Thomas of Celano, the early biographer of Francis, wrote:  
Once, when he was staying in the town of Greccio, a hare was caught in a trap and brought live to Francis by a brother. Seeing the hare, the blessed man was moved to pity and said, "Brother hare, come here. Why did you let yourself be fooled in this way?" As soon as the hare was released by the brother. he dashed over to Francis and, without being forced to do so, set tied into his lap as the safest place available. When he had rested there a while, the holy father, stroking him with maternal affection, let him go so that he could return to the wild. Each time he was placed on the ground, the hare ran back to Francis' lap. Finally Francis asked that the brothers carry him to a nearby forest. Something similar occurred with a rabbit, a very undomesticated creature, on an island in the lake of Perugia.(1) 

Francis had a love of created life which goes far beyond what you or I have. He regarded created things as 'brother' or 'sister', acknowledging such things as they were, which was the handiwork of a loving God. Therefore, if a God who was inherently loving created something, it must be near-and-dear to Him, and have value in it. Christians would do well to learn from Francis' example and begin treating creation as God treats us, with love, mercy, grace, compassion, and empathy.

A week ago I went in to volunteer at the Humane Society, and there was this adorable looking bunny who has come in a few days before. He had a problem though. He was vicious. The day before he had violently attacked one of the staff, and it was virtually impossible to be near him or clean his cage, etc.

I was told that Cooper was approx three yrs old; but had spent his life in a cage in the basement of a home with little socialization. These three years contributed to Cooper's aggressive temperament.
I sat down on the floor by Cooper's cage and read a book to him (which rabbits love, btw), and although he was kinda stressed out, there were occasions where he lay himself down near me and seemed to take an active interest in what I was reading to him. I felt a heavy burden for this little creature, whose only fault in this life was endearing neglect.

I went back in two days later to see how he was doing and to read more to him, but he wasn't there; his cage was empty. Cooper had been reassessed, did not do well with the reassessment, and was euthanized, much to the disappointment of those involved in the decision.

For myself, it is a heartbreaking story of an animal with a capacity to love and be loved, never realizing this potential because of human fault. We have such power over those under our influence in this life, and it would do us good to dwell on how God treats those under His power (namely, us). As 'image bearers' of the Divine, we have a responsibility to reflect that image back onto creation, stewarding creation as God would. Of all those throughout history I have read, Francis of Assisi was a steward of creation the likes of which has rarely been seen, maybe never been seen.

So anyways, whether you agree or not, this post is in memory of a neglected creation of God named Cooper, who through no fault of his own, lost his life without ever having realized he was a creation of the Most High God, who cares and saves humans and animals alike (Psalm 36:6).(2) I long for the day His children do as well.

Part 3. Creaturely Difference.

Revelling in Diversity
For Aquinas, therefore, the Genesis 1 creation narrative can only be read as affirming that the diversity of creatures is a deliberate choice by God in order to make creation more perfect than it would be if it only contained one kind of creature or fewer kinds of creatures.[i]

                Imagine what would be lost if human beings were the only created beings upon the earth.  Now call to mind the astonishing delight that is contained within living beings outside the human race. Aside from what we use animals for (ie: food, clothing, entertainment, etc) the value of these creatures is nothing less than............ divine. What joy would be lost if these things did not exist. I was at the local Vet College last week  with my hamster (who was in for a check-up) and there were two families waiting to hear word on the condition of their dogs. One family was especially grieved, as the doctors believed their dog may have a brain tumor, the outcome of which would likely be terminal. They were visibly distraught, almost in tears as they discussed with others in the waiting room how much he meant to them. Another gentleman had taken his dog in from Nova Scotia for a follow-up appointment. His dog had already had an $8000 operation which was intended to fix both his knees. The gentleman (who had one arm) said, “They didn’t put me down when they took my arm, and I’m not putting him down because of a bad knee.” His dog was only 18 months old, and with a bit of work will live a long, happy, healthy life. As I become more familiar with the animal kingdom and those of us in ‘dominion’ over it, stories like these accumulate. People (for the most part) love their animals; not for what they can get out of them, but for who they are. Their lives are more fulfilled because of what their animals contribute to it. We would be missing out on a great deal if humans were our only company.

