In the early 1970's the evangelical philosopher/theologian, Francis Schaeffer, wrote Pollution and the Death of Man. If evangelical Christians do not show concern for the environment, he warned, they would drive a lot of people—especially young people—into the arms of Eastern religion and pantheism.

As abortion on demand got a foothold in our society Schaeffer was extremely concerned about the double-pronged blight of personal peace and affluence that was leaving the church apathetic to social and environmental issues. At that time animal welfare was not nearly as high on the scale of social concerns as it is today. It was more of a subset of environmentalism. Yet, to his credit, Dr. Schaeffer, showing he was ahead of his time, addressed the issue of animals equally with environmental concerns.

Since that time animal welfare has become a major concern in its own right, spawning a multitude of organizations and efforts on behalf of animals, from legislative lobbyists to animal rescues and sanctuaries. Oxford University has a Chair of Theology and Animal Welfare with Anglican Professor Andrew Linzey holding the post. Law schools now have departments of animal law.

What would Dr. Schaeffer say to the fact that after more than thirty years the PCA has no position paper on the topic of dominion and how it relates to the environment and the treatment of animals? I ask that question in humility, because after twenty-two years in the pastorate I came to the realization that, although I am an animal lover by nature, I never once preached a sermon on the topic of animals and their place in God's plan and our lives. When I did preach a brief series on the topic, many in my congregation told me that after being in many conservative churches, they never once heard a sermon on animals. After reflecting on my own journey through many churches over the years I realized that I could say the same thing.

I had read Dr. Schaeffer's book when it was first published many years ago.  I recently went back and read it again and was surprised at the "unorthodox" ways in which he expressed the respect and concern we are to have for all of God's creatures. I say "unorthodox" because Schaeffer was a man who thought outside of the box. It is not the kind of talk you hear coming from evangelical, conservative Christians. You might, instead, think you were reading something written by some radical pantheist, which is probably why conservative Christians do not talk the way Schaeffer did:

We have the right to rid our houses of ants; but what we have not the right to do is to forget to honor the ant as God made it, in its rightful place in nature. When we meet the ant on the sidewalk, we step over him. He is a creature, like ourselves; not made in the image of God, but equal with man as far as creation is concerned. The ant and the man are both creatures.

Then Schaeffer commits what would be considered another "sin" in conservative circles. He endorses Francis of Assisi's words "brothers to the birds" as being not only theologically correct, "but a thing to be intellectually thought of and practically practiced." Worse yet, he refers to a song by The Doors in which they refer to the earth as "our fair sister" and asks, "Why have orthodox, evangelical Christians produced few hymns putting such a beautiful concept in a proper theological setting?"

Matthew Scully in Dominion: The Power of Man, The Suffering of Animals, and The Call to Mercy gives an example of the typical approach to the topic of animals by conservatives. In his book How Now Shall We Live? Charles Colson criticizes animal rights activists for denigrating human life and for their nasty and destructive tactics. But were it not for this criticism one wonders if the question of dominion and animal rights would ever come up. Colson gives nothing more than a token tip of the hat to the subject by saying, "Of course, Christians believe we are responsible to protect God's creation, to be good stewards, and to exercise dominion." PERIOD!

"What is godly dominion?" asks Scully. "What is bad or irresponsible or wicked dominion? We never learn ... The whole subject comes up only as an occasion to rebuke the radicalism of environmental and animal rights causes with the platitudes of evangelical Christianity, this useless pabulum about being good stewards of the earth" (pp. 130-131). And this is a book asking how we should live as Christians.

A vague concept of dominion and what it means can leave its specifics in practice undefined. Even more than that, the pressing needs of humans, their suffering, and their need for salvation, can cause us to view the issue of animals and the environment as peripheral concerns. However, as Matthew Scully points out, "…it is true that there will always be enough injustice and human suffering in the world to make the wrongs done to animals seem small and secondary. The answer is that justice is not a finite commodity, nor are kindness and love. Where we find wrongs done to animals, it is not an excuse to say that more important wrongs are done to human beings, and let us concentrate on those. A wrong is a wrong, and often the little ones, when they are shrugged off as nothing, spread and do the gravest harm to ourselves and others."

One example of this harm is that of the philosophy of Professor Singer of Princeton University, also known as "Professor Death." I understand that he is a very likeable man and a champion to many in the animal rights movement. Cold logic rules the day for him as he carries the defense of abortion to its most consistent ends. Since the utilitarian pillars of pleasure and pain are the guiding principles for determining life and death, and one's self-awareness determines how much pleasure and pain one really feels, then a newborn infant has little or no more self-awareness than a fetus. And he or she has far less than the parents. If the infant's life is diminishing the amount of pleasure the parents are able to experience, the parents may, if they so wish, terminate the life of the infant and should so with no sense of guilt. The same holds true for the handicapped, comatose, terminally ill, and mentally retarded.

