208 chapter four Taylor’s position is inconsistent He insists that rights are not “derived from or equivalent to assertions about duties” because in such a case “the question of whether moral agents respect the rights of others becomes identical with the question of whether they live up to their duties” (“Inherent” 24) Rights, he insists, are more than this Given Taylor’s direct parallels, how can he logically assert that his environmental ethic can supplant anymal and plant rights, while denying their efficacy as a replacement for human rights? Taylor’s theory demonstrates that respect for nature is not a replacement for moral rights Taylor begins chapter six: “In this final chapter I consider the moral dilemmas that arise when human rights and values conflict with the good of non-humans” (Respect 256) Can the simple “good” of all other entities compete fairly with the multitude of comprehensive “rights” Taylor protects for human animals? Taylor’s theory demonstrates that it cannot There is bound to be “tension between claiming that all living beings have equal inherent worth and only granting rights to humans” (Lombardi 257) Indeed, most of the difficulties of internal conflict in Taylor’s theory stem from his tendency to favor human beings, most prominently displayed in his affirmation of human rights and concurrent dismissal of anymal rights Taylor “cannot bring himself to completely renounce special respect for persons and sometimes speaks of ‘both systems of ethics’—respect for persons and respect for nature—as if he were juggling two independent principles” (Callicott, “Case” 107) Taylor’s acceptance of rights exclusively for Homo sapiens harms the internal consistency and protectionist qualities of his theory Most flagrantly, Taylor offers an environmental ethic to protect “wild” entities, inclusive of the most civilized and “unnatural” of species (humans), yet excluding billions of domestic “pets,” “laboratory” anymals, and “food” anymals that live severely truncated, deprived, and often painful lives Taylor’s theory allows masses of teleological entities to live and die as property and profit for exploitative industries that degrade the land with a multitude of chemicals and tons of waste Yet Taylor protects these industries, rather than the lives of the individuals or the environment, allowing people to maintain their integrity as the type of beings that we are—in this case, greedy, exploitative, and cruel beings Taylor fails to fulfill his own standards for an ethical system; his humanocentric tendencies prevent him from applying his environmental principles in a disinterested fashion paul taylor: bio-protectionism 209 i Justification Taylor’s work favors humans in ways that sometimes lead to philosophic inconsistencies, and one might suspect that these special human privileges are intended to make his theory more palatable: Taylor guarantees that we human beings can go on living the lives to which we have grown accustomed He tries to make things come out right—so that we can eat vegetables, build wooden houses, and generally get on with our human projects —by means of an elaborate set of hedges enabling us consumptively to use our fellow entities within the limits of his extremely broad egalitarian theory (Callicott, “Case” 108) Taylor offers a theory that is more likely to be considered acceptable by granting people more freedom and power Though Taylor admits that his theory is difficult to realize, he asserts that respect for nature, based on “equal inherent worth of every living thing,” demonstrates that “biotic egalitarianism does not reduce to absurdity” but can be fruitfully implemented (Respect 306) There is value in presenting a moral theory that is appealing and applicable, one that seems to offer realistic answers to pressing contemporary problems Yet Taylor’s human leanings prove disastrous, and in any case, one cannot please everyone At least one of Taylor’s readers concluded that “the clearest and most decisive refutation of the principle of respect for life is that one cannot live according to it, nor is there any indication in nature that we were intended to” (Goodpaster, “On Being” 324) Even with Taylor’s extensive human bias, it is almost certain that many people would be unwilling to adopt Taylor’s theory of Respect for Nature (Spitler 256) Moral theory, including protectionist moral theory, ought not to bend to the preferences of the masses People have too often treasured the freedom of human expansion, flourishing civilization, and increased profit at the expense of other living entities—even at the expense of less powerful human beings In the United States, in the mid-eighteenth century, settlers were free to hunt Native Americans for sport and profit; those who brought in the head of a Native American were paid bounty money by the federal government (“Ishi”) In the southern United States slave owners were free to profit economically from slaves, whom they could sell or kill at their whim Our interest in freedom and personal gain has sometimes had an appalling effect on other individuals—human and nonhuman Power and freedom 210 chapter four are much sought, but they are often not worth the price paid (Feinberg, Social 7) Just as moral theory was brought to bear on those who exploited Africans and natives for profit in the United States, sound and consistent moral theory must be brought to bear on those who profit from destroying the natural world or from the lives of anymals Conclusion Taylor’s theory is both broader than most protectionist theories (including plants) and narrower (excluding anymals that are not “natural” or “wild”) Taylor’s work entails theoretical problems and inconsistencies, such as his tendency to make exceptions in his theory for the sake of human interests Nonetheless, Taylor’s theory of Respect for Nature offers a fascinating and inspirational protectionist ethic for wildlife, and for the natural world He offers a much-needed theoretical bridge where environmentalists and protectionists might meet on common ground PART THREE PROTECTIONIST THEOLOGY CHAPTER FIVE ANDREW LINZEY: CHRISTIAN PROTECTIONISM In 1967, in his groundbreaking article, “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis,” Lynn White blamed Christianity for our growing environmental crisis “Especially in its Western form,” White wrote, “Christianity is the most anthropocentric religion the world has seen” (1205–06) Since the publication of that article in Science, there has been much speculation as to whether or not Christianity might be at fault People such as Andrew Linzey would argue that it is not Christianity itself, but how human beings have chosen to interpret and live the Christian religion Few have disputed the historical importance of religion to the formation of Western “presuppositions” concerning our relationship with the world around us (White 