An Engagement with David Cloughs On Animals: Systematic Theology (Vol.

1) (2012) by: Joshua Duffy

I have just finished David Cloughs On Animals: Systematic Theology (Volume 1) recently and felt like I had to engage it on a much deeper level, so I want to take you through it and wrestle with some of the ideas presented.

David Clough is Acting Head of the Department and Professor of Theological Ethics at the University of Chester in England. His research is at the interface between systematic theology and theological ethics, and includes:

the theology and ethics of Karl Barth Christian thought concerning war and peace the place of animals in Christian theology and ethics1

I have read a few books on the theology of animals and about the ethical issues surrounding our relationship with them, but this book is far and above any that I have yet read. I think the ideas Clough presents are worth wrestling with, and I look forward to the dialogue.

http://www.chester.ac.uk/departments/trs/staff/clough

Introduction
2

The argument of this book is simple. Christian theology has come to rely on ill-considered

renditions of the distinction between human beings and other animals that are implausible, unbiblical, theologically problematic and ethically misleading.3

Clough has a bone to pick, with Christian theology. He will argue how unjustly biased human beings have been regarding their opinions on other-than-human life. I would agree. We are selfishly anthropocentric4; to such an extent that we push this view on God as well. Because we view ourselves as the pinnacle of creation, we believe God must think this way too. This is not necessarily truth, especially in light of a thorough study of scripture and even the most superficial contemplation of ecological sustainability.

The abuse and degradation of animals has become so commonplace in our time that we rarely give a second thought to the inhumane practices, we may know or not know, we commit daily. We are all inhumane. For example, how many of you can state categorically where your meat comes from, and how the animals are treated? According toJonathan Foer in his excellent5 book Eating Animals, 99% of all land animals eaten or used to produce milk and eggs in the U.S. are factory farmed.6 For those of us here in Canada breathing a sigh of relief,
2

As we begin, FYI, all direct quotes from On Animals will be italicized. I figure it will help keep Cloughs thoughts distinct from my own.
3

On Animals, Kindle Location 103 or, in laymans terms, human-centered. In my humble, subjective opinion. http://goo.gl/zPmHb

although our numbers are probably not quite as high, you can rest assured that most of our meat is factory farmed. If you dont know exactly what factory farmed even means, a quick trip to Google will provide you with enough horrors to disturb your eating habits for a little while anyway. In light of this, I feel it necessary to re-examine our relationship with the animal kingdom, not valuing them simply for our own conveniences, but providing them with the dignity of independent inherent worth. In the period of the history of the Christian Church, we have travelled from a time in which the killing of animals was only permitted within religious rituals to a time in which 60 billion animals7 per year are killed for human consumption, the majority of which are raised, slaughtered and processed in factory conditions far removed from the sight or concern of their consumers.8 This is an astronomical amount of sentient life being treated as common commodities and/or resources for the sole benefit of human beings. Is this the purpose of Gods creation of them? We each have to answer this question for ourselves, but I think hardly not. Anthropocentrism9 is a HUGE word when it comes to looking at humans relations with the animal kingdom. I use the word animal loosely because it is quite evident scientifically that humans are a kind of animal (or creature) as well, just of a different species. Anthropocentrism basically means viewing the world with human beings as central.10 As odd as it may sound to some ears, this has been a debated topic at least as far back as Xenophanes in the sixth century

Foer estimates 450 billion globally. http://goo.gl/zPmHb On Animals, 120.

Once again, human-centered; get used to this word and mark its meaning if you dont already know it. It will come up again and again.
10

Ibid., 181.

BC.11 At the end of the 3rd Century AD, Celsus actually attacked Christianity for its nave view that humans are the aim and centre of creation, which were countered by Origen.12 Really, it is challenging to find an early Church Father who did not advocate an anthropocentric slant in their theology. An exception would be St. Basil the Great (of Caesarea). This is not a great deterrent to viewing animals in a more-liberating light though. Scripture and Jewish/Christian tradition are filled with examples of non-human-centered theology.13 Even though it may be hard to restrict our thinking of ourselves in a way that is much too liberal, the result of such thinking will humble ourselves to an extent where we see things, and live our lives, more God-like.

Clearly the Bible and the theological tradition are inevitably perspectivally anthropocentric, in that they look at God and the world from a human point of view and take an understandable interest in how God and the world relate to the human situation. Teleological anthropocentrism goes further in asserting that this human view of things is also the viewpoint of God: not only are we central in our own view of God and the world, but this human perspective is also an accurate representation of our centrality in Gods acts of creation and redemption. Throughout this book I will argue that taking this step of maintaining the centrality of humanity to Gods purposes is biblically and theologically both unnecessary and undesirable, and therefore that Christianity should be distinguished by its theocentrism, rather than anthropocentrism.14 Anthropocentrism is not bad in itself; after all, as humans we undoubtedly interpret things in a
11

Ibid. Ibid., 185.

12

13

For examples in the Jewish tradition, see my paper Animal Rights in the First Covenant. http://www.joshandjenny.org/animalrightsinot.html
14

On Animals, 221.

way that is pro-self. As Clough argues above, this gets twisted when we assume God takes the same view of things that we do (teleological anthropocentrism). There is a great danger in this, and we have seen it through church history, expressed in justification of oppression, racism, hatred, indifference, etc; things which have unfortunately not been minimal occurrences since the Prince of Peace walked the earth. The classic statement God wills it was the cry of the Crusades, but was this really what God willed? Was this the nature Jesus exemplified as the Incarnated God? Troubles arise when we put humans at the center of our theological interpretation rather than God. And if God is at the center then maybe we should withhold dogmatic unorthodox theology which can be argued in other ways, especially when that theology results in the suffering of other sentient life. We need to really think about what God thinks of animals, and how we should act in light of that. Is there a place for the animal kingdom in the areas of creation, reconciliation, and redemption? These are topics which are explored at depth in this work. They are questions worth asking.

PART I. CREATION Chapter 1. The End of Creation

What is the point of creation? If Gods purpose in creating the universe was to establish a relationship with human beings and all other-than-human parts of creation are intended by God to prepare and provide for the human, then everything else is scenery.15 And thus we enter into the bulk of On Animals. A look at creation is rather important because if we can intelligently think about the creation of animals other than human, then we can put off most of our general assumptions regarding it. After all, animals were created before humans,16 Biblically speaking (Gen.1:20-26), and this gives rise to opinions on animals, some more favourable and some less. For example, God created the animals and blessed them (v.22), proclaiming their existence good (v.25), independent from humanity. How long these creatures roamed the earth before Man came on the scene has been hotly debated, but my opinion is that it was a considerable length of time, much longer than a few hours, or a day, even. It really is an interesting question when we stop and take time to think about it. Why were animals created? If God has little concern for them then it would seem that creation is just a backdrop for the star of the show. Is this even conceivable? Has everything been created for the purpose of serving, or complimenting, human beings? It could be said that man is not that exceptional among the created creatures, because he would not be able to exist without the prior forms of creation to sustain him, not because his creation was the last crowning achievement. Therefore, man is dependant upon the lesser forms of creation to exist, as will be touched upon
15

On Animals, Kindle Location 488 In Genesis 1 anyway; Genesis 2 is not the most orthodox creation account!

16

later. Flipping the coin, Martin Luther wrote that God created all these things in order to prepare a house and an inn, as it were, for the future man.17 When God rests from the work of creation, it is because the home is finished and the ruler installed.18 While not trying to beat up on Martin Luther too much (which I am prone to do), he lived in a day when the status of animal theology was severely lacking. It was actually virtually non-existent. It has been effectively argued elsewhere that the goal of creation was not human beings, but the Sabbath, meaning that only after EVERYTHING is created (human beings included) were the words very good used to describe what had been made.19 The creation narrative of Genesis 1 records phases of Gods creative action, the fruits of which are declared good or very good unconditionally, without reference to humanity.20 Human beings were not what was very good, but all of creation. When God saw how good creation was, as a whole, in totality, He then rested (the Sabbath), satisfied in the peace and harmony which existed in His creation. The goal was not humanity, but the Sabbath. This is what will be restored in the coming Kingdom, and how glorious it will be.

The central argument of this chapter is that for key theological reasons and in contrast to influential philosophical world-views, Christian theologians have strong reasons to reject the Its all about us position and recognize the theological dangers in asserting that Gods

17

Martin Luther, Luthers Works, vol.1, p.47, (The Anxiety of the Human Animal: Martin Luther on Non-human Animals and Human Animality, p.42, in Clough/Deane-Drummonds book Creaturely Theology: On God, Humans and Other Animals)
18

Luthers Works 1.73 (Ibid.) Andrew Linzey and Dan Cohn-Sherbok, After Noah: Animals and the Liberation of Theology, 20-21 On Animals, 509.

19

20

purposes in creation can be exclusively identified with human beings.21 Human pride seemingly has little end. We seem helplessly selfish. I think as a whole, human beings would agree that it is good to help members of our own species. Compassion and charity are good things to do. I know there are probably some hyper-Calvinists and/or evolutionists who may agree otherwise, but for the most part, people generally agree that helping people is a good thing. Why though? And more telling, why not for other sentient life forms? Excluding compassion on other sentient life solely because they lie outside your own species is an interesting thing to think about. I have met multiple people who agree it is good to help people, but are extremely selective and subjective about their charity. They will not help people who are not worthy of it, deemed on their own conditional standards. This is something Christianity is meant to rectify. The fact that God has shown us love, mercy, and grace, unconditionally, should spark that same kind of behaviour in those who claim to be His followers. All too often though, even if we do not exclude human beings from our compassion,22 we exclude animals, and even the earth. The choices we make everyday contribute to an unimaginable amount of suffering. I think we need to start looking at the products we consume, and what we are endorsing by way of our purchasing habits.23 Everything we throw in our cart is what we are essentially voting for.

21

Ibid., 501. Which we undoubtedly, unapologetically do.

22

23

For example; like Abercrombie & Fitch? Did ya know they dont mind selling thongs for 7 yr olds with slogans like eye candy and wink wink on them? Or how about padded push-up bikinis for 7 yr olds? http://fashionetc.com/news/retail/1219-abercrombie-fitch-push-up-bikinis-7-girls

Creation: All About Us? Philo of Alexandria (c. 15 BCAD 50) was a Jewish philosopher and theologian, one of the earliest commentators on the Genesis creation narrative and perhaps the most theologically influential advocate of the Its all about us position concerning the purpose of creation. He was strongly influenced by Platonism, and sought to interpret the Mosaic Pentateuch as a philosophical book. Philos commentary on Genesis clearly has Platos Timaeus in mind as a point of comparison.24 Clough then begins to name all the great thinkers in history who have contributed in monumental ways to our current understanding of nonhuman life. Philo, Plato, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, Bonaventure, Martin Luther, John Calvin, William Kirkby, Origen,25 and Irenaeus of Lyons, to give a sample. These were great men historically, and the fact that they had these views must give some weight to their position, which was that man was created last because he was the pinnacle of creation; all things that were created beforehand were so that they would benefit the human being. The stage had been set for the star performer. It is not difficult to find Christian theologians stating that human beings are Gods sole or primary purpose in creation. It is harder, however, to find good theological argument in defence of this proposition.26 This is not to say that it is impossible though. As Clough then believably states, At every point, the central Christian concern to preach the good news of Gods love for human beings seems to be unnecessarily allied with contemporary philosophical and social pressures, emphasizing anthropocentric views of the universe. The weight of
24

On Animals, 550.

