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.

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 PTSD AND BACON

Therefore, if food is a cause of their falling, I will never eat meat, 
so that I may not cause one of them to fail.
                                                                      - 1 Corinthians 8:13 

        I recently saw a link to a February 2014 article in Texas Observer, titled, "PTSD In The Slaughterhouse."  (I posted a link to it on the Dominion In The Image Of God Facebook page, so you may have seen it there.)  This came shortly after I attended the Humane Society of the United States' annual conference, Taking Action For Animals (TAFA), and the two incidents together gave me much food for thought.  The article is a short piece, and well worth clicking through to read, but here is what particularly caught my eye - and my heart:

Slaughterhouse employees are not only exposed to a battery of physical dangers on the cut floor, but the psychological weight of their work erodes their well being. As one former abattoir employee attests in the book Slaughterhouse: The Shocking Story of Greed, Neglect, and Inhumane Treatment Inside the U.S. Meat Industry:

“The worst thing, worse than the physical danger, is the emotional toll. If you work in the stick pit [where hogs are killed] for any period of time—that let’s [sic] you kill things but doesn’t let you care. You may look a hog in the eye that’s walking around in the blood pit with you and think, ‘God, that really isn’t a bad looking animal.’ You may want to pet it. Pigs down on the kill floor have come up to nuzzle me like a puppy. Two minutes later I had to kill them. … I can’t care.”

It will come as no surprise that the consequences of such emotional dissonance include domestic violence, social withdrawal, drug and alcohol abuse, and severe anxiety. As slaughterhouse workers are increasingly being treated for post-traumatic stress disorder, researchers are finally starting to systematically explore the results of killing sentient animals for a living.

      I've written before about the link between violence to animals and violence to humans.  I've also written about how we are all connected, and there will be no peace, no shalom, for humans until there is shalom for the animals; that is, humans will never know peace until we recognize that we are called by God to care for the animals, not to exploit them.  

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

CHICKENS ARE BACK IN THE NEWS 

“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves; ensure justice for those being crushed.”

                                         ~   Proverbs 31:8 (New Living Translation)

            Back in October, I wrote a post titled, “Opening Our Eyes – To Chickens.”   That post addressed an article about a proposed change to USDA regulations governing chicken slaughter.  The proposal would speed up the slaughter lines, allowing 175 chickens to be killed every minute (up from the current 140 birds).  Animal advocates (among others) opposed the measure because every year, even under current speeds, nearly one million chickens are not killed in the slaughter line and are instead dropped alive into scalding water.  I argued that this is the kind of information that demands Christian attention. 

            The proposal remains pending and last week I saw another article about this same proposal and it made me even angrier than the first.

Washington Post, full credit below

LIVING AS CHILDREN OF THE LIGHT

Once you were darkness, but now in the Lord you are light. Live as children of light – for the fruit of the light is found in all that is good and right and true.  Try to find out what is pleasing to the Lord.  Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.  For it is shameful even to mention what such people do secretly; but everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for everything that becomes visible is light.  Therefore it says, “Sleeper, awake! Rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.”

                                                                                ~  Ephesians 5:8-14

                This week’s opening quotation is from the second lesson for the Fourth Sunday in Lent, just about two weeks ago.  As I heard these words read during the church service, I could not help but think of recent coverage I had seen regarding the latest round of “ag gag” bills, sometimes known as anti-whistleblower laws, introduced in various state legislatures.  These are bills that, in various forms, seek to make it a crime to photograph or film farm animal operations without the permission of the business owner.  In other words, these are laws aimed at ending undercover investigations of animal abuse at factory farms.  They aim to keep those abuses “in the darkness.”

HOW MANY PIGS IS A HUMAN WORTH?

THE GADARENE PIGS

PART II

“The moral problem can be safely dismissed: one man is of greater value than many swine.”

                                      ~ I. Howard Marshall[1]

Last week I began a discussion about the troubling story told in all three synoptic gospels in which Jesus heals a man (or two men) possessed by demons by allowing the demons to enter a nearby herd of swine, who then rush into the sea and drown.  In that post, I took a careful look at the context and details of the story, with particular emphasis on the Gospel of Matthew.  I argued that the context of the story, Jesus’ escalating demonstrations of power, and the setting, in the tombs of the city, point to an apocalyptic message.  The purpose of the story is to demonstrate that Jesus has power not only over sickness, as various healings had shown, and not only over the natural elements, commanding the wind and water, but also over the powers of darkness.  With “one little word,” he conquers demons who had terrorized the population of the city. 