Classifying Creatures
In Genesis 2.19– 20 the beasts and the birds God has formed from the earth are brought before Adam ‘to see what he would call them’ and Adam names the cattle, birds and beasts. Adam’s action has often been interpreted as an indication of power over other creatures, but the giving of a name to each animal rather suggests attention to its particularity.[ii]

                For those Christians who have taken more than a passing interest in Old Testament study, they would likely be aware that Biblical naming denotes more than just choosing a name that was ‘nice sounding’. In many cases it was a prophetic act, or something attached with great significance. Biblical naming denotes drawing out the personality of that being named.[iii] To name something (as Clough suggests) means that you have recognized something inherent within it. It is a personal act, not a superficial one, specific to each individual creature. Luther and Calvin stress Adam’s giving of names that suited the animals. Luther writes that Adam ‘arrives at such a knowledge of their nature that he can give each one a suitable name that harmonizes with its nature’ (Luther, Luther’s Works, I. 119) and Calvin says that God endued the animals with obedience ‘so that they would voluntarily offer themselves to the man, in order that he, having closely inspected them, might distinguish them by appropriate names, agreeing with the nature of each’ (Calvin, Genesis, 132).[iv]

                But maybe the naming of the animals doesn’t prove a point here in favour of the animals at all. Maybe it is merely a case of dominance and authority. Adam receives the power to do this from God, exorcises it, and the animals are in no way able to resist. Maybe God said it, Adam believed it, and that settled it! We run into a little problem with this theology though, which is the connection between this naming of the animals and Adam’s naming of Eve in verse 23: unless some plausible case can be made for separating the two acts, the establishment of power in relation to animals would also seem to apply to male power over women.[v] Suddenly many become very uncomfortable if we start exploring this line of reasoning, and so they should. Dominance is a great thing, if we are the ones with the dominance. When that dominant position is threatened (whether literally, or theologically) then true colors begin to emerge. As always, it is necessary to keep a healthy portion of humility near for times like these.

                So, if Adam’s naming of the animals denotes something more than just giving them a random, abstract, passing thought, then what does that mean? What is he really ascribing to them? Individuality? We could readily admit that dogs (and maybe cats), cetaceans, great apes, and a few other creatures are intellectual enough to make that claim, but what about those dreaded mosquitoes, or mice, or slugs? We have no problems with limiting the potential for individualness in them for the basic reason that they are so far below us as a life form. There is a problem with this reasoning though. To suggest that this oak tree, or that kingfisher or this dragonfly lacks actuality because it is missing features present in supposedly higher beings, or to consider that it is a potential creature of a different kind is radically to misunderstand its integrity as a creature of God.[vi] Something’s worth is not determined by us, but by God. And we should caution against putting words in His “mouth” and thoughts in His “head”.

The Human Difference
                According to Wikipedia (which is NEVER wrong), Imago Dei is Latin for ‘image of God’. It is what we, as human beings, are;  bearers of the divine image. This is a reason why Christians get so passionate against things like murder, suicide, and abortion, to name a few. It is because we believe that God made us in His image, and that we have inherent worth based on that fact alone. The worst criminal is still an image bearer no matter how much it has been defiled.

                The concept of Imago Dei becomes a little more difficult to interpret as we look at what makes us image bearers. Why are we the image bearers of God? What does that mean? It is pretty obvious that this does not mean we literally look like God, because we know that anthropormorphisms are not an accurate way of describing Him, as He does not have “hands” or “feet” or a “mouth” or a “head”, etc. According to Greg Boyd and Paul Eddy[vii] (who are hopefully a bit more consistent that Wikipedia), evangelicals consider what the meaning of the Imago Dei is in mainly three ways:

1.       The Substantival View (The Image of God is the Soul)
  “the spiritual substance of humans sets them apart from all other animals as beings who are uniquely created in the imago Dei.”[viii] St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and John Calvin are classic representatives of this perspective.

2.       The Functional View (The Image of God is our God-Given Authority) “ the essence of our divine image (is) in what we as humans are called to do. As God is the loving Lord of the entire cosmos, humans are called to be the loving lords of the entire earth.”[ix] I, myself, happen to hold this view, and I believe David Clough, and Greg Boyd do as well.

3.       The Relational View (The Image of God is our Relationality)
  “Humans are created in the image of the Triune God and thus are meant to find their essence and destiny in community with one another and with God.”[x] Karl Barth was a notable advocate of this view.

The traditional view in the Christian tradition has solidly been the substantival view, although there is historical support for all three. The functional view has been backed with widespread support among recent commentators[xi] though, and for good reason.  A steady stream of support from those sympathetic to the plight of the animal kingdom has revolutionized the way we should think about them. If you are skeptical of this I suggest you pick up a book like In Defense of Animals: the Second Wave (Peter Singer), or how about On Animals: Systematic Theology Vol. 1 (David Clough).  Regardless, it is safe to say that those who have contributed to the current Western worldview of animal life (notably Augustine, Aquinas, and Descartes) grossly missed the capabilities of individual animal life. “Few now share the conviction of Aquinas that only humans in creation are capable of rationality or intelligence in its broadest sense. Even fewer now share the enthusiasm of Descartes for the view that animals are automata, mechanisms devoid of self consciousness, and seemingly incapable of feeling pain.”[xii] The basic fact of the matter is that ‘dominion’ does not mean despotism, and even the most superficial reading of Genesis 1 will support this. There is something more, something higher, than selfishness, at the heart of the concept of the Imago Dei. What does it mean to be made in God’s image? Yes, that is an important question. But, hand-in-hand with that question goes another one: What does it mean to reflect God’s image? Because that is what is at the heart of being made in His image, reflecting that back upon creation. Responsibility demands much of us in light of this. The more vulnerable the creature, the more responsibility we have to it because of our exalted status as image bearers.

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

In certain tests (such as playing video games, for example) animals do seem to trail far behind their human opposition. But turn the tables around and have me jump out of a plane with a seagull, and I would say that my abilities would be severely lacking compared to the seagull’s, at that moment. We treat ‘human’ and ‘non-human’ as parallel categories, instead of recognizing that ‘human’ names one species of animal and ‘non-human’ names about 1,250,000 species. It would be interesting to examine the results of a similar attempted bifurcation of the animal universe on the basis of common British black garden ant and non-common British black garden ant, or Herring Gull and non-Herring Gull.[xv] This of course does not level the playing field and advocate an un-hierarchal form of creation. There is a chain of command which should be obvious. As the Imago Dei, we are here to govern this world in a way that glorifies our Creator. He has made creatures different, not for the sake of despotism, but because He delights in diversity, among other reasons. the kind of attentiveness to the differences between animals I (Clough) have argued for in this chapter will not lead to arguments for treating all creatures in the same way.[xvi] It does mean, however, that we should treat all creatures better than we presently do.

What I am proposing here echoes back to the Functional View of the Imago Dei: the only theological supplement to the identification of human particularity in this way is that we believe human beings to have been called on by God to image God among the other creatures. This human difference relates primarily to ethics rather than doctrine, however, and suggests that theologically the human/ non-human difference is vocational. God has called human beings to be creatures in a particular way and take responsibility for the lives of other creatures. Here then we have the authentic theological construal of the difference between human beings and other creatures: we have been given our task to live as human creatures and they have been called to be creatures in their very many different ways.[xvii]

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

Chapter 2. The Place of Animals

The Commonality of Creatures
the affirmation of God as creator of all things means the subversion of all human attempts to create hierarchy among creatures.[i]

            Nicely put. We humans love to think more of ourselves than is warranted. It is rather amusing that we ever invent new ways of oppression to satisfy our narcissism. Amusing, but heartbreaking in the same breath. Amusing because we idolize ourselves, and strive to echo Lucifer in his attempt to make himself like the Most High, which is most perplexing; heartbreaking because we contribute to awful amounts of suffering, human and nonhuman alike.

            Just how amazing and independent are our lives before something, say, like God, who is supposed to have created all of this out of absolutely nothing? If we confess God as creator ex nihilo we must recognize that our basic relationship to creation is to recognize that we are part of it.[ii] This last line was a real wake up call for me. Above all else, humans are not above creation but of it. Everything we have been given (authority included) is not to exalt us above everything else, as we are the species who can actually work for the betterment of all others. What a responsibility; what a travesty that we have abused this Divine privilege to such a degree.

            What does it mean that humans were created later, rather than in the beginning? Is it an exultation, or? The vegetable kingdom which grows out of the dry land in obedience to the Word of God… is the first, and the presupposition of all the rest. Every living creature is alive because of that which it has in common with the vegetable kingdom.[iii] These vegetables which we take so much for granted, reckoning to them not so much more than a fleeting thought, are necessary for our survival, and without the existence of them, our life would be dramatically altered.

But of more pertinence, we have much more in common with the animal kingdom than we would care to admit. For example, we now know that we share 21 per cent of our genes with all other cellular life forms. This means all things we consider to be living, with the possible exception of viruses, the status of which it is hard to determine. A fifth of our genetic make-up, therefore, is common between us and bacteria, seaweed, cabbages and oak trees. Over half of our genes are shared with genes in all eukaryotes; that is, all cellular life apart from bacteria and archaea, including protozoa, algae, fungi as well as all plants and animals. Three-quarters of our genes are shared with all other animals, 97 per cent with orangutans, 98.5 per cent with gorillas and 98.9 per cent with chimpanzees.[iv] This is astonishing given the common train of thought we have toward these creatures. I reason that if all these things come from one, Divine source, then there should indeed be similarities. This should not intimidate us but spur us to glorify our Maker even moreso. This should not diminish our faith in Him, but cause us to have such a sense of wonderment that we erupt in spontaneous praise to Him whom life issues. The glory contained in this similarity is overwhelming.

Apart from the similarities between humans and animals though, the research suggesting that animals may be much more intelligent than previously believed is staggering. We now have reason to believe that sheep are capable of recognizing hundreds of faces; crows are able to fashion tools in order to solve problems; chimpanzees exhibit empathy, morality and politics, and can outdo human subjects in numerically based memory tests; dolphins are capable of processing grammar; parrots can differentiate between objects in relation to abstract concepts such as colour and shape; and sperm whales have developed culturally specific modes of life and communication.[v] And this research is but the tip of the iceberg. Elephants have the capacity to engage with smartphones.[vi] Dolphins not only can process grammar, but they seem to actually give each other names.[vii] I don’t know about you, but I find this stuff fascinating. It begs the question: what constitutes inherent worth, if there is such a thing? And what is our response to something with independent inherent worth?