1204) Nor are we likely to argue with White’s assertion that what people “depends on what they think about themselves in relation to things around them” (1205–06) What does Christianity offer with regard to this relationship? Most Christians in the Western world assume that they have been given “dominion” by God, over the rest of creation, and that we are therefore free to continue breeding dogs and eating flesh Is this common view scripturally accurate? Does the common Western Christian’s lifestyle adequately reflect divine intent as revealed in the Bible? Andrew Linzey, an Anglican priest and theologian, is the dominant scholar behind a theological justification for protectionism He notes that “[a]ll Christian traditions contain resources for looking at animals in a positive way,” and that “the battle for animals will not, cannot, be won while major institutions in our society hold antiprogressive views on animals” (Animal Gospel 70, 73) Linzey rejects the traditional Christian view, which holds that God granted people the right to use nature and anymals for their own ends Linzey’s Generosity Paradigm requires Christians to exhibit self-sacrificing service toward all of creation and asserts that exploitation of anymals violates God’s will, as expressed in the Bible Andrew Linzey has stirred many Christians to reexamine scripture and reconsider their religious duties with regard to anymals 214 chapter five Theology remains a vital and vibrant moral force in the contemporary world The protectionist movement would benefit greatly from religious support—an alliance that seems natural to many people of faith who stand firmly within the protectionist movement A Theology Philosophy and theology have been partners in dialogue for centuries, inspiring new ideas and prompting responses across disciplines As is the case among philosophers, generations of theologians interpret, test, and reflect on the work of earlier scholars, then offer their personal contribution to the ongoing process of accumulating knowledge Theology has existed at least since the time of ancient Greece The use of reason in the discipline of theology stood in direct contrast to popular mythology, perpetuated by the poets of the day Mythology was, for most commoners, the main source of knowledge about the gods Theology literally means “the study of God,” or “knowledge of God.” The focus of ancient Greek theology explored the nature of the gods themselves and the deities’ relations with the world, especially the world of human beings We continue to view theology as rooted in reason and disciplined study and as contrasting with mythology Theology examines religious scripture, lore, and belief from the standpoint of faith Such ancient lore is seldom viewed as myth by insiders; “myth” is generally ascribed to the ancient wisdom of “other” peoples Because faith is involved, there is a strong element of intuition and personal experience involved Consequently, many have been unwilling to consider theology a science Theology is critical to modern religious belief and practice Those who engage in theology most often pursue a greater understanding of their own religion, and they are motivated by, and overtly seek, an insider’s view of their particular faith Theology has therefore most often been an internal dialogue among those of a particular faith Increasingly, theologians have reached across religious traditions to dialogue about matters of common interest and concern Theology differs from most other scholarly disciplines in that the core subject, the divine, cannot be apprehended through empirical investigation Perhaps, at least in part because the taproot springs from faith, theology has established rigorous methods of reasoning andrew linzey: christian protectionism 215 about God Authorities examining religious works employ reason, scripture, tradition, and (more recently), experience Theology can be viewed as a science because it employs systematic intellectual procedures, rooted in reason, and because all sciences—all human endeavors—are tainted by the human hand, mind, and heart Theology has not only become more rigorous but much more sophisticated since the days of the ancient Greeks There are various areas of specialty within theology The most general and comprehensive is systematic theology, the “ordered exposition of the beliefs of a religious faith as a whole” (Macquarrie) There are also branches of theology, such as pastoral theology and, most important for the purpose of this book, moral theology Moral theology brings faith, scripture, and traditions to bear on specific moral issues Because ethics cannot be removed from a specific context, moral theology is interdisciplinary, involving such matters as politics, economics, and social activism In the sixties and seventies, a Catholic priest from Peru Gustavo Gutierrez, claimed that Christians have a “compelling obligation to fashion an entirely different social order” (Gutierrez 301) Gutierrez is most often considered the father of liberation theology, a branch of moral theology that is also a political and social movement that emphasizes themes from the Bible that reveal God as the champion of the poor, powerless, and oppressed Gutierrez recognized the liberating message of Christianity for the poor people of South America With his support and encouragement, the poor and oppressed looked to their “faith to help them, directly, free their people from poverty” (Carmody 154) Liberation theology reminded Christians that the plight of the downtrodden is not morally neutral, that Christianity ought to be a “response to God” that turns people into “Christian activists committed to uprooting regimes of injustice and replacing them with regimes that give the needs of the poor priority over the wishes, often the luxuries, of the wealthy” (Carmody 156) In this struggle many Christian activists must accept a life of poverty, joining those who are poor by birth or by chance Choosing poverty is an act of love and liberation It has a redemptive value If the ultimate cause of human exploitation and alienation is selfishness, the deepest reason for voluntary poverty is love of neighbor Christian poverty has meaning only as a commitment of solidarity with the poor, with those who suffer misery and injustice It is not a question of idealizing poverty, but rather of taking it on as it is—an evil—to protest 216 chapter five against it and to struggle to abolish it [Y]ou cannot really be with the poor unless you are struggling against poverty Because of this solidarity—which manifests itself in specific action, a style of life, a break with one’s social class—one can also help the poor and exploited to become aware of their exploitation and seek liberation from it Christian poverty, an expression of love, is solidarity with the poor and is a protest against poverty This is the concrete, contemporary