Beasts of Burden: An Exploration of Soteriology and Animality - Term Paper Example

?Beasts of Burden: An Exploration of Soteriology and Animality Animals have been accorded a symbolic status, in the words of Hobgood –oster. This merely strengthens the dogma of human dominance and superiority. Such symbolization has made it possible to deprive animals of the status of fully living entities. This is inequitable and patently exploitative, and necessitates restoration of the reality of animals. Christian theology has frequently attempted to relieve animals of their reality, and the results are clearly visible. 1 In his work ‘The End of Animal Sacrifice’, Ullucci states that with the crucifixion of Jesus, a perfect sacrifice took place. This, according to this author, effectively supplanted every animal sacrifice, which God had not asked for in the first place. 2 Salvation is a major feature of Judaism and Christianity, and it is derived from the Latin salvare, which connotes to deliver, preserve, save or rescue. This term is closely related to the Latin salus, which denotes deliverance, health, safety or salvation. A saving action has been attributed to God in the Holy Bible.3 In this context, there are several biblical terms that refers to such saving action, namely, ga’al (redeem, restore, vindicate, or deliver) and yasa’ (save, rescue, set free). This notion of saving has been expressed a record 106 times in the Holy Bible, and the interrelated salvation (soteria) finds mention on 45 occasions.4 Salvation was deemed to be unattainable by humans on their own, and they had to depend on God to make atonement for their sin. A recommended strategy in the Bible was to slaughter a lamb and draw its blood for smearing on the altar. This was the gist of Leviticus 17:11. In Ezekiel 18:4, it is stated that all souls belong to God and that the sinning soul shall die. However, such death could be averted by sacrificing an animal. Jesus was the sacrificial lamb nonpareil, as mentioned in 1 Peter 1:20. The soteriological doctrine is derived from these passages. Animals were to be sacrificed, in order to constantly remind humans of their sin, as had been declared in the Bible at Heb. 9:22; 10:3. In Exo. 29:38 – 46, explicit and detailed instructions regarding the slaughter of animals was provided to Moses on Mount Sinai by God. Despite the contention of Christian theology that with the crucifixion of Jesus, there was no necessity for further animal sacrifices, certain biblical passages make it clear that this practice is to be continued forever. For instance, Leviticus 16:29- 34 categorically declares that human sin can never be expatiated and that atonement by sacrificing animals has to be complied as an everlasting statute. As such, the Holy Bible had promoted a pastoralist vision of nature, wherein animals were to be exploited ruthlessly. The hapless animals were nothing more than chattels and their existence was justified only in the context of satisfying human needs. These perceptions have engendered considerable debate regarding the ruthless attitude of the Christian faith, Vis–a–Vis animals.5 In addition, in order to purify sinners, the Holy Bible advocated the sacrifice of animals. Thus, Leviticus 4 and 16 prescribes ?a??a’t or sin offering as purification for sinners. At this juncture it is to be clearly understood that sin and its redemption are central to the Christian and Judaic faiths. Sacrifice, form the biblical perspective, denotes the act of rendering sacred. This is to be achieved by the transfer of human gifts to the dominion of the divine.6 However, there were certain sacrifices in the Christian faith that were acts of thanksgiving. As such, the original sin attributed to Adam and Eve committed in the Garden of Eden, finds no corresponding parallel among animals. In brief, animals need not be redeemed and therefore the question of their salvation does not arise. However, mankind has to mend its ways and adopt a more humane and less self – centered approach. In fact, the abuse of animals by humanity could jeopardize human redemption. Although, some scholars claim that in the Christian faith that animals cannot gain access to heaven; there are a large number of Christians who firmly believe that animals gain automatic access to heaven. These individuals, also believe that it humanity that must be shown the error of their ways and advised to act in a more humane manner. It is also believed by some people that animals were created for the sole purpose of promoting human happiness, existence and for providing humans with sustenance. A few of the biblical scholars have contended that the ?a??a’t sacrifice was fundamentally an act of purification and not a sin offering. This sacrifice, according to these scholars, cleansed the sanctuary of sin and did not bestow forgiveness upon the sinner. Moreover, Leviticus 4 states that the ?a??a’t sacrifice related to inadvertent sins. However, during the ritual of the Day of Atonement, this very same sacrifice served to purge advertent or deliberately and freely chosen sins from the sanctuary. The sins of the people were deemed to be a miasma by the priestly school, which would immediately and directly besmirch the sanctum sanctorum of the Tent. This miasma was to be excised by decapitating a bull and one of the two goats on the Day of Atonement and thereafter daubing the cover of the Ark with the blood of these slain animals. 