RE: [asa] Sin, animals, and salvation

Hi all,

I wanted to respond to comments from both Bernie & Jack...

Bernie writes:
"With your hypothesis, a poodle that is owned by a loving family will go to heaven like a wolf (unknown by any person) in the forest?"

I respond:
Yes

Bernie writes:
"Also- consider all the pre-humans in evolution... they go to heaven while modern humans may not, based on their choice of receiving Christ or not."

I respond:
Yes. With the greater opportunity for joy in relationship with God comes greater responsibility...a responsibility which some humans will choose to reject. Animals (including pre-humans) will be with God in His kingdom, but their joy will not be as deep or meaningful as ours will be because they do not share in the type of relationship that we have with Him.

Bernie writes:
"Also considering the vast amounts of time with evolution and the diversity of species (T-Rex and all the dinosaurs before man)."

I respond:
Yes, I've considered that. But I do not see how this changes the equation. If heaven is big enough for billions of people, why can't it be big enough for billions of animals too? Why should scale be an issue for God?

In fact, I actually think that understanding animals as having souls ultimately helps this issue. It makes more sense for the grand timescales and processes of evolution to have occurred if one sees in it God's taking joy in all of His creation...animals are not just the means of God's creation of us, they were also an end in and of themselves.

Bernie writes:
"I don't think I see a purpose for animals in heaven."

I respond:
That betrays a very utilitarian viewpoint of animals I think. Why must there be a "purpose" (function) for them in heaven? As God's creatures, do they not have intrinsic value in and of themselves that God takes joy in? Moreover, what "purpose" do we have in heaven? We will all be there (God willing) by God's *grace*. We are there to enjoy the fullest fellowship with Him possible, to be restored to Him and to do whatever work He may have for us in His kingdom. Could not animals also enjoy God's grace? Couldn't they also enjoy the fullest fellowship with Him possible (given whatever capacity He created in them to do so), and to take on whatever role He assigns them? Indeed, if they must have a purpose, couldn't their "purpose" include continuing companionship with humans?

Bernie writes:
"I think people have too much attachment to pets. People will spend a lot of money on pets (medical treatment, gifts, etc.), yet ignore their fellow humans who are dying around the world. Maybe if we focused more on humans, then pets would be put in their rightful place (not treated as emotional replacements for spouses or friends, etc.)."

I respond:
Ahh...now we're pushing more buttons :) I can understand your concerns. I do not believe in treating animals like humans...I do not believe that we should be dressing them up in clothing, or buying TVs for them, etc. Nevertheless, I strongly disagree with your tone here. You present an either/or regarding humans and animals... this is a false dichotomy. My sending money to an animal charity, or investing money in medical treatments for the stray cat that I found hit by a car the other day, says nothing about my commitment to helping people. I do both, whenever and wherever I feel called to do so. I feel I am obeying God's command to not only care for people, but all of creation. Moreover, caring for animals and caring for people are not distinct--they overlap in many ways. There are scientific studies that demonstrate those who abuse animals often go on to become violent towards other people; conversely, children who grow up with pets often develop
 greater capacities for empathy to all life, including people. There are numerous charities and programs which nurture the human-animal bond, from animal-assisted therapies at hospitals, nursing homes, and prisons, to seeing-eye dogs and police dogs and even animals that can sniff out cancers. The international animal relief work promoted and supported by groups such as Best Friends Animal Sanctuary actually helps bring together members of warring communities--Israelis and Palestinians, groups in Bosnia and other places around the globe, who come together and learn to work together peacefully by helping rescue animals. By eliminating factory farms you help promote the safety of our food supplies and by preserving endangered species you can maintain the health of the environment for native cultures and peoples, as well as promote tourism in poverty-stricken areas. Animals and people share the world and they share an evolutionary history--we are
 bound together. By helping one, you help all.

Further, pets and animals *should not* be replacements for other members of our human family. That would do both a disservice to the family members (who could never be replaced with animals) and to the animals themselves (because they wouldn't really be loving the animal on its own terms). Animals should be loved and respected and cared for as animals, as pets...nothing more, and nothing less. They are family, they are friends, but they do not fit into an existing "family/friend classification"--they have their own unique status as "pets" and they make their own unique contributions to the family. Doubtless, some do view animals as a replacement, or as a substitute--most commonly I would guess, they serve as children for couples who do not want children. I think this is sad. But I think it says more about the individual couples that feel this way--their own insecurities, their own hesitations about children, their own philosophies and value
 judgements---than it does on the rightfulness/wrongfulness of the love that is felt or the animals themselves. I see that type of substitution as an unhealthy corruption of what is an otherwise a healthy bond, and I would not advocate for such a corruption.

