Hermenuetics

Comments

It sounds like you're saying this: People are becoming numb to human suffering but are still sensitive to animal suffering. Our solution should be to numb them to animal suffering. Maybe then they'll care more about people.

Wrong.

The logic in this blog post is common in the church and severely limits our ability to minister and serve in our world. It suggests a kind of giving calculus (give only to the absolute neediest cases) that paralyzes. And ultimately backfires. Under this logic, why would I sponsor an AIDS orphan? Shouldn't that money go to fighting abortion (after all, the AIDS orphans are better off than those killed in the womb)? Or maybe I shouldn't fund prolife causes and should instead only fund evangelism and missions (after all, the suffering of the unborn is momentary; hell is forever). But wait, should I really give this missionary? He's only made three converts in a year. Maybe I should give to this crusade evangelist who has thousands of people come forward for an altar call every weekend! YES! That's it! I'll give to him. And in fact it's unconscionable for anyone to give to anyone BUT him.

Baloney. "The body is not made up of one part but of many. If they were all one part, where would the body be? God has combined the members of the body ... so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other."

Don't want to "pull out your credit card"? Fine. But please don't denigrate those who do give as disciples of Peter Singer. Your instinct to give was not because you've been tricked by people who think "animals — even ones in need — are considered equal to or more important than vulnerable or orphaned children." It was because God has instilled in us compassion for his creation.

Posted By: Ted Olsen | April 22, 2009 10:52 AM

One more comment:
I'd be interested in hearing more about the theology here: "Jesus didn’t die for animals; he gave his all for human beings."

Do you believe that animals are excluded from God's redeeming work? I'd be interested in hearing more about how you read Romans 8: "I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God."

Do you believe the "creation" Paul is discussing is humanity only? Or that it excludes animal life? When you read "the lion shall lay down with the lamb," do you think that is merely a metaphor for humanity? Is it not literal at all?

Posted By: Ted Olsen | April 22, 2009 11:08 AM

Ted, Is that really you? Because the tone sounds surprisingly like shouting.

I've seen those ads too, and although I love furry & feathered critters as much as the next person, I had similar thoughts (though no temptation to give). Kay has a point about the manipulative nature of these appeals; I'd only add that the ones for orphaned children are every bit as manipulative and I'd swallow my resistance to such tactics for a worthy cause.

You have a point to about the problem with a "giving calculus," but the tone ...?

Posted By: Christine A. Scheller | April 22, 2009 11:21 AM

"It sounds like you're saying this: People are becoming numb to human suffering but are still sensitive to animal suffering. Our solution should be to numb them to animal suffering. Maybe then they'll care more about people."

I don't think that's what Kay is saying at all. I understand that some people are very emotionally attached to pets, and some feel very strongly for animals in general. Children are more important, though, and I think that's Kay's point.

Animals are part of creation, but - as Romans 8 expressly states - God's glory will be revealed in "us."

Posted By: Lex | April 22, 2009 1:04 PM

I believe The Lord cares about the "sparrow that falls" AND He cares for His children. Did Ms Warren ever stop to think many, many people sponser both children and animals?? We are all God's creation.

Posted By: Liza | April 22, 2009 2:32 PM

You say "God put animals under the care of human beings, and we are responsible to treat them with love and kindness (Gen. 1:28). He holds us accountable for his creation," Well, therein lies the problem. There are animals suffering all across this country--from neglect, to puppy mills,to animal fighting, to intense confinment on factory farms. Animal protection organizations are there to confront the cruelty and show this to the public. Obviously we are not living up to our responsibilities as stewards of God's creation. Why does it have to be this or that? No one is saying animals are more important than people. However, they are worthy of our mercy, compassion and care.

Posted By: Karen | April 22, 2009 2:45 PM

Very well put Kay! Thanks! Keep up your great work. BTW - your book "Dangerous Surrender" changed me.

Posted By: Dr. Jim Weldon | April 22, 2009 3:11 PM

Proverbs 12:10 - 'A righteous man cares for the life of his beast, but the compassion of the wicked is cruel.' I believe God put this verse in the Living Word of God so that His children would understand the importance and value He places on his animals.

I am a preacher's kid. In fact my parents, Margaret and John Seskes worked for the very first worldwide TV evangelist, Rev. Rex Humbard (best known as Elvis Presley's pastor). My mother was Rex's personal secretary for over 35 years and my father was his associate for over 35 years as well. Today I am a Born Again Christian Animal 'Welfare' Activist.

I am deeply shocked and saddened that Kay Warren finds 'caring for the lives' of God's animals to be such an invasion within the Christian community.

While I understand that the human soul is paramount to the Christian church, I believe there is room within a Christian's life to honor God's command to care for His creatures as well. Are we to delete that scripture from The Bible which would be an abomination to Him or are we to embrace it as God commands?

I spend my days honoring Christ by fighting against the atrocities of factory farming, puppy mills, the fur industry, foie gras, veal production, etc... There are so many ways we as Christians can go about living our lives being good stewards to God's animals while at the same time winning souls for Christ and helping the orphans as well.

Many of my friends from my childhood church 'The Cathedral of Tomorrow' where I grew up in Akron, Ohio have linked with me on facebook and completely agree with my stance on Christian animal advocacy. I encourage anyone reading my comment to join me as well. You can find me under: Pamela Bertsch

Posted By: Pamela Bertsch | April 22, 2009 3:38 PM

Re: the author's comment "I'm acting like the bird has human emotions." Bravo . . . for even plants when dissected, cut, thrashed, even becoming a bouquet react to abuse. Animals, when exposed to violence, express their agony. Criminals do sometimes lie down with the innocent and are condemned. I think "creation" in whatever aspect is defined by whatever or whomever we touch in our lives, just as our "neighbor" is whomever is next to us at any given time. We wait to be redeemed as much as the lion waits to lie down with the lamb but while waiting, devours it.

Posted By: Mary Doerflein | April 22, 2009 3:49 PM

Thanks for the article. I agree. I was running this morning when I met up with a beautiful playful huge young dog (no lease or owner). It ran over to a woman and baby in stroller. I tried to scare the dog away. But a neighbor shouted, "It's OK she (the dog) knows them (mom and baby). It's "OK"?!!
Where's the concern for the dog playfully (albeit) malling the baby in the stroller, causing blindness or worse. Is that OK because it's a beautiful huge puppy that likes to play. What ever happened to common sense and the priority of humanity over animals.
The mother thanked me for trying to help not the woman who said, "It's OK."

Posted By: John L King | April 22, 2009 3:50 PM

It's not an either/or choice. We can care about both humans and animals, too. People who are callous to the suffering of animals are often not only cruel to animals (which is bad enough), but they're often cruel to other humans, as well.

Rather than denigrating those who try to fight animal cruelty, we should be grateful that there are people who are trying to make the world a more compassionate place -- for all of us.

Posted By: Paul | April 22, 2009 3:55 PM

Good point Paul. I just posted a video I produced on You Tube a few days ago about a candlelight vigil for two pit bulls who were set on fire. Should we just turn away while these suffering pit bulls run down the street burning in pain or help them as God has asked us to do in Proverbs 12:10?

Here is the You Tube video and in it you will see that Dallas District Attorney David Alex states what you just mentioned that where you see animal crimes you will also most likely see these same people linked to all sorts of other crimes. Even the FBI tells us that many of the worst criminals started out abusing animals. I forgot to mention in my previous post that I am also a graduate of Oral Roberts University. Between growing up in The Rex Humbard Ministry and attending and graduating from Oral Roberts University I hope anyone reading this will understand where I am coming from within the Christian world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2oWIeNiAiY

Posted By: Pamela Bertsch | April 22, 2009 4:32 PM

Kay, you were not wrong to feel emotions over the suffering of dogs, and you had the right instincts in wanting to help both children and animals. This is not a question of "animal rights" or elevating animals to the same status as people. It's about human responsibilities, and what we owe others in God's creation. It's because animals are powerless among us, and because they are not our equals, that we have a responsibility to show them mercy and treat them with kindness.

Posted By: Mike | April 22, 2009 4:39 PM

I would also like to mention one other thought. Last September I flew up to Washington DC from Dallas to attend The Humane Society of the United States' 'All Creatures Great and Small' kickoff for their new campaign. It meant the world to me watching for the first time in my life fellow Christians coming together for God's animals. Here is the link if anyone would like to go to their website.

http://allcreatures.hsus.org/

I just found out this past week that Robert Schuler and Rush Limbaugh have linked with this campaign.

Posted By: Pamela Bertsch | April 22, 2009 5:04 PM

Religious extremists constantly use the Bible to suit their needs while promoting noncommitment to the needs of creatures. While the publicity exemplified by animal rights organizations may use music and images to elicit sympathy, at least they are trying to better society by promoting animal care. Given thousands of organizations one could join, perhaps this is one that someone feels strongly about and could make a different by joining. Everyone has their own agenda, whether it be animals or humans, and the person who downgrades one or the either shouldn't be taken seriously because they are seriously flawed. What about the people who kill their own children--is that to be defended too, after all they are human? Is war to be defended? After all, war is committed by humans. I think if this woman feels that animals are so beneath her that she must
bash these advertisements for help, she is as prejudiced as the bigot who dislikes African-Americans, or makes jokes about people with disabilities. It would have been better if this woman had the sense to keep her mouth shut.

Posted By: Nancy Mabrey from Ohio | April 22, 2009 5:41 PM

I am dying to sit down with each one of you and talk for hours - you are exactly the kind of people that energize my mind and help me clarify my thoughts. Just for the record, I totally agree that animal cruelty (including the way animals intended for human consumption are raised) is an issue followers of Christ MUST care about. Animals are vulnerable to exploitation and misuse and must have those who advocate for kind treatment. I suppose my reaction comes about beause of the horrific living conditions and life circumstances of vulnerable boys and girls I've witnessed both at home and around the world. In many places in our broken world, it DOES come down to a choice. Resources are limited, food is scarce, medication is non-existant, and children are raising themselves - millions of them are babies themselves. As dearly as I love animals and feel their suffering intensely, I confess that holding an orphaned baby left in a ditch does something to my heart that I cannot ignore.

The question about animals in God's eternal plan is a great one. My understanding of Scripture and eschatology leads me to conclude that animals will be in heaven - they are valuable in God's sight and he plans on including them in the world to come - both for his pleasure and ours. But no animal is made in the image of God according to Genesis; they have no soul, therefore they don't need salvation for sin. Human beings do. Jesus' death and resurrection certainly made a new heaven and a new earth possible, but it is humanity that is the crown of God's creation, not animals. Each of us - animals and humans - have our part in God's plan, but they are different roles. I still firmly believe that Jesus died for humanity's sins, not the sins of animals - they are blameless.

Hope these words make sense and add a layer of further thought to this dialogue.

Posted By: kay Warren | April 22, 2009 5:45 PM

Here's what I don't understand: why does it have to be either orphans or puppies? I read the article twice, and I don't see anything other than Ms. Warren's personal assumption that the animal-supporting charities were encouraging people to make a choice between helping animals and helping kids.

I happen to think that there is enough room in the marketplace of ideas, our hearts, and our wallets for all of us to become passionate about different needs in this world. Research done by the Chronicle of Philanthropy indicates that most donors give to more than one organization, and those who volunteer give more than those who don't.

What am I missing here?

Posted By: LawGirl | April 22, 2009 6:13 PM

I'm with Kay here. While I have respect for all of God's creation, except maybe that spider, Jesus did not die to save a tree or a spider. I think someone's confused and it's not Kay.

Posted By: Alison | April 22, 2009 6:34 PM

Worldview is at the heart of the issue for me. The theological underpining of our response to the variety of choices that come our way every day is crucial. Of course many individuals in the developed world can give financially to both animals and people, but around the world, this is not always an option. If our theology - our understanding of God and his purposes - tells us that people ultimately matter more than any other created being, when push comes to shove and dollars are tight, then we will make sure children are cared for FIRST. If our theology tells us that animals and people are completely equal in value in God's eyes, then when dollars are tight and resources are scarce,it doesn't matter whether we choose animals or people, because they are the same. I don't believe they are the same.

Posted By: kay warren | April 22, 2009 6:40 PM

Here is a link to the two PSAs Rush Limbaugh just did for the Humane Society of the United States--on animal cruelty/animal fighting and on religious outreach. He is very outspoken about his devotion to his cat Punkin, and his support for HSUS and the organization's efforts to fight animal cruelty and celebrate animals.

