WaPo 'On Faith': All Creation Has Moral Standing

The Washington Post:

Too often throughout church history Christians have used the notion of humanity at the pinnacle of creation to justify neglect and even wanton destruction of the natural world. Assigning moral considerability to other elements of God's creation - animals, forests, water resources, marine life - serves as a corrective to the excesses of dominion theology.

Read the whole story: The Washington Post

Comments

[rtgmath]

12:10 AM on 06/23/2010

Concerning the idea of a "moral standing" of creation, I would have to object. Christianity does not recognize that those of this creation other than men have the ability to act in a way contrary to how they are made. There is no "morality" to a tree. A wild animal uses its abilities to get food, but I see no conscious acts of moral decision-making that characterize mankind.

And this, I think, is the place where the idea of a "moral standing" fails. Morality has as a necessary component the idea of *choice*. A moral entity *chooses* his actions with regard to notions of right and wrong -- an idea construct higher than the individual. I think it is unwise to anthropomorphize plants and animals in this regard. Even where animal groups seem to demonstrate behavioral choices or decisions, there is no way to demonstrate that there is moral thinking involved.

To combat the excesses of domination theology, all one has to do is look at the large number of passages in the Hebrew and Christian texts dealing with man's stewardship of God's gifts. Ultimately, God is viewed as the final Owner, and man is viewed as a caretaker -- not a tyrant! Ultimately, domination theology has only a very few verses in Scripture to fall back on, while the concept of stewardship is found throughout the Scripture.

One need not invent or create erroneous doctrines to combat other erroneous doctrines. Reading the text and context should be sufficient.

[Cilantro33]

02:44 AM on 06/23/2010

I disagree with your contention that Christianity does not recognize that any creatures other than men have the ability to act in a way contrary to how they are made. For example, in the Holy Bible, Luke Chapter 8 verses 26 et. seq. discuss how Jesus of Nazareth liberated a man possessed by demonic forces which had caused him to be insane. Jesus ordered the demons to depart from the man. They begged him to permit them to enter a herd of pigs instead of departing to the abyss, and he allowed this. The pigs which had been entered by the demons then ran into a lake and drowned (this is not normal "natural" behavior for a herd of pigs). If memory serves, Matthew also discusses this incident.

[rtgmath]

07:32 AM on 06/23/2010

Then again, according to scripture, they were operating under the distress of a malevolent entity. Perhaps akin to the idea that if a crab at the beach clamps down on your toe you are going to jump about wildly trying to get it off? Not normal behavior, but certainly natural under the circumstances.

Pigs run about wildly when distressed -- normal behavior. Stampedes are normal animal behavior. Oops -- there's the lake! I do not see this as an attempt to commit "sooey-cide". Nor do I see a moral behavior of choice here.

I appreciate your writing, but I do not see that it invalidates the point. Moral behavior involves a choice between "right" and "wrong", and I can't see the pigs operating under that perspective.

Regards

[rtgmath]

11:56 PM on 06/22/2010

There is more to the Judeo-Christian view of man's relationship to the creation other than Genesis 1:26. In terms of land and ownership, the Mosaic covenant made it very clear that the Lord ultimately owned everything, and that what He gave was to be used for good.

For example: Deuteronomy 20:19
When you lay siege to a city for a long time, fighting against it to capture it, do not destroy its trees by putting an ax to them, because you can eat their fruit. Do not cut them down. Are the trees of the field people, that you should besiege them?

Lands laid waste were a sign of terrible judgment -- not economic opportunity. A land lush with good plants was sign of God's blessing.

The New Testament calls Christians "stewards" of God's gifts -- those who must care for, protect, and nurture the things given. In no case is systematic destruction of the land ever condoned.

Proverbs 12:10
A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.

The idea of "dominion" in Genesis 1:26 is not about the right to destroy, but the duty to preserve and protect. The first couple placed in the Garden were charged to dress it and to keep it.

Unfortunately, there are those who will twist the context of Scripture to justify anything they like to do. But the bent of the Scripture is toward preservation, not predation.

[monthofmay]

08:53 PM on 06/23/2010

Halleluia! I'm monthofmay and glad to meet ya! I'm your new fan 32

[rtgmath]

06:57 AM on 06/24/2010

Thank you! I am pleased to meet you, too!

[Queen Cassandra]

04:43 AM on 06/22/2010

Greenpeace, Peta............, They Rule. Save all wildlife..., They have more Knowledge then humans.

[ziggystardust]

03:30 AM on 06/22/2010

I never saw the connection between Christianity and justification for destroying the earth. In Genesis, God commissioned Adam to name all the animals. If I were commissioned for such a daunting task, I'd be hella P.O.ed if one of my grandchildren killed one of them off.