meaning of the witness of poverty It is a poverty lived not for its own sake, but rather as an authentic imitation of Christ; it is a poverty which means taking on the sinful human condition to liberate humankind from sin and all its consequences (“Gustavo”) Liberation theologists boldly denounced those who hoarded their wealth and enjoyed luxuries while others were hungry or cold for want of food and shelter At least part of the Christian church stood firmly in opposition to those who benefited from the exploitation of the powerless Social movements rooted in faith, enacted with conviction, are anathema to those in power Liberation theology exemplifies just how costly and dangerous faith can be; many priests who criticized the wealthy and advocated for the poor, who spoke out against the South American establishment on behalf of the powerless, have been assassinated But in the words of Gutierrez, “How could one claim to be a Christian if one did not commit oneself to remedying the situation?” (301) Liberation theology was pioneered in South America but has had much wider ramifications Theologians and church officials around the world began to apply the social gospel, best exemplified by Christ, aiding the downtrodden Liberation theology, which began with the poor and oppressed social classes of South America, has had farreaching implications In a similar fashion to Gutierrez, Martin Luther King offered a theological critique of racism As a preacher he “challenged white Christians to be true” to scripture and church creed, asserting that “God created all people as one human family, brothers and sisters to one another” (Cone 295–96) King referred to the enslavement of one race by another as sin “He made it impossible for people of good will to swallow the lie that they could in good conscience call on God while hating other human beings because their skin was a different color” (Carmody 158) King used theology to “prick the conscience of both white and black Christians and thereby enlist them into a mass movement against racism in the churches and the society He made racism the chief moral dilemma, andrew linzey: christian protectionism 217 one which neither whites nor blacks could ignore and also retain their Christian identity” (Cone 295–96) Social movements that align with religions enhance their chances of success King reached his first audience from the pulpit His ideas resonated with his audience because they were rooted in spiritual teachings that the vast majority of those present held in common Religious convictions run deep and are often important to people in ways secular morality is not Morality, backed by religion, can be a force to contend with King’s message of equality before God and Christian love was not lost on the Christian congregation he stood before Similarly, church leaders stir Americans on issues such as abortion and gay rights based on church teachings and scripture Gutierrez and King reminded the Christian church of its own teachings and insisted that those teachings be enacted in daily life Without a theological framework, neither Gutierrez nor King would have had a legitimate means by which to examine scripture and call the church to task Theology provided what each of these Christians needed to spearhead social movements against oppression Similarly, theologians have questioned the subordination of women in Christian churches in light of the liberating message of equality attributed to Jesus More recently, the theologian Andrew Linzey has examined scripture to find a protectionist message that challenges ongoing Christian indifference to the exploitation and suffering of anymals B Christianity and Protectionism across Time In the fourth century, Father Basil of Caesarea insisted “that animals live not for us alone, but for themselves and for God” (Sorabji 199) Christian protectionism was present in both early and medieval ideals, where gentler human relations with anymals were supported by biblical interpretation (Hughes 313) In a book called Scripture Animals: A Natural History of the Living Creatures Named in the Bible, published in 1834, the Rev Jonathan Fisher acknowledges that he has so carefully compiled information on anymals in the Bible to lead young readers “into a more intimate acquaintance with the works of God, and through his works to a knowledge of some part of his character” (338) There has always been a protectionist voice among Christians, though oftentimes a small and quiet minority Today, andrew linzey: christian protectionism 249 machines, indeed simply as things” (Linzey, Animal Gospel 25) Linzey asserts that the deity’s affirmation of humans does not constitute a divine denial of all other created beings The special place of humans, ordained by the deity, is as servants of God Our dominion “is not the brutalizing regime of a tyrant Rather, God elects humanity to represent and actualize the loving, divine will for all creatures Humanity is the one species chosen to look after the cosmic garden (Gen 2:15)” (Linzey, Animal Gospel 43) In acknowledgment of this special role, Linzey suggests that Jews and Christians (and Muslims) ought to show reverence for God through respect for creation—which is God’s alone (Linzey, Animal Theology 96–97) Linzey is aware that his views maintain traditional (and much lamented) paternalism But he reminds that the gospels make no appeal to equality; paternalism is as biblical as the fall: “[O]bligation is always and everywhere on the ‘higher’ to sacrifice for the ‘lower’; for the strong, powerful and rich to give to those who are vulnerable, poor or powerless In this respect it is the sheer vulnerability of animals, and correspondingly our absolute power over them, which strengthens and compels the response of moral generosity” (Linzey, Animal Theology 32) It is in this spiritual context that humans were given dominion, and it is in light of this context that we ought to fulfill our duties “The steward’s duties arise from her or his special relationship to the creator and the rest of creation” (Gunn, “Traditional” 152–53) Humans hold a special position in relation to God, and with it comes tremendous responsibility We need a conception of ourselves in the universe not as the master species but as the servant species: as the one being given responsibility for the whole and for the good of the whole We must move from the idea that the animals were given to us and made for us, to the idea that we were made for creation, to serve it and ensure its continuance This actually is little more than the theology of Genesis chapter two The garden is made beautiful and abounds with life; humans are created specifically to “take care of it” (Gen 2:15) (Linzey, “Arrogance” 69) b Salvation through Protectionism “[T]o stand with Jesus means to stand against the abuse of animals” (Animal Gospel 13) Linzey asserts that we can find