Her.meneutics: Preserving Man and Beast

back to Christianity Today

RSS Feed | Help

email to a friend

twitter updates

Follow Her.meneutics on Twitter

What Is Her.meneutics?

The Christianity Today women's blog provides news and analysis from the perspective of evangelical women. We cover news stories and books related to international justice and evangelism, pregnancy and sexual ethics, marriage, parenting, and celibacy, pop culture, health and body image, raising girls, and women in the church and parachurch.

Her.meneutics is edited by associate editor Katelyn Beaty and online editor Sarah Pulliam Bailey.

interests

books and media

church life

justice and politics

relationships and family

sexuality and health

spirituality

theology

women of note

writers

More ...

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

« Top 10 Posts of the Past 30 Days | Main | Midlife Matters: An Interview with Dale Hanson Bourke »

August 23, 2010

Preserving Man and Beast

Humans are more valuable than animals — which is precisely why we can't be indifferent to animal suffering.

Amy Julia Becker

Jeffrey Kluger’s recent Time magazine cover story, “What Animals Think,” explores new research about the human-like intelligence of animals. A Bonobo (cousin of the chimpanzee) can learn hundreds of words. Dogs demonstrate social skills by following a pointed finger to its object. Crows bend wires to create fishing hooks. Elephants appear to mourn their dead.

Christians can and should marvel at the surprising points of connection between human and animal. But overemphasizing our commonalities can lead to dangerous territory. The Bible articulates a hierarchical model of creation, with humans “ruling” over the animals (Gen. 1:26). (Of course, much depends upon how we interpret the word rule. More on that later.) Genesis depicts humans as set apart from the rest of creation, for only humans have been created “in God’s image” (Gen. 1:27). In addition to prioritizing humans through the actions of his ministry, Jesus affirms the distinct nature of humans when he addresses human anxiety: “You are worth more than many sparrows” (Matt. 10:31). In other words, God cares for all of creation, but God endows humans with particular worth.

Unfortunately, as Kluger notes, “For many people, the Bible offers the most powerful argument [against animal rights] of all. Human beings were granted ‘dominion over the beasts of the field,’ and there the discussion can more or less stop.” He is right: The Bible has been used to wrongly justify disregarding, even abusing animals. In contrast, a proper understanding of humans “ruling” or “stewarding” role should lead to greater flourishing for human and animal alike.

For secular ethicists, our points of connection with animals are most significant when it comes to the question of suffering, and Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer is the leading voice for the ethical treatment of animals. (Singer’s views have been explored several times in Christianity Today.) In sum, Singer believes that pain and suffering is bad — in humans and animals — and that “to the extent that humans and animals can experience their worlds, they are equals.”

It’s no surprise that Singer, an atheist, denies the biblical hierarchy. But when the distinction between human and animal is disregarded, the value of life becomes the value of life in general rather than the value of human life in particular. A smart chimpanzee, for instance, might be deemed more valuable than a human in a coma, or a human infant, or a person with a cognitive disability. For Singer, suffering is the ultimate evil and temporal happiness, the ultimate good. If animals suffer, and suffering is bad, then humans should do all they can to prevent such suffering. As a corollary, Singer advocates the possibility of infanticide for very sick or disabled infants. Since suffering is bad, if an infant is suffering (or if that infant’s parent is suffering as a result of the infant), then the infant can be killed (from Singer’s “Taking Life”). An atheistic view of animal rights denies the ontological difference between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom. The animal rights movement has drawn positive attention to the suffering of animals, yet some of its main proponents have also contributed to a devaluing of human life.

C. S. Lewis offers a different perspective. Precisely because animals are not created in the image of God and do not have a soul, Lewis writes, “the infliction of pain upon them [becomes] not easier but harder to justify. . . . For it means that animals cannot deserve pain, nor profit morally by the discipline of pain, nor be recompensed by happiness in another life for suffering in this” (quoted in “C. S. Lewis’s Theology of Animals,” an article by theologian Andrew Linzey). In other words, suffering in humans is more easily redeemed by God than in animals, which makes it all the more important for humans to see to it that animals do not suffer.