This week, I’d like to examine some of the interpretations that have been made of the story, and of the significance of the pigs, and to offer my own.  As I noted at the close of last week’s post, most commentaries addressing this story do not focus on the pigs, but have nevertheless considered a variety of interpretations of their meaning and role.  The pigs have been regarded as ironic, comic, symbolic, evidentiary, disposable, and fictional.  They have rarely been considered as sentient being with inherent value to God.

Miracle of the Gadarene Swine, Briton Riviere, 1883, Tate Gallery

HOW MANY PIGS IS A HUMAN WORTH?

THE GADARENE PIGS

PART ONE


“The demons begged him, ‘If you cast us out, send us into the herd of swine’” 
                                                                    Matthew 8:31

            The story of Jesus confronting a demoniac (or demoniacs, depending on which gospel you are reading) and “sending”[1] the demons into a nearby herd of swine, who then rush into the sea and drown, is told in all three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke).  It is a troubling story for those of us who care about animals and what scripture has to say about our relationships to animals, and it has been used over the years to justify much animal cruelty.  It is, therefore, an important story to consider carefully, and for that reason I propose to do so in two parts.  In this part, I want to look carefully at the various elements of the story as it is told in all three gospels, with particular emphasis on the Gospel of Matthew.  Next week, I will consider various interpretations of the story and offer my own. 

Miracle of Gadarene Swine

In the Gospel of Matthew, the story is told in verse 8:28-9:1.  The story opens with Jesus arriving in a boat on the shores of “the country of the Gadarenes” [2] (8:28), and closes with him leaving to “cross the sea,” obviously also in a boat, to go to “his own town” (9:1).  This frames the actions on shore and focuses our attention.  Our attention has also been heightened by the way Matthew has built his portrait of Jesus thus far.  After the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus came down from the mountain and began enacting the kingdom about which he had been teaching.  He performed three healings, including healings both within and outside of the Jewish community and healings through touch and at a distance.  All of this, Matthew explains, is to fulfill the prophet Isaiah.  Jesus is the one who has been foretold.  Next Jesus taught again, this time about the costs and urgency of discipleship.  The message is that what is happening in Jesus is something more important than anything that has gone before - more important even than Jewish law, since disciples are to “leave the dead to bury their own dead” (8:21).  Then Jesus commanded even the wind and the sea and the disciples are left flabbergasted and awestruck, wondering, “what sort of man is this?” (8:27).

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. 

Because He Had No Pity

Because he had no pity

Nathan’s Confrontation of David in 2 Samuel 12

David’s burned with anger against the man and said to Nathan, “As surely as the Lord lives, the man who did this must die!  He must pay for that lamb four times over because he did such a thing and had no pity." Then Nathan said to David, "You are the man!"

                                                                                  ~ 2 Samuel 12:5-7

           

While scripture is replete with stories of animals, we rarely focus on them, unless we consider the animals as allegories or metaphors for some element of the human relationship with God. Today I want to turn the tables just a bit and look at a story of human interaction to see what it has to say about our interactions with animals.  The story of David, Bathsheba, Uriah, and Nathan is a story of the use and abuse of power.  It is a story well worth the church's attention.  If you have read earlier posts, especially this one, this one, and this one, you know that I believe that power is at the heart of our relationship with animals, so scripture’s teachings on the use of power go to the heart of how we rightly exercise dominion, and that it is matter of urgency that the church speak up about our misuse of power over animals. 

While my focus is on the confrontation between King David and the prophet Nathan, the story really begins when David spies Bathsheba from a rooftop.  

David and Bathsheba by Artemisia Gentileschi

Briefly told, David orders his servants to bring Bathsheba to him, although he knew she was married to his faithful soldier Uriah, who was away fighting a war on David’s behalf. Later, when Bathsheba surprises David by telling him she is pregnant, David first tries to have Uriah come home so he will think the baby is his, and when that fails, he arranges to have Uriah killed in battle.  He marries Bathsheba to hide his adultery. 

            This is a turning point in David’s rule.  As D.M. Gunn puts it, here David turns “from gift to grasp.”[1]  Until this time, David, while not perfect and always pragmatic, has been a man after God’s own heart.[2]  He has prayed regularly, ruled justly, and enjoyed success after success against considerable odds.  Yet in this setting of plenty, David took what was not his.[3]  With these actions, David behaved like the kings of other nations - a king who takes what he likes, not because he needs anything, but simply because he can. “But the thing that David had done was evil in the sight of the Lord and the Lord sent Nathan to David.” (11:27-12:1).[4]  Here is where the confrontation begins.