Listen to the PSAs and see if you feel differently that we shouldn't pay attention to animal, as well as human issues. There is room for both. People suffer, animals suffer, and the world suffers if we don't take care of all of it.

http://www.hsus.org/press_and_publications/press_releases/rush_limbaugh_records_audio_041409.html

Posted By: Karen | April 22, 2009 6:45 PM

When God instructed NOAH to take his family and two of every kind of animal onto the Arc, God was also concerned about the animals. God himself told Noah to build the Arc because a great flood was coming to destroy the evil people in the World. Plague and famine exist as a population control ( I could go on about how animal ecosystems exist to balance nature and reduce probability of plague, but another time). St. Francis reminds us that we are not separate from the natural world, but part of it in one sacred Earth community. The rainbow sign of God's covenant was meant for all of creation, not humans alone. PERHAPS YOU SHOULD REVIEW THE STORY OF NOAH AND HIS ARC BEFORE YOU CONDESCEND TO THOSE WHO PROTECT THE ANIMALS.

Posted By: MA Moore | April 22, 2009 6:45 PM

Our family gives to the clinic where I volunteer for the poor and low income which is a church clinic. I have been a volunteer there for five years. We give to poor women we hear of that have special financial needs. We give to help with children's clef palates. We give to a Women's Bible Ministry which is worlwide. Our church gets checks also.

We give to a rescue lady that helps find homes for unwanted animals. We give time and money to a group that helps foster children, etc. and so on.
I am sure you who are reading this are even more generous than we are because you are loving, caring Christians.

It was never either/or with us. We love God's creation and share mercy and time with all of these that need special voices and financial help. We have fostered many cats, kittens, pups and dogs that have come into our lives, nurturing them and finding kind homes for them. We offer a listening ear to people we meet in stores. Our lives are enriched by our hearts pouring out compassion and our children have followed our example. In a few weeks, I start an art class, teaching foster children. For this all through the years, we receive no pay. It is a gift of the heart, our entire family gives from the heart because Christ loves us.

"And the greatest of these is love." Let us love one another with compassion, caring and kindness. It only takes some Heart! to help that lost animal or lost soul. Be about the Father's business and He will show us the lamb laying down with the lion and He will separate the sheep from the goats. It is not for me to judge.

Posted By: Louise Bailey | April 22, 2009 6:55 PM

Psalm 36:6
Your righteousness is like the mountains of God;
your judgments are like the great deep;
man and beast you save, O Lord.

Posted By: Barry | April 22, 2009 7:22 PM

Kay,

I agree with you that animals are not on the same level as humans and that the human soul is the most important issue to God. When Jesus died for our sins on the cross in pain and agony, you are so right that he did that so we may live with Him for eternity if we would only believe that he is indeed the Son of God. Yes, His animals are definitely an 'earth' issue, not an 'eternity' issue.

If we as Christians would only understand little things like not buying puppies at pet shops as 90% of them come from puppy mills where the breeding parents suffer in cages their entire lives breeding over and over, never getting out to be loved or to play that would be one good tip for the Christian church. I know the cruelty involved with puppy mills. My husband and I just adopted a breeding mother from The HSUS Arkansas puppy mill rescue a few weeks ago.

Other things like at least buying 'cage-free' eggs from a local farmer or grocery store, buying organic meat and dairy. Not buying into the cruel veal or foie gras industry or not buying into the horrific fur industry where God's animals suffer in such cruel ways. There are just so many tips for the Christian community. So many things the Christian churches could tell their congregations regarding animal welfare if they'd only care enough.

Yes, we need money going out to the masses who need food so they can learn about salvation thru Jesus Christ. I completely agree with you, but when I read your blog it just sounded to me like you were telling your audience not to give to the animal protection organizations anymore as the money from Christians needs to be put into the highest calling. Why is it so black and white? Where are the words of compassion for God's animals? I'm honestly stunned.

So I'm left with the feeling that you and Rick have decided that it's best for all Christians to ignore animal protection and only care and link with human causes for Christ around the world. Leave the animal causes for the atheists? So you want the Christians like me who work day and night trying so hard to get other Christians to care for the lives of God's animals to stop? Sounds like you would prefer I get on the mission field and leave my animal advocacy behind.

I feel each and every one of us has been called by God to do His work here on earth in different ways. I honestly don't believe he would have put Proverbs 12:10 in the Bible if he wanted all the Christians on the mission field. I believe that verse was intended for all of us to be sure not to ignore the suffering and cruelty imposed on His animals and I feel my heart leading me in this direction as well as telling others about the saving grace of our Lord.

I would love to be able to sit down and talk with you about this issue someday in person. That would be a great day.

Posted By: Pamela Bertsch | April 22, 2009 8:16 PM

Kay,

I first want to say that I am a Christian pastor in the San Diego area and have a deep love, respect, and admiration for you and your husband and all that you and Saddleback Church do in the lives of people and throughout our world. My congregation has had a close association with your ministry through Celebrate Recovery and in partnership with you have been able to take that ministry to Peru and now Poland. I tell you that to let you know that I what I share here comes from a brother and friend and supporter of your work and ministry.

I do not take issue with what you wrote at all theologically. I believe as you do that men and women are the crown of God's creation, that we alone were made in His image and designed for an eternal relationship with Him; that Jesus died alone for people to redeem them and offer them forgiveness and new life in Him, life that will last into eternity. I believe as you do that God made all of creation to glorify Him and to even serve the people He had made. He has allowed us to take from His earth for food, even of the animals, and that God has commanded us to be stewards and caretakers of His creation, and that includes all creatures great and small.

My only comment is that I wish you would not have used this particular article to make it an "either/or" when it comes caring for and showing compassion to animals that are suffering. I agree that if we only had enough resources to care for a human being and not an animal, that we should care for the human being. If it's a choice between feeding my children or paying for an expensive surgery to save the life of my cat, I would feed my children and put my cat to sleep. But the suffering of animals is real and is happening, and if your heart was filled with compassion and you felt like helping, that even if you didn't feel like sending money to the organization you saw on TV because you felt their approach was inappropriate, I wish you would have still found some way or some organization to support that is helping the plight and suffering of animals. Even with the economic downturn, most of us still have much to give, toward all issues we face. I feel your article may end up discouraging people from helping or giving at all toward eliminating the suffering of animals; suffering that God never intended, and suffering He commanded us to prevent. I wish you would have used your article to say, "If you do feel moved to help eliminate the suffering of animals, follow that leading." And then in another article, tell us to continue to help people, as you and Rick are, and to give primarily and substantially to the saving of a world and care of people who are suffering and in need.

I am just recently learning much about this issue of animal suffering, and also am finding in my own area of San Diego that my acting on my convictions to speak up for animals (which is not a part of my particular denominational tradition at all), has given me inroads into the lives of many people without a relationship to Jesus. A large percentage of animal activists are not believers, and they read our articles as Christians. Most often what they read discourages or angers them and we lose our ability to engage them or have their respect so as to present Christ to them.

I thank you and admire you for putting your thoughts out into the public arena, for you most certainly will get all kinds of reactions. I do hope we keep people first as Christ meant us to, but I hope that does not mean that we ignore the promptings that God puts on our hearts to care for all of His creation, all the creatures He made, great and small. Thank you for reading this.

Posted By: Dr. Scott Rische | April 22, 2009 10:27 PM

May I suggest it would have been compassionate to have returned the bird nest to a safe place in the same location. The mother bird could have continued with her family responsibilities. No money involved. I enjoy birds as part of God's gifts for us to enjoy.

I also think that most of those who are upset with Kay's article have not really understood how vast is the need of orphans, widows and the poorest of the poor and how far short the aid falls. When you have experienced the situation you see differently.

Posted By: Mildred Salmon | April 22, 2009 10:52 PM

I REALLY appreciate the dialogue with so many of you. Again, my point was not that animals are meaningless and unworthy of our protection, love or compassion. I was trying to raise the value of children, not lower the value of animals. The reality of homeless, abandoned, neglected, orphaned children left to fend for themselves is something I've witnessed too many times; I cannot ignore or minimize their suffering. It's so easy to get caught up in my own struggles or problems and forget that God says true religion is measured by how I care for orphans and widows (James 1:17) in their distress. Please focus on my main point: precious boys and girls need moms and dads, families and homes. Foster care, adoption, supporting those who desire to adopt but cannot afford it, creating transition centers for street children, strengthening existing orphanages - there's so much that we can do to make a difference in the life of a child. Orphans are on the heart of God; they must be on ours as well.

Posted By: kay warren | April 22, 2009 11:05 PM

Are you serious? I mean, I've been an animal rights activist for years. They are innocent beings that can't defend themsleves and they need our support to do so. People can stop having babies that will starve. Animals aren't that lucky. I feel horrible for children to suffer because they can't help themselves either, but I place that blame on their parents and society.

And are some readers also oblivious to the fact that there are far more animals that need our help then the poorest people. Don't get me wrong, I support helping children too, but I do not have two levels of thinking. Animals ARE just as important as people. Without animals to show us true compassion and unconditional love, this planet would just be overrun by heartless thugs (oh wait, half the planet already is). My heart is warmer because of the animals that I have embraced and I don't want to become cold-hearted.

Posted By: Kim | April 23, 2009 9:26 AM

Kay -

I'm glad to hear that your message was not to lower the value of God's animals, however, if we go by your philosophy that means that as long as we are Christians we shouldn't have hobbies as the money we spend on hobbies should go to the orphans. We shouldn't go to movies as that money should go to the orphans or have nice clothes or homes, cars, etc... Yes, the majority of our focus SHOULD be on evangelism and helping the humans that are less fortunate, but I still feel the churches should give a LITTLE effort to animal 'welfare' education to become better stewards for them. Does your church give ANY value to God's animals? Do you do ANYTHING for them? God gave them a little bit of the Bible, but gave evangelism a huge portion of the Bible. I think that sets a good example for the balance churches should place on animal welfare as well. To do absolutely NOTHING because all focus should be upon the orphans isn't right as far as I'm concerned.

The commercial you're writing about as I recall was an ASPCA ad. I remember seeing it many times. I applaud all the work they do and am so happy that so many give to their organization to help God's animals. You mentioned that you are upset about factory farming. How would you even know about factory farming if it weren't that the animal protection organizations gathered that information so you would know what to do to not buy into that horrible animal suffering?

I know exactly the emotions you're feeling with regard to the orphans. My heart goes out to them in a big way as well and I feel more should be done for their cause and I'm glad to see you shining the light on their plight. I just don't see what would be so horrible about posting a tiny 'animal corner' in a church bulletin with positive tips for Christians to follow so they know as Christian consumers what to do and what not to do to help God's animals so they won't have to suffer so much. There are just so many easy ways they could help, as I mentioned in a previous post.

Can we at least say 99% orphans and 1% animals at your church since God asked us to care for them during their time on earth as well? God was not speaking to the atheists when he wrote Proverbs 12:10. He was speaking to us. I don't believe we should ignore his request.

Posted By: Pamela Bertsch | April 23, 2009 9:50 AM

The state of human consciousness today is so far removed from the level of realization and awareness we had when we were first created and it shows with the kind of conclusions and responses here today. Animals are highly spiritual beings with a purpose and mission and are no less valuable in the eyes of the creator than you or I. Just because most people on this blog cannot experience this or realize this does not means it is not happening.
Animals are more in tune with the nature of creation, with their soul and reason for being here on this earth than the majority of humans and just because most humans have lost their connection and link with the reason for their own existence does not give humans the right to reject their gifts, their value or right to live free of pain, suffering, torture and abuse at the hands of humans.
As an animal communicator along with many others who can communicate with animals, the message we get is always the same.... they are here to help humans evolve to a higher level of existence. They bring with them nothing but love and compassion for humans, for it is the humans who are pillaging this earth, the resources and the plants and animals they SHARE this earth with. The animals want humans to know that they are tired of being used as objects, as a means for self pleasure to fill humans bellies and as toys for human entertainment. Again, they come to this earth with nothing but love and compassion and to help humans realize their true existence. They are here to help us heal our own energetic wounds of pain and suffering while loving us unconditionally even when we turn our backs on them and sell them to the devil they will still come back to help us expand our consciousness to finally realize our true soul's existence and purpose. They carry with them nothing but pure unconditional love. This is their gift. They say humans are too busy filling their minds with constant noise and chatter thereby creating a block to the ability to connect with them on a spiritual level. But there are many who are able to communicate with the animals. Please open your hearts and quiet your minds to hear the gifts they will share with you and how they can help all of you realize your true soul's purpose.
You can see for your self their message of love, peace and hope for humans evolvement to a higher level.

http://www.suprememastertv.com/animal-communicators/

Posted By: john649 | April 23, 2009 11:01 AM

26 Then God said, "Let us make human beings in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Here we see that our first directive is that we are to exercise guardianship over the creatures of the world. If we do this indirectly we do this not just for the animals but for our own lives as well. It affects our humanity, our character, and keeps the world in balance to produce the things we enjoy. This is very like the second of the two commandments that contain the whole of the law, "love your neighbor as yourself", if we will guard and protect the worlds creatures in a similar way we guard and protect ourselves.

