Christian Environmentalism: The Spiritual Nature of Animals
May 15, 2008 by haytkir
I once had a conversation with a woman at a church concerning whether animals had a soul or any kind of spiritual essence. She was of the opinion that they were only made of flesh that is, they had no soul, and when dead nothing of their being remained. As such she considered human life to be far more important than an animal’s. Not knowing much about the subject and being the tree-hugging animal lover that I am. I decided to see what could be found on the subject. The pivotal section for me was from the NIV translation of Ecclesiastes 3
18 I also thought, “As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. 19 Man’s fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath [b] ; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. 21 Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal [c] goes down into the earth?”
This passage states that God acts to show us that we are like animals. That our fates are the same and that we each are of the same “breath”, the Hebrew word here is “ruwach”. Then it explicitly states that it is a mystery what occurs to the spirit of a human and the spirit of an animal.
The word “nephesh”, translated as soul, self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion amongst many others, is used repeatedly in the description of the creation of the animals, this time from the NAS version of Genesis 1:
- Ge 1:20 - [In Context|Original Hebrew]
- Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens .”
- Ge 1:21 - [In Context|Original Hebrew]
- God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
- Ge 1:24 - [In Context|Original Hebrew]
- Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind “; and it was so.
- Ge 1:30 - [In Context|Original Hebrew]
- and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food “; and it was so.
What then surprised me was that this word nephesh is also used to describe the creation of man in Genesis 2:7:
Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
Man became a living nephesh. Perhaps this simply is saying that we bear the same kind of life essence? Yet, in light of Ecclesiastes I reread Genesis as saying that the creation of life, animal and human, as being the same.
These words occur in many more places through out Scripture and brings me to my next point. God makes promises to the animals as well as to the humans. Consider the covenant of Noah, where one may be surprised to learn that God did not just make this covenant with just Noah and humanity but with:
9 “I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you 10 and with every living creature that was with you—the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you—every living creature on earth.
God establishes a covenant with all nephesh, the same promise he makes with the humans on the same terms.
This is supported in my mind by other portions of Scripture. When one considers that the “wages of sin is death.”, in other words that the punishment for sin is death, then this gives value to the deaths of animals as used in the sin sacrifices of the Hebrews. There were different kinds of sacrifices proscribed in the Old Testament, but what one finds is that the blood (and thereby the death) of an animal has spiritual value. The blood of an animal was considered sufficient sacrifice for the death result of a human sin, as centuries later Christ’s blood held spiritual value for sin.
In my mind, animal and human life has the same value. However, there is the point made in Genesis that God has given humanity responsibility for creation, in Genesis 1:
26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
Additionally in Matthew 6:
26Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?
God did make us different in some fashion, yet it seems we aren’t to let this go to our heads. Like so many other parts of Scripture, I think we are meant to remain humble in the face of creation.
As stewards of creation, it is my conclusion that we have a responsibility to “rule” creation. This in my mind does not mean “use”. A good ruler does not simply “use” their nation for his own benefit. To justly “rule” is to protect and to increase the well-being of the ruled. Christians have a responsibility not only to promote environmentalism, but to take substantial steps towards interacting with creation in a sacrificing and protective manner.
What this primarily means to me is to not waste. We are allowed to use the resources of the earth for ourselves, we are not allowed to use them to the detriment of the rest of the earth. Hunting for the purposes of sport is a wasteful activity. Hunting for the purposes of food is not. God himself is recorded as killing the first animals to provide clothing for Adam and Eve before kicking them out of Eden. If you must kill, it must be done with a purpose. Much as tending a garden encourages it to grow and be fruitful so also must we tend the earth. Sometimes it is necessary to clip a branch to promote the growth of others.
The woman I originally had this conversation with was perturbed at hearing that someone in the church had surgery performed on their cat. I asked why animal life would not hold the same value as a human’s and she argued that human life, being created in the image of God, had far greater value than an animal’s. As I’ve mentioned I do not disagree that there is something special about humanity that God has given to us. However, in light of the fact that God establishes protective covenants with all living things, that Ecclesiastes clearly states that we have the same fate, the same breath and no advantage over the animals and that we have been given the responsibility to “rule” over creation. We then have just as much responsibility to protect animals as we do humans.
