Consider this headline from a recent article in the New York Times: PETA Criticizes Egg Farm at South Carolina Monastery.
What is your initial reaction on seeing that headline? Did you roll your eyes at the thought of another liberal-leaning, anti-business story in the Times? Did you automatically assume that the “animal rights” nuts are off on one of their Quixotic crusades again? Or did it make you sad--like it did me--that an atheistically inspired movement appears to be more concerned about God’s creatures than some of our fellow Christians?
If a poll were taken on the question of which group has the most care and concern for the welfare of animals, Christians—whether Catholic, evangelical, or other—would invariably be at the bottom of the list. How did we lose our status as stewards of creation? After all, animal welfare was once considered the province of Christians. In fact, one of the first organized movements for animal welfare dates back to 1824, when William Wilberforce—the subject of the recent movie “Amazing Grace”—and other evangelicals helped establish the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA).
Catholics too have a long and rich history of concern for God’s creatures that dates back at least as far as St. Francis, the patron saint of animals. Theoretically, the Church’s position hasn’t changed. In an interview given before he became Pontiff, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger said that animals must be respected as our "companions in creation." He acknowledged that while it is acceptable to use them for food,
[W]e cannot just do whatever we want with them. ... Certainly, a sort of industrial use of creatures, so that geese are fed in such a way as to produce as large a liver as possible, or hens live so packed together that they become just caricatures of birds, this degrading of living creatures to a commodity seems to me in fact to contradict the relationship of mutuality that comes across in the Bible.
Evangelical leader Richard Mouw came to a similar conclusion after discussing the care of animals with a group of Dutch Reformed farmers. As one chicken farmer told Mouw:
”Colonel Sanders wants us to think of chickens only in terms of dollars and cents," he announced. "They are nothing but little pieces of meat to be bought and sold for food. And so we're supposed to crowd them together in small spaces and get them fat enough to be killed…But that's wrong! The Bible says that God created every animal 'after its own kind.' Chickens aren't people, but neither are they nothing but hunks of meat. Chickens are chickens, and they deserve to be treated like chickens! This means that we have to give each chicken the space to strut its stuff in front of other chickens.”
Mouw says that the farmer “sensed an obligation to treat his chickens with dignity-not human dignity, mind you, but chicken dignity.”
This is where Christians differ from PETA. While we believe in protecting animal welfare rather than “animal rights” (see PETA’s FAQ for their view on the distinction) we also believe that dignity is inherent, while they feel it is only qualitative.
Dignity is defined as the quality or state of being worthy of esteem or respect. In the theistic view, human and animal life has an inherent dignity. A generous and loving Creator not only provides our biological existence but retains this same gift for his own enjoyment. Human life, therefore, belongs not to us but to Him.
Animal life, also belongs to Him, but humans are called to exercise "dominion" over the rest of creation (Gen. 1: 28). All life is intrinsically valuable because it is valued by our Creator. Dignity—whether of humans or chickens—is not a quality that is earned, but rather a status that is recognized.
One of the primary duties for Christians is, therefore, to recognize the dignity of all of God’s creatures and to exercise our “dominion” over them in ways that are humane, responsible, and God-honoring. Using a hot blade to slice the tip of the beak off a chick is not humane. Storing them in cages so crowded that the hens can't even extend a wing is not responsible. And making the profane claim that starving chickens is “like a fast”, as one monk said, is certainly not God-honoring. These actions are nothing short of sinful.
As theologian R.C Sproul says, in our sin we become false witnesses to God: “When we sin as the image bearers of God, we are saying to the whole creation, to all of nature under our dominion, to the birds of the air and the beasts of the field: “This is how God is. This is how your Creator behaves. Look in the mirror; look at us, and you will see the character of God Almighty.”
What does our exercise over dominion say about God? Does how we treat chickens and cows, dogs and ducks, and other “companions in creation” speak truthfully about our Creator? If not, what will we as Christians do to stop misrepresenting the nature of God?
Giving each chicken the “space to strut its stuff in front of other chickens” may seem like a minor concern. But when we fail to recognize the dignity of chickens, we fail to adequately reflect the character of God. And that is a matter of eternal consequence.
Great piece. There is inherent dignity in all living things by virtue of their Creator. My frustration with PETA is twofold: Their unwillingness to treat humans with as much respect as animals, and the hypocrital actions of some PETA activists recently.
Otherwise, yes - we have some distance to make up for in the Church in this area.
Concern for the treatment of animals, if not chickens in particular, is an important part of our "earth stewardship." But given current events of the day, the list of things that should occupy our concerns as Christians is a bit unwieldy just now. Please forgive me if the care of animals remains towards the bottom of the prayer list for the time being.