[TheSojourner]

04:13 AM on 06/22/2010

@ziggystardust:

Hi again. Isn't this similar to my comments to you about our flora and fauna, elsewhere? See, I wasn't making things up. One of your own even agrees with me. By the way I'm not electronically stalking you, I just happened to see you. I am, as you may have guessed, very much interested in the subject.

[ziggystardust]

02:20 PM on 06/22/2010

Yes, I think so. I've held these views for years, though. I just get a bit tired of Huffington Posters lumping in mainstream religious thinkers with the nutzo fringe groups, and sometimes I misindentify them.

[whirlpool]

12:07 PM on 06/22/2010

Adam botched the job. He only named animals of commercial value and no plants at all. He didn't even get around the most abundant order of animals species wise--the beetles. Eve was a much better scientist since she at least sampled the trees and tried to figure out the snake.

[ziggystardust]

02:23 PM on 06/22/2010

It couldn't have been that difficult to name the beetles. Though the only one he bothered to get creative with was the one he named Ringo. Blood, Sweat & Tears was probably the bigger challenge...

[f0rTyLeGz]

12:43 AM on 06/22/2010

We are ALIVE, and so are all of the animals around us. They are precious... and here right now, just like we are. But I don't need any theology or Bible study to treasure and treat them with love and respect...always, and intuitively.

[whirlpool]

12:18 PM on 06/22/2010

Right! Christ actually intended that all creation be included not just humans. An example from Mark 16:15 "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." (King James) In some translations it is "to all creation." So even the Christians have justification for doing the right thing vis-a-vis animals if they bother to look.

[healthanalyst]

09:24 PM on 06/21/2010

I have some cats who are more moral than most Christians on this board.

[bklynsparrow]

01:10 AM on 06/22/2010

I have cats who would steal the chicken out of my mouth, but are still more moral than most people I know.

I'm watching a terrible sad documentary on chimps who were retired from experimetnal labs. It's one of the most heartbreaking I've ever seen.

[healthanalyst]

10:55 AM on 06/22/2010

They meet up with the chimps who go to war for more territory and food, we may be seeing The Planet of the Apes. ....

[athenasword]

08:15 PM on 06/21/2010

I wonder what Creator -God or Goddess- would want or expect from us humans when it comes to relating to all of creation. I seriously doubt that we are meant to destroy, control, damage or strip it. If we are called to account, what would we say to defend our actions? I deeply wish we could learn how to be good stewards of the land and the creatures we share this beautiful planet with.

Also, something to think about.... The word "dominion" is a translation. I am curious what the original word in the original language would reflect.

[Usama]

10:05 PM on 06/21/2010

Capitalism and the primary focus of production are very powerful forces. And mankind is violently greedy. God does NOT have a gender, for gender is a manifestation of reproduction in His creation.

Dont let yourself be trapped in the Western paradigms of religious thought.

[f0rTyLeGz]

01:06 AM on 06/22/2010

Who cares what an imaginary creator would feel? We humans are clearly in charge, and we are trashing the place, and plundering the flora and fauna. Once we all figure out how to live together, without wars and starvation going on 24/7, we are going to regret all the animals we have allowed to go extinct a great deal. And... it will eventually become a high priority to get our environment back back back to squeaky clean.

[RedRat]

07:55 PM on 06/21/2010

Well after reading the quote Genesis 1:26, I don't know how you would misread that! It is pretty clear, plain and simple. Very clearly stated, it says that God has given man, dominion over everthing. That certainly has been the Judeo-Christian interpretation over the the past 2,000 years!

Perhaps instead of twisting and bending the quote of the Bible into some kind of New Age Funk, why not take the tack that perhaps we ought to be asking how to use animlas, plants, and the environment for right living. What is best for mankind, I accept the primacy of man here, but this not need mean that we cannot develop a morality about how we use the rest of creation. It does not mean that we can despoil the Gulf with oil, that we can't treat animals in a human way (hey, this is not a push for vegetarianism), but we do it in accordance with right living.

[athenasword]

08:06 PM on 06/21/2010

Dominating, controlling, over-using and decimating Mother Earth is a sin.... and there is no Creator that would approve or smile upon the destruction that we humans are responsible for.

[RedRat]

08:17 PM on 06/21/2010

Well Gee, I guess you didn't read Genesis 1:26. Sure seems to me that the Judeo-Christian God did pretty much that. Perhaps you have some other God in mind.