The Life of Animals
              Even in translating the Bible, it is hard for translators to keep their influences separate. Theodore Hiebert notes that the commonality between humans and other animals in Genesis 2 has been obscured by English translators:

The common lot of humans and animals is a conspicuous feature of the Yahwist’s creation narrative. A clear line distinguishing the essential nature of one from the other is difficult to detect. Human and animal alike are called nepeš ḥayyâ, ‘animate creature’ (2.7, 19). As with the breath of life, nepeš ḥayyâ is used by J for both, and this term also attributes to neither a soul or spiritual being separate from their physical life. This point has been muddled for centuries in English translations by a succession of translators determined to draw a distinction between human beings and animals where none exists in the Hebrew text. In the King James Version (1611), nepeš ḥayyâ was rendered ‘living creature’ when used of the animals (2.19), but ‘living soul’ when used of the human being.

            Hiebert notes that even in the New Revised Standard Version the distinction is maintained, albeit more subtlely, translating nephesh hayyah as ‘living creature’ when used to describe the animals in v. 19 and ‘living being’ when used of humans in v. 9.20.[viii]

            As unorthodox and controversial as this may seem, it is what it is. As noted before, this has nothing to do with diminishing the status of human beings, but expanding our thought to increase the status of other living beings who uncontroversially have the same source of life as we ourselves do.

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

            The depiction of life shared by humans and other animals is by no means restricted to the first two chapters of Genesis: the Bible pictures them together in its narratives, law, wisdom teaching, psalmody, prophecy, in the teaching of Jesus and in apocalyptic vision.[xi]  And thus, Clough starts stating the many Scriptural references to the fact that humans and animals are closely related theologically. Clough lists 45 references of such from the Old Testament; a few of them being:

• Oxen that kill humans are to be put to death just as humans are (Exod. 21.12; 28– 32).
  
• Ants, bees, oxen, donkeys, storks, turtledoves, swallows, cranes, jackals birds and lilies are cited as examples to emulate (Prov. 6.6– 8; 30.24– 8; Isa. 1.3; Jer. 8.7; Lam. 4.3; Job 12.7– 11).
  
• When the Lord comes, the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the beasts of the field, all creeping things and human beings will quake at the Lord’s presence (Ezek. 38.19– 20).
  
• Livestock are protected alongside humans by the Sabbath legislation (Exod. 20.8– 11, 23.12, Deut. 5.14) and even the wild beasts benefit from it by being able to feed on the produce of the land in Sabbath years (Lev. 25.6– 7).
  
• Jeremiah warns of the consequences of God’s wrath for the enemies of Israel together with their domestic animals (Jer. 49.28– 9, 32, 33; 50.3; 51.37).
  
• Hosea speaks God’s promise to make a covenant for Israel on that day with the wild beasts, the birds of the air and the creeping things on the ground, and to abolish the bow, sword and war from the land (Hos. 2.18).
  

And in the New (32 references):

• In debating with the Pharisees about sabbath law, Jesus reminds them that they would save a lamb that had fallen into a pit on the sabbath (Mt. 12.11– 12).
  
• He (Jesus) mourns over the city of Jerusalem, saying that he longed to gather her children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings (Mt. 23.37).
  
• Mark’s gospel pictures kingdom of God as a mustard seed that grows into a shrub with large branches so that the birds of the air can make nests in its shade (Mk. 4.31– 2 | | Lk. 13.19).
  
• Luke records a debate with the leader of the synagogue objecting to a healing on the Sabbath: Jesus tells him that everyone unties an ox or donkey from the manger on the Sabbath to lead it to water (Lk. 13.15).
  

  This brief survey may be enough to wet your appetite to look further into this subject, or it may be enough for you to conclude that David Clough is radically ignorant in sound exegesis. I prefer the former, but admit that many of the ideas thus far presented go against the traditional and accepted stream of thought; which doesn’t make it wrong, just challenging.

The Vocation of Animals
              There are also numerous instances of animals obeying God by way of His direct command, such as when God condemns the serpent to crawl on its belly (Gen. 3.14), when the ravens are commanded to provide food for Elijah (1 Kgs 17.4), when the fish is commanded to spew out Jonah (Jon. 2.11), when the angel in Revelation calls the birds to feast on the flesh of the defeated armies (Rev. 19.17) and when the beasts, cattle, creeping things and birds are summoned to praise God in Psalm 148 (Ps. 148.10).[xii]
  
 Animals seem to fulfill God’s purposes by way of indirect address as well:

• The raven and dove let the inhabitants of the ark know when the waters have receded (Gen. 8.6– 12).
  