I live in the middle of fly over country and for all my 60+ years have been able to buy a chicken locally that had to scratch up it's dinner. Now they have organic food stores and can sell these to the health concious for more money. Family farmers are some of the most concerned ecologists I know. To many of them the land is a sacred trust. They don't get publicity though, they just quietly take care of the land. PETA on the other hand makes a lot of noise and gets a lot of publicity but embarasses itself in the running of it's own animal shelters.
The best PETA post ever. Thank you.
hln
Excellent post, Joe. Sometimes the fanatics, like PETA, so some good.
Your invocation of the dignity of God's creatures got me to thinking about animals and their position in the universe. I'd like to pose some questions to you, since I'm curious to know how your theology would deal with them.
Do chickens have souls? How about various mammals, such as cats, dogs, chimpanzees, gorillas, dolphins, or elephants?
If an animal does have a soul, do they share life after death with humans? If animals don't have a soul, does that mean their essense and personality are annihilated upon death?
I think you'll agree with me that these are very interesting questions. I am not at all sure, but I think Catholic teaching is that animals have souls while they are alive, but their souls are mortal. This would be in opposition to humans, who are believed to have immortal souls.
Best documentary of PETA ever put on screen:
South Park's election special episode "Douche & Turd". Specifically, the thread where they show the PETA commune (and its destruction by gangsta rappas).
"She's... ovulating."
In Proverbs we are told, "A good man is kind to his animals."
Apparently, we can be kind to them but still eat them, since meat eating is clearly condoned in Scripture.
So I'd think any type of torture would be prohibited, and a kill should be quick and clean.
Sadly, PETA seems to come from a place where humans are evil and animals are exalted. That's why they can't gain traction in the Christian community.
I don't think, however, the Christians are known for their animal cruelty.
If God is as just as I believe He is, dogs definitely go to heaven, and cats spend eternity in Hell.
I'm curious if anyone can find any New Testament support for "animal care."
I do have to admit that Wilberforce was way ahead of many people, both Christian and otherwise, in his opposition to slavery and support for animal welfare. He was way ahead of Jesus and Paul, neither of whom seemed to have a problem with slavery. Why did it take the church 1800 years to figure out that slavery was a moral wrong? Even then, many evangelicals (think Southern Baptist, Southern Presbyterian, Southern Methodist, etc.) thought slavery was thoroughly biblical and even said that abolitionists were atheists for opposing traditional biblical values.
ex-preacher:
I'm not sure where you're heading with the Jesus didn't condemn slaver idea, but its the most silly thing I've read from you. If one were to follow his teachings there would be no need for slavery.
Superb post, Joe. There is certainly a balance. God created the animals - that alone should give us a little more incentive to treat them well, no matter if their end is a plate or our caring caress as a beloved pet dies.
While not a fan of PETA at all, nor a vegan by any stretch, I am by nature suspicious of those who don't treat animals well (IE, with concern for their welfare during their life).
Russ,
Please show me where Jesus clearly condemned slavery. One could say that he implicitly endorsed it by 1) never condemning it and 2) using it often as an analogy in his teachings (though English versions try to soften it by translating doulos as "servant").
The common tactic is for modern Christians to say that Jesus was secretly condemning slavery when he taught the Golden Rule or other vague teachings about love. If this is the case, then his teaching was so secret that it took his most committed followers 1800 years to figure it out. How many millions of slaves were held by Christians in those centuries? Couldn't he have avoided all that by just saying "Do not hold another human being as a slave."
The other problem with the idea that "do unto others" was meant to undermine slavery (or liberate women) is that one could use the same argument to prove just about anything. What is to keep someone from using the "do unto others" teaching to mean that you should be in favor of gay rights or letting children do whatever they want when they turn 13?
You must also deal with Paul's command: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ" (Eph. 6:5).
Matt G:
I'm sure Joe will give you a good answer, but here is mine (I'm an evangelical, too).
I heard JP Moreland (philosophy prof) state that animals do have souls, but that these souls are finite and cease to exist when the animal dies. His conclusion was drawn from his analysis of the words for animals in Genesis and Revelation. So there's one pretty sharp Christian thinker and his views on animal souls.
Personally, I agree with JP. I have, based solely on observations and common sense arrived at a further elaboration of this belief. I believe that some animals have more complex souls than others. Mammals have more complexity than non-mammals. Dogs and cats more than cows. I think the animal soul is capable of some emotion (varying by species, but incapable of self-reflection or acknowledging God. That's my belief.
jared
One interesting side note is that we humans are not given meat to eat until after the fall. Does this mean that we were designed by God to be vegitarian and were only allowed to eat meat as a quick and efficient way to get protein in the hard world outside the garden?
ex-preacher:
The teachings of Jesus would though make any explicit condemnation of slavery mute. Didn't he say to his followers that whatever one does to the "least of these," they do to me? Didn't he say to the rich man give up everything you have, (Slaves also I would assume) and follow me?