25

Responding to Celsus argument that, contrary to the Christian view, everything was made just as much for irrational animals as for men.
26

On Animals, 685.

theological opinion that human beings are Gods aim in creation, therefore, is not matched by a similar weight of theological argument.27 It comes down to what is influencing our interpretation of a text? It is naive to think that nothing influences us, and a great deal of study is involved in finding out the beliefs of others, which may shed light on the development of our own. It is not a secret that Christian theologians flirted with and were influenced by Greek philosophy. This was the world in which they lived. In many instances they were trying to reform their views to match them up with the Scriptures they now believed.28 Such are we. And many of us have lived many years being influenced by many things out the Christian tradition and are still battling with previous strongholds, developed and strengthened in our lives from before we knew Christ. Theological opinion is not necessarily theological fact. We would do well to keep that ever in mind; it will keep us teachable.

Creation: All About God? If we take the Psalms and Job alongside Genesis 1 and 2, ... the view of humanity as central to the project of creation is not a sufficient account of what the Bible has to say about creation: Psalm 104 and the end of the book of Job indicate that a wider vision of Gods purposes is necessary.29 We could read Genesis 1 and deduce that humanity is Gods greatest creative accomplishment, but is that kind of reading true to the Bible as a whole? There are problems

27

Ibid., 693. Theodore Ludwig, The Sacred Paths of the West, 3rd ed, 154. On Animals, 750.

28

29

10

with this kind of exegesis. Clough notes the examples of Psalm 104 and Job 38-39 as proofs of this. There are an abundance of scriptural references stating Gods compassion, care, and concern for other-than-human life which challenge our exclusively held anthropocentric theology.30 Human beings are surely unique within creation, but, everything is unique, in its own way, which confusingly makes everything uniquely common. Differences abound though, as we will see. Clough concludes this section: despite the anthropocentric exuberance noted in the previous section arising from perceived common ground between Christianity and Greek philosophy in the Patristic period, or from new visions of human technological power in the early modern period, the better of the theological argument has always been on the side of those recognizing the importance of affirming the purpose of creation in a theocentric context.31 All too often we tend to look at the Bible very selectively; passing by and/or ignoring things which are challenging to our accepted norms. It is indeed inconvenient when we start asking questions about life other than humans and their possible independent relationship with God. The animal kingdom is one area that does this, but what about the environment? How many decisions do we make each day that are detrimental to the health of our vulnerable planet? Have we been stewarding this gift well? Jenny & I have recently begun to make an effort at least, to be conscious consumers, which means we want to know what our $$$ is promoting. We do some (albeit superficial) background checks on the companies we purchase goods from in an effort to see what they are promoting, and how they are stewarding that which they are responsible for. In other words, what does God want our $$$ to contribute too? What is His purpose, and how can
30

Joshua Duffy, Animal Rights in the First Covenant, 4-5. http://www.joshandjenny.org/animalrightsinot.html On Animals, 769.

31

11

we enter into it? It seems much more practical when we enter into this kind of thinking/acting. A large percentage of Christians that I know seem to have this radically selfish view of ecology. There is just very little thought which is thunk about it. I took a Buddhism course in university and a couple of monks came in for a Q&A. One of the questions I asked them was in relation to their purposes for the Island. A substantial portion of their answer was that they waned to promote organic farming and save the forests. I have never heard this desire from my own church, nor any other Christian church I have visited. It inspired me greatly. I later read in a local newspaper article that they were purchasing land in various localities to put old farm animals who had seemingly outlived their purposes (meaning they were no longer good to produce anything useful for humans) so that they could live out their life in peace, like they believed the animals should have a right to. I think this is very God-like, whether they ascribe to what I believe or not. That said, if we selectively construct a doctrine of creation from Genesis 1 and neglect scriptures such as Psalm 104, we are interpreting the Bible selectively and formulating doctrine which is not the most foundationally structured. There are boundaries for orthodox belief, to be sure, but there is also flexibility. I think this is an area where re-examining our opinions would prove very beneficial, to all of creation.

Creation: All About Itself? Aquinas was working with a mistaken Vulgate translation of Proverbs 16.4: where the version he cites says that God made everything for himself, the correct translation has the very different emphasis that God creates each creature for its own sake. To picture Gods aim in creation as self-glorification is inadequate, (Wolfhart) Pannenberg argues: the creature was not created in
12

order that God should receive glory from it and God has no need of glorification by creatures. He prefers to see Gods goal in creation as Gods creatures32 The point is, God did not create us to glorify Him, which is commonly believed, but not realistically coherent, but He created things to be themselves. They are glorifying in the fact that they exist as they were created by Him. A rat glorifies God naturally, in a way independent from human reasoning. They are glorifying to Him because they are His creatures. Now we will be discussing the ramifications of the Fall of Man in a little bit, but for here it is suffice to say that animals can indeed glorify God; this action is not unique to human beings. Scripture is full of references which attest to this. Does every action animals perform glorify their Creator? I highly doubt it, as they were affected by Mans sin too, but that also leads to interesting questions about natures role (if it has one) in the reconciling event of the cross. This too we will look at in time. The argument being discussed here is supported by a long tradition affirming the goodness of God in creation, originating in the Psalms. Psalm 104 represents an astonishing catalogue of Gods oversight and care for all of Gods creatures, providing water for the wild animals, homes for the birds, making grass grow for the cattle and plants for people, watering the cedars of Lebanon so that birds may nest in them, providing high mountains for wild goat and rocks for rabbits, even making the darkness so that the wild animals of the forest may seek their prey from God (Ps. 104.10 22). All creatures are created through the sending of Gods spirit, have their food from the open hand of God and return to dust when God takes their breath away (Ps. 104.27 30).33 If animals were created by God, then they belong to Him. If He gave human beings
32

Ibid., 777. Ibid., 784.

33

13

dominion (more correctly translated stewardship) over them, then we had better find out His thoughts regarding them. If I was to go away for a time and gave someone dominion over Sonnen, Ping Pong, Milo & Casper, they had better treat them with the same love that I do; else there would be hell to pay upon my return. Lutheran theologians judged it right that God would be concerned with the growth of caterpillars in the grass sprouting in the province of Saxony in a given year, reasoning from Augustines commentary on Matthews gospel that if God despised little things, God would not have created them.34 Christoph Schwobel argues that a theocentric view excludes the self-glorification of the human creature and prevents the kind of anthropocentric attitude where the greater glory of the human creatures has to be achieved at the expense of the rest of creation.35

Gods Fellowship with Creatures appreciating that the purpose of creation is for God to include creatures into the trinitarian fellowship does not deny the particular place of human beings in this fellowship, but simply expands our idea of the fellowship in which we will participate.36 If you have made it this far into this post without consigning Cloughs (and my own) views into the outer darkness, then it must be said that this does not denigrate the idea that human beings are indeed unique among created things. That much should be obvious and I regret having to make a point to specifically mention it at all. Expanding our theology to the subject of

34

Ibid., 798-800. Ibid., 815. Ibid., 863.

35

36

14

the animal kingdom does not restrict humanity, but liberates us to act in ways that are more congruent with the concept of agape. Scriptures which talk about the reconciliation of all things37 start to actually make sense, instead of limiting those all things to only human beings, which makes little sense. There is a much grander scope to Gods reconciliation and involvement than the mere human race. If we get this, really get it, it will revolutionize our lives, and we will work for the better good of humanity, and creation as a whole, living out a truly unconditionally loving life.

Chapter 2. The Place of Animals The Commonality of Creatures the affirmation of God as creator of all things means the subversion of all human attempts to create hierarchy among creatures.38 Nicely put. We humans love to think more of ourselves than is warranted. It is rather amusing that we ever invent new ways of oppression to satisfy our narcissism. Amusing, but heartbreaking in the same breath. Amusing because we idolize ourselves, and strive to echo Lucifer in his attempt to make himself like the Most High, which is most perplexing; heartbreaking because we contribute to awful amounts of suffering, human and nonhuman alike. Just how amazing and independent are our lives before something, say, like God, who is supposed to have created all of this out of absolutely nothing? If we confess God as creator ex nihilo we must recognize that our basic relationship to creation is to recognize that we are part
37

Colossians 1:20, for example.

38

On Animals, Kindle Location 1330.

15

of it.39 This last line was a real wake up call for me. Above all else, humans are not above creation but of it. Everything we have been given (authority included) is not to exalt us above everything else, as we are the species who can actually work for the betterment of all others. What a responsibility; what a travesty that we have abused this Divine privilege to such a degree. What does it mean that humans were created later, rather than in the beginning? Is it an exultation, or? The vegetable kingdom which grows out of the dry land in obedience to the Word of God is the first, and the presupposition of all the rest. Every living creature is alive because of that which it has in common with the vegetable kingdom.40 These vegetables which we take so much for granted, reckoning to them not so much more than a fleeting thought, are necessary for our survival, and without the existence of them, our life would be dramatically altered. But of more pertinence, we have much more in common with the animal kingdom than we would care to admit. For example, we now know that we share 21 per cent of our genes with all other cellular life forms. This means all things we consider to be living, with the possible exception of viruses, the status of which it is hard to determine. A fifth of our genetic make-up, therefore, is common between us and bacteria, seaweed, cabbages and oak trees. Over half of our genes are shared with genes in all eukaryotes; that is, all cellular life apart from bacteria and archaea, including protozoa, algae, fungi as well as all plants and animals. Three-quarters of our genes are shared with all other animals, 97 per cent with orangutans, 98.5 per cent with gorillas and 98.9 per cent with chimpanzees.41 This is astonishing given the common train of thought we have toward these creatures. I reason that if all these things come from one Divine
39

Ibid., 1333. Ibid., 1344. Ibid., 1365.

40

41

16

source, then there should indeed be similarities. This should not intimidate us but spur us to glorify our Maker even moreso. This should not diminish our faith in Him, but cause us to have such a sense of wonderment that we erupt in spontaneous praise to Him whom life issues. The glory contained in this similarity is overwhelming. Apart from the similarities between humans and animals though, the research suggesting that animals may be much more intelligent than previously believed is staggering. We now have reason to believe that sheep are capable of recognizing hundreds of faces; crows are able to fashion tools in order to solve problems; chimpanzees exhibit empathy, morality and politics, and can outdo human subjects in numerically based memory tests; dolphins are capable of processing grammar; parrots can differentiate between objects in relation to abstract concepts such as colour and shape; and sperm whales have developed culturally specific modes of life and communication.42 And this research is but the tip of the iceberg. Elephants have the capacity to engage with smartphones.43 Dolphins not only can process grammar, but they seem to actually give each other names.44 I dont know about you, but I find this stuff fascinating. It begs the question: what constitutes inherent worth, if there is such a thing? And what is our response to something with independent inherent worth?

42

Ibid., 1373. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBrmaE82uY4. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/060508_dolphins.html.