• Many kinds of animals are God’s instruments in plaguing Egypt (Exod. 7– 9) 
  
• Balaam’s donkey sees the angel long before Balaam does and warns him, despite being beaten for its trouble (Num. 22.20– 33) 
  
• (Jesus) rides on a colt into Jerusalem (Mt. 21.1– 7)
  

The Place of Animal Creatures before God
              The aim of this chapter has been to make a biblical and theological case that animals have a particular place before God – in relationship to one another and in relationship to other creatures – that merits attention.[xiii]

            what is animal has come to be understood as the opposite to all that is characteristically human: animals on this account are irrational, driven by instinct, unintelligent, amoral, unsophisticated, uncreative, poor in relationality and lacking in the ability to transform their environment. To rehearse this list in the context of the biblical, theological and scientific accounts of animals presented in this chapter is hopefully already to make clear the wild inaccuracy and injustice of such views.[xiv]

            Expansion; that is the immediate goal. If we can expand our minds to even conceive of God expressing interest, concern, and interaction with living beings other than human beings, then we can admit that he might have plans and purposes for those things. We must step off the pedestal we have made for ourselves and serve creation rather than oppress it.

I want to go to England this September to take this course at St Catharines College, Cambridge. It is a two week course which covers animal welfare in science, ethics, and law. I would miss a couple weeks of the Fall semester, but I may be able to get credit for it, seeing as it is a pretty serious academic setting. The cost of the course would run me approx $3000, plus approx $1100 for a place to stay, plus a return flight. So, it's not cheap! But it is supposed to be a pretty serious course, and I would love to have it under my belt; so, we'll see what happens. Quality is expensive. Any donors out there looking for projects to give to............... I'm just sayin.

Bob Schrecengost is back at Community Worship Centre (2 Holis Ave, Stratford, Charlottetown) for some meetings this weekend. If you are able to go, I would recommend doing so. Bob is a great speaker, with a heart passionately longing for the presence of God. Times of refreshing abound. He spoke over Jenny & I at a house meeting Thusday eve, here it is below. Excuse the lowness of the volume, you'll havta crank it up; my LG Optimus One doesn't have the best audio recorder.

Chapter  1 (cont.)

Creation: All About God?
If we take the Psalms and Job alongside Genesis 1 and 2,... the view of humanity as central to the project of creation is not a sufficient account of what the Bible has to say about creation: Psalm 104 and the end of the book of Job indicate that a wider vision of God’s purposes is necessary.[i]

All too often we tend to look at the Bible very selectively; passing by and/or ignoring things which are challenging to our accepted norms. It is indeed inconvenient when we start asking questions about life other than humans and their possible independent relationship with God. The animal kingdom is one area that does this, but what about the environment? How many decisions do we make each day that are detrimental to the health of our precious planet? Have we been stewarding this gift well? Jenny & I have recently begun to make an effort at least, to be ‘conscious consumers’, which means we want to know what our $$$ is promoting. We do some (albeit superficial) background checks on the companies we purchase goods from in an effort to see what they are promoting, and how they are stewarding that which they are responsible for. In other words, what does God want our $$$ to contribute too? What is His purpose, and how can we enter into it? It seems much more practical when we enter into this kind of thinking/acting.

Christians that I know seem to have this radically selfish view of ecology. There is just very little thought which is thunk about it. I took a Buddhism course in university and a couple of monks came in for a Q&A. One of the questions I asked them was in relation to their purposes for the Island. A substantial portion of their answer was that they waned to promote organic farming and save the forests. I have never heard this desire from my own church, nor any other Christian church I have visited. It inspired me greatly. I later read in a local newspaper article that they were purchasing land in various localities to put old farm animals who had seemingly outlived their purposes (meaning they were no longer good to produce anything useful for humans) so that they could live out their life in peace, like they believed the animals should have a right to. I think this is very God-like, whether they ascribe to what I believe or not.

That said, if we selectively construct a doctrine of creation from Genesis 1 and neglect scriptures such as Psalm 104, we are interpreting the Bible selectively and formulating doctrine which is not the most foundationally structured. There are boundaries for orthodox belief, to be sure, but there is also flexibility. I think this is an area where re-examining our opinions would prove very beneficial, to all of creation.

Creation: All About Itself?
Aquinas was working with a mistaken Vulgate translation of Proverbs 16.4: where the version he cites says that God made everything for himself, the correct translation has the very different emphasis that God creates each creature for its own sake.  To picture God’s aim in creation as self-glorification is inadequate, (Wolfhart) Pannenberg argues: ‘the creature was not created in order that God should receive glory from it’ and God has no need of glorification by creatures. He prefers to see God’s goal in creation as God’s creatures[ii]

            The point is, God did not create us to glorify Him, which is commonly believed, but not realistically coherent, but He created things to be themselves. They are glorifying in the fact that they exist as they were created by Him. A rat glorifies God naturally, in a way independent from human reasoning. They are glorifying to Him because they are His creatures. Now we will be discussing the ramifications of the Fall of ‘Man’ in a little bit, but for here it is suffice to say that animals can indeed glorify God; this action is not unique to human beings. Scripture is full of references which attest to this. Does every action animals perform glorify their Creator? I highly doubt it, as they were affected by Man’s sin too, but that also leads to interesting questions about nature’s role (if it has one) in the reconciling event of the cross. This too we will look at in time.

