|
| Christian news worldwide |
 Home |
 Archives |
 Subscriptions |
 Adverts |
 Find a church |
 About us |
 Contact us |
 Site Map |
 PrintableVersion Foxed for a witness? ... try huntingAs fox hunting is banned, Phil Sampson gives a perspective on the issueWhen the then minister of Worthing Tabernacle, Tony Sargent, spoke out against the exportation of live animals from Shoreham in 1996, a bemused BBC interviewer asked him, 'Does the Bible actually say anything about animals and their rights?' As the hunting debate returns to the news over the next few months, it will not only be BBC interviewers who will be asking about animals and their rights. Most of us who talk to neighbours, friends or at work about the day's headlines will have a chance to express an opinion. So we might ask, 'does the Bible say anything about hunting?'. It's a good question. Does it? If not, each of us must do what is right in our own eyes. But if it does, do we have a duty to say so? Most evangelicals I have asked have told me that the Bible says nothing about hunting except, perhaps, that humans can legitimately hunt as we have dominion over creation. Some have felt that even to ask the question is a diversion from the gospel. However, many evangelicals of previous generations considered that, even on hunting, the Bible does speak. Moreover, in telling their neighbours what it says, they, like Tony Sargent, brought Scripture's witness into everyday life. It may therefore assist us in our conversations with our contemporaries to know what this older generation said. Of course, 'evangelical' is a vague term, so I will discuss below those who most thickened their theology with Scripture: the Puritans and mainstream Calvinists. However, the picture would not change much if we included broader evangelicals, from John Wesley to C.S. Lewis, who tried to escape thinking in the world's mould. No Bible verses deal with people in red coats who chase foxes, although there are some dealing with hunting more generally, and we will come to those; but to understand our evangelical forebears, we need to know a little about how they approached this issue. Their use of Scripture was so rich that I can give only a few pointers here. However, it would have delighted their souls if readers were prompted to consult the Bible for themselves. A moral issueFirstly, they argued that this is not a sentimental or emotional issue, but a moral one (Proverbs 12.10). Thus Calvin says that we have a duty to be compassionate towards animals even as we have towards people, and that we will be judged accordingly: 'God will condemn us for cruel and unkind folk, if we pity not the brute beasts.... A beast cannot speak to move us to pity and compassion; and therefore we must go to him of our own good will, though we be not moved or requested thereunto'. Humphrey Primatt says that we will have to give a 'strict account' of our conduct towards animals on the day of judgement. Our compassion arises not from the animal's big eyes or plaintive cries, but from our moral duty. No kill-joysSecondly, however, this was not the cold, indifferent duty of 'puritan' opposition to all pleasures, including those of the hunt. The Puritans were genuinely revolted by cruelty of all kinds, and have been widely misrepresented on this score, most notably by the 19th-century historian Lord Macaulay: 'The Puritan hated bear-baiting, not because it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators. Indeed, he generally contrived to enjoy the double pleasure of tormenting both spectators and bear'. This jibe is simply untrue. The Puritans developed a special sensitivity to animal suffering as they sought by grace to live out their moral duties. Later, biblically sensitive evangelicals, such as Lord Shaftesbury or C.H. Spurgeon, shared this sensitivity, and publicly fought cruelty. In the 18th century, a person's newly found compassion towards animals was seen as a sign of 'turning Methodist', and in the 1903/4 Welsh revival, converted miners were recognised by their gentler treatment of their pit horses. The sin of manThirdly, our evangelical forebears knew that both animal suffering and their fierceness were the result of human sin (Genesis 1.29, 3.18, 9.2; Hosea 4.1-3). The Calvinist, Augustus Toplady, best remembered for his hymn 'Rock of Ages', was typically forthright: 'the miseries and hardships under which the brute creation labours are primarily owing to the sin of man'. Calvin was equally clear: 'How dreadful is the curse which we have deserved, since all innocent creatures from earth to heaven are punished for our sins. It is our fault that they struggle in corruption'. This was commonly used as an argument for compassion towards animals, since their fierceness was 'our own fault, because the whole world is involved in man's curse' (Romans 8.19-22). To speak of