Dear friends,
Humans have always enjoyed living with the animals of God’s creation. But what is our relationship with the animals, and how should we care for them? Today we move from the abuse of animals to the worship of animals as we think about the Bible’s teaching on animals.
Yours,
Phillip
Phillip Jensen: Hello, this is Two Ways News once again, and I'm Phillip Jensen.
Peter Jensen: I'm Peter Jensen.
Phillip: This time we're going to be talking about the subject of animals, a subject that's very important, I'm sure, in the character of our lives. We've had lots to do with animals, Peter, haven't we? But it's going to be the Bible we're talking about to start with, so let me tell you about the animals of the Bible. Genesis 2:18-20
Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him.
Peter: Phillip, do you remember when we buried a dead cat in our backyard?
Phillip: No, but I remember trying to bury a living cat.
Peter: But we were only trying to bury it up to its neck, and we were only 4 years old and 6 years old at the time. We used to bury each other at the beach up to our necks.
Phillip: Are humans animals?
Peter: What a question! I think you could categorize us as animals. We are not vegetable or mineral. We are not angelic. It is not wrong to categorize us as animals at some level. You can conduct research using animals to find out about humans. There are certainly connections, and this would not be unbiblical as long as you then take the next step and say, are we merely animals?
Phillip: Well, is there an obvious distinction between humans and animals?
Peter: Researchers have asked that question and thought about the difference. And we've seen in animal behaviour some very significant things, like communication, for example. When all is said and done, I don't think anyone for a minute really thinks that the human being is merely an animal.
Phillip: Let me put it the other way. Are we an animal on the spectrum of animals, more intelligent, more capable, and better at communication, but still on the spectrum of animals, or is there some quantum difference between us and all the animals?
Peter: The Bible indicates that we are made in the image of God. By so doing, it is indicating that we are put into the world, in a sense, to govern the world, as God governs the universe and governs us. There is a particular status and a role we have, which is different from any other creature.
Phillip: It means we have a responsibility. I'm not sure about ’status‘ and ’role.’ I'd rather say we have a responsibility that animals do not have.
Peter: I would stick to status and role because I'm including in that the sense of responsibility. We are accountable to God. We are responsible to God. We are to obey God in our rule of the world.
Phillip: You could ascribe status or role to animals, but you can never ascribe responsibility to animals. You can never say that the animal is responsible for killing the other animal or responsible for not killing the other animal.
Peter: It depends on what you mean by ’responsible.’ You may say a mother monkey is responsible for her child and acts as though she's responsible for her infant.
Phillip: We may not like it if she kills her infant, but we do not punish her for it.
Peter: That's fair. The point is, common sense will tell you what the Bible does tell you. That is, that there is some sort of fundamental difference between human beings and animals. But when you can't explain that difference, when you can't say what it is, then you're also tempted to say philosophically that we are mere animals, and therefore, we can treat humans as we treat animals. Not so.
Phillip: In the book by French philosopher Luc Ferry, A Short History of Thought,1 he pushes through the history of human thought and philosophies to the point where there isn't much meaning or purpose in anything. But then he comes short, as we discussed in a recent podcast, because he recounts the terrible moment when the Serbians tortured and killed their opponents. And he says that if it was a bear that had done it to them, you would have said it's a tragedy; that's what bears do. But that humans did it to other humans is unacceptable. Humans have a responsibility that is different. A bear has many signs of humanity in terms of intelligence, caring for its young, and communication. But they are not the things that make humans, humans. What makes humans humans is that we are in the image of God, given the task of ruling the world under him. And so, there is something fundamentally different about humans.
Peter: That is true. But if a dog were to go wild and bite many people, we would put it down. Is that not suggesting the dog is responsible?
Phillip: No, it's uncontrollable. That's a very different thing. It's not responsible; it's uncontrollable.
Peter: Genesis 1 talks about the image of God. Does Genesis 2 add anything to that?
Phillip: It further explains it. It is recounting it differently because there is the sense of Genesis 1, that the last thing created is the man in the image of God. Here, it's not saying when those animals were created, but man was created then to make the judgements about the animals. But it's not contradicting what Genesis 1 is saying. It is further elaborating how much we are in sovereignty over the animals under God. For God presents them to us, in a sense, as ours, though he is at this point presenting them to us so that we may see whether any are fit for our aloneness.
Peter: And he is given the task of naming them.
Phillip: It is interesting that God doesn't tell us the names of the animals but allows us to tell him the names that we wish to use for the animals. Why do you think that is, Peter?
Peter: I see this as the beginning of science. It's the classification of animals. It's typical of human beings that we look at things and we classify them.
Phillip: But does it mean that we have authority over them, that we name them?
Peter: You name a child when they're newborn. The child doesn't name itself; you name the child, and that could be an exercise of authority. The child may repudiate that authority later by renaming itself.
Phillip: Saying that naming means authority over them will give us problems because the end of this chapter is about man naming woman.
Peter: That's why I describe it as the classification of the animals, because I'm not sure that it expresses authority over, but a certain interest that humans have in naming.
Phillip: That is why I was raising the issue of authority, because I'd prefer to see it as the responsibility for them rather than authority over them.
Peter: In that case, I agree with you.
Phillip: But have humans always exercised responsibility for animals? We use animals for agricultural purposes, for labour, and for carting things for us. We also use them as food. So, have we always exercised good responsibility for animals?
Peter: We are certainly entitled to use them, but also there is a limit to our use of them in the sense that we are told we must not be cruel, that we must not abuse them. Now that's significant, and I think of the Sabbath commandment that says you shall not labour on the Sabbath day, neither you nor your servants, your manservants, or the animals. There are parts of the law that reflect this; for example, “Do not muzzle an ox as it treads out the grain.” We are entitled, as you say, to use them for our service and to eat animals, but that does not entail permission to torture them, be cruel to them, or kill more than we need.
Phillip: There's a proverb that strikes on that note in Proverbs 12:10,
Whoever is righteous has regard for the life of his beast, but the mercy of the wicked is cruel.
There is cruelty that people have exercised towards creatures, isn't there?
Peter: In British history and elsewhere, I suspect, there was something called “cockfighting,” getting cocks to fight each other and to tear each other to shreds. In parts of the world, it may still be practiced to this day. We could also think of bear baiting, for example, and other means of exploiting animals and getting animals to be cruel to one another for our enjoyment.
Phillip: And how was that stopped?
Peter: I'm describing things that most of us have never seen, and we would not want to see, but why is that? Well, because in the 18th century in Britain, there arose a movement called the evangelical movement, but it wasn't only the evangelicals; it was the evangelical movement. John Wesley and others began to see the very points you are making about responsibility. They appealed to that text in Proverbs, for example. But they began to see that this behaviour was not the proper behaviour of the image bearer but was a corruption of that behaviour.
There began a movement to try to get the Parliament to legislate against such behaviour. Their work led to the founding of an organization called the RSPCA, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. If you look at the list of people who were there when that organization was called together, you see a number of clergy and some names, at least, that you would recognize and people in the Quaker tradition. The name that springs out is the name of William Wilberforce, the man who had so much to do with bringing slavery to an end worldwide. But the point is that society began, as so many societies have begun, as a work of Christians. It was the Christian faith of these people that shaped their ethics and made them very strongly believe that things like cockfighting, bear baiting, and also the abuse of farm animals should come to an end. What a success it has been, Phillip.
Phillip: Yes, I think it was 1835; an Act of Parliament was brought in Britain to stop the abuse and cruelty towards animals in Britain. That's reflected then across the countries of the English-speaking world, and it still is the case. We had a Premier here in New South Wales who was a Christian, a Bible-believing man, who was offended deeply by the practices of the Greyhound industry here in Sydney and who tried to stop it. Politically, it backfired for him, sadly. But it was the same Christian conscience that if there are behaviours that are bad, they need to be fixed up. It comes from a deeply felt Christian conviction that these creatures are the creatures of God and that we must care for them and not be cruel to them.
But there's the other side of the coin. Just as humanity has been cruel in its relationship with animals, people have also gone to the other extreme of worshipping their animals. God speaks of it in terms of having denied the Creator; we move to the foolishness of worshipping the creature. But the worshipping of the creature, in Romans 1, is generally speaking of idolatry and the statues of the creatures. But I'm afraid people are actually worshipping the creatures themselves to some extent, as they view animals on at least the same level as, if not higher than, humans.
Peter: It's an interesting observation, particularly apt in our age. But first I want to draw a distinction between owning an animal, typically cats, dogs, and other animals, like cattle and horses, and what you may call having a pet.