Animals? A more mature animal of any species has far more self-awareness than a newborn human infant and, therefore, has a greater right to life than the infant. Professor Singer blames the biblical mandate of dominion for the rape and the pollution of nature, and the suffering and wanton killing of animals. It is a mandate that makes us selfish little gods walking through the earth, seeing it and all of its creatures as having no value except the value that we give it for our ends.

Another example of how the neglect of the "little wrongs" can spread and do the gravest harm to ourselves and others is the modern day method of factory farming. Whether confined individually in crates with chains around their necks so that they are denied any freedom to move, or crammed collectively in warehouse--like buildings unable to get away from the stench of their own waste, never seeing daylight, and deprived of the ability to express the natures that God gave them, the conditions of millions of farm animals bear no resemblance to the idyllic farm scenes of the past.

Such conditions result in severe physiological and behavioral animal afflictions, which, in turn threatens the environment and human health. To stave off ailments such as anemia, influenza, intestinal diseases, pneumonia, and mastitis created by these confined and cramped quarters, these animals are given a whole host of drugs. Almost 50% of all antibiotics manufactured in the United States are poured directly into animal feeds, penicillin and tetracycline being the most commonly used. This is resulting in the evolution of new strains of virulent bacteria whose resistance to antibiotics poses a great threat to human health.

The way we treat animals, however, not only does something to us; it also says something about us. "Whoever is righteous has regard for the life of his beast" (Prov. 12:10), tells us that the way we treat animals says something about our character and even about our relationship with God. To be concerned about animals only to the extent that their treatment has an impact on us is to be guilty of the very egoistic view of dominion that we are accused of. We must be concerned about them because they have value in themselves as God's creatures, and as such he cares about them. He created them and blessed them as good before we ever came on the scene (Gen. 1:20-25). He included their humane treatment in the laws he gave to his people.

What does the God who said not to boil a kid in its mother's milk and not to muzzle the ox that is threshing out the grain, think of the fact that farm animals are explicitly excluded from the federal Animal Welfare Act? There are virtually no laws, which protect farm animals from even the most harsh and brutal treatment as long as it takes place in the name of production and profit? Animals too sick to walk are painfully dragged to slaughter rather than humanely euthanized. What does God think of the modern day factory farming practice of raising veal calves?

A bull calf is taken from his mother within 24 hours, locked in a crate with a chain around his neck so that he cannot walk, turn around, stretch his legs, or lie down in a natural position, and in total darkness is fed an iron deficient diet making him anemic, sick with diarrhea, as well as giving him respiratory and intestinal diseases for his entire four months of existence. Veal calves are deprived of drinking water so that in a futile attempt to quench their thirst they gain weight quickly by drinking more of their drug-laced liquid feed. Does the church have nothing to say about this? Are we not moved with compassion enough to speak out against it and to reinforce our concern by refusing to eat it? Moreover, do we believe that this is not simply inhumane from a standpoint of empathy, but that it is a sin against God?

Does God care that hundreds of thousands of farm animals are dismembered, skinned alive, and scalded in boiling water in our slaughterhouses while still conscious because they are improperly stunned due to the fast pace demanded by the drive for profits? The title of an expose done by the Washington Post, "They die piece by piece," was taken from one of many sworn affidavits by slaughterhouse workers who told of horrific suffering inflicted upon animals in the process of meat production.

Senator Robert C. Byrd warned in July 2001, in remarks made before the U.S. Congress, "Our inhumane treatment of livestock is becoming widespread and more and more barbaric...Such insensitivity is insidious and can spread and be dangerous. Life must be respected and dealt with humanely in a civilized world. God gave man dominion over the Earth. We are only the stewards of this planet. Let us not fail in our Divine mission. Let us strive to be good stewards and not defile God's creatures or ourselves by tolerating unnecessary, abhorrent, and repulsive cruelty."

As I read this man's statement I asked, "Where is the voice of the Church?" Better yet, "Where is the voice of my church, the PCA?" Dr. Schaeffer warned that the answer cannot come from just any brand of Christianity. Byzantine Christianity values only that which is heavenly. A Christianity that has a dichotomy between nature and grace will also fall short.

He specifically endorses Reformation Christianity that gives a unified answer in speaking about heaven and nature. How many of our pulpits address the issue at all, let alone on any kind of a regular basis? Have we thought about whether or not animal cruelty constitutes a disciplinable offense in our churches? While the PCA has excellent position papers on a number of relevant and vital topics, there is no position paper that I know of on the meaning of dominion as it relates to the environment and animals. Isn’t it time that we come up with one?

============

TE Craig DiBenedictis is pastor of Calvary Presbyterian Church in Allenwood, N.J.