43

44

17

The Life of Animals Even in translating the Bible, it is hard for translators to keep their influences separate. Theodore Hiebert notes that the commonality between humans and other animals in Genesis 2 has been obscured by English translators: The common lot of humans and animals is a conspicuous feature of the Yahwists creation narrative. A clear line distinguishing the essential nature of one from the other is difficult to detect. Human and animal alike are called nepe ayy, animate creature (2.7, 19). As with the breath of life, nepe ayy is used by J for both, and this term also attributes to neither a soul or spiritual being separate from their physical life. This point has been muddled for centuries in English translations by a succession of translators determined to draw a distinction between human beings and animals where none exists in the Hebrew text. In the King James Version (1611), nepe ayy was rendered living creature when used of the animals (2.19), but living soul when used of the human being. Hiebert notes that even in the New Revised Standard Version the distinction is maintained, albeit more subtlely, translating nephesh hayyah as living creature when used to describe the animals in v. 19 and living being when used of humans in v. 9.20.45 As unorthodox and controversial as this may seem, it is what it is. As noted before, this has nothing to do with diminishing the status of human beings, but expanding our thought to increase the status of other living beings who uncontroversially have the same Source of life as we ourselves do.

45

On Animals, 1398.

18

We return now to a subject I touched on previously, and that is the whole humans are superior because they were created last, as the crowning achievement of God. It is interesting that animals are unable to produce all the organic molecules they need and so must ingest other organisms to survive.46 This gives us an interesting perspective on the late arrival of animals on the fifth day of creation in the narrative of Genesis 1: animals are more needy than other creatures, and can only survive in an environment in which the other organisms they need to consume are already thriving. A key part of understanding our commonality with other animals is therefore a humbling recognition of our shared dependence on the availability of other living organisms to provide us with what we need to survive.47 Our pride takes a serious hit when we realize this basic fact of life. It seems the latter creation is very dependant on the former creation, and we should not make light of that former creation, as we are prone to do. Keeping this perspective gives us a respect for creation in totality that has previously been unrecognized. Issues of sustainability arise which we must admit and discuss, realizing that we would do well to not separate creation as a whole when it comes to our theology, as everything interacts with everything else on some level, whether we know it and/or realize it or not. Such an example would be basic sin: If I am out drinking and choose to get behind the wheel of a car and speed off down the road and crash into someone, that innocent person will pay a great price for the sin I committed. In turn my friends and family, and their friends and family will also suffer a great price for what I did. Why? Because they are guilty? No, at least not in this specific instance, it is because we are closely connected in the most in intricate of ways, and our actions matter, for society (and creation) as a whole.

46

Ibid., 1440. Ibid., 1443.

47

19

The depiction of life shared by humans and other animals is by no means restricted to the first two chapters of Genesis: the Bible pictures them together in its narratives, law, wisdom teaching, psalmody, prophecy, in the teaching of Jesus and in apocalyptic vision.48 And thus, Clough starts stating the many Scriptural references to the fact that humans and animals are closely related theologically. Clough lists 45 references of such from the Old Testament; a few of them being: Oxen that kill humans are to be put to death just as humans are (Exod. 21.12; 28 32). Ants, bees, oxen, donkeys, storks, turtledoves, swallows, cranes, jackals birds and lilies are cited as examples to emulate (Prov. 6.6 8; 30.24 8; Isa. 1.3; Jer. 8.7; Lam. 4.3; Job 12.7 11). When the Lord comes, the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the beasts of the field, all creeping things and human beings will quake at the Lords presence (Ezek. 38.19 20). Livestock are protected alongside humans by the Sabbath legislation (Exod. 20.8 11, 23.12, Deut. 5.14) and even the wild beasts benefit from it by being able to feed on the produce of the land in Sabbath years (Lev. 25.6 7). Jeremiah warns of the consequences of Gods wrath for the enemies of Israel together with their domestic animals (Jer. 49.28 9, 32, 33; 50.3; 51.37). Hosea speaks Gods promise to make a covenant for Israel on that day with the wild beasts, the birds of the air and the creeping things on the ground, and to abolish the bow, sword and war from the land (Hos. 2.18).

48

Ibid., 1465.

20

And in the New (32 references): In debating with the Pharisees about sabbath law, Jesus reminds them that they would save a lamb that had fallen into a pit on the sabbath (Mt. 12.11 12). He (Jesus) mourns over the city of Jerusalem, saying that he longed to gather her children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings (Mt. 23.37). Marks gospel pictures kingdom of God as a mustard seed that grows into a shrub with large branches so that the birds of the air can make nests in its shade (Mk. 4.31 2 | | Lk. 13.19). Luke records a debate with the leader of the synagogue objecting to a healing on the Sabbath: Jesus tells him that everyone unties an ox or donkey from the manger on the Sabbath to lead it to water (Lk. 13.15). This brief survey may be enough to wet your appetite to look further into this subject, or it may be enough for you to conclude that David Clough is radically ignorant in sound exegesis. I prefer the former, but admit that many of the ideas thus far presented go against the traditional and accepted stream of thought; which doesnt make it wrong, just challenging.

The Vocation of Animals There are also numerous instances of animals obeying God by way of His direct command, such as when God condemns the serpent to crawl on its belly (Gen. 3.14), when the ravens are commanded to provide food for Elijah (1 Kgs 17.4), when the fish is commanded to spew out Jonah (Jon. 2.11), when the angel in Revelation calls the birds to feast on the flesh of
21

the defeated armies (Rev. 19.17) and when the beasts, cattle, creeping things and birds are summoned to praise God in Psalm 148 (Ps. 148.10).49 Animals seem to fulfill Gods purposes by way of indirect address as well: The raven and dove let the inhabitants of the ark know when the waters have receded (Gen. 8.6 12). Many kinds of animals are Gods instruments in plaguing Egypt (Exod. 7 9) Balaams donkey sees the angel long before Balaam does and warns him, despite being beaten for its trouble (Num. 22.20 33) (Jesus) rides on a colt into Jerusalem (Mt. 21.1 7)

The Place of Animal Creatures before God The aim of this chapter has been to make a biblical and theological case that animals have a particular place before God in relationship to one another and in relationship to other creatures that merits attention.50 what is animal has come to be understood as the opposite to all that is characteristically human: animals on this account are irrational, driven by instinct, unintelligent, amoral, unsophisticated, uncreative, poor in relationality and lacking in the ability to transform their environment. To rehearse this list in the context of the biblical, theological and scientific

49

Ibid., 1574. Ibid., 1613.

50

22

accounts of animals presented in this chapter is hopefully already to make clear the wild inaccuracy and injustice of such views.51 Expansion; that is the immediate goal. If we can expand our minds to even conceive of God expressing interest, concern, and interaction with living beings other than human beings, then we can admit that he might have plans and purposes for those things. We must step off the pedestal we have made for ourselves and serve creation rather than oppress it.

Chapter 3. Creaturely Difference. Revelling in Diversity For Aquinas, therefore, the Genesis 1 creation narrative can only be read as affirming that the diversity of creatures is a deliberate choice by God in order to make creation more perfect than it would be if it only contained one kind of creature or fewer kinds of creatures.52 Imagine what would be lost if human being s were the only created beings upon the earth. Now call to mind the astonishing delight that is contained within living beings outside the human race. Aside from what we use animals for (ie: food, clothing, entertainment, etc) the value of these creatures is nothing less than............ divine. What joy would be lost if these things did not exist. I was recently at the local Vet College with my hamster (who was in for a check-up) and there were two families waiting to hear word on the condition of their dogs. One family was especially grieved, as the doctors believed their dog may have a brain tumor, the outcome of which would likely be terminal. They were visibly distraught, almost in tears as they discussed
51

Ibid., 1623. On Animals, Kindle Location 2044

52

23

with others in the waiting room how much he meant to them. Another gentleman had taken his dog in from Nova Scotia for a follow-up appointment. His dog had already had an $8000 operation which was intended to fix both his knees. The gentleman (who had one arm) said, They didnt put me down when they took my arm, and Im not putting him down because of a bad knee. His dog was only 18 months old, and with a bit of work will live a long, happy, healthy life. As I become more familiar with the animal kingdom and those of us in dominion over it, stories like these accumulate. People (for the most part) love their animals; not for what they can get out of them, but for who/what they are. Their lives are more fulfilled because of what their animals contribute to it. We would be missing out on a great deal if humans were our only company.

Classifying Creatures In Genesis 2.19 20 the beasts and the birds God has formed from the earth are brought before Adam to see what he would call them and Adam names the cattle, birds and beasts. Adams action has often been interpreted as an indication of power over other creatures, but the giving of a name to each animal rather suggests attention to its particularity.53 For those Christians who have taken more than a passing interest in Old Testament study, they would likely be aware that Biblical naming denotes more than just choosing a name that was nice sounding. In many cases it was a prophetic act, or something attached with great significance. Biblical naming denotes drawing out the personality of that being named.54 To

53

Ibid., 2058 After Noah, Andrew Linzey & Dan Cohn-Sherbok, 21.

54

24

name something (as Clough suggests) means that you have recognized something inherent within it. It is a personal act, not a superficial one, specific to each individual creature. Luther and Calvin stress Adams giving of names that suited the animals. Luther writes that Adam arrives at such a knowledge of their nature that he can give each one a suitable name that harmonizes with its nature (Luther, Luthers Works, I. 119) and Calvin says that God endued the animals with obedience so that they would voluntarily offer themselves to the man, in order that he, having closely inspected them, might distinguish them by appropriate names, agreeing with the nature of each (Calvin, Genesis, 132).55 But maybe the naming of the animals doesnt prove a point here in favour of the animals at all. Maybe it is merely a case of dominance and authority. Adam receives the power to do this from God, exorcises it, and the animals are in no way able to resist. Maybe God said it, Adam believed it, and that settled it! We run into a little problem with this theology though, which is the connection between this naming of the animals and Adams naming of Eve in verse 23: unless some plausible case can be made for separating the two acts, the establishment of power in relation to animals would also seem to apply to male power over women.56 Suddenly many become very uncomfortable if we start exploring this line of reasoning, and so they should. Dominance is a great thing, if we are the ones with the dominance. When that dominant position is threatened (whether literally, or theologically) then true colors begin to emerge. As always, it is necessary to keep a healthy portion of humility near for times like these. So, if Adams naming of the animals denotes something more than just giving them a random, abstract, passing thought, then what does that mean? What is he really ascribing to
55

On Animals, 2634. Endnote 23. Ibid., 2647. Endnote 23.

56

25

them? Individuality? We could readily admit that dogs (and maybe cats), cetaceans, great apes, and a few other creatures are intellectual enough to make that claim, but what about those dreaded mosquitoes, or mice, or slugs? We have no problems with limiting the potential for individualness in them for the basic reason that they are so far below us as a life form. There is a problem with this reasoning though. To suggest that this oak tree, or that kingfisher or this dragonfly lacks actuality because it is missing features present in supposedly higher beings, or to consider that it is a potential creature of a different kind is radically to misunderstand its integrity as a creature of God.57 Somethings worth is not determined by us, but by God. And we should caution against putting words in His mouth and thoughts in His head.

The Human Difference According to Wikipedia (which is NEVER wrong), Imago Dei is Latin for image of God. It is what we, as human beings, are; bearers of the divine image. This is a reason why Christians get so passionate against things like murder, suicide, and abortion, to name a few. It is because we believe that God made us in His image, and that we have inherent worth based on that fact alone. The worst criminal is still an image bearer no matter how much it has been perverted. The concept of Imago Dei becomes a little more difficult to interpret as we look at what makes us image bearers. Why are we the image bearers of God? What does that mean? It is pretty obvious that this does not mean we literally look like God, because we know that anthropormorphisms are not an accurate way of describing Him, as He does not have hands or
57

Ibid., 2232.

