In Search of Consistency: Ethics and Animals [Human–Animal Studies] Part 6 pps

264 chapter five

passage makes it clear that whatever Christians do, they must not do

anything that might cause others to falter or stumble along their

spiritual journey.

While an individual of strong faith may see nothing wrong with

eating bodies of anymals—whether or not they have been sacrificed

to idols—Paul notes that they must adjust their eating habits for the

sake of others (Eiselen 1182). Christian love requires the faithful to

be sure that their flesh eating does not become a “stumbling block”

for others (1 Cor. 8:9). Those whose diet causes others to fall away

from Christianity, “sin against . . . family,” and in so doing, “sin

against Christ” (1 Cor. 8:12). Certain foods are to be avoided not

because they are forbidden—they are not—but because these items

might turn people away from Christ. As with Peter’s dream, a more

general point is made through specific examples (in this case flesh

eating and wine drinking).

Divergent points of view have too often become catalysts for divi￾sion and stumbling blocks to faith, both of which scripture clearly

and strongly warns against. In Romans 14, scripture instructs Christians

to avoid foods that tend to be contentious so that they might avoid

turning others away from Christ. Today, flesh and dairy products

are foods that might turn people away from the Christian commu￾nity. Will vegans attend a church function such as a “barbecue” or

“ice cream social”? Their Christlike compassion will not permit them

to eat anymal products, but I have never known a flesh eater to

have a moral complaint against veggie burgers or tofu dogs, or

Popsicle socials.

The teachings of Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 are just as rel￾evant today as in the time of Peter; diet continues to be divisive and

controversial. People are turned away by current Christian diets, atti￾tudes, and general indifference toward anymals. The text of

1 Corinthians 8 concludes: “Therefore, if food is a cause of their

falling, I will never eat meat, so that I may not cause one of them

to fall” (8:13). In short, if eating meat is a possible stumbling block

for others, the Christian response ought to be, “I will be a vegetarian

all my life!” (Eiselen 1182). Flesh eating in the Christian church has

become a barrier and stumbling block for vegans. Today’s carnivo￾rous Christian congregations, fattened on the flesh of factory-farmed

calves and the eggs of deprived battery hens (soon to be slaughtered

for chicken soup), turn the stomachs of more compassionate citizens.

Flesh eating is a divisive and critical issue for contemporary Westerners.

andrew linzey: christian protectionism 265

Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 instruct the faithful not to eat foods

that might be morally repugnant to others—to abandon flesh eat￾ing out of love for vegetarians and vegans who turn away from

Christian congregations red in tooth and fork.

e. Ecclesiastes 3:18–21

There are few verses in either the Hebrew Scriptures or the New

Testament that challenge traditional views of anymals-as-“other” as

blatantly as does Ecclesiastes 3:18–21:

I said in my heart with regard to human beings that God is testing

them to show that they are but animals. For the fate of humans and

the fate of animals is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They

all have the same breath, and humans have no advantage over the

animals; for all is vanity. All go to one place; all are from the dust,

and all turn to dust again. Who knows whether the human spirit goes

upward and the spirit of animals goes downward to the earth?

As noted previously, early Christian scholars, aligned with earlier

Greek thinkers, argued that humans were both distinctly separate

and above other creatures. Yet Ecclesiastes states plainly, we “are

but animals.” If the Christian philosopher, Descartes, had spent more

time reading the Bible and less time reading Greek philosophy to

reach his theological conclusions, perhaps he would not have erro￾neously concluded that anymals are automata, machines made by

God for our purposes, machines bereft of soul, and thereby bereft

of consciousness, and thereby bereft of any form of sensation.

Ecclesiastes clearly indicates that we are not so very different from

anymals, and that it is not clear what will happen to any of us after

death—except that all of our bodies will return to the dust from

which we have come.

f. John 4:8 and 4:16

Linzey emphasizes the overarching importance of self-sacrifice in

Christianity, but does not focus on specific biblical teachings of love,

or how these teachings support protectionism. Christian love is not

only central to Christianity but lies at the heart of the moral contro￾versy revolving around how people ought to treat anymals. Theologians

such as Robert Murray, whom I noted stands against protectionism,

must first and foremost be informed of what transpires in anymal

industries. Then, if such theologians wish to continue eating meat

and defending anymal experimentation, they will need to somehow

266 chapter five

justify their actions in light of the overarching Christian vision of

love and compassion in the midst of creation.

Perhaps the most common objection to protectionist philosophy is

that love directed at anymals is “misplaced” love. Linzey responds

to this objection: One kind of love is not a replacement for another;

neither does love for anymals reduce an individual’s ability to love

people. Linzey asserts that “sensitivity to suffering is a sign of grace

and also a litmus test of our fidelity to the passionate Creator God”;

“any theology which desensitizes us to suffering cannot properly be

a theology centered on the divine vindication of innocent suffering”

(Linzey, After 132). Linzey concludes that an “understanding of God’s

love which limits our care and affection for other creatures is spir￾itually impoverished” (Linzey, After 131).

Linzey’s response is well supported by hagiographies. Seemingly

boundless compassion has been associated with some of the greatest

spiritual exemplars the world has known, from Gandhi to St. Francis

of Assisi. Lynn White called St. Francis “the greatest spiritual revo￾lutionary in Western history” (1207). It is an embarrassment to

Christians, who so often and so loudly vocalize their central tenet

of love, that congregations and ministers alike indict love turned

toward other species as misplaced. Compassion—love—is not a lim￾ited resource, but a capacity that Christians are to foster and enhance

throughout their lives.

