Animal Rights and Wrongs

The fact that there are multiple references in the Bible to animals has not escaped the attention of some great Christian leaders.
Here I spotlight two ministers of high repute who preached at different times in London, who both had a concern for the welfare and importance of animals.

Ralph Venning 1621-74

Venning was a remarkable preacher. He lived and ministered during and after the Great Plague when thousands of his fellow-townspeople died. He preached a series of sermons following the tragedy, arguing that all who were guilty of sins make them vulnerable to a worse plague and bring them under judgment.
In one of his expositions, he spoke about the animal world and the suffering inflicted on it by cruel men. Somewhat quaintly, though not without biblical evidence, he worked out what people can learn from the animals. I eavesdrop on him (1):

They remind us of sin

He employs a telling argument which may have escaped vegetarians but gives grist to their mill. 'The way in which we use creatures bears witness against sin. When we eat flesh we do so, for there was no such grant in the first blessing.' He continues in language which would not be too well received at McDonald's headquarters! 'Since sin our appetites have been more carnivorous.'

They teach us industry

Venning bluntly speaks against idleness - all in his congregation who fall into this category are infidels! With the same frankness he states: 'Go to the ant. Perhaps your wife and children lack certain conveniences, even necessities, while you are idle. Go to the ant, thou sluggard!'.

They speak of judgment

'Even the stork in the sky knows her appointed seasons, and the dove, the swift and the thrush observe the times of their migration' (Jeremiah 8.7).
Animal sensitivity is not matched by man who totally disregards the commands of God.

Charles Spurgeon 1834-92

Spurgeon, reputedly the greatest preacher in the 19th century, also gave some prominence to animals. He believed that if a man's theology did not alter the way in which he treated his dog it amounted to nothing!
One Sunday morning, June 23 1867, he preached, to more than 5,000 people at the Metropolitan Tabernacle, a sermon entitled 'In the Hay Field'(2), based on: 'God causeth the grass to grow for the cattle' (Psalm 104.14).
Spurgeon reminds us that beasts do not plant grass nor cause it to grow; they do not shed tears of penitence, nor offer 'sobs and sighs of fervent prayer'. Yet the Lord views them with kind consideration. 'How often the cattle are oppressed by man! I am sure it is painful to see them driven through these streets, bruised and faint, with their poor tongues hanging out of their thirsty mouths. It is frequently so sickening a sight to see poor, tortured cattle in our thoroughfares, that it makes one long to fly from such brutality .
Spurgeon is not being unduly sentimental. He appreciated that animals are under the jurisdiction of man, part of 'the chain of nature; grass is for the cattle, the cattle are for man and man is for God'. In his sermon he does not argue for 'animal rights' in the modern sense, but his point is clear: God shows grace and compassion to animals and has even greater interests in men. Man, however, is seriously in default if he disregards the needs of beasts and treats them cruelly.

The slaughter-men

In the London of Spurgeon's day. calves, sheep and pigs were brought to the capital for slaughter in underground cellars. Sheep were often thrown out of carts and lay bruised and injured for days at a time.
Animals were killed by slaughter-men whose trade was reckoned to be at the bottom of the social scale. Their methods were primitive and cruel. Towards the end of Spurgeon's life a religious meeting was conducted for the slaughterers and he was invited to be the preacher.
Christianity has viewed the crucifixion of Christ as a substitute for the sins of men. Spurgeon would have compared the animal blood the slaughterers so frequently spilled to the blood of Christ: 'the lamb slain before the foundation of the world' (1 Peter 1.19-20). If they confessed their sins they would find forgiveness through the atoning death of Christ.
Neither Venning nor Spurgeon were lightweight preachers. I am not, of course, suggesting that animal welfare commanded a premier position in their ministry. But they were aware of the place animals have in the Bible.