our own way to 250 chapter five God, and to salvation, through actualizing the Generosity Paradigm in daily life If we acknowledge the suffering of innocents—and work to relieve that suffering—we can come closer to God’s creation, and to God St Catherine of Siena wrote, those who are devoted to God love all of God’s creatures “so deeply” because “they realize how deeply Christ loves them,” and to love what is loved by God because it is loved by God, is the essence of a Christian heart (Linzey, After 74) “The work of caring for creation, of saving animals from our own ruthlessness and greed, is an evangelical work, in that it shows forth the Gospel” (Linzey, Animal Gospel 19) Faith in Jesus, “believing the Gospels,” Linzey suggests, “can, and should, make a difference to our daily interactions with other creatures” (Animal Gospel 13) Linzey finds room for a change of heart and action in daily life “Christians at least should begin with themselves—examining their own roles as shoppers and consumers The international trade in furs will die when people no longer want to buy them” (Linzey, Animal Gospel 146) But of course anymals killed for their fur are not the most pressing issue we must face, nor is this the issue most Christians will need to focus on if they are to “begin with themselves.” Christians will need to remove anymal products from their diet if they are to stop supporting cruelty as consumers “The truth is that human beings can now approximate the peaceable kingdom by living without killing sentients for food” (Linzey, Animal Gospel 36) Linzey advocates for change, but consistent with his vision, rejects violent change We ought to change our shopping habits, not change the shopping mall: “It must be as wrong to fire-bomb a fur shop as it is to inflict suffering on animals in pursuit of scientific advantage To pursue animal rights by infringing human rights is logically selfcontradictory” (Animal Gospel 100) For Linzey, “sensitivity to animals may well be a test of our theology For to know the Word made flesh requires that we honor all flesh” (Linzey, After 103) In this way, Linzey writes, we will find redemption—by entering into the suffering of anymals and sharing some of what Jesus suffered on our account Summary Linzey’s theological protectionism combines a traditional Western hierarchy with an obligation to act with Christlike compassion and munificence His work calls Christians away from what he views as andrew linzey: christian protectionism 251 a self-centered, humanistic approach to life and the world and insists that redemption lies in humble subservience to God’s travailing creation, as exemplified by Jesus Through the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament Linzey asserts that God offered humans a “dominion” that required selfsacrificing service to God’s bountiful creation; humans have been “commissioned to liberate God’s creation” through Christlike selfsacrifice (Linzey, Animal Theology 71) When Christians accept this religious obligation we participate in the suffering of Christ—and of all creation—and we follow a path that ultimately leads to God and thereby to our own redemption Through scripture Linzey reveals a peace-loving God that created a vegetarian world placing humans as caretakers From scripture he derives his Generosity Paradigm, which insists that humans foster a loving relationship with God’s creation, and whereby the higher (human beings) sacrifice for the lower (anymals) The creation hierarchy is not to be interpreted as a justification for exploitation, but as a call to duty “If our power over animals confers upon us any rights, there is only one: the right to serve” (Linzey, Animal Theology 38) D Discussion The first part of this discussion examines two general issues central to Linzey’s work: his theological assumptions and the preeminence of scripture, especially the Gospels The second section explores Linzey’s interpretation and selection of scripture The final section investigates theoretical matters (theos-centered protectionism, Linzey’s assertion of biblical hierarchy, and his description of proper avenues through which Christians might liberate anymals), noting difficulties and possible far-reaching implications General Issues a Theological Assumptions Linzey’s thesis rests on common, unsupported, theological assumptions such as the existence of a divine power that created the universe, the authority of a text that teaches about the deity, the truth of Jesus as Christ, and the belief that certain consequences follow from these truths, such as the possibility of salvation and eternal life 252 chapter five Such assumptions are central to much Christian theology, including Linzey’s work, and must be taken on faith if one wishes to dialogue on protectionism with a theologian Alternatively, one can turn scholarly attention to these assumptions, but the topic will not then be protectionism For thousands of years human beings have appealed to gods for aid and comfort, and assumed the truth of spiritual dogma From AIDS to SIDS we simply cannot satisfactorily explain or understand the lives in which we find ourselves, or deaths we must endure Those of faith are sometimes better able to accept the difficulties and uncertainties of our existence through their belief that a higher power is in control This does not put an end to human anguish: it is still “difficult to trace God’s ways in the world” (Marcus 233) Across time, from “the unconsoled grief of the human heart,” people have wondered why, at the hands of a God of love, there is so much sorrow, suffering, and adversity (Buttrick 5:320) But for the faithful there is at least a measure of acceptance Christian scripture sometimes portrays God as beyond human comprehension: “The Lord will his deed—strange is his deed! and to work his work—alien is his work!” (Is 28:21) Where divine matters are concerned, Christians are at times forced to accept human ignorance: We cannot know if the human concept of compassion and justice is consistent with the deity’s idea of compassion and justice Andrew Linzey, of necessity, shares this human uncertainty While he cannot know whether or not God is concerned with the hunger of a pygmy jerboa, the destruction of a long-tailed pangolin’s home, or the disappearance of the last elephant bird from the face of the earth, his approach is theologically sound, and in any case is almost universally accepted among Christians: God exists; God is compassionate; God is good; God is just and loving, and from this much else is deduced Linzey is a theologian working from inside the Christian tradition Readers will need to accept these unsupported claims if they wish to engage with his Christian protectionist theory Linzey is not writing for atheists or Hindus; Linzey is writing for a Christian audience, a group of people likely to accept the same unsupported assumptions