As rulers of creation, if you see an animal in pain or distress you are called to help them just as you would any other human. If you are a hunter you have a serious responsibility to not injure the animal and leave it to die a slow death. You must complete your kill in an efficient manner, not waste the meat and be respectful to the fact that God gave you both the ability to hunt and the opportunity to sustain yourself.
It is not then “wrong” to kill an animal, or to eat meat, but how one goes about it is very important.
In defence of vegetarianism, the account of Daniel and the other captives in Babylon should provide sufficient warning to those that would mock someone with the discipline to refrain from the eating of meat. However, this is a topic for another post.
It may seem campy, but the phrase: “Reduce, reuse, recycle” should be just as important to a Christian as it is to any other member of humanity.
So also a respect for creation and all life that is in it should guide our actions and decisions as we move into a more environmentally concious age.
Thanks for that. I too believe that respect is key when dealing with all life. It disgusts me to see Christians who wave the “dominion” flag while causing unnecessary harm in the name of utility.
Be well.
Good post!
I haven’t done much research into Christianity and animal rights, but there’s a lot in the Bible that’s pretty cool for ecological uses. Unfortunately, I don’t have my notes on me right now (argh!), but I’ll have to post them up sometime. Thanks for the post!
Great post, Kir. I definitely am also of the camp that finds much evidence of our mandate to be stewards over creation rather than being of the thought that “it’s all going to burn anyways.” Redemption appears to be an act that we are to be apart of in this world and that includes are stewardship of its resources.
I can’t imagine balking at the surgery of a beloved pet, however I don’t think man and animal stand equal to God. God clearly gave dominion of man over animal in Genesis (to be good stewards) and animals are almost always referred to in an inferior sense, ie repeated sacrifice of animals for sins, never humans until Jesus Himself sacrifices himself for us–mention of God knowing of every bird falling from the sky, how much More he knows of our needs; the fact that man is created in God’s image, not animals is made very clear etc. I think that’s evident in your post as well–being merciful and not wasteful when taking an animal’s life for sustenance is called for–however no one in their right mind would consider taking a human being’s life for sustenance, mercifully or otherwise–we simply value human life above that of an animal’s for good reason. It’s built in.
We have every reason to believe that animals, as part of God’s perfect creation before the Fall, will be part of his redeemed creation. However placing them on an even keel as man I think is doing an disservice to the nature of God and to ourselves as being made in His image. Jesus is fully God and fully man, not fully Man-animal-tree–this is a very important distinction if we believe God sets his priorities in Scripture for us to follow.
That said I’m a huge animal lover, I don’t know many other people who love furry four-legged creatures more than myself. I certainly don’t put them on the same plain as vegetation, but I also would not feel comfortable saying such an animal had a soul, when it shows no more concern for its salvation than any other organism. Survival instinct does not equal a soul I don’t think and would not consider a virus on an even plain as a human being either.
That said, I absolutely believe in conservation of our environment–not because I give it a holy, eternal and equal value to the value I claim in Jesus’ work for me, but because God has clearly commanded us to be care takers of it this earth, and because I believe Heaven will take place here, not somewhere out in space once the Lord returns.
Sorry for the ramble, hope this helps you see where I’m coming from. If you need any referenced I have them to provide, as well as some great authors if you’re interested.
The problem with environmentalism is not that its wrong, its that it has become politicized and extreme. Like it or not, environmentalism has baggage. Take veganism, which I know you avoided in your post, but is difficult to be disassociated with environmentalism. I know several, and their reasons vary, from personal convictions to religious restrictions to simply not really like meat. But I’ve seen some who are literally hostile to people who could have the audacity to eat meat. That is just one of many examples of the type of baggage that it has.
That being said, I completely agree that about your analysis of ruling over creation, and I think its sad that Christians have let others control the narrative of environmentalism.
I’d also argue against your analysis on sport hunting, since every single sport hunter I’ve ever known also does it for the meat. And saying something that is wrong in indistinguishable to saying buying/eating meat in general is wrong. But we might use our terms differently. You might be calling sport hunting what I typically think of as trophy hunting, which, I dunno, I’d still probably take issue with, but less so.
