264 chapter five passage makes it clear that whatever Christians do, they must not do anything that might cause others to falter or stumble along their spiritual journey. While an individual of strong faith may see nothing wrong with eating bodies of anymals—whether or not they have been sacrificed to idols—Paul notes that they must adjust their eating habits for the sake of others (Eiselen 1182). Christian love requires the faithful to be sure that their flesh eating does not become a “stumbling block” for others (1 Cor. 8:9). Those whose diet causes others to fall away from Christianity, “sin against . . . family,” and in so doing, “sin against Christ” (1 Cor. 8:12). Certain foods are to be avoided not because they are forbidden—they are not—but because these items might turn people away from Christ. As with Peter’s dream, a more general point is made through specific examples (in this case flesh eating and wine drinking). Divergent points of view have too often become catalysts for divi- sion and stumbling blocks to faith, both of which scripture clearly and strongly warns against. In Romans 14, scripture instructs Christians to avoid foods that tend to be contentious so that they might avoid turning others away from Christ. Today, flesh and dairy products are foods that might turn people away from the Christian commu- nity. Will vegans attend a church function such as a “barbecue” or “ice cream social”? Their Christlike compassion will not permit them to eat anymal products, but I have never known a flesh eater to have a moral complaint against veggie burgers or tofu dogs, or Popsicle socials. The teachings of Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 are just as rel- evant today as in the time of Peter; diet continues to be divisive and controversial. People are turned away by current Christian diets, atti- tudes, and general indifference toward anymals. The text of 1 Corinthians 8 concludes: “Therefore, if food is a cause of their falling, I will never eat meat, so that I may not cause one of them to fall” (8:13). In short, if eating meat is a possible stumbling block for others, the Christian response ought to be, “I will be a vegetarian all my life!” (Eiselen 1182). Flesh eating in the Christian church has become a barrier and stumbling block for vegans. Today’s carnivo- rous Christian congregations, fattened on the flesh of factory-farmed calves and the eggs of deprived battery hens (soon to be slaughtered for chicken soup), turn the stomachs of more compassionate citizens. Flesh eating is a divisive and critical issue for contemporary Westerners. andrew linzey: christian protectionism 265 Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 instruct the faithful not to eat foods that might be morally repugnant to others—to abandon flesh eat- ing out of love for vegetarians and vegans who turn away from Christian congregations red in tooth and fork. e. Ecclesiastes 3:18–21 There are few verses in either the Hebrew Scriptures or the New Testament that challenge traditional views of anymals-as-“other” as blatantly as does Ecclesiastes 3:18–21: I said in my heart with regard to human beings that God is testing them to show that they are but animals. For the fate of humans and the fate of animals is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and humans have no advantage over the animals; for all is vanity. All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knows whether the human spirit goes upward and the spirit of animals goes downward to the earth? As noted previously, early Christian scholars, aligned with earlier Greek thinkers, argued that humans were both distinctly separate and above other creatures. Yet Ecclesiastes states plainly, we “are but animals.” If the Christian philosopher, Descartes, had spent more time reading the Bible and less time reading Greek philosophy to reach his theological conclusions, perhaps he would not have erro- neously concluded that anymals are automata, machines made by God for our purposes, machines bereft of soul, and thereby bereft of consciousness, and thereby bereft of any form of sensation. Ecclesiastes clearly indicates that we are not so very different from anymals, and that it is not clear what will happen to any of us after death—except that all of our bodies will return to the dust from which we have come. f. John 4:8 and 4:16 Linzey emphasizes the overarching importance of self-sacrifice in Christianity, but does not focus on specific biblical teachings of love, or how these teachings support protectionism. Christian love is not only central to Christianity but lies at the heart of the moral contro- versy revolving around how people ought to treat anymals. Theologians such as Robert Murray, whom I noted stands against protectionism, must first and foremost be informed of what transpires in anymal industries. Then, if such theologians wish to continue eating meat and defending anymal experimentation, they will need to somehow 266 chapter five justify their actions in light of the overarching Christian vision of love and compassion in the midst of creation. Perhaps the most common objection to protectionist philosophy is that love directed at anymals is “misplaced” love. Linzey responds to this objection: One kind of love is not a replacement for another; neither does love for anymals reduce an individual’s ability to love people. Linzey asserts that “sensitivity to suffering is a sign of grace and also a litmus test of our fidelity to the passionate Creator God”; “any theology which desensitizes us to suffering cannot properly be a theology centered on the divine vindication of innocent suffering” (Linzey, After 132). Linzey concludes that an “understanding of God’s love which limits our care and affection for other creatures is spir- itually impoverished” (Linzey, After 131). Linzey’s response is well supported by hagiographies. Seemingly boundless compassion has been associated with some of the greatest spiritual exemplars the world has known, from Gandhi to St. Francis of Assisi. Lynn White called St. Francis “the greatest spiritual revo- lutionary in Western history” (1207). It is an embarrassment to Christians, who so often and so loudly vocalize their central tenet of love, that congregations and ministers alike indict love turned toward other species as misplaced. Compassion—love—is not a lim- ited resource, but a capacity that Christians are to foster and enhance throughout their lives. Love is not a “zero-sum game” or some sort of hydraulic fluid whose volume is perforce static. This is the argument of “compassion fatigue” and it only holds short-term. Long-term, all religions and especially Christianity, teach that one can expand one’s capacity to love, and ought consciously to do so. (Halley, Unpublished) The life of Jesus provides many examples of overflowing compassion and love. Jesus did not assess the moral status of those he helped; he did not assess the intellectual abilities of those he healed. Jesus helped whomever came to him, and most Christians express an expectation that the devout follow this example: [ Jesus] didn’t say to blind Bartolomeus, once healed, “Now don’t you go ogling beautiful women.” To the owner of the withered hand that he restored, Jesus didn’t warn, “Don’t get your hand caught in the till; no stealing now.” The neighbor to be loved according to the Good Samaritan is the nearest person in need regardless of race, religion, or nationality, and we can safely add gender or sexual orientation andrew linzey: christian protectionism 267 “Will you call vile one for whom Christ did not disdain to die?” If Christ didn’t disdain to die for any of us, [how] are Christians not to live for all of us? (Coffin) Through Romans 8 and Colossians 1 Linzey demonstrates that Christ died to redeem all of creation. In addition to the many types of peo- ple (Asians, tax collectors, women, and Republican politicians to name but a few) Christians are obliged to add the entirety of God’s bountiful creation. Christian love is expected to be no less generous than the love demonstrated by Jesus—by God. In the story of the good Samaritan and elsewhere, Christ expanded the idea of “love your neighbor” outwards from the small circle of “Jews” to a much larger circle of people including Samaritans St. Paul continued the process (Gal. 3:28), extending the circle to include all Gentiles. Linzey is following the logic of Christianity through to higher animals. Perhaps there is no limit. (Fundamentalists often go in the opposite direction, imploding their ever-diminishing circle towards a ring of “the faithful” and eventually just one’s own self.) (Halley, Unpublished communication) The deity is represented in the New Testament as love itself. Verses 1 John 4:8 and 1 John 4:16 state simply: “God is love.” In this pas- sage love is “not merely an attribute of God but defines his nature, though in a practical rather than philosophic sense God’s nature is not exhausted by the quality of love, but love governs all its aspects and expressions” (Buttrick 12:280). Christian love is understood to originate in the munificence of God’s love and to connect each of us with the divine (C. Allen 12:214). Consequently, it is not sur- prising that almost all Christians agree that love is “the paramount scripture essential to the Christian way of life” (C. Allen 12:214). Christians are called upon to love fully and well; love is central to Christianity. Christ’s love—God as love—these central teachings demand a Christian life of radical compassion. Christ modeled a life of love that entailed the ultimate sacrifice: “In the light of Jesus, Christian loving can only properly be defined in terms of that kind of loving which costs us something” (Linzey, After 102). Galatians 5:22–23 informs humanity that the “fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self- control.” Scripture demands a life of sacrificial, Christlike love, a demand that has long been central to Christian morality—though too often only in theory. 268 chapter five Linzey highlights Christ’s example of loving self-sacrifice and the original peaceable (vegan) kingdom created by God (Gen. 1). He encourages Christians to recognize the exploitation of sentient cre- ation as antithetical to God’s will. Surely today’s violence toward anymals, intensified and aggrandized by modern methods of factory farming and technology (in a world of comparable health and abun- dance), are immeasurably worse than the simple violence of Noah’s time. Yet even the violence of Noah’s day was appalling in the eye of the deity, so shocking and objectionable that the Almighty determined to make an end of all that had been created in order to stop the violence. In his book, The Cosmic Covenant, Robert Murray defends eating other creatures. How will such flesh-eating theologians answer the Christ challenge, the call to live a life of loving self-sacrifice in a world of exploitation and vio- lence toward anymals? Verses 1 John 4:8 and 1 John 4:16 shed light on the nature of the deity and carry the Christian imperative to live a life of love for all, a love that entails self-sacrifice. g. Isaiah 11:6–9 Linzey draws attention to God’s original creation as presented in Genesis 1, a creation of peace and nonviolence, a peaceable king- dom lost through the degradation of earthly creatures. He notes that God created all, that all share in the fall, and that all of creation