[Raintree]

05:00 AM on 06/22/2010

In Genesis 1:21-24, the original states that animals are 'living souls'. In translation, that was changed to 'living creatures'. The same terminology was used to explain the soul of people, and somehow that survived translation.
You can't just read the English version and think you've got a handle on it. It should be understood in the original context- in the original language.

[catsanon]

05:36 PM on 06/22/2010

Even if you could locate the first instance where this story was written down, you'd have a horrible time tracing it back through the oral tradition which preceeded writing..................

[Etruscate]

05:34 PM on 06/21/2010

I'm glad we need someone to read tea leaves--excuse me, reinterpret Christianity--in order to feel accountable to our ecosystem. Believe it or not, Jesus will not be returning to set matters straight, and if we screw up our environment then it's our children who pay the price.

[ajwriter]

04:36 PM on 06/21/2010

As a Christian, I am grateful for essays like these. Thank you.

[RedRat]

08:20 PM on 06/21/2010

It is interesting how easily Christians can twist their Biblical references into some newly varnished political correctness. Perhaps this is why the Red States, which are heavily evangelical and by the book Christians, are so quick to pollute and really not much care about "drill baby, drill" of Haley Barbour.

[ajwriter]

12:40 AM on 06/22/2010

RedRat,
I can see how you feel that way -- using Biblical passages for one's own purposes isn't limited to the political arena nor to this age, and I wouldn't argue with you that it's common. But there are well-spelled out principles in the Bible, particularly in the passages attributed to Jesus.

I see this essay as an awakening to a substantial message in the Bible, or an attempt to awaken others, not a justification of shaky secular beliefs. The right has co-opted religion to the point where some Christians are behaving as if they literally worship rightwing political and economic ideology over what is in the Bible, to the detriment of our earth and the Christian religion. If evangelicals awaken to the message in the Bible and bring their energy to the environmental movement, I think it would mean great things for the earth and our society.

Christ himself came to serve; the actions of Mother Theresa are a more accurate embodiment of the teachings of Christ in the Bible than, say, Ann Coulter's (I initially thought her Title "Godless" would be a confessional about herself, her behavior is more condemned in the Bible on many fronts than anything else).

Anyone can twist anything to serve a selfish purpose, Christianity, Islam, capitalism, science. Someone like Mother Theresa is the result of Christianity in action. Please don't judge the teachings of Christ by the people who most misuse them.

[ajwriter]

12:55 AM on 06/22/2010

RedRat,
You should take a look at Chris Durang's Huffpost essay "I want my earth back" as well as my responses to the essay. He says, "...so many of my liberal views in life are based on how Christianity seemed to me when I was a young man. ... Republicans seem to have merged Christianity with ... well, laissez-fair capitalism. I don't think Jesus would approve."

There are many Christians who have that heritage, who didn't stop carrying the environmental torch from the '70s. You don't see us on the news like teapartyers because we don't make great loo$ney sound bites and we are usually pretty civil. But given what's at stake, it's time we did speak up.

You might enjoy my favorite satire on the subject of your post, The Gospel of Supply-Side Jesus, by Al Franken (go to Youtube and search on "supply side Jesus", you'll find it). What's amazing is how current it is (it's not immediately apparent it's from the FIRST Bush's term).

[Tulka2]

04:14 PM on 06/21/2010

More to the point.... All other creatures are us. We share 98 plus of our genes with chimps, more than 60 percent of our genes with earthworms and fully one third of our genetic code with daffodils. The whole of the Earth is a petri dish of our shared genetic code.

"Do not ask for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee."

[seachange525]

04:57 PM on 06/21/2010

Love your words of wisdom, Tulka2. Fanned :)

[Tulka2]

06:08 PM on 06/21/2010

# 25

[monthofmay]

06:10 PM on 06/21/2010

'Thanks be to God for our brother the sun..." from the Canticle of the Sun by St. Francis. It's one thing to have sentiment for nature like the romantic poets. It's another to sing about the brotherhood and sisterhood of creation...including death.

The whole country is under a cloud of oil...DONG DONG DONG DONG!

On a lighter side I think the unpopularity of these British big wigs is partly from their likeness to corporate villains in "Pirates of the Caribbean".

[Tulka2]

06:20 PM on 06/21/2010

Funny you should mention villains. Did you ever see the British documentary on the subject of birth and class called the "Up" series? The film maker of that series choose several seven-year-olds from different British social classes, interviewed them, observed their lives and then did that with the same people every seven years. It is a fascinating study on the subject of class in England.

The first time i saw this Tony Hayward person, he reminded me so strongly of one of the impossible, snobbish public school boys who opts out of the documentary at an early age.

