What hope for wounded
creatures?
There are explicit and
traumatising accounts of human abuse, torture and terror reigned upon the
non-human creation coming at us through the media. It is right to be disgusted,
and right that we do all in our power to stop deliberate and sustained attacks
on everything – from rivers and landscapes being filled full of filth, to flies
whose wings are pulled off by children, and to dogs or donkeys whose skins are
pulled off while they are still alive.
Records of humanity’s
“inhumanity to man” are as old as time, and the vile treatment of the non-human
is plain. The cries to “do something” for
animals in pain come frequently to our ears, bombarding our senses, and
overloading our emotions. Are we to hate
people and reject community with our fellow humans?
Here are some points that
I hope will encourage further thinking on this issue, given with the
understanding that this is a huge topic and I am not an expert:
Firstly,
animal rights activists are correct to tell us ‘all is NOT okay with the
world’, as they point out abuses heaped upon innocent creatures. Their voices are right to shout out that evil
exists, and is present in societies all over this world. Something is very wrong with the
person who would slowly torture a kitten, grasshopper, dolphin or deer, to
death.
[This article is not going to address food
choices. I accept and participate in swift
and ‘humane-as-possible’ dispatching of various creatures for human consumption,
without waste or disrespect as Indigenous peoples can teach us (no “pleasure”
hunting or fishing); and with regard to approved health and hygiene standards.]
All creation is crying out for full and final
redemption, in whatever form that may
ultimately take. The Bible tells us this,
as the story commences with God’s perfection which then becomes marred and
pained by human wrong-doing. This wrong
affects everyone and everything, including ecosystems, invertebrates, air
quality, and especially human relationships with each other, and the creation.
What to do then, with
seemingly ‘competing’ values? While it is actually possible to do more than one
moral thing at a time, many seem to have abandoned their fellow humans and
decided that non-humans deserve attention they have lacked for some time. I was recently given examples of this on a
Facebook thread where attempts to ask questions were met with such vitriol that
I cannot imagine the pain and abuse lying behind the respondents' bile. [I say more about it at the end of this piece].
One attempt to manage
competing concerns was the “values clarification” of the 1990s[1] which
clearly is not helpful. Who wants to live in a world where a bus full of
children is ‘sacrificed’ to save the last sloth crawling slowly across the
dangerous mountain road?
For those who may say “serve you humans right – you are in that precious and endangered sloth’s territory so you deserve
to go over the cliff and die”, that raises many more questions than this
article can address, including whether I would want to live next door to you.
Secondly,
trying to relate to hurting creatures as equals does seem to underpin the
actions of many animal rights campaigners. This may be the ideal, yet fails to
recognise the otherness of the creature.[2] A
dog is not a sheep, is not a shark, is not a snail, is not a turtle...so how
can these creatures “connect” to each other?
It does happen occasionally, usually in circumstances that are unusual –
a human’s backyard, a zoo, or other interventionist arena.
How is it showing respect
for the other when the creature is forced to interact with those not of their
own kind? What are the ethics of this
kind of treatment of animals?
Many people seem to turn
to animals in their own pain and woundedness and see themselves in the dark
liquid pools of a dog’s (or other critter’s) eyes and “feel” a connection.[3] There is as yet no
possibility of objective data for confirming or dismissing “connection”, and data
around communication with invertebrates doesn’t seem to warrant much attention.
I wonder, is what they
see there a reflection of their own hurt, rejection and loss? In what way are wounded humans able to
actually help the abused creature through reaction borne out of our own
pain?
Humans are
charged with greater responsibility,
and so will be held to account for the uses and abuses of God’s creation. We are responsible for responding (or not) to
God’s call for healing and hope that is provided through Jesus Christ the
Saviour, and as we are transformed by this good news, we will be able to bring
healing to creation.
Humans hurt by other
humans are still hurting. Avoiding
fellows and mistrusting all is not a long-term solution. And, those who “turn to” animals for comfort
are still on the outside “looking in”, for a person is not a sheep, nor a
lizard, nor a dog.
By insisting on anthropomorphism
are not humans just bringing creatures to the level of humanity? And how is that helpful to the creatures that
we – collectively – have a degree of ‘power over’ that we may both assist them,
and affirm them, in their difference to us?
Thirdly,
creation IS glorious, wonderful, and praises its Creator. All through the Bible, there are metaphors
which speak of the mountains, hills, rocks and streams praising God who knows the
flowers and grasses of the fields, and even tiny sparrows as they fall. Sparrows will fall, as will humans, for we
are all going to die one day. We are not
to speed-up that death by pollution, cruelty, or mismanagement of resources. Yet,
there remains a distinction: there is
the human, and there is the non-human.[4]
Many times, it seems that
in reaction to having previously forsaken animal care, and as a reaction to
examples of horrendous treatment, finite resources are gathered for appeals to
provide new beaks for ducks, wheel-chairs for foxes, and hysterectomies for old
hens. This is completely immoral in my opinion.