26

feet or a mouth or a head, etc. According to Greg Boyd and Paul Eddy58 (who are hopefully a bit more consistent that Wikipedia), evangelicals consider what the meaning of the Imago Dei is in mainly three ways: 1. The Substantival View (The Image of God is the Soul) the spiritual substance of humans sets them apart from all other animals as beings who are uniquely created in the imago Dei.59 St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and John Calvin are classic representatives of this perspective. 2. The Functional View (The Image of God is our God-Given Authority) the essence of our divine image (is) in what we as humans are called to do. As God is the loving Lord of the entire cosmos, humans are called to be the loving lords of the entire earth.60 I, myself, happen to hold this view, and I believe David Clough, and Greg Boyd do as well. 3. The Relational View (The Image of God is our Relationality) Humans are created in the image of the Triune God and thus are meant to find their essence and destiny in community with one another and with God.61 Karl Barth was a notable advocate of this view.

The traditional view in the Christian tradition has solidly been the substantival view, although there is historical support for all three. The functional view has been backed with

58

Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology, Greg Boyd and Paul Eddy, The Divine Image Debate (Chp 5).
59

Ibid., Kindle Location 1148. Ibid., 1155. Ibid., 1158.

60

61

27

widespread support among recent commentators62 though, and for good reason. A steady stream of support from those sympathetic to the plight of the animal kingdom has revolutionaized the way we should think about them. If you are sceptical of this I suggest you pick up a book like In Defense of Animals: the Second Wave (Peter Singer), or how about On Animals: Systematic Theology Vol. 1 (David Clough). Regardless, it is safe to say that those who have contributed to the current Western worldview of animal life (notably Augustine, Aquinas, and Descartes) grossly missed the capabilities of individual animal life. Few now share the conviction of Aquinas that only humans in creation are capable of rationality or intelligence in its broadest sense. Even fewer now share the enthusiasm of Descartes for the view that animals are automata, mechanisms devoid of selfconsciousness, and seemingly incapable of feeling pain.63 The basic fact of the matter is that dominion does not mean despotism, and even the most superficial reading of Genesis 1 will support this. There is something more, something higher, than selfishness, at the heart of the concept of the Imago Dei. What does it mean to be made in Gods image? Yes, that is an important question. But, hand-in-hand with that question goes another one: What does it mean to reflect Gods image? Because that is what is at the heart of being made in His image, reflecting that back upon creation. Responsibility demands much of us in light of this. The more vulnerable the creature, the more responsibility we have to it because of our exalted status as image bearers. Regardless of this, wouldnt our Divine image give us a one up on other forms of life? For centuries, philosophers, scholars, theologians, etc thought that rationality was a most defining difference between humans and animals. Humans have the ability to think rationally, or
62

On Animals, 2325. Animal Theology, Andrew Linzey, p46.

63

28

at least, that is the humans side of it. it is clear that on any sensible definition the capacity for rational thought is a continuum across species rather than a binary division with only human beings counting as rational. As noted at the beginning of the previous chapter, we know that sheep can recognize hundreds of faces, crows make tools to solve problems, chimpanzees are better than humans in some numerical memory tasks, dolphins can process grammar, parrots can understand abstract concepts and so on. The point here is not that human mental abilities are not impressive and unique, but that any assemblage of mental tasks that only humans can do such as novel writing or abstract calculus fails to identify the kind of discontinuous ability that would be plausible as the unique linkage between the earthly and heavenly realms the human-as-microcosm argument demands.64 In other words, humans seem more impressive than animals in many regards because we are the ones making the distinctions. I can easily say that my ability to drive a car makes me so much more adept in life than the dog down the street; but, if we are talking about loyalty and forgiveness, I must admit that perhaps I could learn a thing or two about that Labrador. the more we understand about the lives of other creatures the more obvious it becomes that intelligence, rationality, self-consciousness, relationality, morality, culture, and so on, and so on, define at best a spectrum of ability on which different creatures can be placed at different points. To believe ourselves to be the unique possessors of such attributes misleads us, both by underestimating the capabilities of the creatures erroneously denied possession of these attributes and by inaccurately characterizing the particularity of the human.65

64

On Animals, 2397. Ibid., 2438.

65

29

In certain tests (such as playing video games, for example) animals do seem to trail far behind their human opposition. But turn the tables around and have me jump out of a plane with a seagull, and I would say that my abilities would be severely lacking compared to the seagulls, at that moment. We treat human and non-human as parallel categories, instead of recognizing that human names one species of animal and non-human names about 1,250,000 species. It would be interesting to examine the results of a similar attempted bifurcation of the animal universe on the basis of common British black garden ant and non-common British black garden ant, or Herring Gull and non-Herring Gull.66 This of course does not level the playing field and advocate an un-hierarchal form of creation. There is a chain of command which should be obvious. As the Imago Dei, we are here to govern this world in a way that glorifies our Creator. He has made creatures different, not for the sake of despotism, but because He delights in diversity, among other reasons. the kind of attentiveness to the differences between animals I (Clough) have argued for in this chapter will not lead to arguments for treating all creatures in the same way.67 It does mean, however, that we should treat all creatures better than we presently do. What I am proposing here echoes back to the Functional View of the Imago Dei: the only theological supplement to the identification of human particularity in this way is that we believe human beings to have been called on by God to image God among the other creatures. This human difference relates primarily to ethics rather than doctrine, however, and suggests that theologically the human/ non-human difference is vocational. God has called human beings to be creatures in a particular way and take responsibility for the lives of other creatures. Here then
66

Ibid., 2467. Ibid., 2480.

67

30

we have the authentic theological construal of the difference between human beings and other creatures: we have been given our task to live as human creatures and they have been called to be creatures in their very many different ways.68

Attending to Difference When we break all this down, we should feel a pang of embarrassment that it needs to be brought to our attention in such a way. The proposition is that Christians would show more compassion, to all forms of created life, and to the earth at large. It is not to exalt animals or creation to the ultimate position of Creator, just to steward His creation in a way that is glorifying and pleasing to Him. To affirm animals as creatures of God is to recognize and attend to the particularity of the lives they are called upon by their creator to live.69 It is enough to afford them the dignity of their existence as that which their Creator intended.

68

Ibid., 2499. Ibid., 2514.

69

31

Part II. RECONCILIATION Chapter 4. Incarnation. Even if the arguments of the first part of this book are accepted that on the basis of the doctrine of creation human beings should understand themselves as part of a creative and redemptive process that does not find its goal in them alone (Chapter 1); that human beings are one creature among many, with significant features of their life in common with other animals, their nearest neighbours (Chapter 2); that in identifying their uniqueness, human beings should not resort to grand binary typologies but attend to the particulars of their lives and the lives of other creatures (Chapter 3) in relation to the doctrines of the incarnation and atonement everything is again at stake.70 With was has already been said previously, how does it relate to the traditional Christian doctrines of the atonement and incarnation? The incarnation it seems, is the final and decisive evidence that God is concerned with one species, rather than the multitude of creatures I have been seeking theologically to remember, and that Christianity will never be able to escape a blinkered preoccupation with only one kind of animal: God became human. Not only that, but God became human in order to overcome human sinful disobedience and reconcile Godself with humanity.71 What more can be said? If other animals were of importance to God incarnationally, than wouldnt He had to have come as an ant for the ants, of an elephant for the elephants, or a mouse for the mice? As unorthodox as it is/was, If God became human for human beings, perhaps God became or will become dolphin for dolphins, gorilla for gorillas, ostrich for ostriches, herring

70

On Animals, David Clough, Kindle Location 3111. Ibid., 3117.

71

32

for herrings, ant for ants and plankton for plankton. We know nothing of such incarnations why should we? but our ignorance is not a disproof of the thesis.72 But is such a statement conceivable? Clough gives four reasons (three of which will be stated here) why God would not have come as an ant (or whatever) for the redemption of the ants (or whatever). First, if we believe in the integrity of Gods creative and redemptive project, it seems odd and over-complex to affirm a single creator of all creatures and then to divide Gods work of reconciliation into millions of species-specific acts.73 In other words, if animals (or nature, if you are getting too squeamish) are to be included in the scope of Gods reconciliation, would God need separate acts of reconciliation, akin to each species, to accomplish this? He would not, because the death, atonement, and reconciliation of Jesus ALONE is sufficient to accomplish this. Second, as is discussed below, New Testament texts and later Christian theologians saw the Christ-event as having a universal and cosmic significance.74 This reiterates the point just made. The event of Jesus on cross has been diminished by many Christians throughout history. God coming into existence as a living being (sarx4561) was not just for humanity, but for all creation. There is not a corner of creation which is not affected by the cross. Third, if we were to accept such a narrowing of our vision, we would have to become agnostic about Gods purposes for other creatures: without knowledge of other incarnations we would have to say we know God cares about us; as for the rest, we cannot tell.75 There is far too much Biblical support to counter this

72

Ibid., 3124. Ibid., 3128. Ibid., 3130. Ibid., 3133.

73

74

75

33

suggestion. The Bible states over and over how much God cares for, and is involved in, His animal creation. The position that the incarnation of God in Christ demonstrates God is concerned only with human beings, and that other incarnations of God would be necessary for other creatures, rests on the assumption that incarnation is species specific of significance only for the species of creature in which God was incarnated.76 Speciesism raises its inflated head again as the idea is brought forth that human beings limit the extent of influence the incarnation held/holds. We will see that the importance of the incarnation was not that God became human, but that He became a part of His own creation; a living being, a creature, flesh. But, I may be jumping ahead a little too quickly.

Reading the Particularity of the Incarnation In becoming incarnate in a particular creature, God chose to become one thing and not another. God became a Jew rather than a Gentile, a man rather than a woman, an inhabitant of Palestine rather than one of South America, a creature alive in the first century AD rather than the twentyfirst, a human being rather than a dog.77 In light of this distinction, is eternal existence therefore unattainable for the dog? How about the South American? Or the Gentile? Or the woman? How important for other species is the fact that God became human? Or is becoming human the main point? Maybe the more important aspect of the incarnation is that God became flesh (Gr: sarx4561), a part of creation
76

Ibid., 3140. Ibid., 3150.

77

34

itself. When viewed in this light, as God becoming flesh, the scope of the incarnation broadens significantly. Logically, if we judge it illegitimate to discriminate between Jews and Gentiles or women and men on the basis of the kind of creature in whom God became incarnate, it seems that we should also consider it illegitimate to discriminate between humans and other animals on this basis.78 It is true that the traditional creeds established in Nicea, Constantinople and Chalcedon accurately affirm God as becoming human, and we should not make light of this. But we could also make a big deal of God becoming male, or Palestinian, thereby excluding all those who do not fit into these categories as well. As already stated, the important thing about the incarnation is that God became flesh, or a creature (part of creation). John 1:14 says the Word became flesh, meaning God took on the life giving substance common to humans and animals alike. Flesh (sarx) is an inclusive term for all living things, with roots in the Hebrew basar, used frequently in the Old Testament to refer to all living creatures. 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. That the Word became flesh means therefore that God in Christ became a fleshly creature. The particular creature God became was a human, male, Jewish, Palestinian, first-century one, but none of these specifics seem to have been first in the mind of the New Testament authors who chose the term flesh to characterize the event.79

78

Ibid., 3162. Ibid., 3166-3182.

79

35

To think that the whole of the scope of the incarnation is that God became a human is one of the most substantive restrictions which we can dogmatize. The incarnation is of something much more grand, much more inclusive, and much more total.

