Draft
Material

 http://re-xs.ucsm.ac.co/theanimalproject/

Richard Davison Jan 2001  Coypyright: Farmington Institue, Harris Manchester College, Oxford

The Rev.Dr.Andrew Linzey is the Senior Research Fellow at Mansfield College Oxford for Theology and Animal Welfare - the first university post of this kind in the world. He has also been Professor of Theology at Nottingham University. He has written or edited at least twelve books on theology and ethics including his books specifically about theology and animals. He regularly writes articles for newspapers and is sought after as a speaker.

Andrew Linzey is passionately interested in how humans relate to, and treat, animals. Animals are as much a part of God's creation as humans are, and, as a Christian he consistently points out that, historically, Christianity has failed to show due concern to how animals should be treated. His mission, and some Christians would say it was a revolutionary mission, is to change Christian attitudes to animals.

In a recent book, Animal Gospel, Linzey writes personally of his "frustration, pain and sadness" as a Christian, at the suffering of the "weakest" of all - animals. This might be the a good starting place to discover the belief and convictions that have made Andrew Linzey an internationally acclaimed Christian champion of Animal Rights.

Animal Theology, on the other hand, is an academic book from an Oxford professor and that means that it requires concentration and hard work to read it! Published in 1994 the book is based on a series of lectures given at Oxford University on 'The Theology of Animal Rights'. These were probably the first lectures ever given at Oxford on this subject. Ground breaking stuff!

Linzey begins his introduction by acknowledging that some people will disagree with the whole idea of an animal theology in the same way that they disagree that there can be a "black" theology, a "feminist" theology or a "gay" theology.

Theology, or more correctly here, moral theology, is the study of the relationship between religion and ethics. More basically it is literally the study of God (Theos). Each religion has a theology, which is a combination if what it believes and teaches about God. Sometimes when there is a minority group within a religion - such as gay people who are Christians - whose special or different lifestyle clashes with the main theology of the religion, a version of the theology is developed which aims to try to include them, and persuade others to accept them in the main-stream. Some of these theological developments can lead to bitter controversy within a church or religion.

The answer to this in respect of animals, says Linzey, is that the need for moral justice which should be given to animals actually comes from the "central" themes of Christian doctrine. It is time:

for a theological change of heart leading to
ethical re-evaluation.(p.vii-viii)

In other words Linzey wants to show in his book that animal theology is right from the heart of Christianity and not a strange or trendy add-on.

You will often read, or hear, Andrew Linzey saying that for years Christians have completely ignored the possibility of applying Christian teaching and theology to the treatment of animals.

He also has something to say to those who are already involved in the animal rights movement. A theology, or religious basis, for animal rights will give more reason for to the movement, that might, otherwise, be in danger of being moralistic just for the sake of being moralistic - and self-righteous.

The introduction to Animal Theology finishes with a statement that is going to be the central theme of the book, and which is theological:

I hold that human domination over animals
needs to take as its model the Christ……lordship manifest in service (p.ix)

• Christ (Jesus) is God Incarnate - that means God became human for a period in history in the form of Jesus. Hence the phrase: Jesus = God's 'son'
• One of the reasons for this was for God to reveal His Will (or way) to people, so that they could follow God's will properly - in the same way that Islam teaches that Allah revealed His Will to people through the prophet Mohammad.
• What Jesus said, and how he acted and lived, is therefore of the utmost important to Christians. That Jesus "died for us" is the ultimate expression of His (God's) love, sacrifice or service to "us" - service as in being a servant - or as Christians would say a suffering servant. This is what Linzey refers to when he says "service" in the quotation above.

If God was prepared to do this for "us" then people should maybe follow this example in their attitudes to other creatures and God's creation generally. From this you can now hopefully see what line Andrew Linzey is taking. The argument at the core of this book is that the Incarnation is God acting for the whole of His creation and not just humans. The main discussion in Chapter 1 is that for too long Christians have understood God's actions as being for the benefit of just humans rather than the whole of creation.

For Andrew Linzey caring for animals is part of caring for the environment - which is part of caring for all of God's creation - including people, of course - and not just one section of it. And Christians should care for God's creation as Jesus cared for them - as servants who are prepared to suffer for it.

The Christian church in the UK, for example, has been quite slow to address concern for the environment, and in turn, animal rights - the church has lagged behind secular movements in these growing concerns. Because of its theology, says Linzey, the church should, or could, have been leading these concerns.

Animal Theology Chapter 1 - Reverence, Responsibility and Rights

The purpose of this opening chapter is clear enough - it is based on three questions:

1. Should people show respect or reverence to animals?

2. Do people have responsibility towards animals?

3. Do animals have rights?

In the first paragraph Andrew Linzey asserts that the answer to all three questions will be "Yes" and that there are good theological reasons for this being so.