Though we are the ones made in the image of God, this does not mean that the rest of the creatures of the world have no importance or that only our lives are important. What it means is that we are to learn to love them and support their lives. Fact is, that as Christians we should realize that the highest mandate for our lives should be to love, protect, preserve, support, encourage life in everyone and everything.

And just for those who don't realize it, the creatures of the world have souls (http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen1.pdf) and mothers of all kinds feel great distress and pain at the loss of their babies. Fallen nests should be put back without touching the eggs.

So many foolish humans jeopardize whole species by careless interactions with creatures including greed in over-hunting. This DOES affect human life as well, although perhaps not yours in particular today. We are not to live only for today, but consider tomorrow not only for ourselves but for others.

If an emergency places us in a position to choose a human over an animal, yes choose the human. But in reality seldom is such a situation presented. In reality the helplessness of animals should cause us to feed them first before we eat, rescue them before we play, and give them compassion before we ask them to work for us.

As Christians who want to live out our being created in the image of God, it is not 99% self attention and 1% to non humans. I believe it is 100% godly compassionate attention to all who are within reach.

Posted By: tiro | April 23, 2009 11:33 AM

I love puppies! And I disagree! Puppies and gorillas and people should all be sponsered; all of the world!

Posted By: Amanda jones | April 23, 2009 11:39 AM

I totally agree with John. I watch the videos from your URL link and it confirms my own experiences..........
My own experiences with animals in my life have lead me to a greater realization of their gifts and purpose for being here. I had a very special cat named sparky who's heart released a blood clot which lodged in her leg thereby paralyzing her. She was given 3 months to live but miraculously lived for 9 more wonderful years plus her paralyzed leg healed totally in 3 months as if it never happened. 6 months later she saved my life by waking me when there was a fire brewing downstairs in my house. She has helped me heal many emotional challenges and has brought more joy and love to my life than most humans have. I firmly believe she choose to stay here and help me move thru some difficult times in my life.
I can totally feel this special unconditional love and healing she offered and I can experience this from many other animals as well. So, when humans say animals have not come with many special gifts to offer humans and have no soul is a true testament to your assertion that humans are the ones who have lost their way and their connection to the spiritual side of their true existence. I know many people who are rising to a more expanded ability to communicate with animals and the messages they bring are always of unconditional love and a desire to help the humans. My hope is that others will open their minds to the possibilities of a greater level of understanding of the truth of who we are, our higher selves and the role that animals play in helping humans get there. If you hold tightly to a narrow perspective you will never experience what's beyond your own walls of life........but please don't discredit those who can see beyond.

Posted By: catz15 | April 23, 2009 11:43 AM

goodness Kay, open your heart.......if this is what this human interpretation of christianity is teaching than I want NO part of this......for a moment your soul came to the forefront and let you feel compassion for those that humans are torturing and inflicting needless pain upon but only for a moment. Then your minds rationalizing took over and your heart's link to your soul closed completely. There are 3 ways to communicate... with your mind, with your emotions or with your heart. Animals communicate with their hearts, with their soul, their spiritual being but humans rarely know how to allow their spiritual being come to the forefront and because of this virtually millions of animals are suffering on a daily basis. So please everyone retire this rhetoric that humans are some how far superior to animals. This quoting of the scriptures only shows how much humans have misinterpreted the message and meaning of these words....after all how may other religions hold animals as sacred, special and spiritual beings? Who says you are right in your interpretation? This is the rhetoric that causes wars amongst humans while the animals live silently watching humans destroy one another............it is the humans who have far to go and evolve to catch up with the rest of this creation..............

Posted By: amber15 | April 23, 2009 12:06 PM

If you wanted to write an article about orphans then you should of focused on that instead of denigrating the care and concern others have for animals......

Next time you want to cast aside the many wonderful gifts that animal kingdom has brought to this planet please think about a world WITHOUT plants or animals.....how many meals have you eaten where an animal has given up their life for your eating pleasure, how many animals fur coats or leather shoes, coats and gloves have you worn that animals have been killed for? how many drugs have you taken that animals have endured needless suffering by animal testing so you can be healthy? I can go on but it is this egoistic response by humans to the daily offerings of life the animal kingdom is giving humans that really shows how far humans still have to go to be a shining example of unconditional love and compassion that the animals have already mastered.............you do no favor to the human species by putting orphans before human compassion for all life.

Posted By: mark | April 23, 2009 1:11 PM

This is a great discussion. There are a few things we should all keep in mind.

Firstly, John 3:16 literally says that "God so loved the cosmos that he gave his only begotten son." The word usually translated as "world" is much more inclusive than just the "world of people"

Secondly, Let us not forget that the founders of the SPCA were evangelical Christians (such as William Wilberforce and Arthur Broome) who founded the society on "exclusively Christian principles"--as the original charter states. THis was part of their larger understanding of the Christian's duty to protect all "weaker members of society" who had no means to look out for themselves.

Thirdly, with regard to the first chapters of Genesis, any type of body-soul dualism is entirely foreign to the Hebrew text. If one desires to read an anthropology of immaterial souls into the text, then he or she must indeed grant animals such “souls” as well. Animals are “brought forth” from the earth, and humans are likewise shaped into existence by the hand of God from the very same soil. As the offspring of God’s word and the earth’s fertile receptiveness to God’s command, land animals are described as “living souls” or “living beings” (???, nephesh). The exact same term is used in Genesis to also describe human beings and thus implies a certain kinship, making human-animal ontological continuity explicit. Other Hebrew biblical terminology reflects this unity of human and beast before God as well. For example the phrase “spirit of life” (??? ???, ruach hayyim) can indicate both animals and humans, as can the word “flesh” (???, basar), which literally refers to “the softer parts of the body of an organism, or to the body in general, or to humanity in general.” In a similar manner, the expression “all flesh” (??? ??, kol basar) can mean “all living creatures, animal as well as human.”

Finally, As we read the familiar words of John, “The Word became flesh,” we should be reminded that the Word did not merely become man (????) or even human (????????), but rather the Word became flesh (????)—the term which defines the solidarity of humanity with the rest of creation in its bodiliness. In the Gospel’s message of God’s incarnate solidarity with the rest of creation, humanity in its true form as the Image of God is not removed from creation, but rather restored to creation in order to reclaim the material cosmos on behalf of God’s in-breaking Kingdom.

Christ's Blessings to you all.

Posted By: Joshua | April 23, 2009 1:51 PM

I just noticed that my Hebrew and Greek characters did not show up. I apologize for that.
If you care to look into the text further. The Greek word for "man" is transliterated as "aner". "Human" is transliterated as "anthropos" and "flesh" is transliterated as "sarx"

Posted By: Joshua | April 23, 2009 2:01 PM

I respect that everyone has their own opinion. With that being said, I was extremely disappointed in Mrs. Warren's article. Caring for animals and humans does not have to be a choice. By contributing to the protection of animals whether through monetary contributions of by giving our time and help, it does not mean that we valuing animals over humans. The ironic thing here is that animals would not need this protection if it weren't for the cruelty of humans themselves. Have you ever watched a video of a cow or pig being slaughtered, or a baby seal being being clubbed & skinned while still alive? All the doings of humans. If you are turned off of the commercial and giving to animal protection causes is not what's in your heart, simply change the tv station. But, please don't try to undermine the cause.

Posted By: Jessica | April 23, 2009 3:16 PM

To those who think that animals do not have souls, please check the Hebrew in the online interlinear at

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen1.pdf

There you will see in the relevant verses in chapt. 1 verses 20 and 21 that creatures are ‘living souls’. Nephesh – soul. Two words, one for soul and the other for living. You will find the same two words in 2:7 where it says that God breathed the breath of life in the man’s nostrils and he became a living soul…. Nephesh. Our flesh is like unto carnal creation. Our spirit is where we are created in God’s image.

You will find the same word in Prov. 12:10 nephesh translated as life. More properly it reads that the righteous man loves the soul of his beast.

The soul is the area of emotions, feelings, instincts as well as intelligence. Yes, animals have all of those things although not to the degree that humans do.

Posted By: tiro | April 23, 2009 5:35 PM

Wow, the comments posted here amaze me. Kay, I believe that I understand what you were trying to say and I have the same response to all of the outpouring I see for abused animals. I'm a pet lover myself--but really people--being stewards of the the planet doesn't mean that we give humanity to animals. Please lets not make this a fight between children and animals--there should be no contest.
One child is more important than all puppies put together.

Posted By: Barb | April 23, 2009 8:08 PM

"I was extremely disappointed in Mrs. Warren's article. Caring for animals and humans does not have to be a choice. By contributing to the protection of animals whether through monetary contributions of by giving our time and help, it does not mean that we valuing animals over humans."

Well said Jessica. And this is the balance that is lacking in this article. If we center our attention on ourselves fully, then we are violating God's first mandate to humanity. God's way is not self first. If we think that humans are so important that we shouldn't worry ourselves about the creatures of the earth, then perhaps one day humanity will experience a world without them. Imagine that if you can. We have already wiped out numerous species by our self centeredness. Balance. There is a balance that is necessary for life to be lived at its fullest.

Posted By: tiro | April 23, 2009 8:38 PM

So am I correct in assuming that all of you who disagree with Kay are vegans? I don't know where I've seen such bad theology and bad logic - I guess I should stick with "leadership" and leave "her.meneutics" alone. Please, think about what you are saying. Read Psalm 8.

Posted By: alison | April 23, 2009 10:21 PM

From Barb: "One child is more important than all puppies put together."

The problem with your simplistic thinking is that you haven't really thought this through at all much like how this article was written. So suppose this one 'child' you refer to is a child who has murdered someone, so how many puppies are worth killing to save this one child, 10 puppies, 20 puppies, 3,000 or even one million puppies. And now let's say that perhaps these one million puppies can grow up to be adult animals that can be trained to help blind people, disabled people, sniff out drugs for ATF agents, look for humans after earthquakes, bring joy, happiness and unconditional love to senior citizen homes. So now tell me where the worth is and the value of life and gifts that can be offered to society. I suspect you would have quite a revolt on your hands and perhaps only then would you stop to re-evaluate your callous disregard for the creation of life in all forms. But then again maybe not...

Posted By: Mark | April 23, 2009 11:47 PM

Alison - No you may NOT assume that all of us who don't agree with Kay are vegan. Being a Christian animal 'welfare' activist is a tough job being that the majority of activists I'm around are 'atheist, animal 'rights' extremists'. I spend much of my time witnessing to them as they do not know our Lord. -- They are constantly trying to tell me about my faith and my Bible and how wrong I am for believing that it's okay to eat animals, (although there is a right and a wrong way to purchase meat, dairy and eggs). THEY say there is NO right way to do that except to be vegan. Food is only one small part of animal 'welfare' activism, but my faith is constantly being challenged on a daily basis, therefore I have to try to set an example for the Christian faith. I may not be saving the orphans of third world countries, but I am doing God's work on my own mission field. Why don't you go to my myspace page and see what I'm all about. www.myspace.com/pjsmail26

Posted By: Pamela Bertsch | April 24, 2009 6:16 AM

Alison,

Yes, Psalm 8 is a wonderful Psalm, but dominion over God's animals doesn't mean that it gives us the right to throw dogs in puppy mills in tiny cages for life to suffer and breed for pet shops and over the internet, so we fight legislatively against it and yes it takes animal protection organizations to do that. That does not mean we can stand by and watch breeding pigs, veal calves, and laying hens live chained to walls, or in gestation crates and battery cages unable to stand up, turn around or spread their wings, so we fight that via the consumers and the legislature and it takes animal protection organizations to do that as well. That does not give us the right to keep fur animals in cages suffering in the cold and in traps for the arrogant fur industry only to be either electrocuted or skinned alive for fur coats and fur trimmed items, etc... Showing mercy and love for our Lord means fighting against these atrocities while at the same time sharing our faith on a daily basis as he asked us to do in His Word. Read Proverbs 12:10. ---

Posted By: Pamela Bertsch | April 24, 2009 6:28 AM

I have read this article again and again and I still cannot get over the kind of thinking this article presents. I mean to think this is written by a woman who is supposed to be a leader of christian values and married to a man who is leading a church filled with people and teaching them how to understand values and worth and then again I read this article and I am shocked to see the level of understanding or rather lack of understanding of life and the complexity of this creation.
How can a grown man, no less a pastor even think to give a birds nest with eggs to kids? And then how can a spiritual woman not be able to connect to the soul, the life force or value of life forms other than her own kind? And then denigrate the value of life if it is not a poor, helpless orphaned child? And then pointing fingers at the "slick" devious advertisers for her own emotions?
And some people are praising this as good, pointing fingers and calling those that disagree vegans like that is a curse in and of itself? I am truly shocked at the lack of awareness and the state of the human species. No wonder we as a society are in trouble.............

Posted By: Susan | April 24, 2009 10:47 AM

All over the world, people of all economic conditions, find solace and comfort in animals. Look at the loving depictions of dogs and cats that appear in both Western and Japanese art. Have you ever seen a homeless person with a dog or cat? Imagine how much comfort and friendship that pet provides in a world that is hostile.

Posted By: Usbek de Perse | April 24, 2009 10:56 AM

mark:
"The problem with your simplistic thinking is that you haven't really thought this through at all much like how this article was written."

Well--yes I have thought this all the way through--just like I've read the Bible all the way through--more than once. AND I hold that theologically any human being is created by God as an eternal being and therefore infinitely more 'important' than any temporal being.

"So suppose this one 'child' you refer to is a child who has murdered someone,"

YES, even THAT child.

"so how many puppies are worth killing to save this one child, 10 puppies, 20 puppies, 3,000 or even one million puppies."

Only Jesus needed to die to save that child. Why bring puppies into it?

" I suspect you would have quite a revolt on your hands and perhaps only then would you stop to re-evaluate your callous disregard for the creation of life in all forms. But then again maybe not..."

Whoa--I don't think the Gospel that I proclaim as part of the Body of Christ has a "callous disregard for the creation of life" on the contrary because I believe that God is the creator of all of life AND has created humankind in HIS image that I have the very highest regard for all of creation.

I agree with Alison-this thread has exposed some very faulty theology and logic.

Posted By: Barb | April 24, 2009 10:58 AM

To Barb, I know you think that your perspective is THE only right way to approach life but the problem with this is that this world is 6.5 billion strong and everyone feels as righteous as you do about their own bible and their own culture. This is why we have wars after wars, my God is better than your God. May way or the highway. Your limiting your life experience to your mind and your small piece of understanding...narrow mindedness begets judgement which leads to an exclusion of everything this creation has to offer...... if you think you are representing the highest regard for all of creation and the depth and breadth our creator intended for us to experience with your perspective you are only kidding yourself.

Posted By: Tom | April 24, 2009 12:57 PM

Tom,
"as righteous as you do about their own bible and their own culture"
I don't feel righteous at all--just saved by grace.
"Your limiting your life experience to your mind and your small piece of understanding...narrow mindedness begets judgement which leads to an exclusion of everything this creation has to offer."
Whoa--again--since you don't know me at all you seem to have judged me without any hesitation. I'm pretty sure that you have no idea about what I am about. I do however, understand the scandal of the cross--believe me, it's not MY WAY that counts at all.

PS since this blog is for Christians to discuss issues--why is the Christian persective put down.

Posted By: Barb | April 24, 2009 3:45 PM

If Kay Warren is so concerned about orphans and children, why is it that she chooses to direct her bile at animal-welfare organizations? Why isn't she attacking, say, the Christian fundie churches who spent millions to fund Prop 8 -- surely proving food to starving children is more important than denying marriage rights to other Americans. Why isn't she attacking sports fans, or concert goers, or wedding planners -- after all, all that money could be better spent on 'the children'. Why isn't she attacking all the hundreds or thousands of things people spend time or money on that DON'T help children?

The reason is that Kay seems incapable of understanding two things. One, that compassion and support are not a zero-sum game. Two, that Kay's personal preferences are not shared by everyone. She might gravitate toward children's causes, but other people choose to make animal welfare, or fighting breast cancer, or women's healthcare, or rural literacy their cause of choice. That she would attack other causes simply because they don't reflect her beliefs or her religious interpretations tells us more about the paucity of her spirit than anything else.

Posted By: beatrice81 | April 24, 2009 10:53 PM

I do wonder at times because I love animals also and I do give money to help animals, But I also give to children in need. I think God is love and He just wants us to do the best we can. I dont think God wants a single Child or Animal to suffer. If we our selfs can have so much love for an animal then how much more does God love them.

Posted By: Renee | April 25, 2009 2:58 AM

I left church because of hypocrite and ignorant people like you Kay Warren! I continously give to animal charity because human beings not only inflict but continously contribute to animal suffering. Just because they are helpless doesn't give us the right to abuse or exploit them! That in itself already shows who the real animal is, doens't it Kay.

Posted By: Susan | April 25, 2009 11:27 AM

This is the first I have ever seen Kay's blog, and I'm shocked at her lack of compassion and insight. What a poor ambassador for Christ! Hers are the kinds of comments that turn so many people away from Christianity. I appreciate Mike's link to the HSUS's site on animals and religion, though. It was worth coming here to find that.

Posted By: Ginny | April 25, 2009 11:47 AM

It is the HUMANS who are creating the suffering you see in the advertising posters. It is the HUMANS who have inflicted needless pain and torture on animals via puppy mills, skinning animals alive, factory farms, etc. It is the HUMANS who are devastating the earths resources by their greed for profits thereby creating a climate for the extinction of many animals. It is the humans who are bulldozing the rainforests and plant life for profits thereby choking the earth's ability to survive. This earth, the plants and animals can survive fine without humans. It is the humans who NEED the plants, animals and earth to exist........so please explain to me how it is that humans are the superior species as many of you profess?
And please do not regurgitate some psalm or bible passage you have read like a mantra. Humans have had this knowledge for billions of years and have yet to understand or follow it's message.........

Posted By: Simon | April 25, 2009 11:53 AM

Although I may not agree with Kay Warren, some of you appear to be hostile individuals. And to one blogger, what association does Rex Humbard and Elvis have with this topic? Talk about guilt by association! Granted, Red Humbard led many worldwide to Christ but it did not come free! He SOLD salvation. He, his wife, and associates lived ridiculous, lavish life styles at the cost of his followers. As a Floridian, I have witnessed the Humbard dynasty and Maude Aimee's glutenous spending. This has to have God's head shaking. Judge not less ye be judged.

Posted By: Harlow Boudreaux-Wesley | April 25, 2009 2:30 PM

I'm really not sure why this thread turned into one that tried to demonize kay Warren, a Christian woman known for her humanitarian actions.
The theological view that God created humans in his image to have stewardship over all of creation is one that is soundly Biblical and has been held by the church for 2000 years. If you disagree with this theology, then I would hope that you could provide an argument for an opposing view without denigrating the person who presents the view. Actually Simon has posted an argument that states his argument in a way that does just that.

You are right Simon--it is humans that have caused ALL of the trouble--that is actually a very Biblical point of view. God gave humans the responsibility to be good stewards of all of creation and they have completely blown it--from very early on. the difference in my view is that God's creation of humans was done in love and it's His great love for us caused Him to redeem us through becoming one of us (Jesus Christ). It is through the resurrected Christ that we have life--. As much as we might love the other animals of creation --it was to man that God gave free will and ability to love as God loves.
And we are totally still responsible for caring for God's creation--all aspects of it. Thank you for your post, Simon.

Posted By: Barb | April 25, 2009 7:24 PM

Harlow -

It was THIS blogger who brought up Rev. Rex Humbard. I told everyone that he was best known as Elvis Prestley's pastor as that is how many people knew him. I brought him up as I was explaining that I have been in the Christian ministry my whole life. I wanted those who would read my blog posts to understand that I know about ministries from the inside out ever since childhood as I was born into Rex's ministry all the way through Oral Roberts Univ. where I graduated college.

I was not judging anyone, but looks like you are! What did I say that was judging anyone? I just said that with Kay's philosophy we wouldn't be able to have any hobbies, go to movies, have nice cars, homes or clothes as sounds like everything needs to be given to help the orphans as far as she's concerned.

My example is Jesus Christ not Rev. Rex Humbard, Oral Roberts, Rick or Kay Warren or even Elvis. :) Yes, I am fully aware of many large ministries and their ridiculous spending. I do not disagree with you on that, but my eyes are on Christ and Christ alone.

Posted By: Pamela Bertsch | April 25, 2009 7:35 PM

I do not believe Kay Warren provided a sufficient answer to Ted Olsen's hierarchical-thinking fallacy critique. Before she grapples with that and Beatrice81's point regarding her selection bias, she will fail to persuade people like me who, by the way, left evangelicalism because of the kind of rhetoric and ethos Warren embodies.

Posted By: Agnieszka | April 25, 2009 11:18 PM

I have only been a Christian for the past 9 years(I'm 52 years old) but I am also an animal welfare activist. Can you really call your self a Christian when you abandon animals and treat them with cruelty? They are our reponsibility since God put them on this earth and in the care of "us".
Shame on you Kay!!!!!

Posted By: Judy Perry | April 26, 2009 8:42 AM

I agree with Kay Warren about the fact that animals are not equal to human beings. There is a problem in our society in which atheists think that animals are equal to humans. However, they are not. Animals are not equal because they do not have souls and they are not created in God's image. This does not mean we have to abandon and not care about them. Instead, we have to be good stewards and treat them well.
In our society, there are people who try to save their pets' lives, which causes the animals to suffer. As good stewards, we must do the humane thing, which is to end their suffering by putting them down. This may sound harsh, but it our duty as God's stewards.

Posted By: pikachu | April 27, 2009 1:01 AM

Kay, you're off base here. According to Proverbs 12:10, the wise person cares for his or her animals. You can care for animals and for people also. Now, this will make a lot of people angry, but this callous attitude towards animals seems very popular with Southern Baptists, which Kay is.

Posted By: Karen | April 27, 2009 9:45 AM

This is short & sweet!
It would be wonderful to bring into the churches the compassion for animals. Teaching our children the ways of compassion for all God's creatures would be an absolute positive way to build on a new beginning for so many animals.
The kids of today are the future and that is a positive beginning for so much more!
My feelings on animals..............I thank God each day for them, because although they cannot speak, and the differences are obviously there. I still am able to learn so much from them everyday. Oh yes I forgot to mention one thing.........I am not an atheists!

Posted By: Victoria L. Pitcock | April 27, 2009 1:45 PM

As a theologian and a Church historian I believe it is my Christian responsibility to strongly state that Kay Warren’s opinion—while perhaps well-intentioned—is theologically uninformed and is representative of an extremely small minority within the overall teachings of Christian theology. It would be no exaggeration to say that her view goes against almost 2000 years of nearly unanimous theological teaching on this subject affirming continuity between humans and animals and God’s love, care, and redemption of both. As it presently stands Kay’s position is more representative of the Gnostic heresy and of Stoic utilitarianism than the Christian faith. I thus would encourage Kay and Rick Warren to look more deeply into this topic so that their theology on this matter may be more informed by the Bible and Christian theology than by Stoic Philosophy, Descartes, the Secular Enlightenment, and 19th century Liberal Protestantism.

Both the Old Testament and New Testament envision a place for animals in the renewed creation. (Isaiah 11:1-10, Romans 8:21 are just the tip of the iceberg here—if you care to read more on this see my own and Andrew Linzey’s articles in the forthcoming Summer issue of Dialog: A Journal of Theology).
The Early Church Fathers, including Irenaeus, John Chrysostom, and the theologically mature Augustine all held that animals would be saved. Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley (and the later Methodists) all preached resurrection for animals—both in general and even for specific individuals. The Puritans—including John Milton and Richard Overton—likewise were led to the view that animals had souls, held that they should be treated with compassion, and passed the first modern laws for the protection of animals. The belief in animal souls was likewise maintained by George Fox and the Quakers who, along with Bishop Joseph Butler and the Anglicans, took up the ethical cause of animals. As mentioned in my previous post, Evangelicals such as Arthur Broome and William Wilberforce championed the cause of compassion towards animals and eventually, in 1824, founded the RSPCA—an organization which confessed to be “conducted exclusively on Christian principles.”
19th century Liberal Protestants—who argued for the salvation of humans alone and not for animals—parted company with evangelicals and the reformers on this issue and took a position closer to Descartes and the Enlightenment.

As for the question of “animal souls”, Kay’s view is closer to that of Descartes and the Stoics than anyone in the Christian tradition. This may also be said for her view that animals do not act from “volition” but rather from merely “instinct.” I must maintain—as a former animal biologist and philosopher of biology—that such a views of the animal mind and “animal instinct” are in no way supported by contemporary scientific research. (If one cares to read more about why and how animals act the way they do, see the work of biologist Marc Bekoff, Colin Allen, Donald Griffin and others on animal cognition).

I submit this in Grace and Peace to further the conversation

Posted By: Joshua Moritz | April 27, 2009 4:18 PM

Kay,

I wanted to write a follow-up comment to my earlier one. I have had the chance to read through your article again a number of times, as well as most if not all of the other postings to your article. Your article certainly got an important conversation going, and for that I thank you.

I fully understand your heart and intent for writing what you did, and as I wrote, do not take issue with the overwhelming need to care for children, here in the USA, and around the world. Articles about caring for orphans and abused children need to be written often and persuasively! I have been to India a number of times, to Africa, Mexico, and a number of other places where the poverty and need are extreme. I have cared for and have had to drive by children who are begging in the street; children who easily could not have been more than two or three years old. And so, to your call to not neglect the confronting and facing of that need, I applaud and commend you! One of India’s own philosophers has even once said that there is only one thing that is not sacred in India, and that is people. Like you, I have seen that truth with my own eyes. And like you, I have seen that reflected, even in this country, where at times, some people appear to have a greater concern and compassion for animals than for another human being.

But having said all of that, I am also concerned by the silence; the silence of the Christian Church to speak on behalf of God’s creation and the animals He’s made, and the responsibility we have to be caretakers of that Creation; enough to confront the documented abuse and neglect of God’s creatures. In my tradition, the silence has been deafening, and that silence is being filled with ideas and voices that do not represent God and His Word regarding these issues. Even with all the theological training I received, I was not taught very much from God’s Word on how we as Christians are to care for our world and the creatures who live beside us. And I certainly was not empowered to speak up for God’s world and animals without having to do so with some fear of being stigmatized as a left-wing this or that, or someone empathetic with non-believing atheists or liberals who are assumed to be the ones who end making the news and leading all the protests (which actually is often not the case).

So, my request to you is this: Would you please consider writing another article on how Christians can and should respond, from God’s Word, to the neglect and abuse of animals in our world? You felt compassion for what you saw on TV. If you, from God’s Word, had done something to respond, what would that have been, and why? What are some ways you see that believers can and should get involved in issues related to all God’s creatures, great and small? Believers not only need DIRECTION from God’s Word, they also need a BLESSING and ENCOURAGEMENT from leaders who have been given the kind of influence you have! There are many believers who are on the front lines in confronting animal abuse and related issues. Often, they face the ridicule of those they protest with who do not believe as they do as Christians. I know someone who is involved in peaceful and effective protests every weekend where she lives, and she has told me, first hand, that as she stands there trying to act on her convictions concerning animal abuse, that she has had to endure being harassed for being a follower of Jesus and believing everything else she does as a Christian. But that is something Jesus said would happen, and she is not so much upset by that. What is REALLY surprising and disheartening to her, is that other believers also harass and ridicule her and the others involved with her for being “activists” on behalf of God’s Creation or on behalf of animals being abused. That is what she does not understand, and what none of us should accept.

So on behalf of all those who love the Lord their God, who love children that are in desperate need, but also want to be faithful and ACT on the CONVICTIONS God has placed in their hearts to be activists on behalf of animals being abused, I ask that you write an article, if not even a Bible study, on this issue. You will not only give someone some needed direction from God’s Word, but you will also bless and encourage someone seeking to be faithful to God’s call on their heart and life.

Thank you again for all you and Rick do.

Posted By: Dr. Scott Rische | April 28, 2009 1:27 PM

Kudos Scott, you hit the nail on the head.
All God's creatures, great and small, the Lord above has made them all. The rainbow covenant cited in the story of NOAH was between God and all Creation, not humans alone.
Now, we were made in God's image, it is important to ask ourselves when faced with ethical questions, "what would God do?". Thank you Scott for bringing the Truth into the Light. Noah's Arc is a great taching story for children of all ages.

Posted By: MA Moore | April 28, 2009 3:34 PM

Kay,

I heard your heart in this. You aren't saying that "puppies and gorillas" don't matter to God.

I find it disgusting that we have laws protecting endangered animals, yet government is trying to legalize (or at least minimize) abortion.

Should we protect endangered animals? Yep. And I can shout this all day long and everyone will pat me on the back. Few will disagree that we have a human responsibility to care for the ONE planet that the Lord has chosen, graciously, to give to us.

But then the question becomes, should we protect endangered children, especially the unborn ones?

Thank you for your heart, Kay. You bring up a simple, but needed point.

Posted By: Matt Lehmann | April 29, 2009 12:49 PM

While I certainly understand your concern for orphans, it should also be noted that animals are of great significance to God too. He gave specific instructions for Noah to build an ark which was made to accommodate the animals that He so dearly loved and wanted to save. Certainly Noah and his family could have been saved on a boat much smaller in size but He loved His animals so much that He made room for them too! Why didn't God tell Noah to fill up the ark with all the orphans and let the animals drown if they weren't important? Obviously His animal creations mean very much, not only to God but to their caretakers who are the people He has created. It must break God's heart to see all of the suffering and abuse that goes on not only with orphans but animals as well. Let our hearts not only be moved with compassion for orphans, but also with love and mercy for all of the countless animals who suffer daily at the hands of ruthless men who have no conscience.

God has called each one of us to do His will; some to help orphans, others to help animals but we certainly should not differentiate between the two by saying that everything we do should only go to orphans! I say, lets each do OUR part to help them both! After all, if we care for the animals as we should, what better way to put a smile on an orphan's face then to place a puppy in their lap or a kitten to cuddle with? Together, we CAN make a difference!

Posted By: Brenda Ford | April 29, 2009 10:46 PM

Americans keep 74.8 million dogs and 88.3 million cats as pets. Last year, they spent 41 billion dollars on these animals. That’s more money than the gross domestic product of most countries. There is a very real danger to this prioritization of animals; the easy affection animals offer poses a perilous risk of replacing human relationships in our lives. Instead of letting loneliness push us past our comfort zones to love other humans, many circumvent this system by soothing their loneliness with the affection of a pet. The consequences are eternal.

I wrote more about this a few months ago on the webpage linked to my name above.

Posted By: Kevin Alan Wells | April 30, 2009 7:38 PM

Wow! what an outpouring of comments over this well written and common sense article. Animals are not on the same level as humans. If this was otherwise, wouldn't Jesus include an animal as one of his disciples? Or shouldn't there have been throngs of animals looking for healing just as the people did? Or animals coming to hear him speak? Or writing a portion of the Bible? This would have been foolishness!

The point that Mrs. Warren was making is accurate - that before we give to the cause of animals, human causes should be given to first. She is not asking for one cause to be priority over another - that is between you and Christ, but rather that the human element is priority over the animal plight.

As she explained clearly, she loves animals and has concern and care for them but it is ridiculous how humans have humanized animals in this day and age and that we need to take a step back and remember the order of things.

Posted By: Christa Otto | May 2, 2009 5:42 PM

GREAT topic of discussion. All I can say is we have come a long way on the topic of animal rights and we have a long way to go. It is about those that are innocent. And children are no different and both animals and children should be loved and looked out for. The reason people are emotional about both, and should be about BOTH, is they are innocent and helpless and have no choice about what is being done to them. Awareness is key on this and thank goodness people are talking about this subject and taking action. Doing nothing is how to make it easy for cruelty to continue.

Posted By: Deborah | May 2, 2009 9:59 PM

Kay, I just heard the ad you were referring to and I was horrified. I can only guess that the people who criticize you here have not heard the same commercial or they would NEVER be speaking out against you. I'm sorry you've become the scapegoat.

Posted By: alison | May 3, 2009 9:49 PM

Here is one great example of how a church can support animal activism. My church is Fellowship Church in Grapevine, Texas. My pastor is Ed Young. He and his wife Lisa had the most awesome event a while back. They allowed animal rescue groups to come in so they could find good homes for their animals on the grounds of the church. I applaud them for that. As I've mentioned in my previous posts God gave His animals some room in the Bible so that we would understand that it is our Christian duty to protect them from any suffering during their time on earth; therefore, I believe the Christian Church should mirror what God set as an example, not turn away.

When I asked my pastor's wife Lisa Young's opinion of Kay's blog she said she understood Kay's heart. She said it's all about priorities. Amen!

Yes, evangelism and human efforts first, but to say we as Christians should ignore God's animals altogether and not donate money to animal protection organizations is not Biblical and I'm sure saddens God.

Proverbs 12:10

Posted By: Pamela Bertsch | May 5, 2009 12:58 PM

Although I respect everyone's opinion here and please be sure all of these comments ARE everyone's OPINION. I DO NOT think "humans" come first, animals come after. It is the ignorance of the humans that have created this division and the humans lack of being able to understand our own spiritual guidance that has created such a division in consciousness here. There is a growing and very important animal rights movement whose time has come!! My mission in this life time is to care for animals... to do all I can both spiritually, legally and sensibly to stop the torture of animals at the hands of humans. It is this attitude that humans are far superior that has brought such shame to the humans species in their treatment of the animal kingdom. When articles like this are posted it is a slap in the face to the wonders of creation that we were given a gift to live in. Shame on us!!

Posted By: john649 | May 5, 2009 10:33 PM

I do disagree with Kay, and I am a vegan. Humans are animals. We should be concerned about the wellbeing of all human and non-human animals.

Although some posters seem to cite Judeo-Christian sources for believing that non-human animals are of less value, please consider the Hindu Precept, "Refrain from destroying life". Reminds me of one of the Ten Commandments, "Thou shalt not kill".

Posted By: Cecily | May 5, 2009 11:03 PM

It should be added that in Genesis, prior to the Fall, "Man" was vegan.

“I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground - everything that has the breathe of life in it - I give every green plant for food." Genesis 1: 29

If we can assume that Genesis represents god's original intention – an Ethical ideal perhaps – then doesn't it follow that we ought to be engaging in practices that try to better realize that "ideal" here, today, on this Earth? If it does then those who refuse to contribute more suffering to this world through their food choices, or through a refusal to send in a small amount of money to ensure that a dog (whom is most likely here because human animals intervened, domesticated, and poorly cared for other dogs therefore resulting in millions upon millions of "no longer wanted" companion animals), are better actualizing god's intention.

Isn't that moral?

Posted By: Alex | May 6, 2009 7:39 AM

One, as a matter of simple logic, Kay's argument doesn't follow because there doesn't seem to be anything about "ensoulment" that would necessarily mean that the harm caused to nonhuman animals doesn't count, morally. Pain is pain. What does me having a soul matter in that calculation?

Furthermore, what does "me mattering most" have to do with trying to eliminate unnecessary suffering in this world because, again, pain is pain...even if "humans are higher than animals"?

This leads to my second question. If I can assume that Kay believes in an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient god, then, given that, irrefutably, animals are capable of suffering physically and psychologically, you believe that god intended this situation to be such. Therefore, if you are correct, you must be saying that despite god's intention to have sentience in our world that goes beyond the narrow confines of our own species, he still insists that, because you and I are "special," all that other pain, misery, and death doesn't count, ethically.

You are simply declaring things by fiat here, not rational, sustained argument.

Finally, you have an either/or problem. How does the simple act of going vegan - stop eating animals, for example - prevent you from at the same time contributing to funds in an effort to alleviate human poverty? The answer: It doesn't! Don't be ridiculous.

Posted By: Alex | May 6, 2009 9:10 AM

I just read in the May/June 2009 edition of 'Best Friends Magazine', the article 'The Ethics of Caring'. Here is a little highlight from that article. (Best Friends is an animal protection organization.)

'To prioritize humanitarian endeavors such that human misery is ALWAYS ranked higher than that of animals is to say that ONLY when human suffering is COMPLETELY eliminated will animal suffering deserve attention. BUT SUCH A UTOPIA WILL NEVER EXIST.' - Frank McMillan, DVM

Posted By: Pamela Bertsch | May 6, 2009 9:38 AM

Many of those orphans Kay is so worried about are left parentless through greed, stupidity, superstition, and other human failings. Throwing money at the problem only shifts the suffering from one generation to the next.

People like Kay are the reason I no longer donate to HIV/AIDS organizations. They are more interested in feeding money pits to salve their own conscience (and garner fame) than truly solving underlying problems which cause suffering.

Posted By: Pasta | May 6, 2009 7:11 PM

One more time: I believe animals are an integral, extremely valuable part of God's amazing creation. We have been charged by God to protect them, show kindness to them, and enjoy the gifts they bring to enrich our lives. I believe animals will be in Heaven (although I don't see any support for my particular dog being hin Heaven, Scripture clearly teaches the presence of animals in Heaven). With that said, I also believe that they are not human - possessing an eternal soul. Jesus died to restore broken men and women to relationship with God. In times where we must prioritize where we spend our money, I will always choose to make sure orphaned and vulnerable boys and girls have food, a home, school and safety. These vulerable children will know that God loves them and has not forgotten them when you and I are his hands and his feet, providing for their needs. I don't apologize for believing people have a unique value to God.

Posted By: Kay Warren | May 13, 2009 6:57 PM

Wow! This is still going? The topic was children without parents, homes, care, often even food. Aren't you impressed with the love and compassion and action and advocacy being poured out in this blog on behalf of 132,000,000 orphaned and vulnerable human children?!?

Posted By: Mildred Salmon | May 13, 2009 7:16 PM

The problem with Ms. Warren's conclusion is that it is just that: a conclusion. A re-statement of a conclusion more accurately. There isn't a reasoned defense of this conclusion, unfortunately. I presented a simple, straight-forward challenge to her conclusion. I was optimistic that this would receive some attention; I was wrong.

You need not "apologize for believing people have a unique value to God," Kay, but you must rationally argue in defense of this.

Nearly 10 billion land animals are killed annually in the U.S. alone for the most trivial of reasons. Billions of birds live in chronic pain brought on by their genetic-manipulation-induced bulk. Female cows are impregnated only to have their babies taken from them shortly after birth to prevent bonding and subsequently sold to the veal industry. Millions of companion animals live without homes and are killed annually because we insist that breeding and domesticating animals in accordance with prevailing tastes is ethically justified. This does not include the billions of marine animals killed annually. This level of suffering is unimaginable and cannot be explained away with declarations by fiat and false platitudes about how nonhuman animals are also part of "God's creation," just of lesser concern.

Posted By: Alex | May 15, 2009 9:29 AM

The problem with writers like Alex and Joshua Moritz using the bible to validate and defend points about animals having souls, vegetarianism and non-justification of the killing of animals is that the bible, from the first book of Genesis promotes,instructs,justifies and even commands us to kill animals when perceived as necessary or desired. Indeed, according to the bible and before Adam and Eve were cast out of the garden of Eden, God gave them "leather" to wear in place of fig leaves.
Genesis 3:21,"For the man and his wife the LORD God made leather garments, with which he clothed them." This act and the accepted animal sacrifice Abel made over Cain's rejected grain sacrifice in effect made them expendable for man's utilitarian use.
I'm not interested in getting into a war of bible quotations. I'm merely pointing out the futility of using select bible quotations to promote ones own personal agenda or beliefs.
My personal Christian beliefs aside, my instinct tells me that survival of my own species is more desirable than any other. Hence given the choice between using my money to help a distressed animal or one of my own distressed species I will choose my own species 100% of the time.

Posted By: Daniel | May 19, 2009 9:55 PM

"The problem with writers like Alex and Joshua Moritz using the bible....is that the bible, from the first book of Genesis promotes,instructs,justifies and even commands us to kill animals when perceived as necessary or desired."

Yes, but the issue here is not the legitimate use of animal products, but the fact that, as Alex said, "Nearly 10 billion land animals are killed annually in the U.S. alone for the most trivial of reasons." We are quite literally destroying the creation we were ordered to preserve and protect. Animals are not human, but they do feel pain and loss; they do have emotions; and they are the victims of human cruelty--not the other way around. How much meat in supermarkets is never consumed; how many leather goods are never worn? How many people outside of Antartica and Siberia, etc. actually need fur coats? Are veal and foie gras really necessary for a balanced diet? Anyone ever hear a lobster scream as it's being boiled alive? A long time ago, people killed animals as needed and they used every part of the animal for food and clothing and tools. And to this day, kosher and halal butchers are required to use methods that cause the least amount of pain to the animal involved. Watch a video about the conditions that chickens are kept in, how cows are slaughtered, and how animals are stripped of their fur. It's not about not eating meat or wearing leather; but it is about being responsible and only taking what you actually need.. Some people still live like this, but these men and women are often looked down upon by those who think that they need to be "civilized." God asked Noah to preserve the different species HE created, yet we have managed to drive many to extinction. I really don't understand how people think that animals are valued over humans when there are cases of people burning and burying animals alive and walking away with a small fine at the most. When we show so little respect for God's creation--and that includes the oceans, the trees and EVERY living creature, we are showing a lack of respect for God. How can there be such a thing as too much compassion? Of course, I feel for all of the people around the world who are suffering; that goes without saying. However, I also live in one of the world's wealthiest countries where we consume much more than our fair share of resources, and where tons of food and medicines are wasted every day. I don't see any real change until people like us are willing to make do with less so that others can have more.

Posted By: Nicole | May 19, 2009 11:41 PM

To Daniel: Thank goodness there is only one of you!!! Your personal instincts of a me first greed attitude tells me that this is part of the reason this earth is on in the state it is........

Posted By: simon | May 19, 2009 11:42 PM

To Kay: I think your interpretation is to too narrow and shallow. Jesus died to restore broken men and women to a relationship with God because humans are the ones that need it. Humans have an ego, the tool of separation that separated us from our soul, from God and from an eternal life in heaven. Your right, Humans have become separated from their soul but animals NEVER became separated and DO NOT need Jesus to die for their for them and to bring them back to the source of creation. THEY NEVER LEFT!!! They never became separated. It is the humans who need salvation not the animals since animals are already aligned with their spiritual soul, life ever lasting and unconditional love. That is why they are already in heaven.
That is why man's best friend in a physical body is an animal. They carry the light of unconditional love which is the source and origin of this creation. No matter how horrible humans treat animals and believe me humans have committed some of the most heinous acts against animals but they always come back to love humans. How can this be? How can animals carry the light of unconditional love. Do you think this is an accident? This is the lesson animals bring to humans but humans only turn around and kill them!
When you say "I don't apologize for believing people have a unique value to God." it is because your ego makes you think you are more special than the force of unconditional love.

I also believe that you have dug in your heels and will never see anything sacred outside of your predetermined beliefs.

Posted By: julia15 | May 19, 2009 11:53 PM

There is a clearer tension between animal and human rights in some East African countries. During the colonial period and the rise of big game hunting for European tourists, a number of species were decimated almost to the point of extinction. Indigenous Africans were then prevented from hunting for profit (called poaching) or even as they had done generations before (when wildlife was plentiful) for food. These policies have continued to the present day. There was a recent case (can't recall the country at the moment) where a giraffe was captured near a village where the people were near to starving and intended to use it for food. And they were prevented from doing so by local authorities b/c the giraffe was in a protected class. As others have mentioned, I just don't think that this sort of either/or situation exists in the U.S.

Posted By: Nicole | May 20, 2009 12:03 AM

"To Daniel: Thank goodness there is only one of you!!! Your personal instincts of a me first greed attitude tells me that this is part of the reason this earth is on in the state it is........" Simon

Every species has an instinct for its own kind to survive, why should I have a different instinct? If you don't have a will to live or keep your species going, you are the odd one. Until you have lived among as many different species of animals as I have I would guess you are ignorant of this fact or in denial.
As far as greed, I do my best to not harm,use or consume any more resources than I have to.

Posted By: daniel | May 20, 2009 7:41 PM

Nicole,
We probably agree on more things than we disagree on.
Reread my first post. I was explaining the futility of using select bible quotes to validate a point. Further I was pointing out the inherent higher value I place on human life than all other forms. This is not to say that other forms of life have no value or are not worthy of cherishing and respecting.

Posted By: daniel | May 20, 2009 7:49 PM

No Daniel, your thinking is shallow and lacks spiritual intelligence. Your 'instinct' behavior is simply the ego devoid of a true relationship to your soul, your spiritual intelligence and any sort of awareness of life beyond your physical form. This is mass consciousness you are projecting. When one has a relationship with ones soul, one no longer thinks in terms of me first, my species, my world, my life, me, me, me.
When you make a conscious decision to allow your soul to come to the forefront, your heart widens, your minds expands to a greater universal existence and every life form becomes as valuable as the next............the whole world and everything in it becomes your family, your cherished brothers and sisters and no longer is there a separation between another life form or a desire to dominate other beings. Your will becomes a universal will, the will of God...where unconditional love, the source of all creation starts to flow like an endless river...

Posted By: simon | May 21, 2009 11:46 AM

Simon,
Who are you to judge my conscience awareness of my own soul? What authority gives you the right to judge me this way? It's amazing to me how you can come up with your self-righteous conclusion based on two posts that I made!!
You are entitle to your "opinion", but there is no basis of authority from which you speak, other than what you have imagined from your own mind, that is, unless you now speak for God himself.

Posted By: daniel | May 21, 2009 12:27 PM

you are responding from the ego, it feels attacked so it lashes out with indignation. When one responds from the soul it no longer feels separate from others. Your statemented opinion
'my instinct tells me that survival of my own species is more desirable than any other. Hence given the choice between using my money to help a distressed animal or one of my own distressed species I will choose my own species 100% of the time.' clearly states your separation from other species.......when you start to look within to your soul for guidance you will become more sensitive to the differences between the ego with its emotions and the neutrality of the soul. This is not a judgment but merely a state of consciousness.

Posted By: Anonymous | May 21, 2009 1:41 PM

I'm sorry, I neglected to add my name above.

Posted By: simon | May 21, 2009 1:45 PM

and your self-righteous judgements of me are not from your own ego?
What is the basis of authority from which you speak?

Posted By: daniel | May 21, 2009 1:56 PM

No. These are different states of consciousness. When you start to separate yourself from the human state of emotions and allow your higher self to come forward, your soul which is your link to a universal state of unconditional love allows you to begin to experience an inner connectedness to the world around you. You start to see the world as one unifying field of consciousness.
Your tie to your human identity where the ego rules becomes less important and no longer governs your responses. You are no longer in bondage to the minds constant chatter. You will feel neutral to forces outside of unconditional love, you will begin to realize that you are not this human form but a soul who's existence extends beyond this human form and into eternity.

Posted By: simon | May 21, 2009 2:21 PM

This is still simply your opinion, awareness as perceived by you, Simon. If it seems to work for you, great. That does not mean it is reality for me, or anyone else.
It is interesting that you seem to believe you have reached a state of conscienceness where you have conquered your ego, and your natural instinct.
This doesn't work for me, and in fact provides a major conflict with real life in the real world, and here's a scenario as to why I say this; Suppose me,you, some children,some puppies, and an aquarium of fish were in a house that suddenly caught on fire. The flames and smoke are enveloping the house very quickly, and there is no time to give a lot of thought to this situation, such as pondering how the world's energy is being released into different forms, yet still in harmony with the universe and the smoke,heat,mice and cockroaches fleeing this scene are all your sisters and brothers because you are "one" with the universe.(............the whole world and everything in it becomes your family, your cherished brothers and sisters and no longer is there a separation between another life form or a desire to dominate other beings. Simon may21,2009 11:46am) Remember that quote Simon?
Back to my scenario; Me, my instinct kicks in, and I immediately take action to save myself, and along the way my love for my fellow man is so strong I risk my life(and may even lose it in the gamble) to save the children, and you too Simon.
Now, according to your own words, you theoretically may stay in the fire and choose to become united with your universal family,brother fire,sister heat, and father smoke,etc. or you will have a dilemma about who to rescue because as you said,"(and every life form becomes as valuable as the next............Simon may21,2009 11:46am)
Simon, who do you save, if anyone? If you run across a puppy first do you rescue it, or go find the child? What about the fish? They after all are equal in your eyes too.
You see, to the rest of us in the real world, your Pantheist beliefs don't work for us, and proves that
KAY WARREN IS RIGHT, PUPPIES AREN'T PEOPLE.
I am done with this blog. Daniel

Posted By: Daniel | May 22, 2009 8:42 AM

Daniel: I appreciate your reply and am grateful that you are delving deeper but I am sorry that it is causing you so much anger. It is the ego speaking (what you call your natural instinct) that is struggling for it's self identity and is preventing the soul from taking a more prominent role.
So let me respond to your scenario, but first I need to establish that this blog is for those who are already in agreement to the existence of a god, so your reference and comment that "to the rest of us in the real world, your Pantheist beliefs don't work for us," is an argument for another blog, perhaps an atheist blog where there is some common ground on which to base your anti-pantheist argument.
This "real world" that you refer to is a world where God does exist, in fact it IS this God that has created this "real world" that you speak of, so to exclude this element of origin or neglect to included this factor in your scenario has no basis here.
In a world of 6.5 billion people this is not a concept that Simon has devised singlehandedly nor is Simon responsible for spreading these beliefs around the globe to the millions of people in tune with various beliefs as to the existence of a God.

And as to your argument as posted that holding the belief that all of life is sacred somehow "provides a major conflict with real life in the real world" is simply based on your relationship with your ego instead of a personal relationship with your soul, your spiritual component that is essential to having any spiritual connection to inner guidance, divine light or divine guidance.

You see, if one finds himself in a scenario as you have illustrated, having a one-pointed personal relationship with your creator is exactly why ones instinct or egoistic response would never "kick in" as you have stated. The ego in man would not be the judge trying to respond from man's limit mind working overtime trying to figure out what he should do according to mans limited knowledge or ideas, but rather the soul in man would be divinely guided as to the best course of action to take. Guided by an eternal, all-knowing spirit which knows all possibilities, all outcomes and exists in perfect harmony.

So, from your egoistic decision in your given scenario you would first save yourself, than save other children and then animals given your hierarchy of importance but never once giving thought to any divine will or divine guidance as to what it is that should be divinely played out here. Suppose the child you just rescued was meant to perish in this fire because rescuing this child would of ensured its destiny to grow up to be a demon worse than hitler, responsible for ending the lives of millions of innocent humans but Daniel has decided that he knows best here.
Now suppose the puppy you would of overlooked to save this child was destined to become a leader in sniffing out massive drug shipments destined to ruin the lives of millions of teenagers in various countries but again Daniel has decided he knows best here. The point is that your scenario aligns itself with the self-appointed limited ego in man which supercedes the souls guidance and any sort of divine guidance at all. And the problem with that scenario is that man has now decided he knows more than his creator there-by creating a separation from its source resulting in disharmony, war, greed, self importance, poverty and misery, etc. Which is exactly where we are now.

And finally no here is arguing that puppies are people. The conflict you are reacting to is your relationship to your ego vs your soul............

Posted By: simon | May 25, 2009 11:55 PM

While I agree that many people find it more acceptable/easier to sponsor animal rights movements versus human rights movements, I also believe that God gave us all unique passions that we should pursue. If someone loves animals but is forced to nurse children back to health, I doubt they would do a bad job, but they would probably be doing a better job focusing instead on what they were truly passionate about.

Posted By: Sara | May 29, 2009 2:31 AM

One, I wasn't using a "select bible quote" to justify anything. I was arguing from this premise: if the "garden of eden" can be considered an ethical ideal, a reasonable assumption I think, then why isn't it logical to try to live according to those standards as set in that ideal? If it is logical, then given that prior to the Fall, "Man" was vegan, which I proved with the bible quotation, then why don't we celebrate the ideal by not killing and eating animals, for example, as opposed to doing the opposite and therefore living up to the standard set after "Man" broke god's covenant?

Accordingly, the argument that "god demands" our exploitation of nonhuman animals is a moot point. Because he only "demanded" such after "original sin." Sin entered the world and thus pain and suffering. Why not limit that suffering then as a reflection of the ideal?

Second, one cannot reasonably make an ethical argument that we have "inherent value" or are "special" and therefore X, Y, and Z are justified without answering the questions I posed above in this comment thread. Namely, as a matter of simple logic, when considering pain and suffering, what does our "special-ness" matter? God made animals so they could suffer, and yet he wants for all that suffering not to matter because "we're special"? That doesn't follow, unless god is a monster.

Furthermore, we cannot look to other species for which actions we believe are or are not ethical. War, rape, infanticide -- these are present in other animal species. Are they ethical for us to do therefore? No, they aren't. And the reason is because we hold and act from ethical principles that effectively remove us from "Nature," or the food chain. We are moral agents.

Bigotry is essentially being celebrated here: I like my own group. By reference to "Because animals do it" is the justification? That's absurd.

Of course "puppies aren't people." That is, by definition, a straw man argument. Nobody is arguing that puppies are human beings, which is what you have conceived of "people" to mean. Puppies are, however, for lack of a counter-argument (as we see here, again and again) are persons -- possessors of basic rights, most fundamentally not to be made to suffer unnecessarily. Whatever rational argument you can cite that explains why humans have this basic right, it will necessarily follow that nonhumans also have this right.

Sara,

Nobody is "sponsoring" animal’s rights versus human rights. That's an either/or fallacy. Some of the greatest proponents of human rights also believed that animals shouldn't be killed and eaten. Einstein and Gandhi for example. One can argue that both human and nonhuman animals should be allowed to simply exist and be happy, unless for a very significant and ethical reason.

Decreasing the suffering experienced by sentient beings, all of them, is Christianity through and through.

Posted By: Alex | June 3, 2009 10:18 PM

"One, I wasn't using a "select bible quote" to justify anything. I was arguing from this premise: if the "garden of eden" can be considered an ethical ideal, a reasonable assumption I think, then why isn't it logical to try to live according to those standards as set in that ideal? If it is logical, then given that prior to the Fall, "Man" was vegan, which I proved with the bible quotation, then why don't we celebrate the ideal by not killing and eating animals, for example, as opposed to doing the opposite and therefore living up to the standard set after "Man" broke god's covenant?" Alex

It isn't logical because God set a new set of standards after we were abolished from the garden of Eden. God taught us, indeed even commanding us to kill animals in many passages throughout the Bible after the garden of Eden. Your points do nothing to address this at all, effectively ignoring the remaining 98% of the Bible.

"Second, one cannot reasonably make an ethical argument that we have "inherent value" or are "special" and therefore X, Y, and Z are justified without answering the questions I posed above in this comment thread. Namely, as a matter of simple logic, when considering pain and suffering, what does our "special-ness" matter? God made animals so they could suffer, and yet he wants for all that suffering not to matter because "we're special"? That doesn't follow, unless god is a monster." Alex

Yes, I as a Christian can make an arguement that humans are special, have inherent value and above the rest of the animals. God said so, even in the first book of Genesis which you like to refer to.
Suffering happens. Even Jesus suffered and died on the cross, and IF you are a Christian you are in a way very grateful he did. God is not a monster. He is of course omniscient, perfect and has infinitely more knowledge and wisdom than we do, and, he make the rules. Daniel

Posted By: daniel | June 12, 2009 6:27 PM

your logic sounds like a twelve year olds logic at best based on you being the center of the universe. Perfect example of speciesism at its worst and bordering on human supremacy. Perfect example of how the male ego can justify its existence and continue using and abusing other species for its own pleasure. Your no interpreter of the bible but rather a bible user.........

Posted By: Susan | June 16, 2009 4:51 PM

sorry....
make that a Bible abuser!

Posted By: susan | June 16, 2009 4:52 PM

To bad you feel this way. Are you a Christian, or a Jew? If so, how do you reconcile the acceptable animals that are permitted to be killed and eaten in the book of Leviticus?

Posted By: daniel | June 16, 2009 8:15 PM

Ugh! This is just one more reason I RUN from organized religion!!! The self righteous arrogance never ceases to amaze me! To all of you who just pick & choose scriptures from the Bible (a book, by the way, written by people - probably inspired by God) to further their own agenda is frightening. We are all animals and we all have the ability to communicate, reason, love, feel pain & emotions. Just because we have the ability to be more cruel to those perceived "under us" doesn't give us the "right"! What we "humans" do to those "under us" is abhorrent and I PROMISE you that the God I know, follow & love would NOT approve. I am constantly striving to educate myself to live more ethically & responsibly so that I can better the quality of life for all animals on this earth whether human or otherwise. And I am certain that is the way God intended!

Posted By: Kristina | June 28, 2009 10:21 AM

Actually your comments are filled with self righteousness. So, you KNOW the mind of God? It is very presumptuous to claim to "know" what God would approve or dissaprove of just based on your perception of him. Since you don't claim the bible as the word of God, how do you prove any authority to speak for him?

Posted By: daniel | June 28, 2009 1:16 PM

Daniel, if you could read my words properly, I said "the God that 'I' know...would not approve" and I stand by that. If he would approve of the horrific treatment of animals and "lesser" humans than us for our entertainment or amusement or any reason, then he is no God that I would want anything to do with and I certainly wouldn't follow him! No true, merciful God would ever stand for cruelty towards any living, feeling creation. I also said that the Bible is "probably" inspired by him but written by mere humans and if you are going to live by it then you cannot just pick & choose what you want to follow and not what you don't.

Posted By: Kristina | June 28, 2009 4:42 PM

I totally agree with Mrs. Warren's article. I have often thought to myself after viewing the commercial that was mentioned, if only this much effort was put into improving the lives of needy children. I am also against animal cruelty, but a child being brought into a world of hunger, and abuse is still more defenseless than an animal that has inherent survival instincts. This is my opinion. I find it interesting that all of the "passionate" animal lovers, were silent when the abortion topice was brought up.

Posted By: renee | July 1, 2009 9:28 PM

I was disturbed to learn of this blog post in this month's copy of CT. The magazine's response was spot on; compassion for animals does not diminish one's compassion for people. Rather, it reflects it.

I know people who claim to be Christian who beat their dog when it did wrong. Who left their shivering puppy out in the cold in winter so it "didn't make a mess." Who have abandoned their family pet because it was "too hard" to take it with them when they moved. And all while reciting the mantra that "animals don't have feelings." It isn't manipulation. Humans are meant to be sensitive to suffering no matter what the source. And it is a proven fact that those who abuse animals are more likely to abuse a child or spouse as well. Look it up if you don't believe me.

And like the first comment above, comparing notes on suffering is a slippery slope. Like myself, one can contribute to the ASPCA, the American Indian College Fund, Public Radio, your home church, and Christian Children's fund as well. Or are we going to compare notes to see which Christian charity is the most worthy? Everyone has a different calling, and compassion for animals is a gift of the spirit, just like any other.

Posted By: Meredith | July 5, 2009 7:14 AM

Meredith,
I know people who claim to not be Christian, belong to other faiths, or have no claim to a religion at all and are cruel. So I'm not sure why you seem to be singling out Christians.
You said," compassion for animals does not diminish one's compassion for people. Rather, it reflects it." I agree that it should not, and I can't find anything in the authors piece that disagrees or is contrary to this position either.
There are many people who seem to have(and even claim it)more compassion for animals than people. How would you explain this?

Posted By: daniel | July 5, 2009 2:40 PM

Daniel,

I am singling out Christians because this is a Christian blog written by a professed Christian on a Christian website. She is not addressing the actions or behavior of extremist organizations, but decrying the fact that anyone at all could possibly be sensitive to animal suffering or contribute to its cause. This is demeaning to our faith, as we Christians should be among the most compassionate of people. I do not condone the actions of extremists, but I am curious how donating to a fine organization such as the ASPCA is demeaning to human suffering or elevates the suffering of animals over people? It does no such thing. All humans, but especially Christians should be sensitive to suffering in all its forms. To harden yourself to it or cut yourself off from it is a dangerous step towards blindess to all suffering.

Posted By: Meredith | July 7, 2009 8:39 AM

I appreciate your comments. I agree that abusive people can be that way across the board, their targets being whoever is within reach. That is a sad evil indeed.
In defense of Christians as a whole, because I still get the impression you have an unrealistic idea of exactly what a Christian is, I can only say that Christians are not perfect. We sin. We are also only human, not superhuman, so we have errors and limitations to our thinking,comprehension, and awareness levels among the broad spectrum of humanity. We do have a goal, and the greatest example in Jesus of how we should conduct ourselves.
I read the original blog again, to find where you may have got the impression that the author suggested we not be sensitive to animal suffering. I could not find it. What I did find is this paragraph that I will quote for you,"Please don't misunderstand me: God put animals under the care of human beings, and we are responsible to treat them with love and kindness (Gen. 1:28). He holds us accountable for his creation - I mean, he's the one who thought up puppies and gorillas in the first place, and we will answer to him for how we cared for and nurtured his planet and his animals. But how did we get to the place where animals - even ones in need - are considered equal to or more important than vulnerable or orphaned children? Animals and people are two different classes of created beings and they will never be equal in their worth. As precious as animals are to our daily existence, they operate from instinct, not volition. Only people have a spiritual dimension. We are the ones created in the image of the Creator, the only ones with a soul. Ultimately, people matter most. Jesus didn't die for animals; he gave his all for human beings."
The way I have come to understand this author is that it is more important to focus on human suffering, and in her opinion one should not make easing animal suffering a "priority" over human suffering.
If I am wrong, I wish the author would correct me right away.