the hunt was already to speak of human sin and the need for redemption. It was against this background that the Puritans introduced laws against cruelty both here and in Massachusetts. It was also this biblical inheritance that inspired the foundation of the RSPCA, and informed the historic evangelical view of hunting up to the late 19th century. Hunters and hunted?In view of this, it comes as no surprise to find that hunters were not highly regarded by those who read the Bible closely. Philip Stubbes says that he could find no example in Scripture of a good man who was also known as a hunter. Nimrod the mighty hunter (Genesis 10.9) was regarded as a man of 'barbarous ferocity' by Calvin and later Calvinists. Cain, condemned to wander, was thereby condemned to hunt. Whereas hunting, particularly big-game hunting, was a sport of kings in many ancient cultures, in the Bible its legitimate pursuit is associated mainly with protecting vulnerable animals (1 Samuel 17.34-37) or finding necessary food in a world spoiled by sin (Genesis 9.3). By contrast, hunting through choice, and the lust for eating flesh, is more associated with violence and the loss of covenant promise. Examples include: Esau the cunning hunter (Genesis 25), Isaac's love of hunted venison and its consequences (Genesis 25 & 27), Eli's sons' similar lust for roast meat (1 Samuel 2.12-17), and so on (Exodus 16.3, Amos 6.5, etc.). Our evangelical forebears from William Perkins to John Owen to C.H. Spurgeon also condemned pleasure in killing as immoral. Cruelty, says Toplady bluntly, 'is truly and properly criminal'. 'How dare we then be destroyers of an animal's ease, which we ought to promote; or wantonly deprive them of that life, which we cannot restore?' A perilous activityIt is not surprising that hunting was regarded biblically as a morally perilous activity which could easily lead to sin. Leviticus 17.13 specifies that any hunter catching a beast or bird which may be eaten, shall stop the hunt to drain and bury the beast's blood. John Gill remarks that this wise provision by God was needed because hunters are 'more rustic and brutish', and in their hunger, liable to sin. Similarly Matthew Henry comments that the law provided 'checks and restraints' to hunters, so that they would not be greedy and gratify 'the sensual appetite', instead asking 'questions for conscience's sake'. But, of course, Leviticus 17.13 also speaks of sacrificial blood, and foreshadows the atonement of Christ. Many evangelicals of the past made this connection between animal suffering and the promise of redemption. Thus Ralph Venning imagined a tormented creature saying: 'I suffer a part of the penalty of your treason. If you had not sinned, I would not have suffered. But now I groan and wait to be delivered from the bondage of your corruption. O sinful sin!'. Calvin is quite explicit about the redemption of the world in Christ. We should, he says, attribute animal fierceness to 'human sin, because disobedience overthrew the order of things. But it is the office of Christ to bring back everything to its condition and order'. The great Puritan pastor, Richard Baxter, considers that the themes of sin and redemption are inherent in any meat eating: 'God allows us to take away the lives of our fellow creatures and to eat their flesh, to show what sin hath brought on the world, and what we deserve ourselves, and how he put into all good men that tender compassion to the brutes as will keep them from a senseless rioting in their blood'. The great 19th-century evangelical, Andrew Bonar, brought together the temptation to 'senseless rioting in blood', the immorality of hunting from lust, and the need for redemption: 'The hunter in his full career must keep atonement in his eye; and, when he has his prey in his hand, must reverently stand still and pour out its blood to Jehovah.... The chase was not to be an occasion for gratifying wild fiery passions; they were to hunt for food.... None who would not stay, in the midst of their vehement, eager, keen pursuit, to realise redemption, must engage in this employment. It is not for the gay, wild spirits of youth; or, if fiery youth engage therein, it must lead them to the most solemn views of sin and righteousness.' Perhaps the Bible is not so silent about hunting as contemporary evangelicals believe. In fact, our forebears saw in it the gospel themes of fall and redemption, of 'the most solemn views of sin and righteousness'. It seems that a biblical view of hunting is nothing short of the good news of Christ. But why should that surprise us? So, when hunting returns to the headlines, biblically sensitive Christians can celebrate yet another opportunity to fulfil the great commission, whatever our personal views may be. References Other texts mentioned but not quoted: Philip Sampson© Evangelicals Now - March 2005 |
|