Thank you everyone for your responses!
@Throttle: I understand what you are saying and in general agree. I was trying to convey that I still held that humanity has something special about them. Just that when God gives authority to someone over something else the general principle in Scripture is that those in authority are supposed to be self-sacrificial and humble. I was trying to communicate that non-human life has intrinsic value in the eyes of God and is more than just a simple commodity or resource to be used.
@CJ: When I refer to sport hunting I am referring to the individuals I see that come here to Alaska and hunt an animal to only take it’s head or have the creature mounted by a taxidermist. African safaris are another example, people do not hunt lions for their meat. The individual is motivated by the activity solely by the desire to get a “high score”. While it is possible that the guide will do something with the meat, I think the act of trophy hunting is irresponsible due to the waste that occurs. There is nothing wrong with taking pleasure in getting the “high score” if the animal is taken in a non-wasteful manner. As a hunter myself I am bothered by the vast majority of hunters who see hunting solely as a recreational activity.
Vegetarianism and veganism are very different things. I wanted to devote a separate post to the defense of vegetarianism. Veganism is not something I am prepared to defend on the other hand.
I should note that I am a meat eater and used the example of God killing the first animals to provide clothing to Adam and Eve to try and convey that the killing of an animal for food or materials is not bad. Another example I am planning on using is Peter’s dream. It is clear that God has given us meat for food. However, Daniel’s vegetarianism in Babylon is also an example that while something can be permissible another choice can often be more beneficial.
Additionally I agree with your estimation that the fault of “environmentalism” today is that it has been politicized and used as a tool to further ulterior motives. Much of my thinking on this issue is motivated on the ideal of “taking back” this concept and making it our own.
I think an argument can also be made that animals, being fairly pure of intent, have less of a ’sin nature’ than humans, and therefore deserve more protection and credit. Then again, I think I have a fairly warped view on the subject seeing as I vastly prefer animals to people. A vegetarian vs. vegan post would be cool, I’m a veggie and spend a lot of time educating others on the subject. I’m more of a lead-by-example person on this issue (except with my family, who have to endure the full-on sermon), but I’m not afraid to admit that I think being a Christian requires a certain level of vegetarianism/responsible consumerism. I’ve been moderately successful at ‘converting’ my very conservative family on this as well.
I also think the Christian majority is slowly turning around on the evironmentalism issue, at least I see a lot of evidence of this in Seattle, where most churches hold recycling weekends, etc. Rick Warren (author of A Purpose Driven Life, which I haven’t read) is trying to jump-start a specifically evangelical type of environmentalism which to me is very encouraging to me b/c it appeals to more conservative Christians without including a lot of political garbage.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/national/08warm.html
There does seem to be very interesting alliances forming between youngish folks (the under 40 crowd) with the cause of sustainable living/enviornmentalism. While I think some of the old folks are definitely set in their ways (which includes hating “the other side”, no matter what, even if they actually might agree with you and you could be allies on this particular issue), it’s been exciting for me to see a whole variety of political/religious viewpoints come together against “wasteful” living.
Although this might be a regional thing, I don’t know. The PacNW seems particularly friendly to enviornmental concerns, regardless of where you are on the political spectrum. Of all the interfaith events I’ve been a part of in my immediate community, all but one of them was centered either around “environmental” concerns or anti-poverty concerns (a close second). It’s actually been really awesome to figuratively join hands with Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Mormon, Buddhist, Adventist, and Unitarian folks in that regard. It really goes to show you that humans tend to be more alike than they are different. Though I don’t know if that’s distressing to some people or not.
And I’ll disagree that in order to be vegan you must be a total outlandish obnoxious freak. I think perhaps the American breed of vegan maybe, since most of those folks (no offense intended) TEND to be more anti-how they were raised than anything else. I do know gentle, respectful, moral, and totally ethical and non-shrill vegans. They tend to be hindu or buddhist, and were raised that way (rather than “born again”, those are the folks that tend to be obnoxious). And in a pinch, both hindus and buddhists are “allowed” to eat something offered rather than be prima donna or wasteful.
When I was vegetarian, I got a lot of obnoxious behavior directed at me by meat eating folks. They’d ask why I was just having x or y at the party instead of having the steak, and I’d just politely state that it looked and smelled delicious but that I’d given up eating meat, and then they would scream at me about how vegetarians were obnoxious because they didn’t want anyone to eat meat (I guess hurling all the insults at me instead of at the obnoxious twits who lectured them once upon a time). So man, there is so much asshattery to go around, and you don’t have to be vegetarian or vegan to participate in it.
@Chantrea:
“And I’ll disagree that in order to be vegan you must be a total outlandish obnoxious freak.”
I don’t think vegans are necessarily any of that, nor did I say so. The closest comment that came to that was CJ’s that he had experienced some vegetarians who were violently opposed to the eating of meat. Consider the members of ALF (Animal Liberation Front) or ELF (Earth Liberation Front) as examples of some vegetarians who are aggressively opposed to the eating of meat. I’m just prepared to support vegetarianism as a Biblical lifestyle. Maybe veganism can be as well, I haven’t researched it enough yet.
However, what you said about having obnoxious behavior directed at you for being vegetarian was what I was wanting to address next. In my estimation within the Christian community there is Scriptural evidence that vegetarianism is both acceptable and respectable. Meat eating Christians shouldn’t be bothering the vegetarian Christians like I see occurring in some churches.
@Llora: The best I can tell it appears that sin as a result of the fall altered all of creation. Every living thing in it that we are aware of, gets sick and eventually dies. [edit] Though this doesn’t change your point about there being a reason that our fall lends some responsibility to the “collateral damage” that I think other forms of life suffer as a result of our sin.
There’s people like that in every group, though.
I don’t think that Fred Phelps and his family are an accurate reflection of Christian values, though there might be a teeny tiny grain of it in there.
By the same token ALF and PETA don’t get to speak for all folks who choose to avoid animal products, though there is a grain of commonality in there–a concern that animals shouldn’t be subjected to unnecessary pain. Their definition of “unnecessary” is way different from mine though.
My read on it (and I became a vegetarian while I was still a Christian) was that while God did not forbid the eating of meat, and using animals (it was encouraged in the OT, natch)…neither did he in the new testament command that one HAD to. It’s one thing when you have to do it for survival purposes, but at least in our current society, it’s not really an essential for health (most of us would probably be more healthy if we ate less, especially given the garbage conditions of a large segment of agribusiness) or even comfort. So for me at the time it fell under the “liberty” quotient of that great line “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity.” I think one would be hard pressed to argue that eating meat and wearing leather to be essential Christian doctrine.
I just get annoyed at how a lot of people wish to portray vegans as extremists. I guess it probably depends on who you’ve met. If you tend to be in very vegan-unfriendly environments, probably the people who commit to that lifestyle, especially if they’re noobs, are going to be shrill and obnoxious about it. And there most certainly extremists. I’ve met far more really obnoxious anti-vegetarians than vegetarians, but of course it would be that way…I know far more omnivores.
Though I’ve never heard anti-vegetarian stuff coming out of a church. That really surpises me. The only time I’ve ever heard of an actual church talk on whether or not to eat meat was at an Adventist service–and it’s a soft “rule” in that denomination that people do not eat meat.
I dunno, do you think that in this instance it’s more of a cultural status quo thing, or a political thing, rather than coming from a perspective of spiritual concern?
Yes, in my estimation you are correct in that it is more a cultural status or political thing. Which brings us full circle! That’s my primary concern with the churches I’ve attended the last few years. American Christianity seems to not be a spiritual activity any more.
You are also correct that any kind of lifestyle or belief system has their own share of extremists. Judging the whole by the actions of the few is poor method of judgment.
In the end the way I see the eating of meat and vegetarianism as summed up in 1 Corinthians 10:23
“Everything is permissible”—but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible”—but not everything is constructive.”
However, in the defense of vegetarianism I’m going to have to present an argument more cogent than just that verse.
I would also clarify that the anti-vegetarianism wasn’t coming out of a church as an institution, but out of individual members of the church. Any church is going to full of prideful and sinful people, but that’s what you get when you put real people together.