Posted By: daniel | July 7, 2009 10:38 PM

My comments are threefold: 1) So many of us make definitive statements about things not fully understood (remember the "seeing thru a glass darkly" verse), so we should all act in accordance with general kindness to all God's creatures, giving thanks for whatever reason they are here. 2) this statement "would create a Pavlovian response in the emotions of caring people. I almost pulled out my credit card! I thought angrily to myself." reminds me of those people moved by compassion to give to the homeless man on the street but then remember that "he'll only buy booze with the money" so they put their wallets away. It slowly becomes a convenient way to not care. Ours is not to decide the motives of others but to see suffering and remember "there go I but for the Grace of God", keeping our souls and consciences from bearing seared. 3) The solution for Kay should not be get rid of the ASPCA commericial but put more "heart-wrenching" orphan commercials on TV.

Posted By: GLS | July 15, 2009 12:06 PM

What??? Who says animals "are considered equal to or more important than vulnerable or orphaned children"? I've seen that TV commercial. They make no such claim.

Puppies? Gorillas? Children? 'Yes!' to all of them. There's room for compassion and funding of both orphan and animal welfare. And I believe God expects it of us.

Posted By: Chris I. | July 16, 2009 10:12 AM

Kay, you broke my heart when I read your blog about compassion gone too far for animals. I don't think any believer would ever dispute man's priority over animals but to make it sound like we cannot make a donation to an animal cause is not only wrong but it is misguided. You are in a powerful position because of you and your husband's ministry and with that comes a great responsibility to carefully choose your words so I am guessing that you meant what you said which is frightening and sad and misguided. For you to imply that people should not care about animal welfare just because people are hurting is wrong. God has given us big enough hearts to care about the needs of many and putting people first does not exclude us from helping animals at the mercy of human cruelty. It broke my heart that you would be upset that you cared about that commercial that you saw because God has given us big enough hearts to not only care about and give to the needs of humans but care for the voiceless at the mercy of humans. YOu can give to orphans and care about their horrible situation and still have enough love in your heart to do for the animals. God does not call us to one ministry only and I do not know of any Christians who put animals about humans and you are the first Christian I know of to make it sound like it is a crime to give to an animal cause. Don't you think Jesus burdens some of His followers to help the animals along with helping humans. YOur blog is going to make well meaning Christians think they can never give to any cause outside of a human one for fear that is wrong and it could not be farther from the truth. I don't understand why you have not apologized for your comments that may be used to the detriment of our furry friends. I am a Conservative, Republican stay at home mom who works for and with the homeless, homeless children, abused children and I can tell you that if I see an animal commercial where they need money to help feed an animal or fight cruelty that my God wants me to help them and I can do all that I am for humans while still helping animals. It is people like you that give non believers the idea that Christians have agendas and that is all they focus on and that Christians' hearts are cold toward anything but their own agenda. I atteneded a pro-life rally one week with my daughter and the next week went to the Capitol to get legislation passed to stop cruelty to animals. Just because there is human suffering does not mean we turn a blind eye to the suffering of animals. God cares about His creation and while clearly, humans trump animals, God calls us to help animals and what kind of CHristian would not care if an animal is being tormented. You are basically saying that you dismissed your concern for those animals because people suffer......Yes, people suffer but the GOd I serve gave me a big enough heart to care about people and animals. YOu broke my heart, Kay...You have a lot of power...you need to be careful how you use it. I say this much gentleness but much sadness that you would use your power as a platform to take away from helping animals and make believers feel like bad guys for helping the helpless just because they are not human. Please seek God in this and reconsider what you said.
Suzanne

Posted By: Suzanne | July 18, 2009 2:41 PM

When TV watching goes too far:
I read your article and it looks like you watch too much TV. And, you read into what you see on TV!

How do you know that Jesus did not die for animals or mosquitos? You sure have a high opinion of yourself.

C. S. Lewis argued in the Problem of Pain that if necessary, creating a heaven for mosquitos and a hell for mankind would not be that difficult.

Posted By: Jennifer A. Johnson | July 18, 2009 6:57 PM

Animals don't have feelings? Hmmm. Jesus instructs us to be stewards only toward humans? Hmmm. In my interpretation of Jesus ~ he healed "all" sick, not just humans. He was the original "shepherd" ~ the definition of which is 'care for, take under one's wing, protect...' I don't recall reading in any version of the Bible that Jesus said suffer unto me ONLY humans. We are guardians of all that God created ~ we don't own anything. We may have convinced ourselves that the animal kingdom does not feel or have a soul ~ but I would argue that point soundly with anyone who has ever seen a dog sitting next to a dying human friends's bedside, or watched a cat sitting on it's crippled companion's lap in a wheelchair, or seen a mother elephant charge hunters to protect it's young, and so forth. No feelings? No spiritual essence? I beg to differ, and I will continue to differ. Convince yourself Ms. Warren that animals have no feelings so that you can continue to ignore the indignities they endure day in and day out ~ yes, along with their human counterparts ~ and yet even through all these sufferings, they will still wag a tail, still give a purr, still cuddle with humans ~ why? Because they, unlike mankind, know the true essence of unconditional love ~ the love that Jesus spoke of and practiced.

Posted By: Rev. Paula T. Webb | July 22, 2009 11:50 AM

Rev Paula,
May I say that in regards to your statement that animals have souls, feelings and spiritual essence, it is you that have convinced yourself of such things. Science calls those things you describe instinct.
There are so many accounts of and justifications for the killing of animals for sacrifices(unnecessary now),for food and clothes in the bible that to ignore or pretend they don't exist or rationalize that they mean something else is just not facing reality.
Yes, we are instructed to be good stewards of the earth but we are not instructed to believe animals have souls.

Posted By: Daniel | July 22, 2009 10:38 PM

well i actually read your paragraph that said, 'please don't misunderstand me,' and i heard your cry for the children.

that animals are precious, but people are god's children.

i'm sorry that your blog caused such an explosion and such negative response. i wish that we people and all our passions could all just get along.

loves.

Posted By: leanna jackson | July 27, 2009 3:21 AM

Obviously you have NOT spent time getting to know these precious, loving, forgiving creatures.

I have devoted my life to saving them from the atrocities that idiot people (with opinions not much different than yours) inflict on them. Stupid people, with no heart for them.

Animals are GOD'S creatures after all...aren't they?

Shame on you for not taking their existence as important.
I hope one day you look into God's eyes and see his distaste for the way you have forsaken his beautiful creatures.

Again...shame on you.

Posted By: Tedi | August 5, 2009 10:19 PM

Wow your pretty deluded. Life is life. It doesn't matter what vessel it inhabits. And what have you done to help suffering children. Your a hypocrite and a lier. True, atheists show more compassion and love than you people do. So just go cry, sing, light candles, and hide from truth somwhere else. You obviously have a very cold heart. All the food we use to feed livestock is enough to feed the worlds hungry so it seems you don't care about african children ?
Animal liberation is human liberation.

Oh yeah, and Jesus was vegetarian.....and bisexual. But he chose a hetero life with Mary Magdalene

Posted By: Colin | August 6, 2009 3:06 AM

Dear Kay,

You said, "But I have to tell you: As great as having a sponsor would be, these boys and girls dream daily of more; they yearn for a mom and a dad, a family - and a home". I think that if you familiarize yourself with gorilla behavior and studies done on gorillas, you may find that gorilla orphans feel exactly this way. To say that animal charities should not have your money because humans are more important and because Jesus died for humans is fine and dandy. To suggest that only humans experience love, dreams about the future, and grief at the lost of parents is incorrect. At the very least, gorillas and elephants have these qualities. I know you are a compassionate person, and I hope you will consider what I have to say.

Posted By: Rachel | August 25, 2009 4:07 PM

The state of religious views are quite pathetic when it comes to animals and their right to life but thankfully ones religious perspective will in the future no longer have a bearing on the treatment and value of these beings.
There's an excellent article on the legal status of animals...
A new and more humane era may be dawning for animals as recognition spreads that, like human beings, they are sentient creatures who experience joy and feel pain and are entitled to legal protection. The ever expanding field of Animal law may well provide the status required to take this debate out of the religious arena and give it the legal base required to ensure they are valued and cared for in a humane manner.

For all those who feel they are far superior this is a must read: http://www.opednews.com/articles/New-Era-Dawning-For-Animal-by-Sherwood-Ross-090828-996.html

Summing up, Sullivan says, “Our unfortunate history shows that slaves, women and children were previously treated as property. The law was changed to stop this deplorable treatment. It is time to reclassify the legal status of companion animals.”
Thank god for the separation of church and state!

Posted By: Troy | August 30, 2009 8:46 PM

What's next, giving animals the legal right to vote? Welfare and health care benefits? Right of divorce of it's owners(guardians by your definition)?
Does this include animals such as mice,rats,snakes,fish,birds,lizards and even spiders, after all they are animals too, and have been known to be kept as "pets".
You animal rights nuts won't be satisfied until animals have more legal rights than illegal immigrant "humans".
Get real you animals rights delusional nut cases.

Posted By: daniel | September 26, 2009 8:52 PM

I knew you were a whacko racist Daniel..........your previous posts and then your final one prove you are nothing but a brain washed religious freak! You have the typical Slave Owner mentality back when Plantation Owners thought it was religiously justified to own and sell humans as slaves. "After all," they cried, "it's in the bible!"
Animal law was just pumped up by a million dollar donation by Bob Barker to help bring about a revolution that will by pass those with hardened hearts who insist they are the species to be put on a pedestal. Animal law is the fastest growing profession right now, spurred by the horrific conditions in factory farms and general ignorance by the masses that are unable to wake up from their ignorant slumber. The day of reckoning will be here soon!

Posted By: john649 | December 1, 2009 11:17 PM

I would of expected nothing more from the wife of a man who publicly refuses to condemn a law in S Africa which advocates the killing of gay people. Why would his wife even think animals were of value? And to pass this off as religion is the hypocrisy here.

Posted By: simon | December 1, 2009 11:20 PM

racist? How did you come up with this conclusion?
Now John649, you have labeled me as whacko,racist,brain washed, religious freak, and this may make you feel better, it certainly exposes your own hostilities and shows you capable of violence too.
Would you consider it justifiable to do harm to a human animal in certain circumstances?

Posted By: daniel | December 10, 2009 3:15 AM

Jesus, Mary and Joseph would have followed the Jewish Passover customs in their day, which included sprinkling the blood of a spring lamb over their threshold. The lamb was also eaten. In other words, Jesus participated in the killing of spring lambs,eating their flesh, and sprinkling their blood. I believe the Jews still observe the passover.
Jesus became the sacrificial lamb and the Christian religion came about as a result of this.
My point of all this is that if you are a Jew or a Christian it is ok to kill and eat meat.

Posted By: daniel | December 10, 2009 3:42 AM

so, john649, what rights do mice and rats have in your animals animals are equal to man plan? Since you are a self-professed animal communicator(reference your first post here), I'd like to know, "What are the rats telling you today?"

Posted By: daniel | December 12, 2009 5:56 PM

Kay, all those chemo drugs you were treated with for breast cancer were tested on animals first, including beagle puppies--the animal model for cancer drugs. Puppies are not people but you owe them your life. Show your gratitude and pull that credit card back out.

Posted By: Tracie | January 2, 2010 7:13 PM

Sounds like she owes the gratitude to the research scientists who used animals in experiments, and to the companies and universities who funded and housed the laboratories.

Posted By: juju | January 8, 2010 11:38 AM

Post a comment:

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember Me?

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)

Verification (needed to reduce spam):

Botox: A Threat to Our National Security

Saving the Life of a Shaken Baby

Is Self-Promotion Sinful?

When to Leave if You Can't Cleave

Reading to Enrich a Child's Soul

A Walk to Beautiful: A Must-See Film

Shaunti Feldhahn: What Hinders Women at Work

In Iran, a Covert Mission to Bring Women to Jesus

Women at Halftime: Where to Go Next?

Iris Robinson, Jesus Loves You More Than You Will Know