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. 

           

IS VEGETARIANISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S INTENTIONS?
CREATION CARE AND ANIMALS, PART THREE

In my last two posts, here and here, I have considered the ways in which creation care has made great strides in moving us away from thinking of humans as entitled to exploit the earth, but has failed to bring us to accountability for our treatment of animals.   Too often, creation care authors consider animals as part of “nature,” to be grouped together with plants and waterways, rather than as individual sentient beings, more similar to humans than trees.  Norman Wirzba is a well-known agrarian theologian whose book, Food & Faith: A Theology of Eating[1], illustrates how failing to make this distinction can lead to conclusions that I believe are seriously flawed theologically, ethically, and practically.   

Wirzba proposes that choosing not to eat meat may be thwarting God’s intentions. Wirzba’s reasoning is complex, beginning with the inevitability of death and the Christian belief in death as a means to greater life.  He considers the ancient sacrificial system, which called upon its practitioners to give up something of value, and portrays all of creation as God’s eternal self-giving wherein all creatures feed on one another.  In this context, he theorizes, refusing to eat of God’s bounty, including the animals, is a refusal of God.

PIGS ARE NOT "THE LAND"

CREATION CARE AND ANIMALS, PART TWO

“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves; ensure justice for those being crushed.”
                                                                              Prov.31:8, New Living Translation

Last week, I began a look at a theological perspective variously known as “creation care,” “green theology,” “ecotheology,” and similar terms.  I noted that while this perspective has done excellent work in helping us to understand that Scripture places on humans obligations toward the rest of creation, rather than simply conferring rights, it falls short in addressing our obligations toward animals.  The problem lies in the fact that these authors most often fail to distinguish between sentient and non-sentient elements of the non-human creation.  They tend to consider animals as part of “nature.”  This allows them – and us - (intentionally or otherwise) to disregard the fact that animals are individuals and have value apart from their environment.  It also makes it easy to think of animals as “out there” – in the wild somewhere, and lets us avoid turning our gaze on the animals we impact most directly – the ones in places like factory farms and puppy mills and laboratories.[1] 

Ellen F. Davis, in her book, Scripture, Culture, and Agriculture, does turn her eyes directly on farm animals, ever so briefly, and in so doing helps to illustrate the disconnect between concern for animals and concern for the environment even when food is the topic. [2]  Davis has provided what she subtitles “An Agrarian Reading of the Bible.”  She describes agrarianism as “a way of thinking and ordering life in community that is based on the health of the land and of living creatures.”  

            Davis offers in this work a thorough-going indictment of our modern food delivery system.  “In this half-century,” she says, “it has given North Americans probably the cheapest food in human history, but at what cost?”[3]  She addresses at some length the destruction industrial agriculture wreaks on the land, on the farming families who cannot compete with this industrial model, and on “the natural machinery that supports life on Earth,” and puts it all in the context of the biblical covenant and the tie of the ancient Israelites to the land.[4]  She also addresses a host of other natural, economic, and social impacts of industrial agriculture.  One looks in vain, however, for any sustained discussion of the catastrophic suffering industrial agriculture imposes on animals or its theological implications.

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] 

ASK THE ANIMALS AND THEY WILL TELL YOU, PART FOUR:

FARM ANIMALS AND SENTIENCE

When a man’s love of finery clouds his moral judgment, that is vanity. When he lets a demanding palate make his moral choices, that is gluttony. When he ascribes divine will to his own whims, that is pride. And when he gets angry at being reminded of animal suffering that his own daily choices might help avoid, that is moral cowardice.

                                                                                     ~ Matthew Scully

            We have seen in Parts One, Two, and Three of this series that animals feel, are aware of, and suffer from physical pain, that they can suffer emotionally, from fear, sadness, and depression, and that they are more intelligent than previously believed, more engaged in their surroundings, and capable of suffering from boredom, as well.  Conversely, animals are also capable of experiencing the richness of life, enjoying their surroundings, forming meaningful relationships with others of their own and other species, and enjoying the task of learning new things.  God has made the animals, like humans, for abundance and joy. 

            This Part Four will look specifically at how farm animals experience the world.  I want to look at these creatures in particular because they suffer in far and away the greatest numbers, they suffer extreme cruelties at human hands, and nearly all of us participate in these cruelties through our purchasing decisions.  But because our diets and purchasing habits are so deeply engrained as habits and traditions in our lives, they are the animals we are most likely to “forget” or to fail to recognize as individuals (not herds, or flocks, or food), or to turn away from when we are asked to consider how we impact their lives.  This post looks at farm animal sentience. It touches only very briefly on how we treat them.  That will be considered in more detail in a later post. 