Bernie writes:
"Just some thoughts... nothing personal."

I respond:
No offense taken...I'm used to getting these types of objections and am well aware that in many parts of the Christian community, my views are very unorthodox. Nevertheless, it is very personal to me. Both because of my own history with animals (which does color my views of course, as would be true of anyone), and because I feel that my vocational calling from God is to minister to creation, and to nourish and heal the relationship between creation and humanity. I have very strong, very passionate views on this issue (if you haven't discovered this already!), but I do my best to keep them balanced and reasoned and rooted in the core Christian doctrines. I hope this is reflected in my discussion here. If you disagree, please feel free to point this out to me.

::gets on soap-box::
I might also add, from an evangelistic point of view... I have been involved in the animal welfare movement for more than a decade...I have watched it grow and mature into a real movement. I believe that very soon this issue will gain much more prominence both within society and within the church. I have already read a number of stories about people actively leaving the church over these issues. So, as a Christian, I want to stress that we as a faith community need to take this issue seriously and that we need to engage it constructively. Mind you, I don't expect everyone to hold the same philosophies I hold about animals; nor, as I've indicated, would I encourage the Christian Church to begin adopting some of the more "new age" type of philosophies out there in order to try to win over others...I'm only urging, as a general message to everyone, that we need to pay attention and we need to be respectful. I think Best Friends Animal Sanctuary is taking
 some positive steps in this direction from an animal welfare point of view by beginning a formalized dialogue with many different faith traditions, which you can learn more about here: http://news.bestfriends.org/index.cfm?page=news&mode=entry&entry=2D0F652F-BDB9-396E-9FA16EA815C0E01E
::gets off soap-box::

Jack writes:
"I am convinced that Christianity is incoherent without a dualist, (or tripartist) view of persons. I also think that this is the perspective that is the most consistent with biblical teaching.
 
My point being that humans have souls. I dont think that animals have souls. Humans are unique in creation in that they are both physical and spiritual, in that sense like Christ. It doesnt matter what complexity of brain a creature posseses. In some anatomic locations dolphin brains are more complex than ours, and their EQ is close to humans as a group, and larger than some people. (If cerebral complexity is the measure of "divine essence" then where does that leave those with anencephaly, or lissencephaly, hydrancephaly, or holoprosencephaly, etc.)
 
What matters is whether or not a creature has a soul. I am not going to press too hard on the matter on whether or not animals have souls. I do not think they do. I think that the biblical perspective is that man is unique. If you have a different understanding of the matter I wont argue the point. But, brain complexity is not the measure. The presence of an eternal soul is."

I respond:
Thanks for your comments Jack. I know we've exchanged emails on this before and more or less have agreed to disagree :) But I wanted to clarify two points, in case I wasn't clear enough if my original post (which your response seems to indicate to me).

First...I don't see souls and brains being a 1-1 correlation here. I noted that the degree of emotional, rational, and self-awareness of an animal is linked to the degree of brain development and complexity. I also linked these traits to reflecting the divine essence, that is to say the "breath of God". The latter I take as an interpretation of the divine character, as reflected in the Bible--God is love and He loves us, God is a God of order and laws, and God is the great "I AM", as examples. If these are the traits that God exhibits, then I understand that wherever and in whomever these traits are reflected, they are reflections of the divine. However, to exhibit these traits, at least within the realm of His creation, we need sufficiently developed brains. Thus, the linkage. Nevertheless, I don't think this is necessarily incompatible with dualism. Take a crystal as an example. The composition and structure of a crystal will determine how, or even if,
 a crystal will reflect light, down to the tiniest detail. There is a 100% correlation between the physical properties of the crystal and the reflection of the light. However, the crystal does not produce the light in and of itself--it is only a reflection of what is external to it. In the same way, brains could be the crystal, the prism through which the divine is internalized, and then reflected. Thus, the brain-soul connection is tied together, yet separate.

Secondly...I never said that humans were not unique. I concur with you Jack, that the Bible teaches we are unique, and I gladly affirm this. Where I disagree with you is on the nature of that uniqueness. I see our uniqueness as being tied to our specific role/function in creation. By God's grace He made us stewards of His creation. In doing so, He blessed us with a greater opportunity for relationship with Him, and also in doing so, it necessitated that we have greater capacities for emotion, reason, self-awareness, as well as a sense or morality. I see these things as gifts which He has bestowed on us--the gifts are what sets us apart as unique relative to the rest of creation. I don't think that this requires that we are the only ones who may experience eternal life, and I have argued for such earlier.

To what I have already argued earlier, I would also add that I think it's telling that the first "blessing" that God is recorded as bestowing in the Bible is on animals, not humans. I think it's telling that God's covenant after the flood included animals, not just humans, and that the Old Testament records the incident of Balaam's donkey, in which the donkey recognizes the angel of the Lord and Balaam is admonished by the angel for beating the donkey when the donkey responded to the angel (Numbers 22). In Hosea 2:18, God has said that He will make a "covenant" with the animals. Each of these I think, is indicative that God can and does relate spiritually to animals--no doubt on a different level than us--but spiritually nonetheless. Again, I don't see any reason why God would not extend His mercy and grace to His creatures in the Kingdom to come.

OK--I'm going to bed now...almost midnight....

In Christ,
Christine (ASA member)

"For we walk by faith, not by sight" ~II Corinthians 5:7

Help save the life of a homeless animal--visit www.azrescue.org to find out how.

Recycling a single aluminum can conserves enough energy to power your TV for 3 hours--Reduce, Reuse, Recycle! Learn more at www.cleanup.org

--- On Tue, 11/18/08, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:

> From: Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [asa] Sin, animals, and salvation
> To: "asa@calvin.edu" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2008, 3:43 PM
> Hi Christine-
>
> With your hypothesis, a poodle that is owned by a loving
> family will go to heaven like a wolf (unknown by any person)
> in the forest?
>
> Also- consider all the pre-humans in evolution... they go
> to heaven while modern humans may not, based on their choice
> of receiving Christ or not.
>
> Also considering the vast amounts of time with evolution
> and the diversity of species (T-Rex and all the dinosaurs
> before man).
>
> I don't think I see a purpose for animals in heaven.
>
> I think people have too much attachment to pets. People
> will spend a lot of money on pets (medical treatment, gifts,
> etc.), yet ignore their fellow humans who are dying around
> the world. Maybe if we focused more on humans, then pets
> would be put in their rightful place (not treated as
> emotional replacements for spouses or friends, etc.). Just
> some thoughts... nothing personal.
>
> ..Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Christine
> Smith
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 11:27 AM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] Sin, animals, and salvation
>
> Hi all,
>
> I wrote:
> " ... put all these things together, and I see a
> picture of a loving God and Creator not only redeeming and
> adopting us as children in His kingdom, but also a loving
> God and Creator who will give eternal life to all His other
> "good" creatures, His "pets" if you
> will, in His kingdom too."
>
> Bernie replied:
> "Hi Christine- To what level of animals does that hold
> true? For example, I know tigers, bears, and pandas are
> cute, so they are in. But what about snakes, spiders,
> mosquitos, worms, bacteria, and viruses? Where do you draw
> the line?"
>
> Good question :) One I get quite often...the short answer
> is, I don't know. As you noted in your original reply,
> things are often gray, rather than black/white. In reality,
> only God knows where that line really is (or indeed, where
> any of us will be, ultimately). But a few ponderings would
> express my current leanings...
>
> It's apparent that the qualities which I referred to as
> reflecting the "divine essence" or the
> "breath of life" if you will, are evolutionarily
> linked to brain development. As far as I know, the most
> emotional, rational, and self-aware/sentient animals are the
> ones with the most complex brain structures. So, one could
> argue that any creature with complex enough brain
> development to support these attributes may contain within
> themselves a reflection of the divine that God would bring
> into new life in His kingdom. If so, that would place the
> "line" somewhere perhaps around fish.
>
> Another possibility would be relational in character. At
> what level is an animal capable of relating to humans, or
> other animals, in a way that goes beyond what might be
> considered "natural", exhibiting signs of
> intentional self-sacrifice or love that moves beyond
> survival instincts? This type of love could be illustrated
> by the many stories we hear of interspecies relationships,
> or of elephant groups mourning their relatives. Given that
> the Trinity is relational, I could perhaps see a doctrinal
> root for this idea here. C. S. Lewis in the "Problem of
> Pain" also pondered something somewhat similar (his was
> more that animals find salvation through us, as we find
> salvation through Christ).
>
> Regardless, (and as a bit of an aside) I think one of the
> things that is important to keep in mind here is a proper
> perspective. I strongly believe that animals experience
> resurrection and eternal life as humans do (though without
> the need for forgiveness and redemption) However, I do not
> follow the "new age" philosophies that would place
> humans at the same level as animals, nor do I think eating
> meat is "sinful" or "wrong". It has
> helped me very much to think of our role in terms of the
> Incarnation. To Christ, we are sheep, and He is the Good
> Shepherd. He is both God (distinctly different and better
> than us), but He also represents the fullness of humanity
> (in that He was 100% human and perfect in God's sight).
> He treats us both as subjects to His Lordship and
> sovereignty, but He also treats as His beloved friends and
> siblings. In much the same way, I see that to animals (and
> all of creation too), we are their shepherd, and they are
> our sheep. We are
> human (distinctly different and better than them), but we
> also represent the fullness of the animal kingdom (in that
> we are also 100% animal and that we are the pinnacle of what
> God created animals to be). We treat animals both as
> subjects to our lordship (stewardship) and sovereingty, but
> we also (should) treat them as beloved co-creatures of God
> with whom we share a common community and world.
>
> Jim--I don't want to ignore your comments. It has also
> occurred to me that the chasm between God and man is much
> larger than the differences between man and animal, and that
> perhaps this perspective would be helpful. It strikes me as
> amazing that, though we could be thought of as
> "ants" next to the Almighty, He yet died for us
> and loves us. What a lesson that should be as we decide how
> to treat the "ants" in our own backyards. Good
> food (and humility) for thought.
>
> In Christ,
> Christine (ASA member)
>
> "For we walk by faith, not by sight" ~II
> Corinthians 5:7
>
> Help save the life of a homeless animal--visit
> www.azrescue.org to find out how.
>
> Recycling a single aluminum can conserves enough energy to
> power your TV for 3 hours--Reduce, Reuse, Recycle! Learn
> more at www.cleanup.org
>
>
> --- On Mon, 11/17/08, Jim Armstrong
> <jarmstro@qwest.net> wrote:
>
> > From: Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net>
> > Subject: Re: [asa] Sin, animals, and salvation
> > To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
> > Date: Monday, November 17, 2008, 3:33 PM
> > Bernie - Just to extrapolate this line of thinking a
> bit,
> > and very
> > speculatively, to address Christine's question
> > ...perhaps we are too
> > disposed to ignore a certain different comparison.
> Consider
> > the relative
> > positions on the gray scale when considering the
> > "distance" between the
> > transcendent Creator and the whole of all of the
> living
> > kinds mentioned
> > below, as contrasted with the "distances"
> among
> > those living kinds. I am