It probably doesn’t make you feel any better, but I think that the “cultural thing” is happening across spiritual practices here. (Maybe it’s happening elsewhere, but I live in America, so…
I know I’ve been feeling dissatisfied with my own religious organization because of that. I have heard rumblings from various friends in the interfaith org that I belong to. I know it’s happening with American buddhists too.
Dunno what it is about our current time/culture that seems to be sucking that away, but a lot of people sure seem to be feeling that way.
Hey, you should write a post about that too, so I can stop going on tangents. ;> I’ll try to be good!
I’ll play the bad guy, and say I completely understand why people are anti-vegetarianism. It’s very easy to get defensive when you feel like people are judging you. A statement like “I am a vegetarian” can bring with it an implied “…and I think you are wrong for eating meat.” Now for any one defending being a vegetarian, you’re first response to the above is going to be “That’s the exception, not the rule.” And sure, you’d be right. But let’s list off some comparative statements and see if any of them can have an “implied” part.
“I only listen to Christian music.”
“No thanks, I don’t drink.”
“I’m waiting to have sex till marriage.”
“I quit smoking a few years ago.”
“I don’t do homework on Sunday.”
When you hear statements like these, do you read more to them than might be there? Do you feel like statements like this are more than just proclamations of self choice, but of chastisement to do the opposite and judgment if you don’t? If not, well, you are a better person than I am, lol.
When some one makes a declaration that is contrary to your lifestyle choice, you are going to get defensive. Which is the kind of baggage that environmentalism can bring, because it brings several declarations beyond “Proper stewardship of our planet is a good thing.”
From my perspective, I’ve known enough vegetarians in my life that it doesn’t really bother me. (Though I do give people who do it for trendy reasons a hard time). The biggest type of baggage that environmentalism brings for me is treating animals equal or above humans, which is the standard narrative for environmentalism and is a hurdle (though not the only one) that makes it very hard to get behind it.
You’re absolutely right and I was trying to find a way to frame just such a statement. My initial reaction to a family member’s vegetarianism was motivated by just what you’re saying. The perception was that when people make a lifestyle choice they are doing so at the exclusion of other lifestyles due to a belief that “their” lifestyle choice is right and others are wrong.
Sweeping generalization? Yes. Fundamentally wrong? No.
People dislike being told that what they do is wrong, even if it is only implied. A common reaction is to then mock the choice of someone who behaves differently than you.
However, understanding the motivations, fears or emotions behind why someone opposes a lifestyle choice doesn’t make it any more wrong or right.
Hence, my defense of vegetarianism. Once I recognized that my oppositional stance to vegetarianism was based solely on a sense of judgment it became clear to me that there really wasn’t anything wrong with vegetarianism, it was my own insecurity due to a lack of critical thinking about my own lifestyle choices.
Once I recognized that the problem wasn’t that someone else made a decision that was in contrary to my own value system it became apparent that if I had thought more about my own decisions there was no need to depend on outside justification of my values.
Applying that same principle to vegetarianism then it became an easy exercise to extend the same thought process to a lifestyle choice I did not share.
The last part of your comment CJ is what is at the heart of my motivation for the original post. There IS baggage and assumptions that come with terms like environmentalism and as others have pointed out there are politics and moral judgments wrapped up in the issue. What I have been trying to communicate though is that while what is commonly thought of as “environmentalism” is not something I agree with, there are aspects of it that really should be a part of a Christian’s life. This is what I mean when I said we need to take it and make it our own. Too much of “environmentalism” today is backed by bad science or dogmatic science. Science is the true religion of America. It is with a blind faith that the masses believe what “science” tells us. If science tells us something, then it MUST by it’s very nature, be unquestionable. To question a scientific “fact” is to take the path of madness. And we all know where that leads…. Sparta. No, wait. I mean… you know what I mean. =D Science has been wrong and will continue to be wrong. It’s a process of continual refinement. The science of today will appear no better than alchemy to the science of the centuries to come.
Maybe I don’t need to do a separate vegetarianism post, =p. We’re all covering the topics I was going to albeit in backwards order.
Yah for one, I’ve enjoyed these posts immensely–very thought provoking.