Love is not a “zero-sum game” or some sort of hydraulic fluid whose

volume is perforce static. This is the argument of “compassion fatigue”

and it only holds short-term. Long-term, all religions and especially

Christianity, teach that one can expand one’s capacity to love, and

ought consciously to do so. (Halley, Unpublished)

The life of Jesus provides many examples of overflowing compassion

and love. Jesus did not assess the moral status of those he helped;

he did not assess the intellectual abilities of those he healed. Jesus

helped whomever came to him, and most Christians express an

expectation that the devout follow this example:

[ Jesus] didn’t say to blind Bartolomeus, once healed, “Now don’t you

go ogling beautiful women.” To the owner of the withered hand that

he restored, Jesus didn’t warn, “Don’t get your hand caught in the till;

no stealing now.” . . . The neighbor to be loved according to the Good

Samaritan is the nearest person in need regardless of race, religion,

or nationality, and we can safely add gender or sexual orientation....

andrew linzey: christian protectionism 267

“Will you call vile one for whom Christ did not disdain to die?”

If Christ didn’t disdain to die for any of us, [how] are Christians

not to live for all of us? (Coffin)

Through Romans 8 and Colossians 1 Linzey demonstrates that Christ

died to redeem all of creation. In addition to the many types of peo￾ple (Asians, tax collectors, women, and Republican politicians to

name but a few) Christians are obliged to add the entirety of God’s

bountiful creation. Christian love is expected to be no less generous

than the love demonstrated by Jesus—by God.

In the story of the good Samaritan and elsewhere, Christ expanded

the idea of “love your neighbor” outwards from the small circle of

“Jews” to a much larger circle of people including Samaritans. . . . St.

Paul continued the process (Gal. 3:28), extending the circle to include

all Gentiles. Linzey is following the logic of Christianity through to

higher animals. Perhaps there is no limit. (Fundamentalists often go

in the opposite direction, imploding their ever-diminishing circle towards

a ring of “the faithful” and eventually just one’s own self.) (Halley,

Unpublished communication)

The deity is represented in the New Testament as love itself. Verses

1 John 4:8 and 1 John 4:16 state simply: “God is love.” In this pas￾sage love is “not merely an attribute of God but defines his nature,

though in a practical rather than philosophic sense. . . . God’s nature

is not exhausted by the quality of love, but love governs all its aspects

and expressions” (Buttrick 12:280). Christian love is understood to

originate in the munificence of God’s love and to connect each of

us with the divine (C. Allen 12:214). Consequently, it is not sur￾prising that almost all Christians agree that love is “the paramount

scripture... essential to the Christian way of life” (C. Allen 12:214).

Christians are called upon to love fully and well; love is central to

Christianity. Christ’s love—God as love—these central teachings

demand a Christian life of radical compassion. Christ modeled a life

of love that entailed the ultimate sacrifice: “In the light of Jesus,

Christian loving can only properly be defined in terms of that kind

of loving which costs us something” (Linzey, After 102). Galatians

5:22–23 informs humanity that the “fruit of the Spirit is love, joy,

peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self￾control.” Scripture demands a life of sacrificial, Christlike love, a

demand that has long been central to Christian morality—though

too often only in theory.

268 chapter five

Linzey highlights Christ’s example of loving self-sacrifice and the

original peaceable (vegan) kingdom created by God (Gen. 1). He

encourages Christians to recognize the exploitation of sentient cre￾ation as antithetical to God’s will. Surely today’s violence toward

anymals, intensified and aggrandized by modern methods of factory

farming and technology (in a world of comparable health and abun￾dance), are immeasurably worse than the simple violence of Noah’s

time. Yet even the violence of Noah’s day was appalling in the eye of the deity,

so shocking and objectionable that the Almighty determined to make an end of

all that had been created in order to stop the violence. In his book, The Cosmic

Covenant, Robert Murray defends eating other creatures. How will

such flesh-eating theologians answer the Christ challenge, the call to

live a life of loving self-sacrifice in a world of exploitation and vio￾lence toward anymals?

Verses 1 John 4:8 and 1 John 4:16 shed light on the nature of

the deity and carry the Christian imperative to live a life of love for

all, a love that entails self-sacrifice.

g. Isaiah 11:6–9

Linzey draws attention to God’s original creation as presented in

Genesis 1, a creation of peace and nonviolence, a peaceable king￾dom lost through the degradation of earthly creatures. He notes that

God created all, that all share in the fall, and that all of creation

will share in redemption. But Linzey does not focus on the ideal

world, designed by God, anticipated in the future; Linzey does not

emphasize God’s peaceable kingdom, which will eventually return to

this earth, transforming life as we know it.

This future “state of peace and well-being” is “symbolized by the

idyllic picture of powerful animals and poisonous reptiles in harmo￾nious companionship with domesticated animals and truly spiritual

human children” (Buttrick 5:249):

The wolf shall live with the lamb,

the leopard shall lie down with the kid,

the calf and the lion and the fatling together,

and a little child shall lead them.

The cow and the bear shall graze,

their young shall lie down together;

and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

The nursing child shall play over the hole of the asp,

and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder’s den.