> > inclined to think that we (from our understandably
> > anthropomorphic
> > perspective) a little too quick to think of ourselves
> as so
> > distinctly
> > different from other living creatures. In that light,
> > Christine's
> > thoughts about "redeeming and adopting all as
> > children" would perhaps
> > not be so easily dismissed.
> >
> > From another perspective, they ARE already part of
> the
> > kingdom (though
> > not redeemed in any sense I can think of, other than
> > perhaps saved from
> > extinction) if we live in the kingdom today.
> >
> > And from yet another, if the kingdom is yet to come,
> and in
> > a
> > different-than-physical form, who can even speculate
> > rationally about
> > what essence of which creatures would (or would not)
> > experience some
> > sort of continuity and relationship with us?
> >
> > Just thinking out loud....again....
> > Regards - JimA [Friend of ASA]
> >
> > Dehler, Bernie wrote:
> > > Christine said:
> > > " ... put all these things together, and I
> see a
> > picture of a loving God and Creator not only redeeming
> and
> > adopting us as children in His kingdom, but also a
> loving
> > God and Creator who will give eternal life to all His
> other
> > "good" creatures, His "pets" if
> you
> > will, in His kingdom too."
> > >
> > > Hi Christine- To what level of animals does that
> hold
> > true? For example, I know tigers, bears, and pandas
> are
> > cute, so they are in. But what about snakes, spiders,
> > mosquitos, worms, bacteria, and viruses? Where do you
> draw
> > the line?
> > >
> > > I think one of the problems is when people refuse
> to
> > see the grey-scale in all this. But I think seeing
> the
> > grey-scale is part of the solution. When did humans
> become
> > accountable for sin? Grey-scale. Who is or isn't
> a
> > Christian now? Grey-scale. The black & white
> thinking
> > brings on the errors. The literal Adam and strict
> literal
> > interpretation of Genesis is part of that black &
> white
> > thinking method, I think.
> > >
> > > BTW- I know this has probably all been discussed
> > before, but probably it will always need to be
> re-visited
> > and rehashed- that's human nature, and new people
> coming
> > into the discussion. Plus, our ideas change over
> time.
> > >
> > > ...Bernie
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> > [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of
> Christine
> > Smith
> > > Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 10:36 AM
> > > To: asa@calvin.edu
> > > Subject: RE: [asa] Sin, animals, and salvation
> (was:
> > CS Lewis and going-off the deep-end (spiritual
> evolution))
> > >
> > > Hi Bernie,
> > >
> > > I hesistate to bring this up since we've
> covered
> > this before on the listserv (before you joined us?)
> and
> > because most people regard this as a side issue, but
> you
> > pushed one of my buttons here, so I can't resist
> > responding :)
> > >
> > > You write:
> > > "the way I see it, is that sin was always
> there.
> > Only, humans have evolved a conscience so then it
> became
> > known to us. For example, a bear or lion can kill
> another
> > of its kind simply for selfish reasons. It can also
> rape.
> > That is not a sin for them (it is actually normal
> evolution-
> > part of God's plan). But they are also not
> offered
> > eternal life and a relationship with God. When humans
> > evolved the conscience, we are able to view that as
> > 'sin' whereas lower animals are
> 'blind' to
> > that. With our conscience, we are no longer
> 'blind'
> > to this and many other spiritual things (unless we get
> > calloused to sin and then blind ourselves). We then
> have a
> > choice to receive God or not- being "born
> again"
> > and becoming "new creatures in
> Christ.""
> > >
> > > I respond:
> > > I agree with you that actions normally called
> > "sin" for us, are not "sinful" for
> > animals, because they are not under the law, and so
> cannot
> > be held accountable. Whether or not our moral ethical
> > conscience "evolved" or not I'm not
> sure, but
> > to be sure, we were specially made aware of our
> relationship
> > with God and what He has defined as right and wrong.
> > Likewise, I agree that only becoming "new
> creatures in
> > Christ" do we find salvation and eternal life.
> > >
> > > HOWEVER....I see no reason why this excludes
> animals
> > from eternal life. We have just affirmed they are
> sinless,
> > and in fact, operate according to God's plan,
> which
> > includes evolution. I also would affirm that animals
> have
> > souls (or are souls, whatever terminology you
> > prefer)--again, perhaps not in the same sense that we
> have
> > them (which includes an awareness of and participation
> in a
> > relationship with God), but nevertheless, they do
> share with
> > us the "breath of life" and they do exhibit
> the
> > (rudimentary) capacity for emotions and reason and
> sentience
> > that I think are a direct reflection of the divine
> essence.
> > Put the two together--absense of
> sinfullness/fulfillment of
> > God's creative plan (translating to NOT needing
> > salvation/redemption through Christ), and their having
> a
> > spiritual nature, and I see no reason for their
> exclusion.
> > Moreover, we are taught in Romans that "all
> > creation" is waiting to share in the glory of
> God, that
> > God saved animals and
> > > people in the flood, that God cares for His
> creation
> > through the provision of all their needs, and
> Scripture
> > speaks of a "new earth" and uses imagery
> that
> > includes animals, not just humanity---put all these
> things
> > together, and I see a picture of a loving God and
> Creator
> > not only redeeming and adopting us as children in His
> > kingdom, but also a loving God and Creator who will
> give
> > eternal life to all His other "good"
> creatures,
> > His "pets" if you will, in His kingdom too.
> > >
> > > In Christ,
> > > Christine (ASA member)
> > >
> > >
> > > "For we walk by faith, not by sight"
> ~II
> > Corinthians 5:7
> > >
> > > Help save the life of a homeless animal--visit
> > www.azrescue.org to find out how.
> > >
> > > Recycling a single aluminum can conserves enough
> > energy to power your TV for 3 hours--Reduce, Reuse,
> Recycle!
> > Learn more at www.cleanup.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
> with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of
> the
> > message.
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the
> message.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the
> message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Nov 19 00:47:59 2008