            The argument being discussed here is supported by a long tradition affirming the goodness of God in creation, originating in the Psalms. Psalm 104 represents an astonishing catalogue of God’s oversight and care for all of God’s creatures, providing water for the wild animals, homes for the birds, making grass grow for the cattle and plants for people, watering the cedars of Lebanon so that birds may nest in them, providing high mountains for wild goat and rocks for rabbits, even making the darkness so that the wild animals of the forest may seek their prey from God (Ps. 104.10– 22). All creatures are created through the sending of God’s spirit, have their food from the open hand of God and return to dust when God takes their breath away (Ps. 104.27– 30).[iii]

            If animals were created by God, then they belong to Him. If He gave human beings ‘dominion’ (more correctly translated ‘stewardship’) over them, then we had better find out His thoughts regarding them. If I was to go away for a time and gave someone ‘dominion’ over Sonnen, Ping Pong, Milo & Casper, they had better treat them with the same love that I do; else there would be hell to pay upon my return.

            Lutheran theologians judged it right that God would be concerned with the growth of caterpillars in the grass sprouting in the province of Saxony in a given year, reasoning from Augustine’s commentary on Matthew’s gospel that if God despised little things, God would not have created them.[iv]

            Christoph Schwobel argues that a theocentric view excludes ‘the self-glorification of the human creature’ and prevents ‘the kind of anthropocentric attitude where the greater glory of the human creatures has to be achieved at the expense of the rest of creation’.[v]

God’s Fellowship with Creatures
appreciating that the purpose of creation is for God to include creatures into the trinitarian fellowship does not deny the particular place of human beings in this fellowship, but simply expands our idea of the fellowship in which we will participate.[vi]

            If you have made it this far into this post without consigning Clough’s (and my own) views into the outer darkness, then it must be said that this does not denigrate the idea that human beings are indeed unique among created things. That much should be obvious and I regret having to make a point to specifically mention it at all. Expanding our theology on the subject of the animal kingdom does not restrict humanity, but liberates us to act in ways that are more consistent with the concept of agape. Scriptures which talk about the reconciliation of all things[vii] start to actually make sense, instead of limiting those all things only to human beings, which makes no sense at all.

            There is a much grander scope to God’s reconciliation and involvement than the mere human race. If we get this, really get it, it will revolutionize our lives, and we will work for the better good of humanity, and creation, as a whole, living out a truly unconditionally loving life.

Notes:
[i] On Animals, Location 750.
[ii] Ibid., 777.
[iii] Ibid., 784.
[iv] Ibid., 798-800.
[v] Ibid., 815
[vi] Ibid., 863.
[vii] Colossians 1:20, for example. 

PART I. CREATION

Chapter 1. The End of Creation

What is the point of creation? If God’s purpose in creating the universe was to establish a relationship with human beings and all other-than-human parts of creation are intended by God to prepare and provide for the human, then everything else is scenery.[i]

            And thus we enter into the bulk of On Animals. A look at creation is rather important because if we can intelligently think about the creation of animals other than human, then we can put off most of our general assumptions regarding it. After all, animals were created before humans,[ii] Biblically speaking (Gen.1:20-26), and this gives rise to opinions on animals, some more favourable and some less. For example, God created the animals and blessed them (v.22), proclaiming their existence ‘good’ (v.25), independent from human influence. How long these creatures roamed the earth before Man came on the scene has been hotly debated, but my opinion is that it was a considerable length of time, much longer than a few hours, or a day, even.

It really is an interesting question when we stop and take time to think about it. Why were animals created? If God has little concern for them then it would seem that creation is just a backdrop for the ‘star of the show’. Is this even conceivable? Has everything been created for the purpose of serving, or complimenting, human beings? It could be said that man is not that exceptional among the created creatures, because he would not be able to exist without the prior forms of creation to sustain him, not because his creation was the last crowning achievement. Therefore, man is dependant upon the ‘lesser’ forms of creation to even exist, as will be touched upon later. Flipping the coin, Martin Luther wrote that “‘God created all these things in order to prepare a house and an inn, as it were, for the future man’.[iii] When God rests from the work of creation, it is because the home is finished and the ruler installed.”[iv] While not trying to beat up on Martin Luther too much (which I am prone to do), he lived in a day when the status of animal theology was severely lacking. It was actually virtually non-existent. It has been effectively argued elsewhere that the goal of creation was not human beings, but the Sabbath, meaning that only after EVERYTHING is created (human beings included) were the words ‘very good’ used to describe what had been made.[v] The creation narrative of Genesis 1 records phases of God’s creative action, the fruits of which are declared ‘good’ or ‘very good’ unconditionally, without reference to humanity.[vi] Human beings were not what was ‘very good’, but all of creation. When God saw how good creation was, as a whole, in totality, He then rested (the Sabbath), satisfied in the peace and harmony which existed in His creation. The goal was not humanity, but the Sabbath. This is what will be restored in the coming Kingdom, and how glorious it will be.