7 This purificatory act was performed by the high priest, who thereafter would come out of the tent and symbolically transfer the sins of the people onto the second goat. This hapless animal was then released into the wilderness to die. The blood offering was aimed at destroying the impurities; whereas, deliberate sins were sent to the wilderness, on the head of the goat. The belief was that these sins would be lost in the wilderness and never return. 8 One of the Priestly school’s ritual beliefs was that blood constituted the ritual cleansing agent that would destroy the impurities on the altar, which had been inflicted on the altar by the person making the offering. Moreover, impurity is generated by sin, which is transmitted by the air. 9 In addition, there was the belief that God does not abide in a sanctuary that has been polluted. The extent to which God endures impurity in God’s house is limited and is therefore to be addressed seriously. Significant impurity on being left unattended in the sanctuary results in the departure of God from the sanctuary heavenward. Furthermore, it could transpire that sinners may subsist without any apparent outcomes of their iniquity; however, the sanctuary perforce takes upon itself the wounds of such sin and is finally destroyed.10 It is important to bear in mind that animals have constituted the food of humanity from times immemorial. Some of the animals have also been employed as beasts of burden. Their hides were utilized for make clothes and footwear. Such has been the dependence of mankind on animals. Thus, Aristotle the Greek philosopher had promoted such thinking. This was seen to be predominant among the Stoics, such as Saint Augustine, Descartes and Kant. Their belief is founded on the fundamental premise that with the exception of humanity, no other living entity is worthy of moral consideration. This stems from the belief that only humans are rational and endowed with language. Those who promote these views believe that self – determination and moral responsibility are strictly limited to humans. 11 In addition, it is contended by these individuals that humans are moral beings in the most authentic and complete sense. Since, animals lack rationality; they do not merit moral consideration. However, there are quite a few heterodox thinkers among the Western intelligentsia, who promote the notion that animals possess a moral status. All the same, it is generally presumed that human beings are innately more worthy than animals from the moral perspective. 12 This indicates the higher status granted to humans, in comparison to animals, in the Bible and other writings. Another major influence on human thought is that of anthropocentrism. The Christian thinkers of influence, like Luther and Calvin promoted the notion that creation was to be comprehended in what could be considered intensely anthropocentric terms. Luther believed, as per the statement in Genesis 1 that God embarked upon creation with the express intention of providing a house and an inn for the future man. Calvin, not to be outdone, declared again on the basis of the Genesis that none of the necessities and conveniences of life were to be wanting to humans. 13 However, philosophers such as Xenophanes and others, have contested the beliefs of those who promote anthropocentrism. If the world is believed to be theocentric or centered on gods and not human beings, then the fact that gods are visualized as being in human forms indicates the influence of anthropocentrism.14 From the anthropocentric perspective, animals are deemed to be inferior to human beings. A large number of anthropocentric thinkers have been seen to contend that the gods had created animals for the benefit of humans. Such thinking has prevailed in Western philosophy from millennia.15 Certain contemporary interpretations of Biblical passages have depicted the basic Christian ideology as being supportive of domination and exploitation of animals. Scholars like Evans and Nash have interpreted the Genesis to indicate the commencement of oppression and systematic exploitation of nature and animals.16 The Genesis proclaims that God bestowed upon humans dominion over fish, fowl, cattle, and