John Wesley on "the Brute Creation."

Wesley’s sermon No. 64, “The New Creation,”[1] written in 1785, includes many speculations, and reflects his unfaltering optimism of grace. He looks forward to remarkable changes in the galaxies above us and in the earth's own atmosphere and elements. The plant and animal kingdom will share in this cosmic renewal. The greatest change of all will be “An unmixed state of holiness and happiness far superior to that which Adam enjoyed in paradise.” There is here no sitting around on clouds playing golden harps while in some disembodied state. The bodily resurrection will be matched by a cosmic renewal of all creation. What implications might this have for a Christian view of animals? If we are to treat our bodies with respect for they are the temples of the Holy Spirit, and will one day be raised in glory, how then should we treat the natural world, including animals, which will also share in that cosmic renewal? In “The General Deliverance” (Sermon 60)[2] Wesley asks, how the love of God to all his creatures is compatible with the suffering we see around us.[3] He is seeking in part to resolve the philosophical problem of evil. Wesley views the pre-fallen animal creation as “more highly exalted in intelligence than they are today.” Therefore, it did not surprise Eve to hear the serpent speak. Humanity was the channel of conveyance between God and the creation. When this channel was blocked or broken the “brute creation” was plunged into the Fall along with Adam and Eve.[4] The brute creation groans and, though we don’t hear it, God does. “He knoweth all their pain, and is bringing them nearer and nearer to the birth which shall be accomplished in its season.” Wesley sees the word of God in Romans 8 about the deliverance of creation very seriously, foreseeing even the possibility of animals being exalted to the present intellectual ability of human beings. Some have argued that the Western tradition up until Descartes believed that animals had souls. Wesley seems to hold this view, speculating that God might even give animals, in the redeemed order, the capacity to love God. "May I be permitted," Wesley asks, "to conjecture concerning the brute creation? What, if it should then please the all-wise, the all-gracious Creator to raise them higher in the scale of beings? What, if it should please him, when he makes us “equal to angels,” to make them what we are now, - creatures capable of God; capable of knowing and loving and enjoying the Author of their being? If it should be so, ought our eye be evil because he is good? However this be, he will certainly do what will be most for his own glory."[5] For many people the problem of animal pain is the worst aspect of moral evil, for animals are not moral beings. [This why when watching a battle scene in a movie you might find yourself saying when a horse is killed, “Oh not the horses! They haven’t done anything wrong!”] Wesley goes some way toward answering this by hypothesising that they also may have something better ahead of them in the new heavens and the new earth. Wesley attempts to answer the theological problem of evil, in a felix culpa fashion, by hypothesising that animals may also have something better ahead of them in the new heavens and the new earth.[6] Just as John Wesley thought that the creation of a new world, purged of everything that hurts or kills, was the only final answer to the problem of evil, perhaps an eschatological scenario that includes the animal kingdom will help give us greater compassion toward animals. According to Wesley, God is concerned “every moment for what befalls every creature upon earth; and more especially for anything that befalls any of the children of men.” This may seem hard to believe considering the “complicated wickedness” and “complicated misery” we see on every side. Yet it remains true that all God’s wisdom is employed for the good of his creatures, both human and non-human.[7] In the final analysis, the only satisfactory answer to the problem of evil for Wesley is that “It will not always be thus.”[8] In eschatology, we find some hope in the face of animal suffering. Believers are called to live out in the now, the principles of the world that is to come. Generally the Christian tradition has respected the body, since it is destined for resurrection. Paul, for example, argues against both gluttony and fornication (in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20), on the basis that the body will participate in the resurrection. Nothing should be done with the body in this world that would be inappropriate in the next. A similar respect needs to be learned for the environment and for non-human life forms, since these also will participate in the general restoration of all things in the new heavens and the new earth. (Wesley became a vegetarian though it is not clear that it was for this particular reason.) Echoing Wesley, either consciously or unconsciously, animal ethicist Andrew Linzey reminds us that “the world as we know it is not the only possible world.”[9] As an eschatological community, the Church is to give a watching world some glimpse of that world to come if it is to be faithful to its trust. [1] Based on Revelation 21:5, “Behold, I make all things new.” [2] John Wesley, Sermon LX, “The General Deliverance,” in Vol. VI of The Works of John Wesley [Jackson ed.] (Kansas City: Beacon Hill, 1979 reprint of 1872 edition issued by the Wesleyan Methodist Book Room, London), 241-52. [3] Sermons in Works (BCE), 437. [4] Ibid, 438-40. [5] Wesley, Works (Jackson edition) VI:250. [6] Felix culpa is a Latin expression meaning “O blessed fault!” It refers to Augustine’s view that God must have allowed the fall to take place because he had something far greater in mind. That is a blessed fault that leads the final renewal of all creation in the eschaton. [7] Sermons, in Works (BCE), 540. [8]John Wesley, Sermon LXIII, “The General Spread of the Gospel,” in Vol. VI ofThe Works of John Wesley [Jackson ed.] (Kansas City: Beacon Hill, 1979 reprint of 1872 edition issued by the Wesleyan Methodist Book Room, London), 499. [9] Andrew Linzey, Christianity and the Rights of Animals (New York: Crossroads, 1987), 40-41.



In this final post on Animal Theology I want to look at some of John Wesley 's reflections on the future state of the planet in his sermons on "The General Deliverance" and "On the General Spread of the Gospel." He asks how the love of God toward all of his creatures can be compatible with the suffering we see around us. He views the pre-fallen animal creation as “more highly exalted in intelligence than they are today.” Therefore, it did not surprise Eve to hear the serpent speak. Humanity was the channel of conveyance between God and the creation. When this channel was blocked or broken the “brute creation” was plunged into the Fall along with Adam and Eve. The creation groans for deliverance and, though we don’t hear that groaning, God does. “He knoweth all their pain, and is bringing them nearer and nearer to the birth which shall be accomplished in its season.” Wesley takes Paul's vision of a renewed creation in Romans 8 very seriously, foreseeing even the possibility of animals being exalted to the present intellectual ability of human beings

Some have argued that the Western tradition up until Descartes believed that animals had souls. Wesley seems to hold this pre-Cartesian view, speculating that God might even give animals, in the redeemed order, the capacity to love him. "May I be permitted to conjecture concerning the brute creation? What, if it should then please the all-wise, the all-gracious Creator to raise them higher in the scale of beings? What, if it should please him, when he makes us 'equal to angels,' to make them what we are now, - creatures capable of God; capable of knowing and loving and enjoying the Author of their being? If it should be so, ought our eye be evil because he is good? However this be, he will certainly do what will be most for his own glory."

According to Wesley, God is concerned “every moment for what befalls every creature upon earth; and more especially for anything that befalls any of the children of men.” This may seem hard to believe considering the “complicated wickedness” and “complicated misery” we see on every side. Yet it remains true that all God’s wisdom is employed for the good of his creatures, both human and non-human. In the final analysis, the only satisfactory answer to the problem of evil for Wesley is that “It will not always be thus.” In a felix culpa fashion, he hypothesises that animals may also have something better ahead of them in the new heavens and the new earth. The creation of a new world, purged of everything that hurts or kills, is the only final answer to the problem of evil. Perhaps an eschatological scenario that includes the animal kingdom will help give us greater compassion toward animals.

In eschatology, we find some hope in the face of animal suffering. Believers are called to live out in the now, the principles of the world that is to come. Generally the Christian tradition has respected the body, since it is destined for resurrection. Paul, for example, argues against both gluttony and fornication (in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20), on the basis that the body will participate in the resurrection. Nothing should be done with the body in this world that would be inappropriate in the next. A similar respect needs to be learned for the environment and for non-human life forms, since these also will participate in the general restoration of all things in the new heavens and the new earth. As the eschatological community the Church is to give a watching world some glimpse of that world to come if it is to be faithful to its trust. Surely the ethical treatment of animals must be part of that witness.

Do Animals Have Souls?

Mark Twain once said that human beings have a lot to learn from the higher animals. Some of those things are perhaps expressed by Gary Kowalski’s description of his dog, Chinook.

"My dog has deep knowledge to impart. He makes friends easily and doesn’t hold a grudge. He enjoys simple pleasures and takes each day as it comes…he eats when he’s hungry and sleeps when he’s tired. He’s not hung up about sex…He never growls at the children or barks at his wife. So my dog is sort of guru. When I become too serious and preoccupied he reminds me of the importance of frolicking and play. When I get too wrapped up in abstractions and ideas, he reminds me of the importance of exercising and caring for the body. On his own canine level, he shows me that it might be possible to live without inner conflicts or neuroses: uncomplicated, genuine and glad to be alive."