will share in redemption. But Linzey does not focus on the ideal world, designed by God, anticipated in the future; Linzey does not emphasize God’s peaceable kingdom, which will eventually return to this earth, transforming life as we know it. This future “state of peace and well-being” is “symbolized by the idyllic picture of powerful animals and poisonous reptiles in harmo- nious companionship with domesticated animals and truly spiritual human children” (Buttrick 5:249): The wolf shall live with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the kid, the calf and the lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall graze, their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. The nursing child shall play over the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder’s den. andrew linzey: christian protectionism 269 They will not hurt or destroy on all my holy mountain; for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea. (Isa. 11:6–9) According to scripture, “complete harmony and peace” will once again prevail on earth; “men and animals [will] live together in a paradise-like relationship, and no living creature [will] hurt or destroy another” (C. Allen 5:232). Violence will stop; there will be “recon- ciliation in the world of nature, and the ancient enmity between man and beast shall be done away” (Buttrick 5:249–50). Scripture holds “an expectation that God will bring all bloodshed in creation to an end. Earthly violence is not chronic: Isaiah offers a vision of reconciliation, concord, and trust” (Guthrie 598). Psalms and Proverbs also allow us to glimpse an all-encompass- ing spiritual unity that includes the earth in its entirety. Psalm 148 exclaims: “Praise him, sun and moon;/Praise him, all you shining stars!/Praise him, you highest heavens,/and you waters above the heavens! . . ./Mountains and all hills,/fruit trees and all cedars!/Wild animals and all cattle,/creeping things and flying birds! . . ./Praise the Lord!” This biblical worldview reveals all creatures, humans and anymals alike, praising God. “All creation is a single hymn of praise in which humans, animals and nature as a whole praise God with one voice” (Vischer 5). This biblical vision of peace on earth and goodwill toward all of creation is not to be ignored by Christians, as it most assuredly seems to be among contemporary congregations. “The Lord’s Prayer,” one of the most commonly repeated scriptural passages, reminds the devout: “Your kingdom come./Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt. 10). This idyllic vision for the future involves all of contemporary Christendom; the fulfillment of God’s plan can and will happen through the “work of all who believe in Jesus Christ and his kingdom” (Buttrick 5:250–51). A Christian lifestyle ought to aid the realization of God’s peaceable kingdom. The “Our Father,” so often uttered, “acknowledges a personal and social obligation” for each Christian, to work toward this peaceful end (Buttrick 7:312), to participate in the “final triumph of God’s will” through daily life (C. Allen 8:115). The peaceable world ordained by God is to once again be realized on earth with the active participation of all Christians. Many contemporary believers dismiss the peaceable kingdom as beautiful imagery that cannot be realized in this world, a hope beyond 270 chapter five hope for which we are not expected to strive. On this view, most of Christ’s teachings can be dismissed, for Christ was an idealist, as are many of the teachings in the Hebrew Scriptures. But scripture commands: “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is per- fect” (Matt. 5:48). A peaceful, compassionate lifestyle, and the antic- ipated peace that must ultimately follow, are the actualization of “the knowledge of the Lord” (Guthrie 598). Christians are expected to strive for excellence. Consistent with the works of other prophets, Mica implores, “What does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” (Mica 6:8). It is the duty of every Christian to assist in reestablishing God’s peaceable kingdom on earth—to abstain from investing in cruelty, and to thereby help restore the vegan world designed and created by the Almighty. This biblical vision of creatures living in peace is central to the Christian tradition. At Christmastime people put up images depict- ing Jesus as a newborn babe, lying in a barnyard surrounded by well-tended anymals. (It is perhaps symbolic that Jesus was laid in the feed bin [manger] of farmed anymals, where he rested safely on his first night.) This idyllic vision, the promise of its return, and the expectation for a Christian life call believers to change their behav- ior toward anymals through the love of God, for Christ transforms “human character, and will ultimately change the whole creation” (Guthrie 598). Christians can choose not to consume flesh, the nurs- ing milk of cattle, or the undeveloped embryos of chickens. The long-ago anymals living in a stable in Bethlehem did not mistake Jesus, lying in their feed bin, for food. Neither should we mistake other creatures for a legitimate source of sustenance when we have other options that are scripturally preferable. 