that Linzey accepts While we might question the existence of God, such an approach to Linzey’s work is of little value To question Linzey’s acceptance of the existence of a god is like questioning the existence of human rights when reading Regan’s andrew linzey: christian protectionism 253 work Neither assertion can be proven, but each must be assumed to proceed with the theory presented As it turns out, millions of people accept the existence of human rights, and millions of people accept the foundational Christian beliefs on which Linzey rests his protectionist work Readers unwilling to accept unsupported religious claims are better off reading the works of Taylor, Singer, or Regan However, because most of us live around and interact with Christians, it is worthwhile to understand Linzey’s Christian protectionist point of view While readers well to accept that Linzey is a theologian working from inside the Christian tradition, is it necessary to completely disregard the sciences? Linzey’s work does not reflect the teachings of science His writing takes for granted that the Christian God created the universe as described in Genesis Yet there are many Christians who accept the theory of evolution as more plausible than that of Genesis Similarly, Linzey assumes that the biblical ascription of “dominion” is historic fact and a matter of great moral importance Many contemporary Christians not accept literal truths from the Bible; many hold no stake in the literal truth of scripture in light of the history of the Bible and the Christian church As is the case for most theologians, Linzey assumes much and disregards much His assumptions weaken the strength of his work for a broader audience, but nothing to damage his protectionist interpretation for those who share his more conventional faith When reading Linzey, one must be aware that Christian literature takes theological dogma for granted While Linzey’s theological assumptions remain unsupported, they are widely accepted in the Christian world by both theologians and laity For the purpose of this chapter, we accept Linzey’s most basic assumptions and step inside this conservative Christian world—at least for the most part—in order to understand and critique his work In doing so, we no more than we would for theologians writing against protectionism, people such as Robert Murray, who accept the same Christian foundations, but reach conclusions that conflict with those of Linzey While it is reasonable to be critical if a theologian lacks consistency, or strays from his own foundational beliefs, it would make no sense from this insider’s perspective to question the foundations of Christian belief This we leave to other authors so that we might focus on Linzey’s protectionist message 254 chapter five b Preeminence of the Gospels Many books in the New Testament are attributed to Paul, but the most important New Testament documents for most Christians were not written by Paul The first four books of the New Testament, the Gospels, which record the life and teachings of Jesus, form the core of scripture for most Christians The life and teachings of Jesus are generally considered more fundamental and important than those of Jesus’s disciple Paul The Gospels, therefore, take precedence over other scriptures It is important to note that Linzey’s Generosity Paradigm is based on the overall life and teachings of Jesus—whom he views as God incarnate—not on the words of Paul Paul, like other apostles, lacked Christ’s saintly inclinations, the innate tendency toward love and compassion There is no illusion of saintliness or perfection in Paul’s life, especially his early life: He was excessively cruel before he became a Christian (Acts and 8) Though he changed a great deal after his conversion, and was loved and respected by fellow Christians, Paul was never the moral exemplar that Christ was (M Hume 6; Heb 4:15), and freely admitted his shortcomings (Phil 3:12) Indeed, in one of his last letters, Paul describes himself as foremost among sinners (1 Tim 1:15) Christ, consistent with his claim to divinity, once demanded of his audience, “Which of you convicts me of sin?” ( John 8:46); even today, few dare to answer this challenge Where protectionism is concerned, which particular scriptures one focuses on becomes particularly important Paul was a townsman who had little interest in animals or farm life He was a Jew highly influenced by Greco-Roman thought, yet he was instrumental in shaping Christian theology (Eliade 61) Scripture suggests that, for Paul, value flows only from God, revealing Stoic influence; he asserts that any value ascribed to earthly creation comes through humans and is due to the special relationship people have with God (L Johnson 18) For example, Corinthians 9:9: “For it is written in the law of Moses, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.’ Is it for oxen that God is concerned? Or does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was indeed written for our sake.” But other translations are less clear as to whether or not the oxen ought to be of concern; the Amplified version reads: “Is it [only] for oxen that God is having a care?” The Greek version does, indeed, leave room for the possibility that God is concerned with oxen The passage can be read, “Is it only animals God is concerned with here, andrew linzey: christian protectionism 255 or is it also relevant for us?” (Halley, Unpublished) This reading is more consistent with scripture Accordingly, the New Living Translation reads: “Do you suppose God was thinking only about oxen when he said this? Wasn’t he also speaking to us?” As Linzey notes, passages from Colossians, Ephesians, and Romans establish that all of creation has eternal significance, that all of creation is contained in Christ and reconciled through Christ While Paul’s writings remain central to Christianity, Linzey prioritizes writings that record the words and deeds of Jesus over other books of the Bible Linzey’s Generosity Paradigm is based on fundamental Christian virtues exemplified by Jesus: self-sacrificing love, compassion, and attention to the suffering and needy Christian ideals rooted in the life and teachings of Jesus are held to be primary It is in these books that we find Christianity’s central teachings of love and compassion, the teachings of Christ, which push people toward an expression of unlimited love, especially toward the downtrodden Interpretation of Scripture a Genesis With regard to Linzey’s discussion of Genesis, three points require closer investigation: the original diet prescribed by God, God’s reaction to the original creation, and the existence of poisonous plants i the original diet Genesis instructs people to eat “every plant yielding seed and every tree with seed in its fruit,” and to all anymals God grants “every green plant for food” (29–30) Linzey notes that