Indeed, I see no harm at all in owning such animals and in being deeply affectionate towards them. This seems to me to be appropriate and not wrong in any way or irresponsible, particularly if we take good care of that animal. And indeed, that can be a great help for a person. That's one thing. So I'm not talking about that, which is normal and good.
But there is a tendency in our society to so disregard human relations at some point in your life that you are left without friendships, and the pet takes their place. The truth is that however much the pet may be a wonderful animal and our love may be genuine and its love for us may be genuine, nonetheless, they do not take the place of other human beings.
Phillip: An illustration of that is that several people have spoken to me over the years of the sorrow of not having grandchildren and the compensation of having ’granddogs.’ A granddog is not a grandchild, but that's how they speak. Their children aren't married or don't want to have children, but they have dogs. They know in a sense it's not the same and is a joke. But at the same time, it's not.
Peter: It is hard to distinguish between that and the legitimate love of your pet. I can remember a dear Christian friend of mine whose dog was skedaddled on the road and died. I saw him bringing the dog in from the road, carrying it in his arms with tears in his eyes. You're trying to pinpoint that, but rather something else.
Phillip: Yes, that's a normal good thing. It's the lack of human connection and relationship.
Peter: Even the most wonderful pet cannot replace it.
Phillip: But that is the best that they can have from people, especially those who choose not to have children.
Peter: What if it’s not their fault?
Phillip: You're right, there are levels at which, in loneliness, the dog is a great companion. But a great companion is not another human. There is something different that we need to retain.
Peter: In addition, in speaking of the community as a whole, increasing urbanisation sounds as though it's bringing everybody together. In fact, urbanisation has the opposite impact, as it separates people out.
Phillip: The closer you live together in blocks of units, the more you have to keep yourself away from each other in personal relationships; otherwise, you can't survive in those environments.
Peter: This is where church comes in. We live in a society where people have turned their backs on church and clubs and institutions, all voluntary societies, and all sporting clubs in favour of work.
Phillip: There is a book that you and I have both read about the collapse of the social capital of our society.
Peter: Yes - Robert Putnam, Bowling Alone,2 and then the Australian parliamentarian Andrew Leigh has written two books, Disconnected3 and Reconnected,4 where he shows the evidence for this.
Phillip: There is another side to the animal question that's even worse. Eastern perceptions of reincarnation uphold animals as being, in one sense, more important than humans. Because the spirit leaves the human to find another body, but the body may not be another human. As a result, you have the history of sacred cows, where people are in starving conditions, unable to kill and eat a cow because the cow is sacred. This whole doctrine of reincarnation means that monkeys and rats can turn out to be more important than humans. And it's a failure.
Then there's the logical nonsense of that great logician and philosopher Peter Singer on ‘speciesism’. He is very atheistic and does not believe in God and therefore explicitly does not believe that humans are in the image of God. Therefore, he believes there is no difference between humans and animals. The question is the level of their self-awareness and their awareness of pain; animals have that as much as humans. So, he would argue, therefore, we must not make any distinction in our activities or our relationships between animals, and especially between humans and animals. It leads to a whole new philosophy of life. It's created a certain degree of popularity with veganism, whereby we are so concerned to avoid cruelty to animals, that we actually make no distinction. So, the animals are allowed to kill each other, but humans are not allowed to kill them. The illogicality of it, just from a worldly point of view, is clear. But he wishes to argue that case and has persuaded many people towards it. But it's an illogicality, which is elevating animals above humans, directly contrary to how God says we are created and how the vast majority of humans live.
Peter: Give me the Bible any time.
Luc Ferry, A Short History of Thought (Harper Perennial, 2011)
Robert Putnam, Bowling Alone (Simon & Schuster Ltd, 2001)
Andrew Leigh, Disconnected (New South, 2010)
Andrew Leigh, Reconnected (La Trobe University Press, 2020)
Scripture quotations are from The ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Freely available, supported by generosity.
If you enjoy Two Ways News, why not lend us a hand? Consider joining our Supporters Club—friends who make it possible for us to keep producing this article/podcast.
To join the Supporters Club, follow the link below to the ‘subscribe’ page. You’ll see that there’s:
a number of ‘paid options’. To join the Supporters Club take out one of the paid ‘subscription plans’ and know we are deeply grateful for your support!
also the free option (on the far right hand side)