Investigation of interspecies spirituality is new territory for most of us. But increasingly scientists, including psychologists, have begin to investigate such questions as whether animals dream, wonder, contemplate death, are conscious of themselves and others, have a sense of right and wrong, shame, loyalty etc. that go beyond the usual explanations of such things as purely instinctual responses devoid of what we humans call “reflection.”

The idea of progressive revelation maintains that, while God’s self revelation does not change, our human capacity to receive and understand that revelation does change. As the human race has learned to understand God more fully, it is claimed, such things as human sacrifice, polytheism, polygamy, racial genocide on religious grounds, etc. have been put aside as our apprehension of who God is and what he requires of us has enlarged. The Church once gave “biblical” defenses for the preservation of human slavery and the subjugation of women, arguments which no longer hold water today. Might it not be that the current discussion and theological reflection over the treatment of animals may be another stage in our understanding of God’s will and ways that necessitates a radical re-think on our part?

In 1988, the World Council of Churches, commissioned a theological consultation which issued recommendations concerning the church’s failure to teach respect for animals. “Freedom [from oppression and for life with God] should not be so limited [to humans] because other creatures, both species and individuals, deserve to live in and for themselves and for God. Therefore we call on all Christians as well as other people of good will to work toward the liberation of life, all life.”

Of course, a doctrine of “progressive revelation, whilst legitimate in the main, often betrays a “natural theology” bias that does not sit well with those who hold that Christianity is a “revealed” religion, and who affirm more classical views of biblical authority and direct inspiration. R. J. Hyland speaks for a progressive revelation stance when he maintains that God never condoned animal sacrifice but that “biblical writers wished to justify their practice by projecting their own violent nature onto God.”

If, on the other hand, as the classical tradition maintains, animal sacrifice was a practice mandated by God in the Old Testament, then the killing of animals per se cannot be wrong. Linzey places a more positive spin on animal sacrifice than does his fellow animal rights theologian, Hyland, claiming that animal sacrifice was viewed by those who practiced it, not simply as the destruction of life, but as the returning to the Creator that which was God’s gift. For God to receive the gift, it must have been assumed that the life of the animal survived beyond death. Thus, sacrifice affirmed the value of the life taken.

In Hinduism, a religion which now frowns on the unnecessary destruction of animals, animal sacrifice was originally widely practiced and was a key feature in the power of the priesthood over the devotees. Only the priest could offer the required sacrifices that would appease the gods. A remarkable shake up occurred in Hinduism when teachers such as Buddha and Mahavira, denounced the sacrifice of animals, in part as a protest against the Brahmin priests’ monopoly on religious power.

In a somewhat similar way, the Hebrew prophets of the same era, though not denouncing animal sacrifice as such, or for quite the same reasons as the Buddha, attacked the priestly system as corrupt and the sacrifices as useless if not accompanied by genuine heart religion. God would not accept the sacrifices of animals unaccompanied by a sacrifice of the heart. Such sacrifices were an abomination to him. Of course, in Jesus, the final sacrifice for sin has made the sacrifice of animals no longer necessary. A new covenant has been established, the final outcome of which is yet to be seen, in a new heaven and a new earth, spoken of by the prophets, in which “they shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain (Isaiah 11:9).” Whether or not animals have souls, as creatures of God, they are deserving of respect. All actions toward them must surely be at least informed by the holy mountain foreseen by Isaiah.

Schweitzer and Barth on Animals

Two significant theologians with opposing views, Albert Schweitzer and Karl Barth, make important contributions to our discussion on animals. [The comparison of these two thinkers is drawn from Andrew Linzey. Animal Theology. (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1995), 4 –8.]

Schweitzer understood “self-devotion to the world to be self-devotion to human life to every form of living being with which it can come into relation.” I must show to “all will-to-live” the same reverence as I do to my own. This reverence for life is not, for Schweitzer, one principle among many, but the sole principle of the moral. Love and compassion, for example, are simply expressions of this reverence. Life is itself sacred or holy and must therefore be responded to with reverence.

The ethical person, for Schweitzer, “tears no leaf from a tree, plucks no flower, and takes care to crush no insect.” He places a worm found on the roadside back into the soil. He would rather suffer in a stuffy room when working by lamplight than open the window and see a mosquito perish when attracted to his light. He picks insects out of puddles to give them another chance at survival. Anticipating the ridicule such a stance may elicit from an incredulous world, Schweitzer responds, “It is the fate of every truth to be a subject for laughter until it is generally recognized.”