every other type of animal. God also provided humans with power over the land. This has been interpreted as a god given license to exploit to the fullest extent, animals and nature, in order to further human ends. In fact, the Genesis has been portrayed as the basis for the consistent disregard of Christianity for the well – being and intrinsic value of animals. In the words of certain scholars, the Biblical creation was solely aimed at benefitting humanity, and this was to be achieved by exploiting non – human nature to the maximum extent possible.17 Christian theology had recognized that earth was populated by a variety of life forms. This perspective was promoted by the 16th century reformers, who subscribed to the Western intellectual tradition. Thus, these reformers were frequently given to describing animals as the components of a second book of revelation from the divine.18 Animals are repeatedly employed as subjects in theological analysis. In addition, animal images are commonly used in theological argument. Thus, the writings of Saint Augustine are witness to the fact that his imagination had been captivated by the advent, conduct and enigma of animals.19 It was his firm belief that justification of the Christian dogma and elucidation of what it portrayed to be the truth, necessitated theological consideration of the life forms on earth that were other than human. In Augustine’s opinion, the wonder of nature and the range of universal history could only be grasped if there was knowledge regarding the ways and the implication of animal life. 20 It had been proposed that all living beings were in pursuit of their individual objectives, and that these in turn promoted the overall goal of the world and ultimate perfection. From this perspective, the theology of Aquinas also cannot be regarded as rendering animals unconditionally subservient to humans. Animals have been provided with a goal, just like the humans, by God and this is to be respected by the humans. 21 It is undeniable that the similarity between animals and humans does not extend to every area. All the same, it is imperative to describe these differences with circumspection. Arriving at such differences constitutes a central theme of the methodology adopted by Aquinas. His technique, per se, involves circumlocution and the descriptions depict dissimilarities and similarities. 22 Aquinas firmly believed that a large number of animals were endowed with sensitive souls. In addition, these animals were presumed to possess imagination, the capacity to engage in sensory discrimination, memory, and sensitive souls. This can be understood as several of the animals being endowed with a number of the attributes that are usually associated with the faculty of reasoning. 23 Aquinas drew a distinction between human and animal rationality by declaring that animals did not have the capacity to engage in deliberation or discursive reasoning. The latter constitutes the basis of the theology developed by Aquinas. Such reasoning, which is shared with humans, depicts the divine intellect as its image; and this establishes a principle of participation in the divine life, which includes animals.24 Liberal theology aims to appreciate and preserve the theological traditions of the past. In this endeavor, it promotes the transformation of old forms into novel and varied forms. 25 The task on hand, in this context, involves the creation of new theological constructions. New symbols are necessary and these have to supplant the outmoded and overused symbols of the past. Moreover, these theological constructions have to address new insights and circumstances. The latter had not been envisaged in the past.26 Unflinching faith in the gracious liberality of God and the exercise of honest effort renders such constructions a true and adequate response to the issue on hand. On testing these constructions in a community that enjoys free and open discourse, the truth behind this issue emerges. This seems to be the only viable alternative; because we lack the ability to directly realize the truth, and we cannot exist in this world in the absence of such constructions, despite their insubstantial and imperfect nature. 