[Naturechaplain]

01:03 PM on 06/21/2010

Whatever "sacred semantics" are invented by theologists, the word-games don't really help communities, nations or the planet. It seems as clear (irony) as the oil geyser in the gulf: it's time for the human race to grow up and beyond the supernaturalism of the past--it's time to stop the gushers of god-talk that keep harming the coastlines of clear thinking and common sense. Religious faith draws our attention up and away from the real concerns of real 21st Century life on earth. If we're ever going to solve the pressing problems of environment, war, housing, etc. the barriers, fences and walls that artificially divide have to come down. Why do some still need ancient books and worldviews to tell them what is good, ethical, "moral"--what to do and what to think? I recommend another option: www.naturalbible.wordpress.com.

[squat6971]

10:30 AM on 06/21/2010

The antidote to "dominion theology" is less theological Hoohah, not more

[ManiDeli]

09:11 PM on 06/21/2010

The only hope for help begins with a lot less theology and lot more rational action.

[niceguysneverfinish]

09:38 AM on 06/21/2010

"Too often throughout church history Christians have used the notion of humanity at the pinnacle of creation to justify neglect and even wanton destruction of the natural world. Assigning moral considerability to other elements of God's creation - animals, forests, water resources, marine life - serves as a corrective to the excesses of dominion theology. It prompts us to assign value to other elements of the created order."
------------------------------------
There is no morality in nature, of course. Morality is a Christian invention. Real to the Christians and unfortunately adhered to by non-christians.

[relevancematters]

10:30 AM on 06/21/2010

I would disagree. Natural law is a form of morality, and when it is breached, the consequences are obvious. You're in a hurry to damn Christianity, and I understand that, but you truncate the argument by trying to repudiate the idea here, rather than trying to work with it.

[Fanofthinkers]

02:42 PM on 06/21/2010

The poster is right, Morality is a Christian invention. Human kindness, empathy, understanding and communial abilities are inherent....Morality invented the idea that those componants came from a god given creation, which is not true so, morality is a christian invention. Do some research, you will see, philosophy helps as does an open mind.

[HeevenSteven]

01:27 PM on 06/21/2010

"Morality is a Christian invention." ???

Huh?

[relevancematters]

03:28 PM on 06/21/2010

It's apparently impossible to get them past the language. Apparently "morality" as a word has only existed since Christianity was invented. Who knew?

[relevancematters]

03:30 PM on 06/21/2010

I probably should have said that "morality" as a concept was apparently also invented by Christianity. We will have to find the word/concept they had before that to be able to make a dent in this armor. :)

[GodIs]

09:36 AM on 06/21/2010

God's Dominion Mandate has never been withdrawn and is still in effect. It was originally given to Adam and Eve and then confirmed and modified to Noah after the Great Flood. It is appropriate to raise the question of how well the Dominion Mandate is being implemented by the nations of the world, but a basic component of the mandate was the establishment of monogamous marriage as the basis for establishing the population required to accomplish the other components of the mandate. It is obvious that the nations have failed miserably in this regard. They have given lip service to monogamy in their legal codes, but polygamy, same sex marriage, and cohabitation without marriage have become very common, so in spite of all the advances in science and technology that have been made, mankind has still got a long way go to go before we reach our goal of subduing the Earth.
God is love.

[monthofmay]

06:22 PM on 06/21/2010

People can find any expert or scripture to justify what they want to do. For example, the Koran says dogs are unclean for eating as they scavenge...like pigs. So mean, cruel people think it's OK to hurt dogs. Is that what Mohammed said? No, he meant not to eat them. The term "subdue" the earth" calls humankind to be priests on behalf of all creation...naming, cherishing, nurturing, and when tame, being grateful for their companionship. Rapacious, arrogant people justify mistreating the earth and creatures with anything they can...I"m sure they could find something in John Muir and twist that. The law of Moses forbids eating animals under a year old, because they haven't had a time to enjoy life. Does that sound like a creator who orders people to beat up on the world?

[RedRat]

08:02 PM on 06/21/2010

Well there are lot of things that the "Law of Moses" both prohibits and requires you to do. Most of that "Law" would get you arrested today.

[FatherWolf]

10:11 PM on 06/21/2010

Whooooeeeee!

Cruising along with the man's dominion over the Earth and then making a dizzying sharp left-turn into monogamy. Couldn't have seen that coming, even from GodIs.

But we can always rely on GodIs to leave an anti-Biblical nugget. This one, of course is the disparaging mention of the Old Testament's favorite form of marriage, polygamy.