The seemingly impractical implications of such a position are moderated somewhat by the reminder that Schweitzer is concerned not to avoid injury to life under any and all circumstances, but when such injury if easily avoidable. “Beyond the unavoidable, I must never go, not even with what seems insignificant.” He tells us only “what reverence requires without the pressure of necessity.”

This reverence for life is not, for Schweitzer, obedience to moral law. It is more like a religious experience or approach to life. Paul Tillich in "Morality and Beyond" held that “a moral act is not an act in obedience to an external law, human or divine [rather it is] the inner law of our true being, of our essential or created nature, which demands that we actualise what follows from it…The religious dimension of the moral imperative is its unconditional character.” This reminds me of C. S. Lewis who, somewhere, states that concepts of “right” and “wrong” are not discussed in heaven; they are laughed at! Those who dwell in heaven need not make some considerations because they act in accordance with their true nature, in ways that are appropriate to redeemed existence.

Karl Barth is the only theologian to have given Schweitzer’s position serious critical reflection and rebuff. He accepts that Schweitzer’s concern is by no means laughable but very serious, and the problems he raises very important. “Those who smile at [Schweitzer’s compassion for even the tiniest creature] are themselves subjects for tears.” Barth, however, has three criticisms of Schweitzer.

1. Barth rejects Schweitzer’s idea that vegetable life deserves the same careful reverence and respect as animal life. Each animal is a unique and separate being, whereas the use of plants is a use of its surplus material (eg the consumption of fruits and vegetables), which does not totally destroy the existence of the food-bearing plant. One cannot eat a dog without annihilating it. One can, however, eat an orange without annihilating the orange tree.

2. Reverence and responsibility properly belong to human-to-human relationships. Consideration of animals is serious but secondary.

3. Schweitzer does not appreciate the moral distinction between animals and humans because he does not grasp the meaning of the Incarnation. God “reveals, entrusts, and binds” himself to the rest of creation through taking, not plant or animal, but human form.

Schweitzer's view then seems more Hindu with its affirmation of the value of all sentient beings as part of the life force of the universe, and Barth's more Christian, with its idea of a covenantal bond between God and humanity established through the Incarnation.

Animals Rights, Vegetarianism etc.

In Animal Theology, Andrew Linzey, of Oxford University, a leading theologian and ethicist who has written extensively on the rights of animals asks three questions: 1. Should we show reverence, or respect, to animals? 2. Do we have a responsibility to animals? and 3. Do animals have rights? He proposes that all three questions should be answered in the affirmative.

Linzey condemns the close confinement of animals in intensive farming methods, such as the use of battery hens, as follows: "Animals have the right to be animals. The natural life of a...creature is a gift from God. When we take over the life of an animal to the extent of distorting its natural life for no other purpose than our own gain, we fall into sin. There is no clearer blasphemy before God than the perversion of his creatures...Confining a de-beaked hen in a battery cage is more than a moral crime; it is a living sign of our failure to recognize the blessing of God in creation."


What about vegetarianism? According to Linzey: "It will be obvious that humans can live healthy, stimulating and rewarding lives without white veal, pate de foie gras...or cheap eggs...The Christian argument for vegetarianism…is simple: since animals belong to God, have value to God and live for God, then their needless destruction is sinful. In short: animals have some right to their life, all circumstances being equal...There were doubtless good reasons, partly theological, partly cultural and partly economic, why Christians in the past have found vegetarianism unfeasible. We do well not to judge too hastily, if at all. We cannot relive others’ lives, or think their thoughts, or enter their consciences...But what we can be sure about is that living without...‘avoidable ill’ has a strong moral claim upon us now."

Vegetarianism was the first dietary practice of the original creation (Genesis 1:29). Permission to eat animals was given after the flood but restrictions were placed on which animals could be eaten (kosher laws). According to Rabbi Abraham Kook, the Old Testament includes the goal of eventually restoring humanity to a vegetarian diet (Isaiah 11:69). It seems to me, however, that the major problem for Christian vegetarians, who maintain that there exists an ethical imperative to avoid meat eating, is that Jesus ate meat. A simple syllogism demonstrates this problem. Jesus was without sin. Jesus ate meat. Therefore, eating meat is not sinful. Even if we assume, as Linzey suggests, that Jesus ate no meat at the Last Supper, it would surely be too great an assumption to suggest that a Jewish boy growing up in an ordinary Jewish home had never eaten lamb at the Passover! In any case, we know for sure that he ate fish at breakfast on the beach with his disciples after he had risen from the dead. Linzey’s attempts to escape the implications of a meat-eating Saviour for Christian vegetarians are valiant, but ultimately unsatisfying.