27 Clive Staples Lewis propounded a theology of animals that admits of categorization under the following major areas. The first of these relates to the pain experienced by animals. Lewis unambiguously admits that animals experience pain and that this generates very deep problems with regard to belief in God. 28 The situation is indeed deplorable, due to the fact that the Christian elucidation regarding the pain experienced by humans cannot be made applicable to the pain experienced by animals. The latter, can neither sin nor act virtuously, consequently they cannot merit pain. 29 Thus, with regard to vivisection, Lewis was emphatic in his contention that there could be no meaningful discussion, in the absence of consideration for the evil of pain. He vehemently stated that if pain were not to be deemed an evil, then there was no case against vivisection. However, this connotes that the pain suffered by humans is also not evil; hence, there should be no reduction in human suffering. This makes it very clear that pain is an evil. 30 Frances Power Cobbe, the philanthropist had declared that the newly emergent field of vivisection caused untold suffering to animals, for the ostensible reason that its discoveries would benefit humanity. That was the Victorian age, wherein a lot of otherwise questionable acts could be perpetrated in the name of science. 31 This period was witness to the ascendancy gained by a number of models of sin and salvation. However, by the end of that century, a specific comprehension and application of atonement gained acceptance. The ancient Hebraic practice of sacrificing animals was the basis of this model and it assumed that the crucifixion of Jesus was necessary and sufficient for the salvation of humans.32 In the recent past, a major area of controversy relates to the experiments conducted on animals in laboratories, ostensibly for obtaining information that could possibly save human lives. These experiments cause significant pain and mutilation to the animal being subjected to the various tests. Now the question arises, whether this is justified and an analysis based on ends and means cannot truly distance all considerations of moral sensibility. 33 In addition, there has been significant scholarly debate regarding animal resurrection. Even if one were to presume that animal pain could be explained on the basis of Satanic distortion, a major problem regarding justice emerges. Irrespective of whether these issues are the outcome of Satanic forces of the direct allowance of God, the difficulty lies in explaining how God can settle these problems, without being judged as unholy, uncaring and unjust. 34 This apparent Gordian Knot has been resolved by Lewis, who conjectures a theory of resurrection with regard to tame animals. Such animals, acquire a persona that is correlated to the personality of their human owner. As a result, the tame animal is resurrected along with its human owner. It is important to realize that resurrection is based on humanity. 35 Thereafter, Lewis propounded classification on the basis of the notion of human superiority. Herein, Lewis adhered to the Christian tradition, which considers animals as inferior to humans. However, Lewis employed this notion to demonstrate that it was unjust to treat animals in an inferior manner. 36 Moreover, he analyzed the practice of vivisection to demonstrate and justify his conjecture. From the rational perspective, the Christian vivisectionist is limited to the stance that Revelation declares humans to be superior to animals. Consequently, there is every justification in sacrificing animals for the betterment of humans. 37 Finally, under the classification of human cruelty, Lewis was categorical in stating that it was a significant moral evil to treat animals in a cruel manner. In his opinion, it was reprehensible that there was the existence of natural evil. This was rendered much worse, when humans of their own free will, chose to indulge in Satanic corruption, by tormenting animals. 38 It has been estimated that approximately ten million species live on earth, and there is every possibility of a third of these species being destroyed in the near future. This constitutes the greatest destruction of life on earth and it will be entirely due to human activity. 39 Many entities have taken up the cause of these endangered species and are desperately and unflaggingly engaged in working against almost insurmountable odds. Some of the endangered animals are the Bactrian camel, Asian elephant, chimpanzee, giant panda, tiger, wild yak and gray whale.40 One of the reasons behind these commendable endeavors is to preserve the genetic material of animal species for future use. However, a more significant cause is that there is recognition of the fact that animals, like humans possess intrinsic value. This constitutes the biocentric ethic, which is accompanied by the conviction that God accords considerable importance to the intrinsic value of living beings. 41 Nevertheless, the fact remains that Christian heritage is in the main anthropocentric, which in turn results in a human centric valuing of ethical action that places undue emphasis on peace and justice, while ignoring the integrity or basic worth of animals. Thus, the extant liberation theologies focus on liberating humans from oppression by other humans, without paying any attention to the ruthless exploitation of animals by humans. 