Kluger offers suggestions for an ethical response to the new data: “We could surely stop using [animals] to test cosmetics . . . We could surely eat less meat . . . And we could rethink zoos, marine parks and other forms of animal entertainment.” For Kluger, the only reason to do these things is because we can relate to animals and don’t want them to suffer. But Christians have a deeper rationale for caring for creation: In the Genesis account, Adam is given the task of naming the animals (Gen. 2:19-20). This responsibility implies a relationship of care and respect, as of a parent to a child. Fulfilling our caretaking role should foster humility and gratitude in us. And the new research demonstrating the intelligence and emotion of animals should only prompt greater reverence for God’s creation.

Christians will always be charged with “speciesism,” as we believe that humans are the most valued (and most valuable) species, and our species is fundamentally different from others. But evidence should never exist to warrant the charge of Christian indifference to the suffering of animals. While Singer’s ethic leads to the protection of animals at the expense of human flourishing, adhering to God’s instructions in Genesis should lead to mutual flourishing and blessing for animals and humans alike.

Comments

Ecclesiates 3:18-21

"I also thought, 'As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. Man’s fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?'"

Who knows that animals don't have souls? Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and the spirit of the animal goes down? Don't we all go to the same place? Doesn't God test us so that we may see that we are like the animals?

Lewis' take on animals and our relationship with them, at least the snippet of it referenced here, resonates with me in ways that other attempts have not.

Thank you.

Ditto, Sheila. I had not heard Lewis' rationale before, but it certainly is an interesting take on this issue.

Thought-provoking article, Amy. Thanks!

A million thanks for this article, and for referencing Lewis on the matter.

In my mind, the #1 issue in the "animal rights" world that Christians should be considering is factory farming. Though I personally am a vegetarian, there is no biblical grounding in saying one must be (that one CAN be, or even SHOULD be given the circumstances, there IS room for that). However, outside of ending the animal's life to provide sustenance for humans, there is the question of how that animal is treated during its existence. And the routine forms of suffering and emptiness one can find in a "agricorp" style factory farm is absolutely alarming.

If our generally obese, consumerist American society can learn to do with *less* meat, we can cut down on factory farms and work on finding new farming methods that, while they may not look exactly like traditional local/organic family farms, they will be fully ethical in the way they handle animals and not overcrowd.

Just my 2 cents. Thanks again for this post!

Thank you, I agree. Dominion over... does not equate harshness or cruelty. I believe that we as believers should wish to take extra special care of all that God has made! We are called to be good stewards... it's not about animals' rights, but the highest privilege that we've been given to care for them!

Just one example is the egg/salmonella issue. Chickens are a blessing from God. They provide us with eggs for protein. This should make us thankful if not awe-struck for God's provisional design. And such gratitude should never be expressed with highest disregard for the chickens for the sake of mass producing cheep eggs. There is nothing cheep here!

I loved this article! Sometimes I feel silly for advocating shelter rescues or I feel embarrassed admitting how many pets my husband and I have taken in, but then I stumble across articles like this, or quotes from heros like C.S. Lewis, and I am reminded again that caring for defenseless animals isn't wrong, un-Christian or foolish. People ARE more important than animals, and God did place us above them in priority, and so it is vital to remember the suffering of those here in our country and around the world, and to donate our time and money to those causes as well. But being mindful of one group (ie humans vs animals) does not mean that you ignore the other or decry it as a waste of time.

Ms. Becker: It is highly doubtful that Genesis 1 is a highly organized hierarchal ladder of creation values. Rather, it is an authors grand writing about Israel's One True God is not made by human hands, but is the Supreme Creator of all things in heaven and earth. This, of course, is repeated throughout the rest of OT but here in supreme fashion. The Spirit of God forms the basis of life, and then God breathes physical and spiritual life into the first man.
Then Christ is the Supreme fusion of this life as Creator, Redeemer, and Judge of all life. And if God knows even the death of one lowly sparrow (sparrows were used by the poor in place of regular sacrifices), how much more does God know us? In a similar context, Jesus states elsewhere, "Consider the birds...", and so we should.

And what are we doing as believers to help this understanding, what are churches doing on their own properties to help understand and protect native birds? Not much from what I've seen.