I don't have any good comeback for Paul's words. They were men and they are known to make mistakes.
One last thing, sorry about the "most silly things I've read from you," comment.
One must also remember to put it in the context of Biblical times.
First, in general the slaves were not treated the same way as say, the slaves in the American South were. The Pentateuch lays out specific laws regarding slaves, their offspring, etc. that the Jews followed; the other civilizations had laws regarding slaves and their rights as well.
It was not a lifetime sentence, unless the SLAVE chose to stay.
In the Greek/Roman system (during the Republic, before the Empire) people would often sell themselves into slavery for a definite term - 3 years or 7 years. Yes, the paterfamilias had complete authority, and could have a slave killed - he could also kill his wife and children without condemnation too. (After Rome started having Emperors that changed as the empire declined and degenerated)
One must also remember that the slave/master economic system was necessary for society at that time. Yes, if everyone followed Christ's teachings perfectly, there would be no need for slavery (well, human slavery, we are all slaves of Christ). Perfect Christianity is really a voluntary communism of sorts. But, the fact is, we do not follow Christianity perfectly. Christ didn't condemn slavery, but rather told people to submit to their (worldly) authority in matters of this world, and to Our Lord in spiritual matters.
Ex-P
Why do people fault God for not cleaning up the mess of their sin and on their time schedule too?
God hates divorce(Mal.2-16) Jesus expands on God's postition in Matt. 10:2-8. It was allowed because of the hardness of their hearts. So God is at present allowing us to do things He doesn't like.
God's priority is the spread of the Gospel and that was Paul's. It was not ending ills brought on by sin. Still, there are laws for the Jews in the OT and commands for the Christians in the NT that mitigate these ills.
God has plans to clean up the mess. What! You say He hasn't consulted with you on the details and timing. Me neither. But I'm comfortable with that and you're not.
I guess if I love my neighbor as myself I shouldn't keep him as a slave? Who knew?
I found the this essay at Touchstone to be quite convincing on this topic. Bravo to you Joe for raising awareness of this.
Joe wrote: "All life is intrinsically valuable because it is valued by our Creator. Dignity—whether of humans or chickens—is not a quality that is earned, but rather a status that is recognized."
A couple points.
1. All life is intrinsically valuable? You mention chickens, ducks, cows, dogs, but why stop there? What about the dignity of rats? How about the dignity of mosquitoes? Flies? Tapeworms? Ticks? Piranha? Lice? Do bacteria have intrinsic dignity? How about plants - that's life, eh? I could go on, but I think you get the point. Where do you draw the line, if anywhere? And if you do draw a line, aren't you making a qualitative distinction?
2. Speaking of all of "God's creatures" that are harmful to humans or other animals, how do you reconcile God's goodness with animal suffering? It's bad enough that Christians blame Eve for the suffering of innocent children today, but is she also responsible for every bad thing that befalls all living creatures - whether by natural disaster, disease or other creatures? Surely, far more animals have been tortured by nature than have been tortured by humans.
All life has an inherent dignity, as a Creation, but not EQUAL dignity. And above all, Man has the unique dignity of being not only Created, but created in the image of the Creator.
The care and compassionate treatment of animals is of the deepest spiritual concern. The involvement of the spiritual communities to take strong stands to disallow those who see animals as objects/commodities/nothing but an animal is of the greatest importance. It is a sin to harm God's Creation. To stomp on God's creation no matter if under a cover of fur,feathers,fins-is against the marvel of creation of Our Lord and Savior, God the Creator. Thankyou.
The care and compassionate treatment of animals is of the deepest spiritual concern. The involvement of the spiritual communities to take strong stands to disallow those who see animals as objects/commodities/nothing but an animal is of the greatest importance. It is a sin to harm God's Creation. To stomp on God's creation no matter if under a cover of fur,feathers,fins-is against the marvel of creation of Our Lord and Savior, God the Creator. Thankyou.