The central argument of this chapter is that for key theological reasons and in contrast to influential philosophical world-views, Christian theologians have strong reasons to reject the ‘It’s all about us’ position and recognize the theological dangers in asserting that God’s purposes in creation can be exclusively identified with human beings.[vii]

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

Creation: All About Us?
              Philo of Alexandria (c. 15 BC–AD 50) was a Jewish philosopher and theologian, one of the earliest commentators on the Genesis creation narrative and perhaps the most theologically influential advocate of the ‘It’s all about us’ position concerning the purpose of creation. He was strongly influenced by Platonism, and sought to interpret the Mosaic Pentateuch as a philosophical book. Philo’s commentary on Genesis clearly has Plato’s Timaeus in mind as a point of comparison.[x]

            Clough then begins to name all the great thinkers in history who have contributed in monumental ways to our current understanding of nonhuman life. Philo, Plato, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, Bonaventure, Martin Luther, John Calvin, William Kirkby, Origen,[xi] and Irenaeus of Lyons, to give a sample. These were great men, historically, and the fact that they had these views must give some weight to their position, which was, man was created last because he was the pinnacle of creation; all things that were created beforehand were so that they would benefit the human being. The stage had been set for the star performer.

            It “is not difficult to find Christian theologians stating that human beings are God’s sole or primary purpose in creation. It is harder, however, to find good theological argument in defence of this proposition.”[xii] This is not to say that it is impossible though. As Clough then believably states, “At every point, the central Christian concern to preach the good news of God’s love for human beings seems to be unnecessarily allied with contemporary philosophical and social pressures, emphasizing anthropocentric views of the universe. The weight of theological opinion that human beings are God’s aim in creation, therefore, is not matched by a similar weight of theological argument.”[xiii]

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

Creation: All About God?
              If we take the Psalms and Job alongside Genesis 1 and 2, ... the view of humanity as central to the project of creation is not a sufficient account of what the Bible has to say about creation: Psalm 104 and the end of the book of Job indicate that a wider vision of God’s purposes is necessary.[xv]

            We could read Genesis 1 and deduce that humanity is God’s greatest creative accomplishment, but is that kind of reading true to the Bible as a whole? There are problems with this kind of exegesis. Clough notes the examples of Psalm 104 and Job 38-39 as proofs of this. There are an abundance of scriptural references stating God’s compassion, care, and concern for other-than-human life which challenge our exclusively held anthropocentric theology.[xvi] Human beings are surely unique within creation, but, everything is unique, in its own way, which sadly makes everything uniquely common. Differences abound though, as we will see.

            Clough concludes this section: despite the anthropocentric exuberance noted in the previous section arising from perceived common ground between Christianity and Greek philosophy in the Patristic period, or from new visions of human technological power in the early modern period, the better of the theological argument has always been on the side of those recognizing the importance of affirming the purpose of creation in a theocentric context.[xvii]

            Although there is more to dig through in chapter 1, I’ll stop here to catch my breath and pick it up again in a couple of days.

Notes
[i] On Animals, Kindle Location 488
[ii] In Genesis 1 anyway; Genesis 2 is not the most orthodox creation account!
[iii] Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, vol.1, p.47, (‘The Anxiety of the Human Animal: Martin Luther on Non-human Animals and Human Animality’, p.42, in Clough/Deane-Drummond’s book Creaturely Theology: On God, Humans and Other Animals)
[iv] Luther’s Works 1.73 (Ibid.)
[v] Andrew Linzey and Dan Cohn-Sherbok, After Noah: Animals and the Liberation of Theology, 20-21
[vi] On Animals, 509.
[vii] Ibid., 501.
[viii] Which we undoubtedly, unapologetically do.
[ix] For example; like Abercrombie & Fitch? Did ya know they don’t mind selling thongs for 7 yr olds with slogans like ‘eye candy’ and ‘wink wink’ on them? Or how about padded push-up bikinis for 7 yr olds? http://fashionetc.com/news/retail/1219-abercrombie-fitch-push-up-bikinis-7-girls
[x] On Animals, 550.
[xi] Responding to Celsus’ argument that, contrary to the Christian view, everything was made just as much for irrational animals as for men.
[xii] On Animals, 685.
[xiii] Ibid., 693-695.
[xiv] Theodore Ludwig, The Sacred Paths of the West, 3rd ed, 154.
[xv] On Animals, 750.
[xvi] Joshua Duffy, Animal Rights in the First Covenant, 4-5. http://www.joshandjenny.org/animalrightsinot.html
[xvii] On Animals, 769. 