The origin of the quote by C. S. Lewis is his book "The Problem of Pain," the chapter "Animal Sufffering." In a broader context of that quote, Lewis does not say that animals have no souls, but rather explored the possibility that they have not. For the bulk of the chapter, he works on the assumption that they do have souls.

That animals have or are souls, like humans, is Biblical. Both are described as "nephesh," which English translations often translate "soul" in relation to humans but "living thing" or a similar phrase in relation to animals.

The idea that animals are soulless is a whittled down version of a piece of Scholasticism, the dominant philosophy of the later Middle Ages, which taught that humans had immortal souls and animals had mortal ones.

That, in turn, is based on a partially digested piece of classical Greek philosophy, nothing Biblical. For the Greeks, "divine" and "immortal" were almost interchangeable terms. Their philosophers saw reason as the divine (therefore immortal) element in humans and so, believing animals had no reason, thought they had no immortality.

Thomas,
I agree that the primary emphasis of Genesis 1 is to establish God as God, distinct from us and the rest of creation. But my article was concerned with both the account in Genesis 1, which you reference, and the account in Genesis 2, in which Adam is given the responsibility to name the animals. This naming establishes an intimate relationship between man and beast, but it also seems to entrust Adam with a certain power over the rest of God's creation. Similarly, the idea that only humans are created "in God's image" implies human uniqueness. Also, as my article states, Jesus' implicit emphasis on the redemption of humankind contributes to my assumption that God's first priority is the redemption of human beings. Of course, if we were behaving in the ways we were meant to, we wouldn't have the problems of animal abuse and environmental degradation that we currently face.
Amy Julia

Earl,

Thank you for the clarifications regarding Lewis' speculations about animal souls in the Problem of Pain. His Narnia series obviously offers his own imaginative perspective as well, which only goes to support your point. Do you think that the question of whether animals have souls impacts the argument in this article?

Amy Julia

Amy,

No, I do not think the question of whether animals have souls affects the argument in this article; it was specifically designed to advocate humane treatment of animals in either case. In general, though, people tend to argue "animals don't have souls so it doesn't matter what we do to them" and so use the no-soul position to belittle humane action or excuse expedient cruelty. Also, for people who love individual animals, insisting that pets have no souls - creatures who are family members, subhuman perhaps but still family - amounts to a cruel lie, if seldom an intentional one. Instead, being unable to know good and evil, animals such as dogs, cats, and horses are creatures that can love and cannot sin.

I have no training but I am a Christian awnd to the best of my understanding I am supposed to follow the example of Christ. I have read nothing to indicate that Jesus mistreated or abused any body or anything. I think that pretty much covers what man should and should not do.

The Word of God can never be used to justify the abuse (rather than the morally "righteous" use of an animal) while maintaining proper hermeneutical and theological principles.

In God's Law, the Holy One regards the lowly animals:

"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates" (Exodus 20"8-10; cf. Deuteronomy 5:12-14).

Similarly, the proper stewardship of animals is regarded as a function of righteous character within the Wisdom Literature of Holy Scripture:

"A righteous man has regard for the life of his animal, but even the compassion of the wicked is cruel" (Proverbs 12:10.)

While I am not presently prepared to contest the statement of one reader that animals "cannot sin", Exodus 21:28-35 does appear to attribute moral responsibility to them:

"If an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall surely be stoned and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall go unpunished. If, however, an ox was previously in the habit of goring and its owner has been warned, yet he does not confine it and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned and its owner also shall be put to death. If a ransom is demanded of him, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is demanded of him. Whether it gores a son or a daughter, it shall be done to him according to the same rule. If the ox gores a male or female slave, the owner shall give his or her master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned. If a man opens a pit, or digs a pit and does not cover it over, and an ox or a donkey falls into it, the owner of the pit shall make restitution; he shall give money to its owner, and the dead animal shall become his.
If one man's ox hurts another's so that it dies, then they shall sell the live ox and divide its price equally; and also they shall divide the dead ox."

Considering the word "nepesh", it is employed 754 times in the Old Testament signifying "passionate vitality". The translation into the English word "soul" is a traditional and unfortunate gloss stemming from Jerome's translation of the word into "anima".