Genesis indicates that we were not intended to eat flesh, but he does not note that, according to Genesis 1, God also did not intend us to partake of dairy or eggs God’s plan was that we be vegans; in the diet originally ordained by God, no creature was to partake of any anymal products This distinction is important because of the cruelty currently associated with anymal industries that supply food for humans A vegan diet avoids suffering inherent in the human consumption of anymal products, whether milk, eggs, or flesh Many who understand current Western dairy and poultry practices, many who are aware of the mother-child relationship among mammals (and are concerned about spirituality or ethics), reject both diary products and eggs along 256 chapter five with flesh The reason for this is simple If God intended hens to be treated as they are treated in high-production egg industries, then God cannot be considered compassionate; if God is compassionate, then these industries are contrary to the deity’s intent For those inside this faith tradition, God is viewed as, overall, compassionate and merciful rather than cruel or indifferent Scriptures protect against suffering entailed in the consumption of undeveloped embryos and nursing milk, such as the cryptic passages that forbid boiling a kid goat in the milk of its mother (Ex 23:19 and 34:26, Deut 14:21) Jewish law explicitly protects mother-child bonds, particularly with regard to newborns, by forbidding the sacrifice of offspring that are less than eight days old—effectively allowing the mother to suckle her young In contrast, modern dairy farmers often take calves from their mothers on the day of birth in order to ship off the calves, who will be slaughtered for veal in about six months Similarly, millions of hens are denied the opportunity to sit on their eggs, or experience the hatching of a chick, or engage in the care of young Jewish religious law, if honored, requires a measure of respect for the bond between mother and offspring, a bond that is ignored by contemporary egg and dairy industries (Linzey, After 30–31) Maimonides (1135–1204), one of the most influential Jewish theologians, interpreted the repeated biblical injunction not to “boil a kid in its mother’s milk” (Ex 23:19 and 34:26, Deut 14:21) as protection against acts that harden the human heart (Linzey, After 47) Additionally, Maimonides asserted that Deuteronomy 22:6–7, regarding a mother bird and her young in the nest, limits the disruption that humans may cause, forbidding people from taking both mother and the eggs or young: “[Y]ou shall not take the mother with the young Let the mother go.” Maimonides taught that this injunction is a minimum requirement, and that we ought to leave both the young and the mother, so that the mother will “not be pained by seeing that the young are taken away” (Linzey, After 46–47) For many Jewish people the biblical injunction requiring Jews not to “boil a kid in its mother’s milk” has become the basis of a separation between dairy and flesh meals, which is upheld in many kosher households around the world (Eerdmans 719) Yet neither Christians nor Jews recognize in this passage, or in other biblical passages, a recommendation to reject both dairy and flesh Historically, andrew linzey: christian protectionism 257 the Jewish tradition has held a fleshless diet in high esteem, but flesh eating (and animal sacrifice) prevailed early on, and this diet remains the norm, even though the original diet ordained by God is vegan ii God’s reaction Genesis 1:31 reads: “[I]t was very good” (Gen 1:31) The deity’s world-affirming reaction to creation is one of the pegs on which Linzey rests his “theos-rights,” though he does not develop this argument in Animal Theology Scripture reveals that God takes great pleasure in creation These four words, “it was very good,” indicate the “completely perfect character of what has been created, without flaw, without pain, all in its ordained order also the pleasure and the delight of the divine viewer” (C Allen 1:132) God was very pleased with the new peaceful, vegan creation Such a world was “very good” in the sight of the Almighty “Six times before our appearance in the story of creation, God declared life to be good” (Saperstein 14), revealing the “intrinsic worth of species ‘kol tov—and it was good.’ In the original Hebrew ‘good’ is singular, showing us that God views life in all its diversity as a fundamental unity” (Saperstein 14) This fundamental unity of creation was good before humankind was created, and this unity does not condone exploitation between species In contrast, the deity’s response to flesh eating is one of limits and restrictions When flesh eating is permitted, nowhere does scripture indicate that the deity said or thought that such a diet was good or desirable; nowhere, either in the Hebrew Scriptures or the New Testament is flesh eating indicated as a preferred diet Genesis indicates that eating other creatures was merely permitted, a concession to human shortcomings—not what God intended or preferred, and much of the Torah regulates human behavior “so as to establish a just society in which privileges are protected but exploitation is prohibited” (Gulick 188) Christians and Jews must consider whether or not they ought to ignore God’s preference, a preference scripture shows to have been revealed at the very beginning of creation—at the very beginning of the Hebrew Scriptures—a preference for a vegan diet, a preference for a world without flesh eating, a preference for a world that “was very good” in God’s sight 258 chapter five iii poisonous plants How might we account for poisonous plants in a world where God offered “every green plant for food” (Gen 1:30)? There are at least two ways to answer this question One might argue that poisonous plants are part of the prickliness brought on after the fall In Genesis 3:18, God introduced undesirable and unpleasant vegetal changes, such as thorns and thistles, as a punishment because Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit (Gen 3:18) Only a scant few of the many prickly and troublesome plants we know of today (prickly and troublesome by human standards, at least) are mentioned in the Bible Nonetheless, the myriad weeds and briars and the many poisonous plants might be explained as originating at the time of the fall Alternatively, one might argue that the existence of poisonous plants is compatible with God’s original plan because God did not indicate that every creature should or could eat every plant It would be reasonable (biologically speaking, it is essential) that plants be somewhat species specific In this way each species might fill a niche, avoid debilitating competition, and prevent overuse of vegetation Given this modern biological outlook, and given God’s delight in and responsibility to all of creation, such an explanation