RE: [asa] Sin, animals, and salvation

Hello again!

My goodness...much to respond to :) Sorry for the delayed reply, but it's been quite a busy week!

Bernie writes:
"Christine- I just don't see any point in the animals going to heaven. Some say that 99% of all species that ever lived are now extinct- that is a lot in heaven. Also consider that the Earth has been around for billions of years- lots of animals. Also consider all the babies that died- lots of animals"

I think I've already responded to this in previous messages. Really though, I find this totally unconvincing. It seems to me you're basing your theological arguments on 1) a gut feeling ("what's the point") 2) another gut feeling ("people have too much attachment to pets") and 3) the notion that scale is a problem for God. In contrast, I have cited several Scriptures and have layed out what I think is a reasonable theological basis for my viewpoint, including its relation to the crucifixition, the nature of sin, and what constitutes a "soul". My viewpoint is by no means unassailable--Jack and others have reached different conclusions based on areas where our theologies diverge...but at least they were kind enough to engage the issue theologically, and I respect that. Based on your arguments however, I'm getting the sense that you're not taking me seriously.

Bernie writes:
 it isn't just the few pretty adult animals making it into your idea of heaven).

St. Peter is at the gate checking those who enter.

St. Peter:
You're a cute tiger, you're in! Welcome! Next.
You're a spider- sorry, not allowed. Too icky.
You're a slug, sorry, too gross. Next.
You're a turtle that only lived for 5 minutes before you were eaten,
    sorry, you have to be at least 1 day old to enter. Next.
You're a tiger that died in childbirth- doesn't count as
    "life," sorry. Next.
You're a tiger that was naturally aborted- sorry,
    doesn't count as a birth. Next. (Man, we get a lot of these!)
A human... you refused Christ, sorry. Next.
Another human... you received Christ, welcome! Next."

And this just reinforces what I said above. Toungue-in-cheek aside, this is a vast oversimplification and misrepresentation of my viewpoint.

As I said, I don't claim to know where the line is, but I've already postulated a few ideas. Again to emphasize, I did not say that brain development = eternal soul. What I said was that there is a correlation between the characteristics I attribute to having a soul/spiritual nature (i.e sentience, emotions, rationality, etc.) and brain complexity. It seems to me that a sufficient level of brain development is a *prerequisite* for such things, and therefore, it may provide an indication as to at what point God's "breath of life" is reflected in creation. But I am not God, so I don't pretend to know for certain.

Moreover, if you were to replace animals with humans in some of your examples (i.e. not living long enough, dying in childbirth, aborted before birth, etc.) these are just as thorny theologically, if not more so; Just witness the debate about where human "life" starts, let alone when its okay to "abort" it. If we don't have the answers to these questions for humans, why should you expect me to have them for animals?

Gordon writes:
"Now, on to the real point I want to make in this message. We are not told
very much about what specifically to expect in heaven. From the Scripture
I conclude that the main thing we should be looking for is to be with
Jesus, our Savior. That should be enough for us, and we should trust that
whatever else He gives us will be to our liking whether or not it is what
would most appeal to us in our present life. For example, some people have
a hard time accepting that there will be no marriage in heaven. If your
pets are not there, you will realize that the Lord has something better
for you."

In concept, I don't disagree with you here. But I don't see how this invalidates my viewpoint. Are you trying to say that even the question is inappropriate, and that we should move on to more "important" things? If so, then we should also quit caring whether other people "go to heaven", since obviously even if my husband isn't there, Jesus will have something better, so I don't need to worry myself.

Murray writes:
"Like NT Wright <http://tinyurl.com/32t3t9> I simply see this idea of "going to heaven" as entirely divorced from the New Testament understanding which sees humanity living in a renewed earth.

So, for my money, the question should be a different one, viz: "will there be animals in the redeemed creation" or "on the new earth"

I don't believe I ever used the phrase "going to heaven", but thanks for bringing this up. I just finished N.T. Wright's book on the resurrection a few months ago, and found it extremely interesting :)

Murray writes:
"I particularly like the observation that the question is usually NOT a generic one (i.e. "will there be animals in heaven") but specific (i.e. "will spot / fiffi / tiddles be in heaven"). Now apart from the aforementioned reservations about talk of earthly creatures (human or otherwise) ending up "in heaven" - I think that when such a specific question is put we simply can't offer a conclusive answer for at least the reason that we don't know whether animals have a "self" that might be restored (at least some of the "personality" of animals seems to me a case of projection on our part) and we don't know what criteria God might use to determine which animals "deserve" what amounts to an equivalent of salvation.

I don't think any of the above conclusively answers what I believe should be the "real" question of whether animals will be found "in the new creation" but I think it may point toward an affirmative answer."