This tends to confuse people into thinking the meaning of nepesh is soul as "the seat and center of life that transcends the earthly" (BAGD, 893.)

The typical usage of the word nepesh in the Old Testament is to refer to the passionate drives and appetites common to all breathing creatures.

In Proverbs 23:2, a gluttonous person is called a "baal nepesh" indicating a person whose appetite is his god.

However, the Old Testament does distinguish the human nepesh from the animal nepesh. The distinguishing factor is the human desire for God (Palm 42:1-2).

As to avoid misunderstanding, I do believe that the Word of God clearly indicates animals will inhabit the Eschaton. As the wonderful hymn "Joy to the World" states regarding the redemptive work of Christ, its scope is "as far as the curse is found".

In this, one could see Noah and the ark filled with animals to re-populate the postdiluvian world being analogous to Christ and palingenesia (The Renewal, vis. Consummation, of All Things).

You really did not cover the fact that God said that we are to be good stewards over all things created. Maybe you could write another article on being a good steward.

It's illogical to suggest that animals go to a different place in the afterlife.
When it is stated in Genesis that the animals are in 'subjection' to us, it does not imply a hierarchy. It means that we should take care of the animals. If we all took our turn in the slaughter houses, we would soon all be vegetarians. Fishing is also cruel, because fish feel pain.
Gil

Doesn't the Bible say that the Lord will ride a white stallion during the last battle with the devil????? I have always felt that animals will be in Heaven with us, as they are innocent bystanders of our inhumane ways............

Hi
Ecc 3:18-21,

Does not say anything of GOD - This is only the ideas of the writter questioning his perception.

This is nothing to say of animals as in having a 'soul' or that animals are similar to man.

Please do not misinterpret.

Regards,

David

Gil -

Jesus fished. Read John chapter 21. Then again, he created the fish. I guess the one who makes the life has the right to take the life. However, he encouraged the disciples to fish and gave them tips on where to drop their nets.

The main difference between animals and man is that man has a moral conscience. My dog will steal the cat's food and not feel a bit of guilt over it. A lion does not feel guilt for inflicting pain upon it's prey, nor do they sit around the fire at night discussing if it is ethical to shred a deer. Human beings are the ones who reason about these things, that in itself tells us that we are different from the animals.

Originally, hunting was done to put food on the table. It wasn't done without inflicting pain upon the animal. Some ancient customs included giving thanks to the animal for giving its life.

Reading 1Tim chapter 4:4 gives us the answer, it says God gave us meats and they are to be eaten with thanksgiving. Jesus also ate lamb as recorded in the Bible, not just fish. (Luke 22:8-15). Notice that what may seem as good intentions by some people is actually a doctrine of devils.

Here is from 1Tim chapter 4:
1Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

3Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

4For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

5For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

6If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.

7But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.

WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF IT THEN WHEN AN ANIMAL/DOG NIPS AT YOU
AND THEN INSTANTLY TURNS AROUND AND LICKS YOU OR NUDGES YOU AS IF SAYING FORGIVE ME

Sandie,

I would call that animal behavior. You are reading human reasoning and morality into its instinct to acknowledge you as the alpha or master. The "why" behind its behavior is from an animal perspective not a human one.

After witnessing the recent gulf oil spill, I can not believe that God could ever forgive humans for the mess we have made of the earth. Greed and the thrill of the kill is more animal instinctive than careful thought of gardianship of God's creations. Those men and women, who regard their bank accounts more than the value of nature and animals, are not regarded as humans in God's eyes. In this area, God must surely view animals in a higher regard.

I agree that God did make man dominian of all creatures therefore man is in charge of what happens to these creatures and that they to me should be cared for and given what they need to survive until it comes a time that we need to eat meat for the purpose of thanksgiving. So I believe that animals were created to feed us so we should take care of them so that what we eat is not bad meat but good nutritious meat. so these farmers who try to take short cuts and mistreat, misfeed, abuse the animals are not doing humans rights in that they still sell the meat of these animals so according to the Bible if this man mistreat this oxen then along with the oxen he too should be killed because mistreating this oxen is also mistreating his fellow man by giving us the worst of his beast meat instead of the best and clean. God did not say mistreat animals just because you can it just said we have power over them and we can control them for the better good of mind which is why we do have a moral or good conscious in making sure they are used for our purposes of helping the land, giving us food, being a companion, loving us, being respectful of them because I agree to they have no morals all they know to be is an animal so we have to make good choices on caring for them and not just killing to kill. Now in Japan from watching the cove it appears the fisherman are killing the dolphins for food not just to kill and from what I saw they killed them quickly it did not look as if the dolphins had suffered so in my opinion if they kill as if they are fishing for food and not just for the fun of it then it should be okay but if they kill them just for the pleasure of a kill that is when it is not right as well as other animals also if we notice animals kill not just to kill but to eat only or if they feel threaten by the other animal for there life so we should do the same for animals and care for them the right way, feed them what should be feed so we don't get sick and keep them safe until the times comes for when they are needed for food or for labor of the land to grow other croups, or for the use of man such as horses for transportation but if we have enough meats of what we eat then why kill horses for food we are not starving for it and we don't really need it however in poorer countries they need it so they are justified in killing them for the food there body needs.

Hello,
I have always thought and believed animals will be in Heaven with us. I for one have had a vision of my mansion in heaven. I have never seen grass so green and there were horses all over it around my mansion. God knows that horses are one of my all time favorite animals and He gives us the desires of our hearts. I have riden horses all of my life, but due to some severe sugeries I am no longer able to ride. My Lord knows how much I miss it, so in Heaven I'll be able to ride again and have my pick of the horse I'll be able to enjoy. Thank you for your time and allowing me to express my views and opinion.

I also believe that there are going to be animals in Heaven and they are going to be all the animals that have died here on earth since the beginning of time. A friend of mine's grandmother died and came back (for a short time) and she said she saw the mansions God talks about in Heaven but she also saw a fenced in field with horses in it. I believe all the animals that have been on this earth and died will be right there in Heaven and I also believe all of us animal lovers will know each and every pet we have had and they will know us when we get there.
Jerilyn Capaccione

Wow, Jerilyn, I hope there is enough room in heaven for me if every single animal that ever died is there! Do you draw the line anywhere? I mean will every single rodent that ever died be there? What about reptiles? Will every snake be there? Every extinct dinosaur? Also, if all animals go to heaven, maybe it would have been better if I had been born a cow then my salvation would be assured.

Yes, the Bible does allude to animals in His Kingdom: the lion and the lamb lying together. Whether these are literal or an allusion to peaceful dwelling, I do not know. Animals do bring us entertainment and enjoyment, and I can see how this would or could be part of heaven's landscape. However, to say that every animal that ever died goes to heaven...not sure that sounds like heaven to me!

Just a friendly note to all: The topic of this article is the TREATMENT of animals, not a debate over their eternal destiny. Would like to keep the comments on topic if possible!

As a relatively new Christian and as a veterinarian it is a very interesting conversation that is going on here. Of course as a vet animal abuse strikes me very wrong at the core of my being especially being on the front lines of it! However, as a Christian my take on it is that humans are very broken!!!! humans don't take care of pretty much anything including the earth which is an absolutely huge gift and we are all realizing how wrong this been as we can see how that destruction has now affected our lives and future human lives. So back to animals and their mistreatment...humans are very likely WRONG ....in my opinion you teach children to treat toys, clothes, GIFTS with care and respect why should it be ok to mistreat a GIFT from God?????

If my pets cannot be in heaven with me, then what kind of heaven would that be? I love my pets. I believe they will be there with me. Their soul may not know Jesus, but I do, and I want them there. What kind of God would deny me? I also believe that all animals are gifts from God, for use to utilize as we must. So yes, I do eat meat. I do find it offensive the way some farmers treat their animals, but THEY will suffer the consequences, not I. I am thankful for the animals that give their lives for out nourishment, but I do not agree with their mistreatment toward that means.

Hermenuetics

twitter updates

What Is Her.meneutics?

interests

writers

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

Preserving Man and Beast

Comments

recent posts

Archives

May 2012
Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

Hermenuetics

twitter updates

What Is Her.meneutics?

interests

writers

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

Preserving Man and Beast

Comments

recent posts

tags

Archives