3. Theoretical Considerations a. Theos-Centered Morality An important difference must be noted between Linzey’s Generosity Paradigm and most protectionist theories: Linzey’s ethic does not focus on the lives of spotted collybia, banded geckoes, Devon cattle, or the everglades, but rather on duty to God. For Christians, “the duty of the steward is to carry out the plan of the absent ruler. The duty not to mistreat animals is owed to the absent ruler, not to the animals” (Gunn, “Traditional” 151). Linzey’s andrew linzey: christian protectionism 271 theory protects the environment and anymals from human abuse and plundering, and this is done for the sake of God, not for the sake of the land, seas, plants, or animals, including people. While the difference is central, the outcome is the same—protec- tion. Linzey’s theology of compassion offers a refreshing alternative to most people, who place human beings at the center. Most of us preserve forests and species in order to maintain quiet and beauti- ful places where we might take refuge from the bustle of urban exis- tence and enjoy hiking, killing wildlife, or just viewing the anymals. Others only preserve the abundance of species for possible medici- nal purposes—to maintain the gene pool—not for the anymals them- selves. A God-centered vision offers a more enduring and ultimate reason to protect and preserve the world around us. Perhaps “with- out a truly spiritual understanding of our relationship with the rest of life on Earth, both the Environmental Movement and the Animal Welfare Movement are condemned to irrelevance” (Porritt 15). While we might neglect our duties to others, or even to ourselves, those of faith are perhaps more committed to duties viewed as cen- tral to their relationship with the deity. Theology removes human self-interest from protectionist theory and focuses on responsibility to God. “As one cannot praise Rembrandt sincerely while trampling his paintings, so one cannot praise God sincerely while trampling His works” (DeWitt 8). b. Hierarchy “Hierarchy,” when applied to the biological world, entails certain species assuming a place of importance in relation to others. Hierarchy, based on an assumption of human preeminence, is one of the cor- nerstones on which the traditional Western concept of “dominion” has been built and maintained. Theists who envision a hierarchy often reason “that God exists; that He has the right to decide which of His creatures shall live or die; that He has the right to delegate this right to others; and that He did delegate this right to human beings” (Singer, “Animals” 231). Any one of these assumptions might reasonably be challenged, as Linzey has done, though he accepts a scripture-based hierarchy. Linzey asserts a biblical hierarchy rooted in Genesis: creation, the covenant of Genesis 9, and dominion. He accepts the traditional hierarchy—humans have a special place over (but not against) the myriad creation. He asserts that humans have special responsibilities 272 chapter five (rather than exclusive privileges) in relation to the rest of creation. He posits that anymals ought to be included in our moral circle, but not plants. Linzey’s assertion of hierarchy appears untenable on five counts. i. divergent creation stories First, there are two creation stories in the Bible and they cannot both be reconciled with Linzey’s hierarchy. Linzey only discusses the creation story presented in Genesis 1, which informs that God cre- ated day and night, then atmosphere and water on the first and sec- ond day. The third day brought dry land and vegetation followed by the stars and planets on the fourth day. On the fifth day God created sea creatures and birds, and on the sixth the deity created all the beasts of the earth, culminating in the creation of man and woman (Gen. 1:1–30). Based on Genesis 1 creation, assuming a hierarchy of ascending order, the hierarchy would run as follows: time, basic earthly ele- ments, inanimate matter and vegetation, heavenly bodies, creatures of sea and sky, animals—including people, who were created last. The creation story of Genesis 2, however, begins with mists, fol- lowed by the creation of man, then vegetation. Rivers and miner- als are mentioned before the creation of anymals. The final act of creation is (once again) woman: In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens , a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground—then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being. And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed. Out of the ground the LORD God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.” So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air . . .; but for man there was not found a helper as his partner. So the LORD God took one of his ribs [and made] a woman and brought her to the man. (Gen. 2:4–9, 18–22) The ascending order of creation in the second chapter of Genesis looks very different: basic earthly elements, man, vegetation, more complex inanimate matter, anymals, and finally woman. andrew linzey: christian protectionism 273 Linzey does not explain why the creation account in Genesis 2 might reasonably be overlooked in forming a hierarchy based on the order of creation. If the recorded order of creation is to provide a basis for a hierarchy of any kind, both accounts must somehow be reconciled, and it is difficult to see how this might be accomplished. There is only one point of consensus: if the order of creation is ascending, women are at the apex of creation in both accounts. ii. various covenants The covenantal relationship is so pervasive in the Bible that it is often thought to be the essential way God relates to humans. Certainly, many theologians of the Old Testament have followed Eichrodt in stressing the centrality of the covenant to any insightful interpretation of the text; the very names Old Testament and New Testament bear witness to the overriding significance of successive covenantal under- standings. (Gulick 187) Given the handful of covenants in the Bible, it is unclear why Linzey has chosen to emphasize just one. In fact, as noted by a colleague and Hebrew Scriptures scholar, Dr. Samantha Joo, “the Priestly edi- tor, schematizes