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

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

•  the theology and ethics of Karl Barth
  
•  Christian thought concerning war and peace
  
•  the place of animals in Christian theology and ethics”[i]
  

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

Notes
[i] http://www.chester.ac.uk/departments/trs/staff/clough

Introduction

The argument of this book is simple. Christian theology… has come to rely on ill-considered renditions of the distinction between human beings and other animals that are implausible, unbiblical, theologically problematic and ethically misleading.[1]

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

            The abuse and degradation of animals has become so commonplace in our time that we rarely give a second thought to our inhumane practices. We are all inhumane. For example, how many of you can state categorically where your meat comes from, and how the animals are treated? According to Jonathan Foer in his excellent[2] book Eating Animals, 99% of all land animals eaten or used to produce milk and eggs in the U.S. are factory farmed.[3] For those of us here in Canada breathing a sigh of relief, although our numbers are probably not quite as high, you can rest assured that most of our meat is factory farmed. If you don’t know exactly what ‘factory farmed’ even means, a quick trip to Google will provide you with enough horrors to disturb your eating habits for a little while anyway. In light of this, I feel it necessary to re-examine our relationship with the animal kingdom, not valuing them simply for our own conveniences, but providing them with the dignity of independent inherent worth. “In the period of the history of the Christian Church, we have travelled from a time in which the killing of animals was only permitted within religious rituals to a time in which 60 billion animals[4] per year are killed for human consumption, the majority of which are raised, slaughtered and processed in factory conditions far removed from the sight or concern of their consumers.”[5] This is an astronomical amount of sentient life being treated as common commodities and/or resources for the sole benefit of human beings. Is this the purpose of God’s creation of them? We each have to answer this question for ourselves, but I think ‘hardly not’.

            Anthropocentrism is a HUGE word when it comes to looking at humans relations with the animal kingdom. I use the word ‘animal’ loosely because it is quite evident that humans are animals as well, just of a different species. Anthropocentrism basically means “viewing the world with human beings as central”.[6] As odd as it may sound to some ears, this has been a debated topic “at least as far back as Xenophanes in the sixth century BC”.[7] At the end of the 3rd Century AD, Celsus actually attacked Christianity for its naïve view that humans are the aim and centre of creation, which were countered by Origen.[8] Really, it is challenging to find an early Church Father who did not advocate an anthropocentric slant in their theology. An exception would be St. Basil the Great. This is not a great deterrent to viewing animals in a more-liberating light though. Scripture and Jewish/Christian tradition are filled with examples of non-human-centered theology.[9] Even though it may be hard to restrict our thinking of ourselves in a way that is much too liberal, the result of such thinking will humble ourselves to an extent where we see things, and live our lives, more God-like.

Clearly the Bible and the theological tradition are inevitably perspectivally anthropocentric, in that they look at God and the world from a human point of view and take an understandable interest in how God and the world relate to the human situation. Teleological anthropocentrism goes further in asserting that this human view of things is also the viewpoint of God: not only are we central in our own view of God and the world, but this human perspective is also an accurate representation of our centrality in God’s acts of creation and redemption. Throughout this book I will argue that taking this step of maintaining the centrality of humanity to God’s purposes is biblically and theologically both unnecessary and undesirable, and therefore that Christianity should be distinguished by its theocentrism, rather than anthropocentrism.[10]

            Anthropocentrism is not bad in itself, after all, as humans we undoubtedly interpret things in a way that is pro-self. As Clough argues above, this gets twisted when we assume God takes the same view of things that we do (teleological anthropocentrism). There is a great danger in this, and we have seen it through church history, expressed in justification of oppression, racism, hatred, indifference,  etc; things which have unfortunately not been minimal occurrences since the Prince of Peace walked the earth. The classic statement “God wills it” was the cry of the Crusades, but was this really what God willed? Was this the nature Jesus exemplified as the Incarnated God?

            Troubles arise when we put humans at the center rather than God. And if God is at the center then maybe we should withhold dogmatic theology which can be argued in other ways, especially when that theology results in the suffering of other sentient life. We need to really think about what God thinks of animals, and how we should act in light of that. Is there a place for the animal kingdom in the areas of creation, reconciliation, and redemption? These are topics which are explored at depth in this work. They are questions worth asking.

_________________________
Notes
[1] On Animals, Kindle Location 103
[2] In my humble, subjective opinion.
[3] http://goo.gl/zPmHb
[4] Foer estimates 450 billion globally. http://goo.gl/zPmHb
[5] On Animals, 120.
[6] Ibid., 181.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid., 185.
[9] For examples in the Jewish tradition, see my paper Animal Rights in the First Covenant. http://www.joshandjenny.org/animalrightsinot.html
[10] On Animals, 221.