42 This provides the justification for demanding of the Christian ethic to be creation centered and thereby provide protection to all living creatures. This is an important ethical issue and it was recognized by the General Assembly of the World Council of Churches at Vancouver in the year 1983. 43 This assembly invited all the churches to promote commitment to justice, peace and respect for the integrity of creation and the well – being of life. This makes it essential to extend the concept of salvation to life in its entirety and not just human beings. God is equally concerned about every living creature and not just human beings. This requires humans to regard salvation from a perspective that transcends anthropocentrism and religious exclusivism. It is possible to ignore the reality of the value of animals, as they can be regarded as a mere symbol. This is inequitable, and justice demands that the reality of animals should be reestablished. Modernity and postmodernity provide the possibility of designating animals in art, legend, ritual and story as symbols. 44 In a scholarly essay, Bauckham has indicated that academic studies on the literature pertaining to the biblical period; dismally fail in their approach towards animals. Thus, reference to nature in the Holy Bible is chiefly interpreted from the point of view of the modern people of the urban regions. 45 The latter have distanced themselves from nature and consider any reference to nature as unrelated to their experience. This ideology is at best deficient, and a reading of the New Testament as a continuation of the Old Testament makes it clear that humans exist in a mutual relation with the rest of the creation.46 There are several cultures that recognize and value the very real existence of animals, and it is essential to adopt such a line of thinking. Humanist anthropocentrism entails several contradictions, which have expressed themselves in a manner that is fatal to life. The ontological hierarchy of living beings, as defined by the tradition of the humanists of the west, has been criticized by its detractors as selfishly promoting the interests of humans. 47 The unprecedented development of Western industrialized civilization can be attributed to the anthropocentric subjects’ capacity to ignore considerations external to the purview of humans. Adorno and Horkheimer have clearly described in their Dialectic of Enlightenment that catastrophe has emerged from Enlightenment. 48 This has served to subvert the principal objective of Enlightenment, namely to liberate humans from fear and rendering them masters. The technologies associated with instrumental reason and Enlightenment constitute Promethean developments. These are the result of a basic absence of fear, and the presence of anger with an external world that is devoid of mercy. 49 Animal Studies has emerged as a field of research that enjoys continued growth. This has had the salutary effect of animals being deemed as subjects of theology and not mere objects. For instance, Waldau and Patton have edited the work A Communion of Subjects: Animals in Religion, Science and Ethics, which provides a cogent description of the various ways in which animals have contributed their worth to religious traditions and the understanding of humanity. 50 This endeavor was witness to the bringing together of environmentalists, scientists, researchers in ethics and religious studies, and theologians. A significant number of the contributors to this work call upon human beings to take note of the humane treatment of animals. An eminent scholar and writer in this area is Hobgood-Oster who is vociferous in the area of religion and animals.51 She has stated succinctly that religious tradition falls back upon animals, in order to establish motifs of existence, groups of rituals, and intricate associations of correlations with others that not only pertain to the divine but also the worldly. Scholars of her ilk do not limit their investigations to the ethical treatment of animals, and seek ethical responses to medical research on animals and factory farming. 52 There has been a shift from passive to active morality, with regard to the use and abuse of animals, with regard to the related theological perspective. This welcome change is expected to gain in strength, especially with regard to theological sophistication, insight and creativity. 53 Karl Barth posited that animals constitute the essential living background to the environment provided to human beings and that these animals have been rendered subservient to humans. However, these animals do not belong to humans; because, the earth in its entirety can only belong to God. All the same, humans take precedence of animals, which have been made available for the use of the former, and which can be regarded as their means of life. 54 The notion being projected is that humans are central to the divine play, and this has the outcome of drawing a distinction between the primary and secondary duty of humans. God, during the history of humans, has been manifested, bound and taken a human incarnation. 