Incarnation as a Cosmic Event the authors of the New Testament believed the event of Jesus Christ had a significance that was nothing less than cosmic.80 I restrict putting words in your mouth, but this is something else I never really thought of until it was brought to my attention. I always figured that all the all things verses in the New Testament strictly meant only some things, namely human beings. Where o where could I have gotten that idea? Maybe, from human beings? Lets look at some of these verses: The early Christian hymn from Colossians 1:15-20 affirms Jesus as the firstborn of all creation in whom all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers all things have been created through him and for him (vv. 15 16). In Christ all things hold together (v. 17) and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of the cross (v. 20). It would be a mistake to think that a Christocentric interpretation of creation is thereby an anthropocentric one.81 Although such a presented notion at first may seem to be a radical misinterpretation of traditional Christian belief, Cloughs argument in this chapter is that this
80

Ibid., 3186. Ibid., 3214.

81

36

interpretation of the incarnation is a supplement to rather than a contradiction of the affirmation that God became human.82 His belief stems from his conviction that the incarnation is inclusive to beings outside the human species, not exclusive.

Chapter 5. ATONEMENT In Anselms work Cur Deus Homo? (Why did God become Human?) the answer he gives is that God became human in order to save human beings from their sins. Humanity through their sins had incurred a debt to God that justice required be settled by humanity, rather than merely set aside, but which humanity had no means of repaying. Only God had the resources to pay the debt, but the debt could only justly be settled by humanity. Therefore, Anselm argues, only a being both divine and human could save humanity from their sin, so God graciously took on humanity in Jesus Christ to pay their debt through death on the cross.83 And there it is; a definitive theology of substitutionary atonement. Anslem was certainly succinct in his definition. It is a beautiful piece of writing; one which has set a standard for years and years, generations and generations. But is there more to the atonement than what is stated here? Could this act of God be more exclusive than we believe? If Anselm is right that a remedy for human sin is the explanation for the necessity of the incarnation, then it seems we must set aside the grand Christological visions of Colossians and Ephesians: not all things, but just human things are gathered in Christ according to Gods plan.84 The focus of this chapter will

82

Ibid., 3472. On Animals, David Clough, Kindle Location 3858. Ibid., 3878.

83

84

37

present views the likes of which I have never even conceived of. But we will tread a fascinating path sure to make your head spin and your mind wander. Where exactly do animals fit into the grand scheme of the atonement? If the speculation can be presented forcefully, then it would challenge the ways in which we relate to them; which is not a bad thing. Clough proposes that we need a doctrine of the atonement that follows the doctrine of the incarnation in encompassing all creatures.85

Is Sin Uniquely Human? Do animals sin? Are they, and will they, be responsible for sinful acts? Have you ever even asked this question? I havent, before reading this chapter. Whether or not you will agree or disagree, I think Clough presents the subject impressively enough to warrant a discussion at least. Typically, we attribute sin originating with humans, and continuing on through the human race, doing nothing more to the rest of creation than simply affecting it. Creation suffers because humans are sinful. But if we look at the traditional view of creation which Christianity holds, we see a little problem start to develop. Christian tradition holds that the original sin was not committed by Eve, but by Lucifer. An angel rebelled against God long before human beings ever existed, and sin entered the created realm. It is this sin which affected the human race, but the human race was not the original cause of it. This being said, we can maybe expand our idea of the totality of sin, and the depravity it causes. Although this is the more traditional Christian stance on original sin, it is often divorced from the commonly accepted view that sin originated

85

Ibid., 3884.

38

from human beings. Such a view seems unacceptable though, given that there was a snake in the Garden who opposed Gods will, which would constitute sin before the Fall of humanity. In Genesis 6:5 it is the wickedness of adam, humanity, that the Lord sees and in verse 6 the Lord is sorry he made adam. In verse 7a, the Lord determines to blot out adam from the earth, but the verse continues with a gloss that adds birds, creeping things and land animals to the creatures that will be blotted out and the verse concludes with the explanation that the Lord is sorry he has made them. In v.11 it is the earth that is corrupt in Gods sight and filled with violence. In v.12 all flesh (kol-basar) has corrupted its ways. And in v.13 God tells Noah, I have determined to make an end to all flesh [kol-basar], for the earth is filled with violence because of them; now I am going to destroy them along with the earth.86 Interpretation of these verses has been problematic and most commentators have been content with defining humanity with all flesh, which is, in itself, exegetically problematic. Philo of Alexandria87 held that the animals were destroyed with humanity because without human beings to serve, they would be entirely without reason to exist.88 Martin Luther believed that beasts of the field and the birds of the heaven were created for mankind; these are the wealth and possessions of men. Accordingly, the animals perished, not because they sinned but because God wanted man to perish among and together with all those things that he had on the earth.89 Luther is not consistent with his views on animals and their state pre/post Fall, and his contributions in this area must be taken with a grain of salt. For example, regarding the Fall, he
86

Ibid., 3887-3895. http://www.iep.utm.edu/philo/ On Animals, 3897. Ibid., 3915.

87

88

89

39

wrote that among the other animals, everything stayed the way it was created, yet elsewhere in his commentary he claims that thorns, thistles, harmful worms, toads, flies and butterflies were a result of the fall, as were the savage dispositions of wolves, lions and bears. Before the fall, there was harmony not just among human beings but between them and the other animals, and Adam would have handled lions and bears as we do puppies.90 Other, more modern, interpreters (Dillman, John Skinner, A. R. Hulsts 1958 survey of interpreters, Victor Hamilton) are much more ready to consider the possibility that all flesh means more than human beings91, as radical as that may sound. So returning to Genesis 6; verse 5 asserts that human beings were the reason for the flood; verse 7 is ambiguous; and any straightforward interpretation of verse 12 suggests that all living creatures shared in the corruption that provoked Gods wrath.92 There is an important question which asks how widely we should spread responsibility for provoking Gods wrath, but there is another question of how widely the corruption had spread?93 An issue that needs to be now addressed is whether there is further Biblical support for such a doctrine. In Genesis 3 we have the odd account of a serpent tempting a human. Many theologians have followed Calvins lead in blaming Satan, rather than the snake, for this evil act, but there is no doubt in the text that even in Eden there is a non-human animal that is acting in opposition to Gods purposes. In Genesis 9, God tells Noah that God will demand a reckoning for human life from humans and from other animals (v. 5), which is clearly a punishment for
90

Ibid., 3920. Ibid., 3930. Ibid., 3941. Ibid., 3946.

91

92

93

40

wrongdoing both by humans and by other animals. This is confirmed by the repeated emphasis that the blessings of the Noahide covenant which seems in reciprocal relationship with the duties imposed in vv. 46 apply to every living creature as well as human beings (vv. 10, 12, 15, 16, 17). The same shared responsibility is evident in the prohibitions on going on to Mount Sinai in Exodus 19, where any human or other animal that touches the mountain is required to be stoned or shot with arrows (v. 13; recalled in Heb. 12.20). Prominent in the legislation of Exodus that follows the return of Moses from Sinai is the provision that if an ox gores a man or woman to death, it shall be stoned to death (21.28). This does not seem to be a punishment for the owner, who is specifically said not to be liable. It could be construed as a means of preventing future accidents or eradicating ritual impurity, but the manner of death seems closer to a punishment for the animal itself, following the Genesis 9.5 stipulation. Non-human animals are also culpable for sexual misconduct: if a man or woman has sexual relations with an animal both shall be put to death, for their blood is upon them (Lev. 1516). In response to Jonahs call to Nineveh to repent, both humans and other animals are covered with sackcloth and stop eating and drinking (Jon. 3.710).94 From this brief survey it does seem like animals will be held responsible for acts they commit in some instances to some degree. As odd as this may sound, who of us who have ever really carefully read passages such as these came away without a sense of confusion as to what they implied? Why would an animal be stoned to death from a transgression committed? Probably, we thought, because animals mean nothing to God and they are as disposable as any other thing created for the use of human beings. I hope by now this way of thinking has been challenged enough that we would seriously question such a mindset. If a

94

Ibid., 3953-3965.

41

theory like this does not blow your mind, wait till you read whats waiting for you in modern recorded history! In his remarkable book The Criminal Prosecution and Capital Punishment of Animals, Edward Payson Evans collected accounts of nearly 200 court cases in which non-human animals were prosecuted, starting with the prosecution of moles in the Aosta Valley in modern Italy in the year 824 and ending with the prosecution of a dog in Switzerland in 1906 (the date of the books publication). Most of the trials took place across Europe, although Evans also records examples from the United States, Canada and South America. The animals involved are diverse: locusts, snakes, mice, caterpillars, flies, eels, pigs, bulls, beetles, horses, oxen, rats, cows, goats, weevils, cocks, snails, dogs, asses, mules, dolphins, doves, termites and wolves. The trials were of two kinds: secular tribunals which applied capital punishments to domestic animals such as pigs, cows and horses as a punishment for murder, following the Exodus legislation, and proceedings in ecclesiastical courts against vermin causing a nuisance by devouring crops or infesting buildings, such as rats, mice, locusts and weevils, by means of exorcising or excommunicating them.95 Clough then recounts one instance of the legal proceedings the wine-growers of St Julien took against the weevils in 1545. This story is so ridiculous I simply must quote it in its entirety.

96

Evans records the case of wine-growers of St Julien in 1545, who complained that weevils were

ravaging their vineyards.18 The official, Franois Bonnivard, heard the arguments of Pierre

95

Ibid., 3969. Ibid., 3979-4013.

96

42

Falcon for the plaintiffs and Claude Morel in defence of the weevils, before deciding to issue a proclamation rather than passing sentence. The proclamation was as follows: Inasmuch as God, the supreme author of all that exists, hath ordained that the earth should bring forth fruits and herbs not solely for the sustenance of rational human beings, but likewise for the preservation and support of insects, which fly about on the surface of the soil, therefore it would be unbecoming to proceed with rashness and precipitance against the animals now actually accused and indicted; on the contrary, it would be more fitting for us to have recourse to the mercy of heaven and to implore pardon for our sins. The official then provided instructions for public prayers and masses for all the households to participate in. These were done and the insects disappeared. In April 1587, however, a complaint was made to the Bishop of Maurienne on behalf of the inhabitants of St Julien, stating that the weevils had resumed their destructive behaviour and asking that they be excommunicated. The bishop appointed Antoine Filliol as procurator for the weevils and Pierre Rembaud as their advocate. In a hearing on 6 June, Rembaud argued that the action was not maintainable because his clients had kept within their rights and not made themselves liable to excommunication, since in Genesis they were instructed by God to multiply and given every green thing to eat. In consuming the vines of the plaintiffs, therefore, his clients were only exercising their God-given rights. Furthermore, he argued that it is unreasonable to use canonical law against brute beasts subject only to natural law and the impulses of instinct, and dismissed the arguments of the plaintiffs that the lower animals were made subject to humanity as untrue and irrelevant to the case. Following this hearing a series of adjournments are requested for various reasons until 27 June, when Franois Fay argued for the plaintiffs that although animals were created before human beings they were intended for his use and had no
43

other raison dtre, citing Psalm 8 and Pauls dismissal of Gods concern for oxen (1 Cor. 9.9). In a further hearing on 4 July, Filliol argued that any subordination of other creatures to humanity did not include the right to excommunicate them and noted that the opposing counsel had not responded to the argument that the insects were subject solely to natural law. In an 18 July hearing he demanded that the case be closed, but the prosecutor successfully applied for a new term. Meanwhile, extra-legal measures were being taken. At the end of June a public meeting was called after mass to consider the provision of alternative ground that might sustain the weevils without devastating the vineyards. As the result of a popular vote, an area of land was identified and the springs of water on the land put at the service of the weevils, although the inhabitants of St Julien reserved rights to pass through the land, make use of the springs and work the mineral mines there, providing they do not harm the means of sustenance of the weevils. On 24 July the procurator of the plaintiffs asked the court to order the defendants to move to this new land and not return to the vineyards on pain of excommunication. Filliol, on behalf of the defendants, asked for an adjournment to consider the offer, which was granted. Troops passing through the territory caused further adjournments until 3 September, when Filliol declared the land on offer was not suitable as it did not provide appropriate food for the defendants. The procurator for the plaintiffs insisted the land was admirably adapted for the defendants, and the official reserved his decision until experts had examined the place and submitted a written report. Evans then records, somewhat anticlimactically, The final decision of the case, after such careful deliberation and so long delay, is rendered doubtful by the unfortunate circumstance that the last page of the records has been destroyed by rats or bugs of some sort. He speculates that perhaps

44

the prosecuted weevils, not being satisfied with the results of the trial, sent a sharp-toothed delegation into the archives to obliterate and annul the judgment of the court.

This actually happened?! After reading this story, Edward Payson Evans The Criminal Prosecution and Capital Punishment of Animals has made its way onto my books to read list! Completely unbelievable; but then again, it is all too believable. It is recorded history. So what do we make of something like this, which flies directly in the face of other orthodox doctrine. Thomas Aquinas, for example, example, believed animals to be irrational and therefore incompetent subjects of guilt or punishment.97 If court cases against animals were done by some fringe group living in the woods apart from civilisation, we may have reason to write their proceedings off as maniacal. But these cases were carried out by the current court system, using the Bible as its measuring rod. We need to reckon with an alternative tradition in which the Bible was interpreted to indicate that non-human animals were capable of wrong-doing, even to the point of the considerable expense of putting them on trial.98 Historical instances like this should challenge us, and keep us humble, without shattering our faith, or the uniqueness of the Imago Dei. Clough then writes about Jane Godalls observations containing chimpanzees in Tanzania in 1975. Without going into all the detail Clough does, Passion and Pom (an adult mother and her daughter) exhibited some very disturbing behavior in relation to their peers. They attacked other mothers, taking their babies, killing them, and eating them. This behavior seemed to

97

Ibid., 4018. Ibid., 4021.

98

45

disgust other members of their community. It is especially strange that within this community of chimpanzees, there was such a difference in actions shown. Unless we resorted to a Cartesian understanding of non-human animals as instinct-driven machines, however, we could not avoid the conclusion that the actions of the chimpanzees were some combination of free and forced choices.99 In such a case, would animals be responsible for their actions when it seemed that they should know better? While chimpanzees may not be exactly as human beings are cognitively, that is not to say that they are not highly intelligent with capacities likely unknown to us. But could this type of behavior be natural in some sense? Couldnt we just attribute it to nature, and wild animals being wild animals? we are presented with the question of whether animal behaviour that is natural in this sense is for this reason to be judged not sinful.100 Sin is seen as a power under which people are universally bound and from which they need salvation through Jesus Christ (e.g. Rom. 3.918; Col. 1.1314). This power has cosmic dimensions, entering the world in Adam and leading to the entry of death into the world (Rom. 5.12).101 In Genesis 9:5-17 animals seem to be held accountable for murder. Genesis 9; Job 38-41; and Psalm 104 all describe a place God has carved out for the animal kingdom, and that, according to the Genesis 9 covenant, there are boundaries that should not be transgressed.

99

Ibid., 4051. Ibid., 4072. Ibid., 4088.

100

101

46

In Psalm 78 sin is characterized as forgetting Gods ways. for non-human animals to depart from the mode of flourishing God intended for them could be described as their forgetting Gods ways.102 Similarly, the portrayal of humans living under the power of sin in the New Testament seems readily relevant to the situation of non-human animals: all creatures suffer from the violence that fills the earth in Genesis 6 (v. 11) and Romans 8 pictures the liberation of all creation (v. 21).103 It is acceptable to view this liberation as being freed from the effects humans have burdened the earth with, but as we have seen, this view can be challenged. The challenge can be made that it is hard to imagine other animals rebelling against God, as Psalm 78 describes. True dat. But, in line with this way of thinking, we need to consider that not all images of sin are obviously applicable to all human beings, either: infants may seem rebellious at times, but not in the Psalm 78 sense, surely, and probably are not slothful or prideful either. To take a different example, some of the images of sin may also not be relevant to those with severe learning difficulties. It would clearly make no sense, therefore, to exclude nonhuman animals from the application of language of sin because not all the biblical images of sin were relevant to them. It would make more sense to say that in some ways some animals other than humans do manifest signs of sinfulness, whereas there are other modes of sinfulness that seem to be particular to humanity.104 To say that animals cannot sin is akin to saying they cannot think, or they cannot feel pain. We project our own human-ness upon animal life and when they differ we negate the response. We cannot hold our own experiences of sin, or pain, or thought,
102

Ibid., 4105. Ibid., 4106. Ibid., 4115.

103

104

47

and say animals lack these things because they do not respond as we do. This is the same as a blue jay thinking humans are stupid or inadequate because we cannot fly as they do. We must evaluate life by its own life. I do not consider myself an awful artist because I do not have the success of a Salvador Dali, for example. Our giftings are radically different. Even if it is theologically admissible to attribute sin to animals, is it fair? I am sure I can find people who have no ethical problem with animal testing, or contemporary meat production, etc who would object that irrational beasts could actually sin against a being such as God. The majority (myself included) tend to think that the innocent animals suffer the unjust consequences of cohabiting a fallen world with the authors of that fallen-ness. We like to imagine a creation that is entirely innocent apart from the human species.105 A brief look at the world around us (or Al Gores An Inconvenient Truth documentary) should be enough to convince us that this is so. Clough raises two would-be objections to such a position: 1. to say that the language of sin is applicable beyond the human realm is not to say that responsibility is equally shared.106 Because of the whole Imago Dei thing, humans have a power to affect their environment not unlike other animals, but definitely to a greater capacity. A dog can make short work of a yard by digging holes in it, but a human being has the capacity to do much greater destruction. It is the responsibility/stewardship/dominion associated with being divine image bearers which places us on a different level.

105

Ibid., 4144. Ibid., 4153.

106

48

2. we should note the danger of a prideful desire to emphasize human significance, even in this negative mode.107 Pride takes many forms. It can be in relation to something positive (ie. I am more successful than you), or it can be in relation to something negative (ie. I was so much more drunk and did way stupider things over the weekend than you did). The latter is what most Christian testimonies have been reduced to; a contest to see who did the worse stuff before being saved. Humans always want to be the best, for richer or for poorer. By saying only humans can sin, we are in danger of this form of pride. It is anthropocentrism in a bad way! Jrgen Moltmann comments that this seems like hubris: if human beings cannot be like God the Creator, then they want at least to be the reason for creations ruin.108

Some forms of sin will be particular to human beings perhaps other forms will be particular to other creatures and the capacity for sin will depend on the degree to which a particular creature is able to respond to God and to its environment. There seems, however, no clear biblical or theological case for considering all non-human creatures free from the possibility of sinful actions.109

107

Ibid., 4156. Ibid., 4157. Ibid., 4165.

108

109

49

Who Needs Reconciliation? Many Christians would stop short in answering this question and bluntly state humans, no more and no less. But, given the breadth of the previous portions of On Animals, and Pauline words such as Colossians 1:20 (and through Him to reconcile all things to HimselfNASB) and Romans 8:21-22 (that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present timeNIV)110 we should be able to affirm to inclusion of creation into this redemptive act as well. Just because human beings do not think nature and animals need reconciliation does not mean God thinks those same lower111 thoughts. Regardless of this, the answer to the question of Who Needs Reconciliation? can be answered quite succinctly: those who are spoken of in the preceding scriptures. All things need reconciliation, even creation itself. This speaks of sin having that cosmic, not anthropocentric, effect. The time in which we exist is a strange one. We are in between purposes, for lack of a better term. God intended the earth to exist in a state of peace. Sin destroyed that ideal. But, there is coming a day when that peace will be restored. We live in the time between those times. We should not get drawn into the ways things are done in this period, thinking that this is the will of God. A monarchy is not specifically willed by God, but allowed (1 Samuel 8). Gods will is for a theocracy; which existed before the monarchy, and will exist after. To think that because we live

110

emphasis added Isaiah 55:8-9

111

50

in a period where a monarchy/government rules the land and that this reality is Gods will is to lose sight of Gods previous and future intentions. So it is, in my opinion, with consuming animal flesh. The era inaugurated by Genesis 9, where humans have explicit permission to kill other animals for food, seems in this context to be a concession by God to the human inability to live within the original constraints envisaged in Genesis 1 and 2.112 As man would not live without a king, which God graciously allowed apart from His will, so it is in the case of eating animals. Jesus submitted to the earthly Roman government of the time, and ate fish (at least), but this does not mean that these were ordinances to be followed for the eternal future, else heaven would be a monarchy/democracy rather than a theocracy. God created life apart from these intentions (Gen.1:28-29), and will inaugurate the coming Kingdom apart from them as well (Eze.47:12; Isa.7.21-25); we happen to live in the time when God graciously allows it to happen, but does not necessarily impart His blessing upon it. It is interesting that when God originally does allow the consumption of animal flesh, He puts restrictions on the act (Gen.9:4-5), and enters into a covenant with those same animals (Gen.9:817; cf. Hos.2:18). Any similarities to this instance and our modern day consumption of meat are severely lacking. There is virtually no similarities at all. Therefore, animals will be reconciled from their current position as simply food. But animals will also be reconciled from each other. Prey will be reconciled from predator (Isa.11:6-9; Hos.2:18). In Eden, God gave lions green plants for food; for now they are

112

On Animals, Kindle Location 4200.

51

forced to prey on other animals to survive; the prophets look forward to the time to come when they will eat straw like the ox and live in peace with other creatures.113 The answer to the question of who needs reconciliation can therefore be answered quite straightforwardly: in Christ, God reconciles all things to Godself; God does not effect reconciliation where there is no need; therefore all things need the reconciliation God brings in Christ.114 For now we exist in the time between the times in which we look back to Gods reconciling act in Christ and look forward to the new creation when harmony between creatures will be fully and finally established.115 I would argue that it is our job as children of God to bridge those two time periods and, as much as we are able, let Gods will be done on earth as it is in heaven (Mt.6:9-13; Lu.11:2-4).

An Animal Sacrifice It is impossible to escape the reference to Christ as a Lamb. That is woven throughout the New Testament, and Christians argue it is affirmed throughout the Old Testament as well. When we view the life and death of Christ from this paradigm, given what has already been talked about in this book, we see that what happened at the cross was not the crucifixion of a First Century, Palestinian, Jewish, male, human, but God who had become flesh, a part of creation, a creature. Together with the Scriptures quoted in Colossians 1 where God will reconcile all things

113

Ibid., 4209.

114

Ibid., 4303. Ibid., 4308.

115

52

to Himself, and in Romans 8 where all creation waits for the reconciliation, we suddenly find ourselves with a non-traditional, but faithful, rethinking of the scope of Gods plan. For all the support critics of animal rights/welfare can gather from the sacrificial system, it would be aptly stated that God, in Christ, abolished this system with His own sacrifice on the cross. This was the real purpose of God. Also, considering the many instances of Old Testament prophetic rebuke of the sacrificial system (1Sa.15:20-23, Ps.40:6-8; 51.16-17; 50:7-15, 23; Pr.21:3; Is.1:11-18; 66:2-3; Jer.6:20; Hos.6:6; Am.5:21-25; Mi.6:6-8), we have good reason to consider the idea that animal sacrifice was not as important to God as it was to Man.

