Joe Carter has a great post at the Evangelical Outpost blog asking when and how animal welfare disappeared from the list of evangelical concerns. He writes:
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?
He goes on to remind us that whatever we think of PETA's worldview and antics, there is a strong tradition in the church of caring for animals as part of Christian stewardship, and that the way we exercise our dominion over animals says something about how we value Creation. (Kim has touched on related topics here in the past, most recently here.)
The point--that Christians ought to recognize the issue of animal welfare as one deeply connected to our role as stewards of Creation--is an important one. But Joe's post points to a deeper problem: once a person or organization on the opposite side of the political divide lays claim to a position, it can become really difficult for us as Christians to stand up in support of that position--even if it's one that is entirely consistent with Christian values. (Speaking personally about the animal welfare issue, I'll admit that I've often let my own distaste for organizations like PETA smother my desire to more carefully evaluate the morality of my food purchasing options.) That's a petty and un-Christian response, but I suspect the "if my enemy is for it, I have to be against it" attitude lies at the root of much of the current confusion and discontent in evangelical politics.
This problem is, of course, not limited to Christians. But it's important that we not forget about genuine Biblical principles just because an extremist group on the political left or right has "laid claim" to one of them as its pet cause.





Login to comment
Alternate Login
Use your social media account to login.
Login with your ReFrame account
Comments (7)
Having said that, let's remember our history. The Anglican Society for the Welfare of Animals (ASWA) states that "the first animal protection society, was founded by an Anglican priest – Revd Arthur Broome." And that "Well known Christians such as C S Lewis, John Wesley and William Wilberforce [who was also hugely responsible for the abolition of the slave trade in Great Britain] all spoke out against animal cruelty."
The problem for me is that many left-leaning groups who do a great job at raising the public awareness about the unnecessary suffering of animals are either too exteme or have political and financial ties to other groups that I cannot in good-conscience support. PETA is against any use of animal products whatsoever, even if the benefits to humans are clear and necessary. The National Anti-Vivisection Society's 2007 financial report shows that they gave a $5000 grant to the Society for in Vitro Biology, which actively promotes Darwinian evolution-only curricula in our nation's classrooms to the complete exclusion of any other theories whether evolution- or creation- based. They also mention stem-cell research on their site and I couldn't ascertain whether they were in favor of embryonic research or not.
I've watched PETA's videos about the cruelty that animals endure in slaughterhouses and laboratories, and it is abominable. But throwing money at a cause because we feel shocked and horrified is irresponsible and we must be smarter than that. We have the internet. Let's do our research, dig deeper and then DO SOMETHING about the tremendous suffering in our world!
"As the Psalmist says in Psalm 148, animals in their amazing variety of species were all created for the glory of God and to praise His name. They were not created for our exploitation and domination."--ASWA website
On a whole different tack, posing "using the internet" as an alternative to "throwing money at a cause" is hardly a step closer "doing" anything about a perceived problem. Hitler would have been happy to have the entire population of Germany watching U-tube clips of Auschwitz, as long as they stayed home watching and didn't march on Berlin or anything. As I've said before, I don't compare eating meat to gassing human beings. I'm a carnivore. Everyone in the Bible ate lamb, goat, sometimes beef, and Paul said I can eat pork too. Animals are not people. They have a spark of life (nefesh) but they don't have living souls (nefesh chayyim, or neshama).
Lastly, why are you distinguishing between evolution-based and creation-based. That requires both blindness and arrogance, whether from Richard Dawkins or AIG. Science is perfectly competent to document the series of physical events that resulted from the command "Let the waters bring forth the living thing that hath life..." and subsequent related commands. The Bible is more than competent to tell us who gave the command, and some idea of why. What's the conflict? One reason animals are not people is that their bodies were a step toward creating the bodies to which God could attach a living soul, and having served that purpose, creating in all kinds of complex and wonderful ways the environment in which that living soul could hopefully choose to do what God created it for... that's why they are there.
I went on to give a specific example of a group that I didn't feel comfortable supporting (The National Anti-Vivisection Society) for my own reasons of conscience which I do not bestow upon you to judge.
Your conclusion that I advocate doing nothing is erroneous. I said we must do our research about the groups we support and then, and I quote, "DO SOMETHING" about the suffering in our world. I did not proffer what that "something" would be. That is up to the individual. I trust that most people can think for themselves.
I'm afraid you missed the crux of my entry, and most of your assertions are irrelevent to this discussion.