Beastly TV

Chicken is on the menu. And not just chicken, but baby animals as well: piglets, lamb, kid goats and veal.

The celebrity chefs, Jamie Oliver and Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, have both presented recent Channel 4 programmes on the cruelties of the intensive chicken industry.

Meanwhile BBC3 ran a series in January entitled Kill it, Cook it, Eat it, which did what it says on the can. Each episode showed us the slaughter of baby animals, which were then cooked and eaten before our eyes. The reactions of the studio audience formed the heart of the series.

Food and our culture

This media interest in ethical eating is part of a wider focus on food in our culture. More people eat out now than ever before, while obesity, we are told, is set to bring the NHS to its knees. School children consume chicken nuggets by the bucketful, and airlines are fitting larger seats to accommodate the fuller figure. Meanwhile there is an ethical reaction. Vegetarianism is growing rapidly, especially among younger people, while environmentalists tell us that our collective meat-eating habits have more impact on climate change than all our transport put together. Anti-poverty campaigners point out that many people in the world hunger for the very grain we feed to livestock; grain which is often exported from the developing world to the West.

Diet and the Bible

This focus on the moral aspects of eating may be a contemporary novelty, but it is nothing new to the historic church. Diet is a major biblical theme and, until the 20th century, gluttony was widely considered to be a sin. The puritan Richard Baxter was scandalised by the rich who ate meat daily while the poor went without. Evangelicals of the 19th century were instrumental in animal welfare reform, and the modern vegetarian movement owes its origin to a sermon preached in 1809 on Genesis 9.3. Sadly, evangelicals nowadays are more likely to associate a concern for animals with extremism than with the Bible. Ethical eating options at church functions are rare, although commonplace elsewhere. Where once biblical truth informed our eating habits, we now have the benefit of celebrity chefs and the vox pop of a studio audience.

Varied reactions

So how did the people in the TV programmes respond to industrial farming methods, and animals slaughtered before their eyes? Reactions varied. A few felt that even the cruellest conditions were justified, with one slaughterer denying that pigs are animals at all — rather they are ‘food on legs’. But this was a minority view. One group, who themselves kept chickens on an allotment, mostly ended up in tears. Some couldn’t watch the slaughters and turned away; at least one was physically sick.

Surprisingly, the strongest reactions didn’t necessarily imply any change in personal behaviour. Indeed one person suggested that she wouldn’t watch in case it put her off her dinner. Others, however, were clearly shocked by what they saw and made moral decisions: ‘If this is what animals go through, I don’t think I could bring myself to eat it [meat]. I can’t justify it just for taste’. As our first parents discovered to their cost, eating something merely because it tastes good is not necessarily a wise thing to do. Fearnley-Whittingstall ran a campaign informing customers about intensive rearing practices, and many people consequently opted for more expensive free-range birds — a practical demonstration that people do take ethical eating seriously.

Christianity not mentioned

The sheer variety of responses reflects the pluralism of the postmodern world. But one voice was absent. Far from leading the moral debate, as in the past, Bible-believing Christians were not even mentioned. The assumption throughout these programmes was that the consumer is the highest authority for moral behaviour. For some, this meant that their belly reigned: ‘If it tastes good, eat it’.

For others, their personal feelings were the basis for morality: ‘I don’t like to see it suffer, so I don’t look’. For a few, the animal itself made moral claims upon them: one man could not eat a baby goat which had looked him in the eye. But the idea that religion, let alone Christianity, might have anything to contribute to this debate strikes most people today as absurd.

By contrast, the evangelicals of the past had a lot to say on this subject. Calvin was characteristically outspoken, teaching that we have a duty to be gentle with animals. Moreover, we should do so of our own volition since animals cannot ask our pity. Indeed, the fact that animal suffering is due to our sin which overthrew the order of nature should move us all the more to mourn and be merciful. The evangelicals of the 19th century shared these same beliefs and were instrumental in animal welfare reform.

Spurgeon was so appalled at the cruelties of animal experimentation that the newly formed Anti-Vivisection Society considered his views too outspoken for them to publish. The converted miners of the Welsh Revival were easily recognised because their pit ponies did not flinch when spoken to. It is remarkable that, in a few short generations, evangelicals have moved from centre stage to the wings, or even outside the TV studio altogether.

Our indifference?

But perhaps this does not matter much. After all, there are nowadays many organisations working for animal welfare. Animals have never had so many advocates as today. The rapid growth of vegetarianism and of the animal rights movement is evidence enough. Now numbers are certainly important, but so is moral truth. Scripture does not necessarily promise blessing for large social movements; but God does promise blessing for those who read his word, trust and obey. The reforming evangelicals of the past, a tiny minority, demonstrated this in their lives, transforming their society out of all proportion to their numerical strength. But today it is not just a question of alleviating animal suffering, or even of faithful Christian living. Neglect has consequences.

As a trawl of the internet will readily show, the Church is not seen as simply indifferent to animal suffering, but as part of the moral problem. Ignorance of Christian theology is so widespread that most people believe that God gave animals to humanity to do with as we wish. As the comedian Andy Hamilton puts it: ‘The Bible clearly states that God made animals as ingredients’. Now why would anyone seeking to live ethically worship such a god, or set foot in a church — other than to admire the dramatic architecture of an outdated institution?

Perhaps this is why so few churches offer ethical eating alternatives; there is simply no demand. And, remember, the green movement is no longer a small minority, but is becoming mainstream, especially among the rising generation. If we leave advice on ethical eating to celebrity chefs, perhaps we should not be surprised if there are more people in restaurants on a Sunday than at church.

Food and our culture

Diet and the Bible

Varied reactions

Christianity not mentioned

Our indifference?

Philip Sampson

Main Articles

Other articles