55 This was done in order to enact the covenant of grace as creation’s inner foundation. Humans enjoys an exalted position among living beings, due to the fact that God’s eternal Sons and Logos chose to descend upon earth as a human being and not an animal or angel. 56 The Holy Bible repeatedly stresses the saving of the soul of humans. In fact, there are several references to salvation in the Holy Bible, which constitutes the means for gaining heaven. However, these do not refer to the spirit. In addition, the Holy Bible recommends the commending of one’s spirit to the hands of God. Heaven for the Christian faith is inseparably related to salvation, redemption and resurrection. A Christian believes that heaven is attained as the consequence of conscious decisions taken during one’s life on earth, and not automatically. In the Holy Bible the requirements for human salvation have been enumerated with considerable specificity.57 Biblical interpretation and consequently Christian theology have come to an erroneous conclusion with regard to the concept of being saved, and this has had the unfortunate and inequitable effect of permitting animals to be utilized as scapegoats and expendable resources. It is essential at this juncture to realize that anthropocentrism, which evaluates reality solely from the human perspective, is the continuation of capitalism and patriarchy. In the past, sages like St. Augustine and St. Francis of Assisi had repeatedly stressed the importance of animals in the scheme of things, and that it was wrong to indulge in the indiscriminate killing of animals. It is futile for individuals to believe that their salvation transpires without regard to the rest of creation. Even a cursory examination of the world that we live in, make it abundantly clear that there is a close relationship between the various living forms. The world is a symbiotic system, and this cannot be denied by any dogma or religion. Therefore, human beings cannot achieve their salvation by taking undue advantage of other creatures. The notion of salvation of animals is of considerable importance and it is incorrect to contend that only human beings are entitled to this benefit. As such, human salvation cannot transpire, in isolation; and this takes place as a component of the salvation of the entire creation. Bibliography Allen, Moira Anderson, “Do Pets go to Heaven?” (2012): http://www.pet-loss.net/heaven.shtml. Bauman, Whitney, “Ecology and Contemporary Christian Theology,” Religion Compass 5, no. 8 (2011): 376 – 388. Clifford, Richard and Khaled Anatolios, “Christian Salvation: Biblical and Theological Perspectives,” Theological Studies 66, no. 4 (2005): 739 – 769. David Grumett, “Animals in Christian Theology,” Religion Compass 5, no. 10 (2011): 579 – 588. Encyclopedia of Catholic Social Thought, Social Science, and Social Policy. Edited by Michael L. Coulter, Stephen M. Krason, Richard S. Myers and Joseph A. Varacalli. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2007. Gottlieb, Roger S, The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Ecology. Oxford Handbooks Online, 2006. Haraway, Donna Jeanne, When Species Meet. University of Minnesota Press, 2008. Hobgood – Oster, Laura, Holy Dogs and Asses: Animals in the Christian Tradition. University of Illinois Press, 2008. Hodgson, Peter C, “Liberal Theology,” The Expository Times 122, no. 1 (2010): 4 – 10. Huff, Peter A, “Calvin and the beasts: Animals in John Calvin’s theological discourse,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42, no. 1 (1999): 67 – 75. Kearns, Laurel and Catherine Keller, Ecospirit: Religions and Philosophies for the Earth. Fordham University Press, 2007. Linzey, Andrew, “Lewis’s theology of animals,” Anglican Theology Review 80, no. 1 (1998): 60 – 81. McDaniel, Jay Byrd, Of God and Pelicans: A Theology of Reverence for Life. Westminster John Knox Press, 1989. McIntosh, Adam, “Human and Animal Relations in the Theology of Karl Barth,” Journal of the Melbourne College of Divinity 22, no. 1 (2009): 20 – 35. Preece, Rod and David Fraser. “The Status of Animals in Biblical and Christian Thought: A Study in Colliding Values.” Society & Animals 8, no. 3 (2000): 245 – 263. Sanbonmatsu, John, Critical Theory and Animal Liberation. Rowman & Littlefield, 2011. Steiner, Gary. Anthropocentrism and Its Discontents: The Moral Status of Animals in the History of Western Philosophy. University of Pittsburgh Press, 2010. Ullucci, Daniel, The End of Animal Sacrifice. Oxford University Press, 2011. Read More