I am always intrigued by a discussion of animal welfare among Christians (and I am one, by the way); they are typically so afraid that the merest whiff of demonstrated concern for the lower orders will render them guilty in the eyes of the entire Body of Christ of *sigh* "exalting the creation above the Creator" or, worse, exalting it above human beings, that they waffle, prevaricate or dismiss the entire issue out-of-hand as irrelevant or invalid. That's why the story of a man like Wilberforce is so refreshing; he seemingly didn't do things in half-measures; he was passionate and committed to - and not embarassed by - a large and varied number of good causes and saw quite a few of them through to the end. Many Christians today seem convinced that we cannot aspire to walk and chew gum at the same time, let along exhibit care and concern for both human beings AND animals; no, they resort time and time again to an "either-or" way of looking at things (classic false dichotomy); i.e. you are either concerned about human beings (and we approve) or you are concerned about animals (we heartily disapprove), but you cannot possibly be concerned about BOTH! They forget that more than one answer, more than one solution, is possible, especially when creative, rather than merely expedient thinking is employed. Many of my believing friends (and family) think I'm nuts because I don't eat meat (I am too convicted by factory farming methods to line their pockets with my hard-earned coin of the realm), but never have I ever read a passage anywhere in Scripture that commands the eating of flesh; rather, the Genesis account seems to suggest it was a concession made by God to mankind. I don't see the practice continuing when Jesus returns, when it appears that all killing will finally cease (thankfully), so I'm not sure why Christians are so defensive about the practice to begin with.
One more thought - are our appetites of such great importance (whether they be for meat or any other thing) that they take preeminence in our lives, ahead of every other consideration? We will have what we want and we will have it as cheaply as possible, no matter who or what has to suffer for it?
Thanks for letting me comment. I don't know you or anyone on this blog; I stumbled across it Googling William Wilberforce and animal welfare. God's blessings upon you.
Has cupids arrow not struck yet? There is so much pressure into finding the right partner that we often overlook the fact, what really makes us happy? Are we happy with ourselves right now?
vzyhj kvltmsqj fgoscl lwdofkmtv ocdsm hzalikou nodvebjw
vzyhj kvltmsqj fgoscl lwdofkmtv ocdsm hzalikou nodvebjw
Dominion:
–noun 1. the power or right of governing and controlling; sovereign authority.
2. rule; control; domination.
3. a territory, usually of considerable size, in which a single rulership holds sway.
4. lands or domains subject to sovereignty or control.
5. Government. a territory constituting a self-governing commonwealth and being one of a number of such territories united in a community of nations, or empire: formerly applied to self-governing divisions of the British Empire, as Canada and New Zealand.
Show me where it mentions the right to torture, and I'll duly shut up. We have dominion over our young children, when we raise them. Prison guards have dominion over prisoners, etc. This does not mean, never has meant, and never will mean the right to torture, harm or agitate unnecessarily. This is a very humanistic, and rather sadistic quality that people assume when put in control over something defenseless or smaller than them. Very humanistic. Not spiritual at all. Sure, God did give us dominion, but people get a little too 'drunk with dominion' if you ask me.
Jesus was a shepherd. I see more of a 'stewardship' type of dominion in him. I actually used to love hunting, but I changed when I finally found Jesus. Even though he did fish, I'm sure he would never cause unnecessary pain or nettling to any creature- especially if it were just 'for fun'. I am so inspired by his gentile and loving compassion for all God's creatures. The drawing of him holding the little lamb is my favorite! Now I gotta admit, population control and survival are one thing- but hunting just for the thrill of killing is very unlike Christ, to me. So when I hear about organizations like 'Christian Hunters' and whatnot, I can't help but laugh.
"Life is God's gift to you. What you do with it is your gift to God."
Think of the Chinese fur farms. Do you think God would like seeing his innocent creatures being bludgeoned, strangled, lynched...and I can't even say this one without shuddering....skinned alive...for the sake of some vapid, materialistic woman to feel 'chic'?
Let's be as loving as we can to all the Lord's beautiful and innocent creatures, before they are sacrified for our benefit.
And I'm in line with everyone who is annoyed by PETA's childish and hostile tactics. However...I've gotta give 'em credit for their research, especially the horrific and heart-wrenching undercover videos of fur farms, meat factory farms, and even sheep being shaved for wool! It's like these factories purposefully hire the sickest, cruelest, more sadistic people they can get. So if there's ONE thing I can thank PETA for- it is that. They have prompted me to start becoming a more conscientious buyer.
Type in 'fur farm video' or 'factory farm video' on google and you're bound to get a myriad of these mini horror films in your results. Watch one if you want to become inspired to help God's creatures. But beware, they are not for those with a sensitive stomach. And certainly not for little children.
I meant to say *most sadistic people* instead of "more"...in the 2nd to last paragraph. Heh.
Well the trip from your house to mine just wasn’ t enough to get a good feel for the new suspension and I could hardly wait to return home from a business trip and give the Evo another run. After a week, I finally made it back and was ready to test out the new suspension. But, fist things first, an alignment was needed. So, I took the Evo by Hubcap Heaven, where they have some of the latest equipment for performing alignments. They set the car up nicely with a degree of negative camber on both sides, front...