makes perfect sense To overlook this option is to reveal a human-centered vision, where God was only referring to humans when every green thing was given for food This is not the case All animals—including but not limited to human beings—were given greenery and seeds for their “meat.” b Swine of Gerasene Linzey mentions such sticky matters as the swine of Gerasene (also called Gergesene and Gadarene (Comparative 2339f )) (Matt 8; Mark 5; Luke 8), and admits that such perplexing scriptures admit of no easy explanation—and he offers none But something ought to be said with regard to this scripture In the biblical story of the swine of Gerasene, a powerful, possessed man (or men) is (are) problematic to a community due to indwelling spirits (Matthew 8:28 reports of “two demoniacs so fierce that no one could pass that way.”) Jesus exorcizes the evil spirits and restores the man/men to a normal condition; those present are awed by the power of Jesus, who allows the spirits to depart andrew linzey: christian protectionism 259 through a group of pigs, on the request of the spirits As a result, the pigs perish While this story is not helpful to the cause of protectionism, such harm is definitely not the intent of the story The story of the swine of Gerasene is not a moral lesson about how we ought to treat swine, nor is it a commentary on the value of creation, any more than the incident where Jesus causes a fig tree to wither is a comment on how we ought to view or treat fig trees (Matt 21:18–22) This story reveals the miraculous powers of Jesus It is also important to note that Jesus did not choose to banish the evil spirits to the herd of swine; the evil spirits themselves, who “were terrified to be without an abiding place,” requested to be sent into the swine (Eiselen 1006) Accounts read as though the evil spirits imagined that they could continue to exist among the swine Instead, the possessed swine dash into the nearby waters and are drowned Are the swine working with God, as the lions with Daniel? This interpretation suggests that the swine are not victims but agents of God There is yet more that might be pondered in this story This passage targets the conversion of Gentiles (Keener 282) Gerasene and Gadarenes are cities in “Decapolis, or ten cities, a district peopled chiefly by Gentiles” (Eiselen 1006) “The presence of pigs further underlines the Gentile character of the region, since observant Jews would avoid raising pigs (e.g Lev 11:7; Deut 14:8 )” (Keener 282) Pigs, viewed as unclean by the Jewish community (based on the Hebrew Scriptures, Lev 11:7, Deut 14:8), were not slaughtered or consumed by observant Jews (Pigs were not viewed as unclean because of their nature, or their habits, but due to their biology— they are cloven hoofed but not ruminant Being outside this clearly delineated category, they were listed as “unclean” (Lev 11:7; Douglas 69)) In this Gentile area there remains a large population of Jews, and “the earliest Jewish hearers of this story would have nodded knowingly that demons wished to enter unclean pigs and that Jesus let the herd perish” (Keener 287) Further, it is unclear whether this herd of pigs might not have been owned by Jewish people who were defying the laws and traditions of their faith (W Smith 666) If so, there may be more to this story than is commonly understood, including political and religious differences Yet this interpretation is also incompatible with protectionism: “Unclean” pigs remain alive after the meal is served, but if these laws are ignored, pigs may be eaten 260 chapter five In any event, such political and social details seem irrelevant to the overall message of the Bible, and of this particular passage Perhaps because Jesus is a moral teacher, and not a violent man, some commentators report that Jesus healed the possessed man/men without harming the swine; the swine were “stampeded by the ravings of the maniac” (Eiselen 1006) Each scripture must be viewed in the larger context of the Gospel The intent of this scripture is not that we learn to be abusive toward pigs or to show disregard for their lives Similarly, the injunction to “[l]et a woman learn in silence with full submission” (1 Tim 2:11) is less important than the more general and pervasive biblical ethic of inclusiveness, and humble service to God, rooted in the life of Christ Specific teachings that prescribe a subservient role to women, inasmuch as they conflict with the overall tenor of the Bible, not override the larger message for most Christians Today, for most Western Christians, biblical passages delineating a subordinate role for women not prevent women from becoming competitive scholars or political leaders How can Christianity be loving and inclusive if it silences more than half of the population? Specific biblical teachings with regard to the roles of women are rooted in the social standards of biblical times Most Christians agree that these teachings are not the essence of the Bible; overall, scripture encourages involvement and inclusion Consequently, women not maintain silence in churches, though feminine voices breach specific biblical commands Nor should Christians tolerate unnecessary suffering of anymals Inasmuch as Christians seek out and honor the larger intent of scripture, why would Christians choose to allow a parable that relates the healing and restorative powers of Jesus to influence attitudes and actions toward pigs—much less anymals in general? The concession Jesus made to the evil spirits in the possessed man/men was not a compassionate act for the pigs; “the demoniacs mattered more to Jesus than the fate of the swine” (Keener 287) Yet the overall lesson of Christ is definitely one of compassion and inclusion Why would Christians focus on the swine of Gerasene to justify abuse and exploitation when most contemporary Western churches recognize the larger context with regard to much more explicit biblical comments, such as those limiting the role of women in the church, in the family, and in society in general? andrew linzey: christian protectionism 261 c Acts 10:9–16 Linzey briefly mentions Acts 10:9–16 as harmful to the cause of protectionism and as explicitly permitting the eating of flesh (Linzey, After 4) As the case with the swine of Gerasene, this portion of scripture can be viewed as harmful to the protectionist cause because it explicitly instructs that the eating of flesh is acceptable But in this case a more important message ensconced in this passage is genuinely helpful to the cause of anymals, and standard biblical interpretations of Acts 10:9–16 pose no difficulties for the ideals and goals of protectionism Acts 10:9–16 describes a vision Peter had while in a trance and his conversation with the deity Peter saw “all kinds of four-footed creatures and reptiles and birds of the air Then he heard a voice saying, ‘Get up, Peter; kill and eat.’ But Peter said, ‘By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is profane or unclean.” Peter refused to eat “because in such a collection of creatures, many were unclean and taboo for a Jew” (C Allen 10:67) And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, you must not call profane” (Acts 10:15) In the Hebrew Scriptures Israelites are forbidden to eat pigs, rabbits, shellfish, camels, vultures, geckos, weasels, or bats, though locust, katydids, and grasshoppers are permissible (Lev 11:4–30) Meticulous dietary practice (laid out mainly in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, but also in Exodus 22 and 23, and Genesis 32) “has been a mainstay of Jewish ritual, and for it some have been martyred” (Schnall 416) Jewish food restrictions were intended “to separate the Jewish community in values and practices” from non-Jews (Schnall 416) Dietary differences have long been defining characteristics, important to membership and group identity (as was the case for early Christian orders, such as the Essenes, as well as more contemporary denominations, such as the Seventh Day Adventists) Theologians generally agree that Peter’s dream is an abrogation of tedious dietary laws intended to divide the faithful from the nonfaithful “[P]riestly dietary laws, adapted by the Jews after Exile, contributed tremendously to the exclusive nature of the Jewish religion” (C Allen 10:67) For a Jew in Peter’s time, “eating pagan food was an abomination, but to dine in the house of a pagan was much worse” (C Allen 10:67) 262 chapter five Such restrictive eating habits were anathema to the newly formed Christian tradition Exclusivity harms unity, and Christianity was to be a religion for all Christianity, which was rooted in a personal relationship with God, rejected food restrictions and rituals—exclusive habits of any kind The importance of Peter’s dream is not as an injunction to eat other creatures, but rather to annul restrictive eating habits that set people apart from one another Peter’s vision is part of a transition central to Christianity, a transition from the meticulous mechanisms of Jewish law to faith in Jesus, faith that leads one to what is right by others, out of love, rather than meticulously follow dietary law Through Peter’s dream Jewish food laws were “abrogated explicitly as they had been implicitly in Jesus’s teaching [Mark 7:14]” (Guthrie 985) Acts 10:9–16 warns “against the tendency to separate things and call some of them sacred and some secular The true division is between that which is centered upon God and that which is not” (Buttrick 9:136–37) An act that causes others to turn away from the divine is not an act centered on God Peter’s vision serves as an injunction to end a practice that created barriers between people Peter’s vision does not encourage flesh eating, but asks the faithful to refocus religious practice on more fundamental aspects of spirituality, such as Jesus’s teachings of love and compassion for all In the process of annulling Jewish food laws, Acts 10 indicates that it is acceptable to eat flesh This is consistent with Genesis 9, where Linzey notes that flesh eating is allowed, but not preferred A colleague and friend, who stands strongly inside Christian faith, notes that flesh eating is accepted in Acts 10, but “Christians are expected to strive for excellence”—a vegan diet; “biblical acceptance of flesh eating does not free Christians from this call to excellence” (Halley, Unpublished communication) d Romans 14:13–21 and Corinthians When viewed in conjunction with Romans 14 and Corinthians 8, Peter’s dream holds a strong protectionist message There have been religious orders set apart by food choice at least since the Orphics and the Pythagoreans in the sixth and fifth centuries BCE (“Vegetarian”) Food choice was a point of great contention in early Christian communities, as well as between the first Christians and Jews There are at least three important reasons why andrew linzey: christian protectionism 263 many religious orders view food choice as an important ethical and religious matter: • purity —discipline in food consumption is viewed as part of a disciplined and holy life; • morality—refusing to partake of blood helps people to maintain an abhorrence of bloodshed and violence; • stewardship—since the original human diet is almost always viewed as vegetarian (if not vegan), consumption of flesh is a concession to mortality, rightly satisfied only through channels ordained by God (Schnall 416) While Acts 10 asserts that no food is unclean, Romans 14 and Corinthians remind Christians of their responsibility to spread the word of God, to augment the community of Christ, and to be mindful of dietary choices that might limit success in accomplishing this goal: [R]esolve instead never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of another If your brother or sister is being injured by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love Do not let what you eat cause the ruin of one for whom Christ died For the kingdom of God is not food and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit The one who thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and has human approval Let us then pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for you to make others fall by what you eat; it is good not to eat meat or drink wine or anything that makes your brother or sister stumble (Rom 14:13–21) Christianity rejected meticulous Jewish food laws (Hinnells 59) Christian dietary laws are more general and inclusive: avoid dietary practices that might turn people away from faith in Jesus Romans 14 reminds Christians to avoid lifestyles and foods that detract from a Christian message, including Jewish food laws, turning a glaring spotlight on contemporary flesh eating This is more clearly evidenced in Corinthians Much flesh sold in the markets in Paul’s time had first been offered to idols Furthermore, social life involved common meals (Eiselen 1182) Consequently, Christians were often in a situation where they were eating publicly and where much of what they were offered had first been put before idols This raised questions, which early Christians asked Paul Consequently, Corinthians contains one of Paul’s responses to just such a question, and this ... creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind.” And it was so God made the wild animals of the earth of every kind, and the cattle of every kind, and. .. thesis, including the practices of anymal sacrifice and eating flesh, and the biblical concept of dominion Finally, Linzey examines the New Testament, focusing on the life of Christ as a model of exemplary... creatures of God Linzey asserts that a good and loving God must remain morally responsible for and invested in every sentient being: “[A] redeeming God could not eschew the sighing and suffering of all