What must be done
firstly, is to be honest about the wealth and privilege of pet and animal owners
in western countries, while in developing countries, many count it a privilege to have a
goat, a fish or a chicken to kill for dinner.
I wonder what is the
monetary, annual cost of giving pets hip replacements, chemotherapy, and medications
for epilepsy, arthritis or diabetes?
What about the equitable sharing
of resources – private and communal - to provide for hungry children, for
infant and maternal health, for adequately-trained carers for those with
disabilities as needed, for a resolution of teen homelessness and the prevention
of elder abuse on our doorstep, just beside our shops and schools?
Human lives must take
priority. I place humanity somewhere quite
differently than on the same level as a goat, snail, donkey or shark, and I
believe that the Bible also does this.
The world is in a mess, and yet there is healing in and through the Person
of Jesus, who came down to this earth as a human, in order to save humans.
We are certainly going to
be held to account to whether or not we have loved our neighbour as ourselves,
for the parable of Jesus which illustrated that was humane treatment of another
human being, and not of the donkey that the Good Samaritan set the injured man
upon.[5]
By not speaking of
the donkey, Jesus did not in any way condone animal mistreatment, for he
certainly allowed for breaking the Sabbath to provide the basic needs of all.[6] Homo sapiens
are you and me and our family and friends and neighbours and enemies – all made
in the image of the Creator who longs for human community, and who are distinct
from animals, plants, rocks and stars and planets.
So much more may be said,
and from many different perspectives.
What I know is that I refuse to accept a charge that I hate animals because I chose to eat
them, under certain conditions as alluded to previously. I also chose not to
despise my own species; despite the evils they continue to perpetrate.
I am a human being who
has felt very strongly in the past that the only ones who understood me
were non-human ‘furries and featheries’.
There was so much pain inside me that I could not bear it, as I rejected
humans for their foul deeds and looked to the non-human for company.
My testimony that I am finding
healing and hope ONLY in the Lord Jesus Christ.
I had to surrender my pain, my hurt, my abuse, and instead receive a new
heart – one that remains soft towards animals and in right relationship to them
as non-human creatures – that can love all people. Jesus alone offers hope for wounded creatures
of all sorts, now and ultimately.
It is a choice to be healed and to walk a healing
journey. It is very difficult to give up
feelings that have long been close and comfortable, to say “yes” to trusting Jesus.
Jesus is FOR you, and for all creatures. Jesus came to this earth as a real human
being, and was abused, betrayed and suffered at the hands of humans.
Will you let him take the crushed and bleeding part of
you that identifies with the abused of any description, and make you whole?
[1] Many may remember those exercises
involving – for example – a number of people in the boat with fewer life
jackets than folks, and having to decide who gets one, and why. I believe that these were used to determine
from rationalist thinking where the value of a human life comes from, through
their ability to contribute to the ecosystem, and not from any innate dignity
of being. This is a challenge to the “imageo
dei” concept, which is itself is now under review.
[2] The ideation of animals as “pure”
and “wild”, with humans their antithesis, is beyond the scope of this paper. Any
cursory glance at search-engine results indicates that “animal soul”, “animal purity”,
along with the idea that “animals make us better humans” are current in popular
culture; some current philosophical and theological debates are exploring these
ideas further.
[3] There is as yet
no possibility of objective data for confirming or dismissing “connection”, and
data around communication with invertebrates doesn’t seem to warrant much
attention. Science - as concerned with
the physical and provable - should not venture into issues of “soul” and “connection”
if it wishes to remain credible in its material inquiry (empiricism). This is different to the concept of “consciousness”,
which is accepted: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528836-200-animals-are-conscious-and-should-be-treated-as-such/
[5] For further
study: What if the non-human creation is
already “saved”? What if is already
God’s own possession, as he made it all, and it praises him continually? What if the creatures are watching us to see
how we treat each other – even the least ‘worthy’: the criminal, the drug-addict
or the “illegal” refugee – to see how much we care for our fellows? What if the non-humans go directly “to God”
upon their deaths, while humans must choose to follow the Saviour and repent of
sin and reject the evil that continues to entrap and blind?
[6] Don’t you lead your ox or donkey
to water on the Sabbath? Luke 13:15, and 14:5; see also Matthew 12:11 about
assisting sheep, or any animal, as needed.
Jesus “broke the Sabbath” to care for others, and saw it as acceptable
for meeting the physical needs of all creatures, Mark 2:23-28.
No comments:
Post a Comment