Reconciliation with Animals in Mind To argue, as this chapter has done, that Gods atoning work in Christ is not limited in its effects to the human is not to suggest that human beings are not particular and significant objects of Gods atoning work in Jesus Christ. Because God became incarnate as a human being, the human dimensions of this event are particularly obvious; because theologians are human, a human preoccupation in outlining this doctrine, as others, is understandable.116 This is not an endeavour at making Christianity Pantheistic. Creator and creation are distinct and separate; one exists and is sustained because of the will of the other. In that creation there also exists a hierarchy; humans exist Biblically as the Imago Dei, the bearers of the divine image, with a responsibility to steward that which God has entrusted to us. We, to put it bluntly, exist at the top of the food chain. We, as human beings, are the stronger. Does this give us a theological right to do whatever we want to those less powerful? What actions has the omnipotent God taken with
116

Ibid., 4361.

53

the lower form of His creation? I argue that we would do well to treat other creatures lower than us with the same love, mercy, grace, and compassion which we have received from on high. Philosophic speculation from minds such as Andrew Linzey, have suggested that it is the great responsibility of the powerful to help the weaker. If Christians are honest with ourselves, we can see the humility of Christ in practice with this thought. This chapter has argued that humans may not be uniquely sinful, and that other forms of life may be in need of the reconciliation Christ provided. While I myself, may not yet see the animal kingdom as capable of committing acts of sin, this chapter greatly challenged me and at least opened me up for that possibility.

54

PART III. REDEMPTION Chapter 6. THE SCOPE OF REDEMPTION Non-Human Animals Need Redemption John Wesley (the great revivalist of the 1700s) had some interesting views regarding animals and their afterlife. In 1781 he preached a message called The General Deliverance based upon Romans 8:19-22. He states his belief that all sentient life is important, sustained, and loved by God. The problem Wesley identifies is how to reconcile the providential care of God for all creatures proclaimed in these psalms with what we see around us every day: If the Creator and Father of every living thing, is rich in mercy towards all; if he does not overlook or despise any of the works of his own hands: if he wills even the meanest of them to be happy, according to their degree: how comes it to pass, that such a complication of evils oppresses, yea, overwhelms them?117 Wesleys sermons is in three parts: what animals were before the Fall, what they are now, what they will be in the coming Kingdom. During the climax he reads from Revelation, chapter 21, verse 4118: and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed awayNASB. Wesley notes that the text does not limit these promises to humans alone. Animals will exceed their former state, even in Paradise: As a recompense for what they once suffered, while under the bondage of corruption, when God has renewed the face of the earth, and their corruptible body has put on incorruption, they shall enjoy happiness, suited to their state,
117

On Animals, Kindle Location 4690.

118

Which incidentally is the my favourite verse in the Bible, and the one which was instrumental in myself becoming a Christian.

55

without alloy, without interruption, and without end.119 So, what Wesley is basically saying is that animals will also inherit eternal life, but it will be in a way that is congruent with their inherent nature. That means your pet hamster, whom you may have loved dearly in this life, and whom you wish to be reunited with in heaven, will in all likelihood, inherit an eternal state that would be pleasurable in its hamster-ness. It would probable not be the cage-enclosed creature you knew on earth but would exist as God had originally intended it to. Far from discouraging the grieving human who has lost their dear companion, this should give us great happiness that our pet would revert to something much more pure and natural. I would hate to imagine all my previous pets whom I loved immensely only existing as pets once again eternally. Pets are only pets because man de-naturized them and domesticated them, breeding out certain features we deemed undesirable. I highly doubt this will continue in the eternal future. What is notable and important about Wesleys sermon, however, is that he is clear that the Romans 8 text requires a more-than-human view of redemption and that he recognizes that this view of the scope of redemption will have practical consequences for Christian treatment of other animals.120 If we expand the borders of our theology to include animals as inheriting the promises of God, then this should alter our current actions toward them. Because we hold animals in a position so much lower than human beings we tend to see them as commodities, food, resources, entertainment, etc. Something to make our lives more convenient, or blessed(?). The notion that animals are far more important to God than we currently believe forces us to reconsider how we treat them.

119

On Animals, 4725. Ibid., 4745.

120

56

Now some of you more astute readers may have recognized that this sermon of Wesley was preached in 1781, and that he himself died in 1791, making him 77 years old when he spoke this message. Maybe he was senile by that time? Maybe a little too reminiscent and/or contemplative in his old age? This train of theology was not limited to this era of his life though. Almost 20 years earlier, in 1763, he published A Survey of the Wisdom of God in Creation: Or a Compendium of Natural Philosophy in which he summarized Bonnets The Contemplation of Nature. Wesley includes an extensive footnote concerning whether brutes have a soul or not which concludes that at the end of time brutes will return to their original immortal essence and humanity will have to give an account of their treatment of other animals.121

Descartes and Hildrop: Non-Human Redemption as a Theological Problem Rene Descartes has done much to limit the thought of animals within the human mind. His view that animals were unthinking, unfeeling automatons (machines) contributed/contributes to an immeasurable amount of pain, suffering, and indifference in their lives. With all that has been said in support, and rebuke, of Descartes, it is interesting to note that the Cartesian position that animals other than humans are mindless, insentient automata is wildly implausible, and there is good reason to believe that not even Descartes himself believed it.122 There were people who definitely did believe it though, without a doubt, and these were Descartes successors, and they adopted this belief eagerly and whole-heartedly.

121

Ibid., 4749. Ibid., 4793.

122

57

The things done in the name of Descartes are truly horrific: They administered beatings to dogs with perfect indifference, and made fun of those who pitied the creatures as if they had felt pain. They said that animals were clocks; that the cries they emitted when struck, were only the noise of a little spring which had been touched, but that the whole body was without feeling. They nailed poor animals up on boards by their four paws to vivisect them and see the circulation of the blood which was a great subject of conversation.123 These actions all stemmed from their philosophy that animals were soulless, and that they mattered little in the grand scheme of things. Humans were to be exalted and everything that could be used for our benefit/enjoyment/convenience was fair game. When the question of Do animals have souls? comes up a fairly common counterquestion is Well, what about oysters, or sponges, or worms, or flies, or caterpillars, or mice, or lice, etc? The answers to this question are as subjective as opinions tend to be. The fact of the matter is, we dont know. To say that humans are superior to other animals because of criteria determined by human beings is unacceptable and embarrassingly incomplete. If animals do have souls, and if they relate to God, it would be on their own terms, in ways determined by their Creator Himself. John Hildrop argues that all creatures that God had a reason to create, God also has a reason to preserve, since any reason for their annihilation or extinction would be a reason that they should not have been created. Therefore, he concludes, not only every species but every individual creature will have a place in immortality, citing the universal restoration in

123

Ibid., 4813.

58

Acts 3.21 and the liberation of creation in Romans 8.21.124 There is inherent worth in everything in which a wise, loving, merciful, compassionate, gracious Creator has created.

Redemption as Compensation? Some have logically concluded that since we do not know absolutely and experientially that animals experience pain and suffering, it would be safer to assume that they simply do not experience these sensations, or at least that they are not morally relevant. But, continuing with this train of thinking; if I were to kick you in face, you would probably exhibit a certain reaction which would lead me to believe you were severely discomforted by my action. And, if I were to kick a dog in the face they would likely react in a similar way as you yourself would, leading me (at least) to believe the dog was experiencing discomfort as well. This seems more logical than the first assumption that because we do not know experientially what they feel then we cannot assume that they actually do feel. we must be clear that pain is an experience that is unpleasant for all animals, human and non-human, and reject attempts to deny the reality or significance of non-human suffering.125 And so, it makes sense to some to see the redemption of animals as a sort of compensation by God for all the evils that have afflicted them in this earthly life. If they are sentient, and God is good and loving, then it makes no sense that they should suffer needlessly, unless there were some hope of a future reward for it. This is to be rejected. the desire to make God seem less tyrannical by admitting guilt and providing a collective settlement in which the
124

Ibid., 4858. Ibid., 4970.

125

59

injured parties receive compensation for their mistreatment is understandable, but it badly mistakes an appropriate Christian construal of the relationship between creator and creature, where creatures are called not to be inquisitors of their God but instead to offer thanksgiving and praise. God must be understood to be the redeemer of all creatures, human and other-thanhuman, because God has determined to be gracious and faithful to them in this sphere, as well as in their creation and reconciliation, not because they would otherwise have a legitimate cause of complaint.126

A Universal Restoration? Acts 3:19-21 nasb

19

Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of

refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; 20and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you, 21whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration (Gr: apokatastasis605) of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time. In making mention of the restoration of all things did Peter here preach universalism? Many have thought so, most notably the great theologian Origen. More pertinently, does this verse teach the inclusion of animals in the great restoration? Origen thought so, as it seems Gregory of Nyssa did as well, as did Irenaeus. Karl Barth was very hesitant to adopt this view though, but concludes we are surely commanded the more definitely to hope and pray for it as

126

Ibid., 4985.

60

we may do already on this side of this final possibility.127 The reason Barth rejects this view, along with many other theologians, is because of the rejection of human universalism. Can someone accept a doctrine of apokatastasis (the restoration of all things) without holding to universalism as well? I think so. Clough makes the point that even though animals may be included in the great restoration of all things, it is possible that humans have the choice to reject it. Taking into account the discussion of the previous chapter, this need not require that human beings are uniquely capable of sin, but we might propose that on a creaturely continuum, human beings are the only earthly creatures we believe to be capable of a response to God that would constitute grounds for their exclusion from the life of the new creation. If so, we could envisage a new creation in which all non-human creatures, but not all human ones, were able to participate.128 Myself, I would more or less hold this view; Clough does not.

Redemption in Practice Clough finishes this chapter by noting four ways which the concept of animal redemption may influence out actions towards animals. 1. Cartesians would argue that animals are machines incapable of pain and therefore we view them as tools for our benefit, whatever the means. 2. John Wesley argued that if we recognize that God will wipe the tears from the eyes of other-than-human animals and redeem them from death, sorrow and pain, we may be encouraged to imitate Gods mercy and soften our hearts towards the meaner creatures,
127

Ibid., 5011. Ibid., 5021.

128

61

knowing that the Lord careth for them, that not one of them is forgotten in the sight of our Father who is in heaven and therefore to habituate ourselves to look forward, beyond this present scene of bondage, to the happy time when they will be delivered therefrom, into the liberty of the children of God.129 3. It can be argued that since these sentient creatures are outside the scope of Gods redemptive purposes, then we should have compassion and mercy for them because this earthly life is all they have to enjoy. 4. And, if God compensates animals with redemption because of the evils which befall them in this mortal life, then it could lessen our concern for how they are treated in this life.

One thing linking all these views is that our own personal convictions of what place animals have in the grand scheme of God, is that those influences determine our treatment of them. If we are unsure of our theological stance in this regard we need to ask ourselves some straightforward questions such as: Is hunting wrong? How about using animals for lab research? How much in vet bills am I willing to spend on my pet before euthanasia becomes a viable option? What do I do with insects in my home? Your answers should help you clarify your theology. But before you put those questions to rest inside yourself, you must ponder whether you think God holds the same views you do on those same questions.