Israel’s early history according to the main ‘signs’ of the different covenantal periods: Sabbath, rainbow, circumcision, and the giving of laws at Mt. Sinai” (Unpublished communication). Yet Linzey does not discuss why he has chosen to emphasize just one of these important exchanges between God and humanity. Which covenant is most important; are they all equal? Furthermore, the covenant of Genesis 9 comes immediately after God has granted that humans may eat anymals. Linzey does not explain this seemingly unusual occurrence: How can God enter into a covenant equally with all beings just after permitting one species to eat many of the others simply because human beings seem to have a strong, perhaps even uncontrollable, inclination to kill and be wicked? If Linzey is going to support his assertion of the importance of the Genesis 9 covenant, he will need to explain why he has chosen to emphasize this particular covenant, and how it stands in relation to other covenants made exclusively between God and human beings. [...]... such a situation would bring—has brought—to anymals? With this in mind, the following offers a mere smattering of some of the strongest protectionist elements found in the sacred lore of indigenous, Hindu, Buddhist, Daoist, and Islamic religious traditions Though providing only a cursory sampling, this chapter reveals the wealth of protectionist teachings in a handful of dominant religious traditions... colonies and geese mates, and are capable of willful action and responsibility for the things they do This, the Cree say, is evidenced in the everyday experience of a hunter, who finds that many of the actions of animals are intelligible and predictable The whole world is therefore a socially informed world, in which habit and learning rather than natural law explain the actions of animals and other... large and small, including the seemingly insignificant and commonplace, in the world of God: Jesus set the book of nature before me and I saw that all the flowers he has created are lovely The splendor of the rose and the whiteness of the lily do not rob the little violet of its scent nor the daisy of its simple charm I realized that if every tiny flower wanted to be a rose, spring would lose its loveliness... mutt and lonely veal calf, to show regard for each prickle on every thistle, and each drop of water to the very depths of the oceans This type of inclusive love for God, through acts directed at creation, is expressed in a vision of St Julian of Norwich: He showed me a little thing, the quantity of an hazel-nut in the palm of my hand; and it was round as a ball I looked upon with eye of my understanding,... protectionist teachings within their particular religious tradition Of more importance, people of faith would gain moral strength and credence if 284 chapter six they ceased to participate in the ongoing, tremendous suffering caused to anymals and instead took a stand against such cruelty The role of this book is to present moral ideals rather than actual or common practices The following sketch of protectionist... left and the jobs were gone” (Marr 4) While the environmental damage the Makah caused was a direct result of the in ux of white people, the fact remains that the Makah joined willingly, even greedily, in the frenzy of killing for profit While the Makah suffered under the power and in uence of Caucasians, anymals suffered under the power and in uence of the Makah The Makah are not the only group of indigenous... a hierarchy indicated through scriptural accounts of the order of creation, Linzey does not indicate why the order must necessarily be ascending Nothing in scripture suggests that God created the universe in any particular order of moral standing Nothing indicates that the first act of creation, or the last (or the third, for that matter) might be the apex, or might be considered any part of a hierarchy... tribal history, ethics, and spiritual values; oral maps of sacred homelands and information about the extended kin of plants and animals (Gonzales 499) Koyukon myths are historical records, a directive of traditions and customs that offer spiritual and moral insights, social cohesion, and entertainment ( Jette, “On Ten’a” 298– 367 ; McFadyen 595) Mayan myths “contain symbolic and ethical messages that... living things and natural entities have a role to play in maintaining the web of life” (Cajete 62 8, 62 9) Early hunter-gatherers generally felt a sense of responsibility for the “continuity and balance of the cosmos” (Kwiatkowska 271) Koyukon Distant Time Stories explain how anymals came to have their present characteristics, and how people ought to relate to nature if balance and harmony are to be maintained... leaves, begging to be forgiven for taking from the plant and explaining why they have done so “For the Nicobarese, there is animate life even in plants and trees,” and they must maintain polite and respectful relations with these green and growing beings (Prabhu 57–58) The Nahua (near Mexico City) also communicate with plants and anymals and consider all that dwell in the Cemanahuac to be kin (Silva . examples (in this case flesh eating and wine drinking). Divergent points of view have too often become catalysts for divi- sion and stumbling blocks to faith, both of which scripture clearly and strongly. sake of anymal rights—for the sake of saving innocent and helpless others caught in a web of greed and indifference. Does Linzey think direct action against material possessions for the purpose of. of care needed is not a legitimate indicator of moral standing, only of time and attention needed to satisfy a particular set of wants. • Linzey cites the covenant, noting that fish, cattle, and