I appreciate your comments and the Scripture verses you quoted in your earlier post. I concur that the Bible is not explicit on this point, though as you've pointed out, I think it does lean in the affirmative direction too. I think the point where you and I differ is the level of certainty of animals having a "self". For me, I am certain that some animals have one (speaking less of scientific studies here, though some studies do address this point, but I am speaking more from my own intuition and experiences here too); my own uncertainty lies in how extensive the development of that "self" is, and where the "line" is between those that possess a "self" and those that don't. As an aside, I think your reference to the specificity of the question (Fifi versus all dogs) merely reflects the origin/trigger of the question, and should not be taken as to reflect something more problematic...more on this in my next response....

Murray writes:
"One final thought occurs to me in closing: that WE are going to be fully redeemed suggests that we will undergo some sort of transformation in our attitudes to animals. I'd offer the speculative suggestion that this might involve a lessening of our emotional dependence on pets such that we might come to see this question in an entirely different light. We might come to see that some of our current attitudes to animals (such as Bernie has commented on in earlier posts) are misplaced and that the question at hand therefore displays a certain lack of perspective."

and

Bernie writes:
"As a parallel, there is nothing wrong with getting a little tipsy with wine, since Jesus turned water into wine at a wedding celebration. What if someone asked "will there be wine in heaven?" because they are so attached to it on Earth? In a way, it is all about attachments... and there will be better things in heaven, namely Christ, but who knows what else. Christine- we all agree, I think, that we should reasonably care for animals- such as animal shelters and preventing abuse. And we all agree that many people go overboard on their pets, which must be a sin when humans are dying of starvation around the world... misplaced attachments. Others may be really concerned about their car and house. To me- it's all the same, acknowledging that some are animate and others are inanimate."

I don't disagree that our notions of animals (and everything else) will change when we are redeemed.

However, I do object here to the idea that somehow, this all goes back to some sort of unhealthy attachment. The specificity of the question "will Fifi go to heaven" (or, "be present in the redeemed creation") is not indicative of an unhealthy attachment or a lack of perspective/maturity; it is an expression born in grief over the loss (or expected loss) of a specific loved one. If this shows an unhealthy attachment, then you may as well condemn everyone who ever asked "will my Grandpa go to heaven?" or "will I meet my wife again after death?" as having an unhealthy attachment or lack of perspective. Such questions may or may not give rise to, or be reflective of, a more mature theology regarding the issue, but I think the question itself is totally innocent, understandable, and reasonable. Likewise, I take issue with the idea that concerns for animals may be equated to a concern for cars or houses or other earthly "attachments" like wine. At the end,
 Bernie correctly notes the difference--some things are inanimate, other things are animate. And that makes ALL the difference here. You cannot experience companionship or friendship or any type of real relationship with an inanimate object, but you can with God's animate creatures--both humans and animals. And all things, all relationships, can only be properly balanced and understood through God. This holds true regardless of whether you are talking about people or animals.

More generally--Bernie, I appreciate your statement that "we all agree, I think, that we should reasonably care for animals- such as animal shelters and preventing abuse". However, I think we differ on what this means. Earlier, you said that " People will spend a lot of money on pets (medical treatment, gifts, etc.)" I do not think the $$ amount spent, particularly if spent on medical treatment, equates to "going overboard" with pets, and that this constitutes a sin. Medical treatment is for the purpose of maintaining and restoring health, and for ensuring quality of life. To me, this is "reasonable care" for an animal because it prevents pain, relieves suffering, and uplifts another of God's creatures. This is not only consistent with God's concern for the poor and meek and vulnerable, but I think it is part and parcel of fulfilling His command to be good stewards of creation. Yes, it is true that we can take life, we can euthanize, but it should be
 done judiciously, as a last resort, not a first resort, with the animals' best interest in mind (not our wallet's). The dollar amount in and of itself, is irrelevant. It's what you're doing with those dollars, and the sentiment reflected by that choice, which is really important and which ultimately determines what is "sinful" and what isn't.

And I have already pointed out that spending money on animals and investing resources for people are not mutually exclusive, and can in fact be complimentary. The idea that you have to "choose" between them, and that if you choose "animals" this is a sin, is a FALSE DICHOTOMY. God entrusts to each of us certain financial resources and other gifts, and gives us basic instructions for how we use them (i.e. tithing). Those gifts are diverse, and are designed and distributed in such a way that ALL needs (including the needs of animals and creation) should be met. If a Christian has met their general obligations (i.e. tithing) and if their particular gifts and calling relate to fulfilling the needs of animals (whether in addition to, or instead of, people's needs), then I don't see why any member of the Body of Christ should scorn or admonish their brother when their brother exercises proper stewardship. In other words, it is not right for the hand to say to
 the foot, "why are you walking instead of building a house?", when the foot is doing exactly what the foot was intended to do.