129

Ibid., 5055.

62

Chapter 7. The Shape of Redeemed Living. As much as has been conversed thus far, the question may still remain: Is the theology solid? Can we move beyond mere speculation and actually be confident in what has been presented? At times throughout Christianity, we have indeed gotten a little sidetracked in our theology and wandered from the straight-and-narrow into areas that were murky, hazy, and peripheral; is this one of those times? Clough notes that after a lecture he gave on the topic of creaturely theology someone asked him that if all this was legit, what would happen to the enormous amounts of excretion of all the extra heavenly life? There are things we cannot know about the coming Kingdom, but then again, there are things we can know. Revelation 21:4 states that in the new Kingdom there will be no death, or crying, or mourning, or pain. Christians look at these things as theological absolutes. For other questions, we must decide in each case whether there is a sufficient basis in the biblical witness or Christian doctrine to make it possible to address them. It is notable that Revelation 21.4 expresses its claims in negative form: we do not know what this life will be like, but we do know that it will not contain these evils.130

Visions of Animal Redemption The advocate of animal redemption need not shy away in any conversation regarding the topic. Animals and humans seem to live in peace together in Genesis 2, and again in the story of Noahs Ark (Genesis 7-8), which is followed by the covenant God establishes with them (Gen 9). The Psalms continually speak of all flesh praising God. Isaiah heralds an image of the coming Kingdom which has captivated imaginations for literally thousands of years (Isa 11:6-9;
130

On Animals, Kindle Location 5415.

63

65:25-26). Daniel and his exiled friends thrive on a vegetarian diet (Dan 1:12-15); and Daniel survives a night with man-eating lions. Paul talks about creation being freed from the bonds of decay (Rom 8:19-23). The opening of Colossians and Ephesians note Christs work in reconciling all things in heaven and on earth. At the heart of the vision of heavenly worship in Revelation are a transformed lion, ox, eagle and human being leading the praises of the lamb (Rev. 4.6 11; 5.11 14).131 It is easy for us to pass off these accounts of peaceable existence though, until we come to the historical lives of the saints. Apart from the well-known Francis of Assisi, there have been numerous Christians for whom this type of communion with animals has not been a theological assumption, but a realized fact. Andrew Linzey actually notes that at least 2/3 of the medieval saints had this type of relationship with animals. Helen Waddell tells the story of St Kevins care for a blackbird: At one Lenten season, St Kevin, as was his way, fled from the company of men to a certain solitude, and in a little hut that did but keep out the sun and the rain, gave himself earnestly to reading and to prayer, and his leisure to contemplation alone. And as he knelt in his accustomed fashion, with his hand outstretched through the window and lifted up to heaven, a blackbird settled on it, and busying herself as in her nest, laid in it an egg. And so moved was the saint that in all patience and gentleness he remained, neither closing nor withdrawing his hand: but until the young ones were fully hatched he held it out unwearied, shaping it for the purpose.132

131

Ibid., 5431. Ibid., 5477.

132

64

Numerous stories throughout history lend support to the anticipatory belief of man and beast co-existing peacefully.

Peace Between Creatures Some have suggested that the lion need not lose its status as a predator if it were to be included in the scope of eternity. After all, would a lion really be a lion if what Isaiah says is true? This it seems might be ok for the lion, but what kind of heaven would that be for its prey? Southgate uses the poem The Heaven of Animals by James Dickey to imagine an alternative new creation to that of Isaiah, in which predators continue to be predators, but now with perfectly deadly claws and teeth, while their prey accept and comply with their destruction and then rise and walk again.133 The Christian view of coming Kingdom does not seem to support predation though, for humans or nonhumans. Thomas Aquinas suggested that perhaps lions love God by stalking, pouncing upon, and tearing asunder their prey.134 In other words, animals respond to God by acting like they do. I would agree, but would argue that sin has marred their true nature as well, and that the original will of God for their life was peace, apart from predatory impulses. William Jenkins argues that a lion would simply be some other of species of animal if its predatory nature was taken away. We would never argue this same way for the human species, nor should we for animals. To believe sin has corrupted creation implies that it has changed it from its pure uncorrupted form to aspects of what it is now. Only in a newly Divinely instituted Kingdom will we truly know what a lion

133

Ibid., 5497. Ibid., 5535.

134

65

is really like, and I would lean on the side of it being like the peaceable creature described by Isaiah.

Redemption of the Wilderness? But what of those wild animals? Is the whole point of animals redemption that they will submit to human authority in the coming Kingdom, as Paul Waldau has suggested135 that the Isaiah 11:6-9 portion is anthropocentrically based? It is indeed interesting that humans were intended to tend a Garden, but then were cast out into the wilderness where life became a struggle. Domestication of nature seems to be the ideal form of relationship humans desire. Roderick Nash notes the interesting etymology of the term (wilderness): wild may have originated in the Teutonic and Norse roots for will, thus indicating entities that are wilful, uncontrollable and unruly; while the root for the second part of the word is likely to be the Old English dor, meaning a beast. Wilderness is therefore the place of those beasts that are beyond human control.136 Martin Luther believed that before Man fell they were a kind of super-human, seeing better than eagles, more powerful than lions and/or bears; with complete authority over created life. Sin changed this though. He affirms, however, that God will restore humanity as the image of God and one of the signs of this restoration will be the authority humans have once again, so that all the other creatures will be under our rule to a greater degree than they were in Adams

135

Paul Waldau, The Specter of Speciesism, p. 207. On Animals, 5589.

136

66

Paradise. For Luther, therefore, redemption means an end to wilderness, with all creatures brought under human authority.137 To be fair, in Luthers time, humans relations with animals were markedly different from what we have today. We have much more control over wild animals than they did in his time, and the expectation that these pests and annoyances would eventually be subjected to obedience to humans was a very welcome thing. From our vantage point though, we can see how this may actually be more of a curse than a blessing. Human beings have grossly mismanaged the planet we have been given and we have the capacity to not only eradicate wilderness, but completely destroy the planet! Human beings definitely need to be liberated from ourselves, as all living creatures do, such as we are in this fallen state. Clough argues that we must picture an existence for wild animals where they continue to be wild, in the sense that they are the possessors of their own wills and direct their lives unconcerned by threats from humans or other animals.138 Perhaps the stories of the saints, living in the wilderness in harmony with the wild animals, free from their domestication, is a foreshadowing of the coming Kingdom?

Redemption of Domesticated Animals? What abut our beloved dog, or cat, or how about the precious hamster my wife and I just lost to cancer ? If applicable, what would be the status of such animals which humans have genetically manipulated to serve as our companions? I long for the days when this grotesque activity ceases, as much of the animal kingdom does too, I am sure. Grace Clement says it best

137

Ibid., 5610. Ibid., 5644.

138

67

when she writes: We, humans, have made these animals into companion animals that is, into the kind of beings who depend on human care, and thus we, as humans, have the responsibility to provide that care. We are, unfortunately, in many ways failing to meet this responsibility as representatives of our species.139 In our quest for ultimate dominion we have taken these animals out of their natural environment and genetically manipulated them into creatures that best suits our (human beings) purposes, with little to no regard for their purposes. It is the most ultimate vanity and abuse of power. Bernard Rollin writes: there is indeed a contract between humans and companion animals, and animals are holding up their part well, but humans [are] significantly failing to do so through practices such as mass euthanasia of companion animals for convenience, puppy mills, public ignorance of companion animal needs; perpetuation by breed standards of vast numbers of genetic defects leading to great suffering and premature death.140 That being said, it would be difficult to imagine the redemption of domesticated animals without some undoing of genetic manipulation, which means it seems that redemption would have to consist in the undoing of the manipulation human beings had wrought, which would mean the annihilation, rather than redemption, of the particular creaturely modes of being that human beings had been responsible for creating.141 Given that these manipulated creatures are sentient and, in no fault of their own,re-created (or more literally, modified) by humans, I would venture the opinion that their end would not result in annihilation if, as John Wesley
139

Grace Element, Pets or Meat? Ethics and Domestic Animals, Journal of Animal Ethics, Vol.1, No.1 (Spring 2011), p.52.
140

Bernard Rollin. Reasonable partiality and animal ethics. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 8, 105121. Cited by Ibid.
141

On Animals, 5688.

68

supposed, they could enjoy eternity in their own specific form. What that would look like is speculative to us, but not to their ultimate Creator.

Redemption of Each? If ants are going to be included in the scope of Gods redemption, then, dang, there are going to be an awful whack of ants in heaven :s. Clough supposes that including all kinds of creatures in redemption does not necessarily entail including each and every creature.142 Denis Edwards believes that individual creatures find healing and fulfilment in Christ; redemption will be specific to each creature; and some individual creatures may find redemption in the memory and life of the Trinity and Communion of Saints.143 Basically, what is being said is that this aspect of animal redemption is theo-centered and not human-centered. God is in charge of this and even if this discussion is difficult, if not impossible, for humans to conceive of, it is far from that for God.

Redemption, Future and Present Irenaeus comments that the wheat in the new creation must be of exceptional quality such that its straw can serve as suitable food for lions (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, bk 5, ch. 33, 5).144 There is a practical implication to a theology which includes animals in redemption, and it looks substantively different than what we currently see. Christians have a responsibility to do
142

Ibid., 5694. Ibid., 5705. Ibid, 5802 (footnote #9 from the above section Peace Between Creatures).

143

144

69

all we can to see the coming Kingdom realized in the present, cause we have the Holy Spirit living within us. What we believe about the future Kingdom should be motivation for our present actions. If we reform our theology in certain aspects, our practice must be similarly reformed. For the sake of the billions of suffering sentient beings, I pray this will happen quickly.

Conclusion Animals matter. Seriously. But do they really and honestly and truly matter to us? The Bible makes clear that other-than-human animals have a place in the purposes of their creator, that they are providentially sustained by God and respond to God in praise. If they were extraterrestrial creatures with which humans had no interaction, it might be defensible to ignore them in relation to other more immediate concerns, but we live alongside these other animal creatures, employ them for our own purposes with little regard for their well-being, and threaten their environments through our activities, making species extinct through thoughtless neglect or deliberate action.145 This is morally unacceptable. There are some troubling stories regarding animals in the Bible, particularly a couple of instances concerning Jesus, but these stories can be explained in other non-traditional ways that are faithful to the tradition we believe in as a whole. One of these stories, that being Jesus and the swine as related by Matthew (8:28-34), Mark (5:1-20), and Luke (8:26-39), I will deal with on another day. The Christian tradition is full of instances of bigoted animal abuse, yes, but it is also full of compassionate acts directed towards the animal kingdom. Francis of Assisi was surely not a one-of-a-kind type of Christian.
145

On Animals, 5960.

70

So here we are, 71 pages later (so Word tells me). Did we accomplish anything? Do we see things a little different in regards to how we relate theologically to the animal kingdom? I know I do, but that is not enough. Unless our thoughts/beliefs translate into actions/practice it does us and others little good. With knowledge comes an obligation to practice, and without an opportunity to practice our knowledge we become puffed up, prideful, useless even. My prayer is not that we would exalt animals to an imbalanced status, but that we would see them differently, and that we would treat them differently. In On Animals Vol. 1, David Clough addressed the former; in the anticipated Vol. 2 he will address the latter; a conversation I cannot wait to join, and a movement in which I have already cast my vote.

Joshua Duffy
June 2012

71