1 Reverence for Life

The idea that all creation and all life forms, including animals, should be revered, or respected, may seem obvious but it is not something that has been followed by Christians in History - even though there is biblical reason to do so.

(Insert examples of…….)

Linzey will look at this issue through the writing of two very different but distinguished theologians. Firstly Albert Schweitzer, and then Karl Barth.

Albert Schweitzer, 1875-1965, is known as a distinguished Christian theologian but also as a man who lived what he believed. As a relatively young man he decided that his future lay in service to others. He trained and qualified as a doctor, left Germany, and by 1913 had opened a hospital in Africa where he remained. He was also a very highly regarded musician.

Schweitzer is particularly famous for his insistence on reverence for life - indeed he won the Nobel Peace Prize for it in 1954 - and deals with the concept in his book Civilisation and Ethics. Philosophy, he says, has become bogged down with secondary issues and has lost touch with the "elemental questions regarding life and the world which are man's duty to solve"(quoted p.4). Man must reaffirm the ethical thought that puts life first - ethics therefore, says Schweitzer, is the compulsion to show to all the reverence for the will to live,

"It is good to maintain and encourage life; it is bad to destroy life…." Schweitzer quoted on pg.4

For Schweitzer this principle of reverence for all life is, firstly, the comprehensive overall moral principle. Feelings such as 'love' and 'compassion' come within it, and not along side of it. Secondly this principle is universal (top p.5) - it applies to all life forms and an ethical person would not distinguish between different life forms - human, animal or vegetable.

Read the long quotation from Schweitzer on p.5. This is the principle of reverence-for-all-life in action. It may sound mad but notice how it is followed up with the note that anyone living like this would expect to be laughed at - until the truth is generally recognised.

The third thing about Schweitzer's reverence principle is that it is absolutist - it is final and has no opt-outs. Needless-to-say not many people have lived like this, and neither did Schweitzer himself. (p.6) (There is a small Hindu religious group in India, The Jains, whose aim to achieve this kind of position).

The important thing to understand about Schweitzer's ethical principle of reverence for all life is that it is a principle and not an imposed Law - it is an ideal to which people should aspire.

Ethics and morals are often things that are to do with personal or religious principles rather than Laws in a legal sense.

The reverence for life principle should not be written off as impossible or ridiculous but should foster the ideas that make us ask questions such as "Was it necessary to injure that life - or was it avoidable?" (p.6)

A moral or ethical act is not something we do to obey someone's law but something we do in response to the principles that we hold. Reverence for Life as discussed here by Schweitzer and Linzey is not a new law but more like a religious experience - read the long quotation of Schweitzer on p.7 to pick up on the flavour of this experiential feeling.

Life in all its forms is something that Schweitzer experiences as given by God and it is therefore sacred and holy.

Linzey now turns to Karl Barth, who, apparently, is the only theologian to have critically challenged what Schweitzer has said (p7).

(Barth biog. Detail…………)

Barth is generally sympathetic to Schweitzer's general principle but has three basic objections: Firstly as you might expect Barth has problems with animal and vegetable life being given equal status. An animal might resemble a human in the sense of being a unique and individual creature, but plants are not like this.

Secondly Barth is bothered by the universal nature of Schweitzer's idea of reverence for life. Animals can be a secondary responsibility to humans but they can not be equal to humans. The reason for Barth saying this is theological and tied up to his third objection.

Which is grounded in the doctrine that the Incarnation happened in the form of God becoming man. Humans are therefore placed in a central and elevated position in creation. Man is a higher and distinct being with the right to "Lordship and control" says Barth (quoted on p.9).

Andrew Linzey is obviously on the side of Schweitzer, and pgs.9-11 outline the short-comings of Barth's criticism of Schweitzer. The main thrust is quite clear and occupies the bottom half of pg.9. It goes like this:

According to Christology Jesus, or God Incarnate, is also the Logos - the creative life-force of God. Christology is the branch of theology that is totally concerned with just who the Christ, or Jesus, was. The word "Logos" is the Greek word for "word". The beginning of the Gospel of John in the Bible begins with the famous words:

"In the beginning was the Word (Logos) ….the Word was with God…by Him(the Word) all things were made…, and finally, .... the Word became flesh (Jesus and the Incarnation)"

The Logos was there at the beginning of everything and the Logos was the agent (if you like) of the creation of everything - the Word of God you could say. Since Jesus was the word made flesh He, through the Incarnation, brings together all created things and not just humans. All created things are related, however different, because of their common origin in God.

If this is true, says Andrew Linzey,

We should abandon our sharp, often arrogant separation of humans from nature. (p.10)

Barth's argument that humans have their own distinct and separate nature is at odds with the belief in Christ as the Logos from whom all things come.

Make a note of the supporting quotations that Linzey uses through pg.10:

In uniting himself with Man God united himself with the nature of all creatures. St.John of the Cross

And from the New Testament part of the Bible God's intention is: