recognize our obligations to address that suffering as distinct from, but in concert with, obligations to preserve the non-sentient earth.[2] 

MORE FOOD FOR THOUGHT

Here is another very interesting and thoughtful blog on the subject of animals and Christianity for those of you who just can't get enough of this stuff.  I recommend it to your attention.  Theological Animal  

MINORITY REPORT – PART TWO: 

JOHN WESLEY AND HUMPHREY PRIMATT

We may pretend to what religion we please, but cruelty is atheism.
We may make our boast of Christianity; but cruelty is infidelity. We may trust to our orthodoxy; but cruelty is the worst of heresies.

                                                                  ~ Rev.  Humphrey Primatt 

This post picks up the discussion I began earlier addressing the fact that, while the church as an institution may have been silent about -- or even hostile to -- the idea of animal welfare as a Christian concern, there have always been people of faith with a different view.  John Wesley and Humphrey Primatt were two eighteenth century Anglican clergy who understood our obligations for mercy toward animals as a matter of faith and spoke publicly about it. 

John Wesley, who founded the Methodist tradition, addressed the issue most directly in his 1771 sermon, The GeneralDeliverance.  Humphrey Primatt is much less well-known today, but he tackled the issue head-on in a tract of some 300-plus pages titled ADissertation on the Duty of Mercy and the Sin of Cruelty to Brute Animals, published in 1776.  They do not agree on all the theological particulars, but they do agree that we have an obligation as followers of Christ to be merciful to all God’s creatures.