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 Wed, 11/19/08, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:

> From: Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [asa] Sin, animals, and salvation
> To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Date: Wednesday, November 19, 2008, 4:41 PM
> Pastor Murray said:
> "We might come to see that some of our current
> attitudes to animals (such as Bernie has commented on in
> earlier posts) are misplaced and that the question at hand
> therefore displays a certain lack of perspective."
>
> As a parallel, there is nothing wrong with getting a little
> tipsy with wine, since Jesus turned water into wine at a
> wedding celebration. What if someone asked "will there
> be wine in heaven?" because they are so attached to it
> on Earth? In a way, it is all about attachments... and
> there will be better things in heaven, namely Christ, but
> who knows what else. Christine- we all agree, I think, that
> we should reasonably care for animals- such as animal
> shelters and preventing abuse. And we all agree that many
> people go overboard on their pets, which must be a sin when
> humans are dying of starvation around the world... misplaced
> attachments. Others may be really concerned about their car
> and house. To me- it's all the same, acknowledging that
> some are animate and others are inanimate.
>
> Pastor Murray said:
> " Like NT Wright <http://tinyurl.com/32t3t9> I
> simply see this idea of "going to heaven" as
> entirely divorced from the New Testament understanding which
> sees humanity living in a renewed earth."
>
> How about this as an NT example of "going to
> heaven?":
>
> Phil 1
> 21For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. 22If I
> am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful
> labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! 23I am
> torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ,
> which is better by far; 24but it is more necessary for you
> that I remain in the body.
>
> Feel free to answer that by starting a new thread, as it is
> off-topic. If Paul departs and is with Christ- where are
> they right now? Certainly they aren't on the new Earth,
> because it wasn't made new yet.
>
> ...Bernie
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Murray Hogg
> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 2:10 PM
> To: ASA
> Subject: Re: [asa] Sin, animals, and salvation
>
> Hi all,
>
> Not responding to anybody in particular, but simply airing
> a few thoughts;
>
> First, my biggest problem with this entire question is the
> ongoing talk of anyone / anything -- human OR animal --
> "going to heaven".
>
> Like NT Wright <http://tinyurl.com/32t3t9> I simply
> see this idea of "going to heaven" as entirely
> divorced from the New Testament understanding which sees
> humanity living in a renewed earth.
>
> So, for my money, the question should be a different one,
> viz: "will there be animals in the redeemed
> creation" or "on the new earth"
>
> Here I find it interesting that some of the most poignant
> images of this new creation include animals;
>
> 6 " The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb,
> The leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
> The calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
> And a little child shall lead them.
> 7 The cow and the bear shall graze;
> Their young ones shall lie down together;
> And the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
> 8 The nursing child shall play by the cobra's hole,
> And the weaned child shall put his hand in the viper's
> den.
> 9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain,
> For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD
> As the waters cover the sea.
> Isaiah 11:6-9 (see also Isaiah 65:25)
>
> I'd also affirm the remarks found on the website of a
> Victorian Baptist associate of mine found at;
>
> http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/16560.htm
>
> I particularly like the observation that the question is
> usually NOT a generic one (i.e. "will there be animals
> in heaven") but specific (i.e. "will spot / fiffi
> / tiddles be in heaven"). Now apart from the
> aforementioned reservations about talk of earthly creatures
> (human or otherwise) ending up "in heaven" - I
> think that when such a specific question is put we simply
> can't offer a conclusive answer for at least the reason
> that we don't know whether animals have a
> "self" that might be restored (at least some of
> the "personality" of animals seems to me a case of
> projection on our part) and we don't know what criteria
> God might use to determine which animals "deserve"
> what amounts to an equivalent of salvation.
>
> I don't think any of the above conclusively answers
> what I believe should be the "real" question of
> whether animals will be found "in the new
> creation" but I think it may point toward an
> affirmative answer.
>
> One final thought occurs to me in closing: that WE are
> going to be fully redeemed suggests that we will undergo
> some sort of transformation in our attitudes to animals.
> I'd offer the speculative suggestion that this might
> involve a lessening of our emotional dependence on pets such
> that we might come to see this question in an entirely
> different light. We might come to see that some of our
> current attitudes to animals (such as Bernie has commented
> on in earlier posts) are misplaced and that the question at
> hand therefore displays a certain lack of perspective.
>
> Blessings,
> Murray Hogg
> Pastor, East Camberwell Baptist Church, Victoria, Australia
> Post-Grad Student (MTh), Australian College of Theology
>
>
>
>
> 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 Mon Nov 24 14:04:42 2008