Dominion

If God is so compassionate and affectionate towards the animals - what is man's ongoing responsibility towards them on behalf of God? We read: 'So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.' (Genesis 1.27-28 AV).
When selecting a book on animals from the philosophy section of my local library, I noted the author made some commendable reference to biblical teaching. Some irate reader, not out to please the library service, had scrawled across the page in pencil - 'a cruel religion'. The point which prompted the ire of the borrower were these verses which declare man's divinely given dominion over the animal world.
The booklet published for the Animal Rights debate on British television observed that the Genesis verses particularly have been subject to a couple of widely different interpretations. Dominion has been construed in the sense of absolute power. It has also been defined in the exercise of stewardship. Which is correct? The question is of utmost importance in grasping the biblical theology of animals. The booklet claims: 'In general, it has been the total dominion theory that has ruled, particularly in the Christian Scriptures'.(3)

Moses and Genesis

It is important to ask when the narratives in Genesis were written down. Tradition traces them largely to Moses. This was at a time when the Hebrew society was anything but vegetarian. Nonetheless, they knew from oral tradition that their meat-eating customs represented a shift in their culture. Significantly, the passing of the years had not caused knowledge of the practice to fade.
Furthermore, as the record makes clear, authority over the animals was conferred on Adam before the Fall. The theological and practical importance of this is enormous. When dominion was conferred on Adam, his criteria for understanding can be listed as:

* his grasp of the character God
* how God expressed his pleasure
* how Adam reacted to the world
* the instructions he was given on the sixth day

As for the last point, both animals and man were told to 'be fruitful, increase and fill the earth.' Only Adam has responsibility to 'subdue' the earth and 'rule' over the creatures. He was aware that God had approved the stages of creation and indicated his satisfaction. If the Psalmist later was awe-struck by the world of nature, how much more enraptured must Adam have been.
Rebellion, sin, expulsion and the slaughter of man and animals were -theologically speaking - a dispensation away. The earth rejoiced in its infancy; the animals were free.
It is from this vantage that we can ask what it might have meant to Adam himself to receive the divine mandate concerning dominion.
The Hebrew for to 'rule over' is radah which is a strong verb. Even more forceful is the Hebrew rendered as 'subdue'-kabash. This may denote imperial authority and control and the verb can have both an active and passive form.
What are we told happened after Adam was given dominical rights? The second chapter of Genesis fills out the narrative and gives us an insight into biblical dominion: 'The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.' (Genesis 2.15).
Consider the italicised words. Firstly, Adam and Eve were told to 'work' the garden. The word for work is abad and has the connotation of 'serve' or 'be a slave to'. 'Take care' is shamar and means 'guard, protect, preserve'. On these verses, Loren Wilkinson writes: 'Both verbs severely restrict the way the other two verbs - subdue and rule - are to be applied. Human ruling, then, should be exercised in such a way as to serve and preserve the beasts, the trees, the earth itself - all of which is being ruled.'(4)
Secondly, we see a picture of an extraordinary parade of animals who pass in front of Adam (Genesis 2.19). He was to get to know them and name them. The simplicity of the concept should not be allowed to cloud the nature of the task nor the implications.
Here is a picture for wonder, a subject for inquiry and an insight into dominical duties. The earth is fresh and appealing. The animals are perfectly made, free, content and ready to take up the challenge to reproduce and enjoy the habitat into which they have been placed and the food which it provides. Adam's role is that of superintendent. He is knowledgeable, responsive and responsible. The animals come close to him without fear or dread. He gets acquainted and names them: essential aspects of stewardship.
Andrew Linzey makes a helpful summary: 'Dominion, so often interpreted as justifying killing, actually precedes the command to be vegetarian. Herb eating dominion is hardly a licence for tyranny...even though the early Hebrews were neither pacifists nor vegetarians, they were deeply convicted of the view that violence between humans and animals, and indeed between animal species themselves, was not God's original will for creation.(5)

This article is an edited extract from Tony Sargent's book Animal Rights and Wrongs published in November by Hodder & Stoughton, price £ . and reprinted with permission.

References:

(1) The Sinfulness of Sin, Banner of Truth, Edinburgh
(2) The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Volume 13 (pages 349-360)
(3) Brute Sense - what should we think if animals think too? Trevor Lawson, Channel Four Television, London, 1995 (page 3).
(4) Op cit (page 34); cf. Earthkeeping Loren Wilkinson; Eerdmans, 1980 (page 208) (my italics; I owe the quote to Droop and Bishop op.cit. page 34).
(5) Animal Theology, Linzey (page 126).