The Bible expresses wonder at God’s creation, found often in the Psalms, Jesus spoke of God’s concern even for a single sparrow, and Isaiah envisions a time when the lion will lie down with the lamb. Paul sees, in Romans 8, the whole creation (which must includes animals) having been subjected to frustration through human sin, and that same creation participating, in some sense in the glorious liberty of the sons of God yet to be revealed. Yet it has to be admitted a biblical theology of animals is not enunciated in any systematic way in Holy Scripture. Interestingly, the Hebrew phrase nefesh chaya (“a living soul” or “creature”) is applied in the Old Testament to animals as well as to humans (Genesis 1:21-24). God is said to have established covenants with animals as well as with humans (Genesis 9:9-10; Hosea 2:18-22). All of this indicates a significant place for animals in the divine order.

In the next post we will consider Albert Schweitzer's and Karl Barth's contributions to this discussion.

First Thoughts on an Animal Theodicy

A few years ago I was intrigued by a question put, by Dr. Carl Schultz of Houghton College while we were team-teaching an Intensive an intensive at Kingsley on "Human Suffering and the God of Love." My paraphrase of his question, as I recall it, is as follows. “Why do we limit our subject matter to human suffering? What of animal suffering? To some people it is a more acute question for the problem of evil, since, while we may conceive of some greater good coming out of human suffering, in terms of some ‘higher end’ such as character development, this would not be the case with animal suffering.” For many people the problem of animal pain is the worst aspect of moral evil, precisely because animals are not moral beings. [This why when watching a battle scene in a movie we might find yourselves saying when a horse is killed, “Oh not the horses! They haven’t done anything wrong!”] Earlier than this, I was struck by a suggestion, in 1997, during a course on John Wesley’s theology at Asbury Seminary, in Wesley’s sermon The General Deliverance that in the new heavens and the new earth God may grant the lower creatures something akin to the rationality and consciousness currently existing in humans. What I would like to do over the next few posts is survey some of the current thinking on the consciousness of animals, and on “animal rights” among philosophers and theologians, and then ask what all this might mean for theodicy.

Philosophers have led the way in this discussion; theologians have been much less vocal. Andrew Rowan, Dean of Special Programs at Tufts University’s School of Veterinary Medicine in the USA has observed that “within the last fifteen to twenty years contemporary moral philosophers have written more on the topic of human responsibility to other animals than their predecessors had written in the previous two thousand years.” This is certainly a new trend since philosophers have usually avoided the subject of animals very carefully. Albert Schweitzer famously compared the place of animals in European philosophy with a kitchen floor scrubbed clean by a housewife who is “careful to see that the door is shut lest the dog should come in and ruin the finished job with its footprints.” If we accept that “moral education…is about finding within us an ever-increasing sense of the worth of creation...” then this must include a sense of moral awareness regarding the place of animals within creation. The Christian faith, while often thought to provide a rationale for the exploitation of animals for human use, also provides some material that challenges this world view.

It cannot be denied that traditional views have led to some outrageous treatment of other of God’s creatures beside ourselves. The traditional view might be represented by Joseph Ricaby, SJ when he states that “Brute beasts, not having understanding, and therefore, not being persons, cannot have any rights.” When Robert Mortimer, formerly Anglican Bishop of Exeter, was asked to defend fox-hunting he stated that it reinforced “man’s high place in the hierarchy of being.” The Dictionary of Moral Theology published in 1962 stated “Zoophilists [lovers of animals] often lose sight of the end for which animals were created by God, viz., the service and use of man…moral doctrine teaches that animals have no rights on the part of man.” More recently the 1995 Catholic Catechism has stated that “animals, like plants, and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present and future humanity,” and “they may be used to serve the just satisfaction of man’s needs.” Of course, the idea that animals exist only for the benefit of humans predates Christianity. Aristotle held, for example, that since “nature makes nothing without some end in view, nothing to no purpose, it must be that nature has made [animals and plants] for the sake of man.” The question of whether animals have rights and whether we should eat them will be the subjects of the next post.