ANIMALS ARE PEOPLE, TOO

“Then the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey, and it said to Balaam, ‘What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?’ . . . The angel of the Lord said to [Balaam], “Why have you struck your donkey these three times?”

                                                        ~ Numbers 22:28, 32

“Animals are people, too.”  I used to say this with some regularly years ago – before I ever dreamed of becoming an animal advocate and when I was blissfully unaware of philosophical controversies over what makes a “person” – because it seemed self-evident to me that animals were unique individuals with their own viewpoints on the world and were therefore “people.”  Fast forward several years to when I was writing my proposal for my master’s thesis at Wesley Seminary. I included some language (I don’t remember what it was) potentially attributing “personhood” to animals.  My advisor warned, “Don’t go there.  You don’t need to, and you’ll only get yourself into trouble.”   

It was good advice, but I am going to “go there” today because I want to talk about justice. 

ON IMAGE AND VALUE

“God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good.”

                                                                     ~  Genesis 1:31

            It is something of a theological commonplace that human beings have a unique inherent value because we are created in the image of God.  So imbedded is this idea, in fact, that it is even right there in Wikipedia:

The Image of God (Hebrew: צֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים; tzelem elohim, lit. "image of God", "image of the Holy Spirit", often appearing in Latin as Imago Dei) is a real image, concept and theological doctrine in Christianity, Judaism and Sufi Islam which asserts that human beings are created in God's image and therefore have inherent value independent of their utility or function.[1]

By way of just a few recent examples of this idea in current theological writing: Dr. Denis Alexander of the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion has explained:

Theologians have spent many centuries mining the rich vein of the 'image of God' metaphor. Central to the idea is humanity with spiritual capabilities and responsibilities, equipped for moral decision-making and a relationally rich life in community. Historically, the idea has contributed to the conviction that each human individual has an absolute value, independent of their ethnicity, educational level, health status or income.

Dr. Art Lindsey of the Institute for Faith, Work, and Economics has likewise stated: 

Note that mankind is made in the image and likeness of God, meaning that human worth is connected to the Creator. If God is of great and inestimable worth, then human beings made in his image must be of great value. Note also that man and woman have equal dignity before God as his image-bearers.

And Dr. Ellen Davis has written:

Before anything else, creation in the image of God indicates that human life has both value and form: inestimable value and a form that is uniquely and richly expressive of divine intentions.[2]

I beg to differ.

           

OPENING OUR EYES - TO CHICKENS

“Think occasionally of the suffering of which you spare yourself the sight.”
 
                                                                    ~  Rev. Dr. Albert Schweitzer  

            I was going to post today Part Two of my discussion of the minority voice within the Christian tradition that has always recognized our obligations to our fellow creatures.  An article in the Washington Post this week, however, made me change my plans because I think it demands that we stop and pay attention.  This is what we, as people of faith, need to open our eyes to, to open our mouths about, and to open our hearts for.

            On October 29, the Washington Post published this article, titled USDA Plan To Speed Up Poultry-Processing LinesCould Increase Risk Of Bird Abuse.  Here is the opening sentence:

Nearly 1 million chickens and turkeys are unintentionally boiled alive each year in U.S. slaughterhouses, often because fast-moving lines fail to kill the birds before they are dropped into scalding water, Agriculture Department records show.

This is under the current system, which allows slaughter lines to move so fast that 140 chickens or 45 turkeys can be slaughtered in one minute.  The new regulations will allow 175 chickens or 55 turkeys per minute to speed to their deaths.  I encourage you to read the entire article.  While it is not graphic, it does detail the process by which chickens and turkeys are slaughtered, the problems that come with the astonishing speed with which the birds are killed, and the potential additional problems with the new regulations.  It also points out that poultry, by far the largest percentage of animals slaughtered for food in this country, are not protected by the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. 

            This is not a fun read, but it is an important one.  As people of faith, we do not have the luxury of closing our eyes to the suffering we support with our purchasing decisions.   As people created in the image of God, we are called to reflect God’s image to all of creation.  R. C. Sproul has said, “When we sin as the image bearers of God, we are saying to the whole creation, to all of nature under our dominion, to the birds of the air and the beasts of the field: ‘This is how God is. This is how your Creator behaves. Look in the mirror; look at us, and you will see the character of God Almighty.’”  We might add that this is what we are saying to the birds of the poultry production plant, as well.