Talking to Students About Animal Rights

"This is the most racist thing I’ve ever seen on the green. How dare you?"

So protested a citizen of New Haven, Connecticut, on August 8, 2005, in response to a display on the town green. It consisted of photographs depicting people—mostly black—being tortured, sold into slavery, or killed—next to a display of more photographs showing animals being mistreated or slaughtered¹. The display, presented by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), carried a very clear message: treating animals this way is as bad as treating people this way.

On the other side, rocker Ted Nugent promotes "Kill It and Grill It,"² a campaign to encourage hunting and eating of wild game. Nugent, who revels in "tooth, fang, and claw reality . . . the dynamic of sex, meat, and overwhelming your enemy,"³ argues like many other outdoorsmen that such activity is good for wildlife by controlling populations (and thereby reducing starvation) and encouraging human conservation of a usable resource.

While PETA’s publicity antics are routinely viewed as extremist, distasteful, and offensive,⁴ Nugent’s views are solidly mainstream, at least outside of urban America, though many who agree with him philosophically take exception to the confrontational and shocking tone of his rhetoric.

As is often the case with cultural issues, the Bible speaks to these matters and lays down some principles that can guide God’s people when entering the debate and making decisions about both public policy and personal behavior.

The Bible on People and Animals

From its very first chapter, the Bible makes it clear that humans and animals are neither the same nor morally equivalent. Though they are both created by the direct act of God (Gen. 1:21–27), man is unique in two respects. First, he, unlike the animals, is said to be created "in the image of God" (vv. 26–27). Though there is considerable theological discussion as to the specific meaning of this phrase,⁵ it certainly means that man is qualitatively different from animals in one or more significant ways. Second, God specifically gives man dominion over the animal kingdom (vv. 26, 28).⁶ Man is to take charge and exercise his will with reference to animals.

But there are limits to this dominion. God does not yield the right of ownership to man; He merely places man in middle management, so to speak, over animals. A repeated refrain in Scripture is that "the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof [i.e., everything in it]."⁷

A twentieth-century chorus alludes to Psalm 50:10 with the words, "He owns the cattle on a thousand hills." So whatever man does in his dominion over the animal kingdom, he is accountable to God as an entrusted steward.

What limits, then, does God place on our dominion in the Scripture? What must we encourage to happen, and what must we never allow to happen?

Eating Meat and Animal Products

God did not give animals to man for food in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 1:29–30), in my opinion, because in the absence of sin, there is no death (Rom. 5:12), even animal death. (The first recorded physical death followed Adam’s sin, when God used the skins of animals to cover the couple’s nakedness [Gen. 3:21].) However, God directly encouraged man to kill and eat animals after the expulsion from Eden—specifically, after the Flood (Gen. 9:2–3).

And the eating of meat is not only allowed but also specifically exemplified⁸and even commanded by God in certain circumstances. For example, the Mosaic sacrificial system mandated the eating of certain sacrifices by the priests (Lev. 6:16 et al.), and some sacrifices (most notably the Passover, Ex. 12:8) were to be eaten by the offerers as well. Interestingly, when men (who are later identified as angels) visit Abraham’s tent before the destruction of Sodom, he offers them beef, which they eat (Gen. 18:7–8). Later in the conversation it becomes clear that in his conversing with the visitors, Abraham is speaking directly with God (vv. 13 ff.). Many interpreters have concluded that one of these "angels" is a Christophany, the pre-incarnate Christ in physical form. If this is the case, then God Himself eats the meat that Abraham offers. This is perfectly consistent with the rest of the Scripture, for the New Testament states directly that Christ ate the Passover lamb (Luke 22:8, 11 ,15) as well as fish (Luke 24:42–43) and that He gave others fish to eat on more than one occasion (Matt. 14 :17–20; 15:36–38; John 21:9–13).

If the killing and eating of animals for food is allowed and even encouraged, then it is no surprise that man routinely consumes animal products with God’s apparent approval as well. Job, who is likely very early in biblical history, clearly knew what the white of an egg tasted like (Job 6:6); Isaiah refers to people gathering eggs (10:14); and Jesus Himself refers to a son asking a father for an egg (Luke 11 :12), presumably to eat. The meal Abraham offered to the angelic visitors included milk and butter (Gen. 18:8); and God described Canaan, the promised land, as one ’flowing with milk and honey" (Ex. 3:8 et al.¹⁰). The song of Moses rejoices in God’s provision of milk and butter as well as of meat (Deut. 32:14). Solomon speaks of a time of blessing as one that included goats’ milk (Prov. 27:26). In His great appeal to His people through Isaiah, God himself invited Israel to buy¹¹ and consume milk (55:1). Based on a passage from the Old Testament, Paul argues that the farmer should have the right to drink milk produced by his flock (1 Cor. 9:7).

Diligent Care

God never encourages His stewards to use their resources selfishly or foolishly. The fact that man can use animals for survival, work, religious ceremony, and other purposes does not mean that he has no responsibility toward either God or the animal. To begin with, the firstborn of every animal in Israel was to be offered back to God (Ex. 13:12). This served at least two purposes in the offerer: not only to demonstrate his faith that God would provide more where that had come from¹² but also to be reminded that in the end it all belonged to God anyway (Ex. 13:2).

Further, animals are recognized as having value—most obviously because domesticated animals are property and part of a family’s livelihood; thus, injury to an animal was to be paid for (e.g., Ex. 22:10–13). But even beyond this, animals have inherent value as the property of God (Ps. 50:10); God Himself looks after them in preserving them (Ps. 36:6), in feeding them (Ps. 14 7:9), and even in noticing when the sparrow falls (Matt. 10:29). Similarly, the ’righteous man’ is expected to care for his animal(s) (Prov. 12:10). Early in human civilization humans domesticated animals and cared for them (Gen. 4:20), including selective breeding (Gen. 30).

Part of this care is not only simply feeding and protecting from predator¹³ but also refraining from cruelty to animals. The ’righteous man’ noted earlier who ’cares for his beast’ is starkly contrasted with the cruel man who is viewed as an enemy of God (Prov. 12:10). Illustrating His own ministry, Jesus tells the moving story of the shepherd who has lost a single sheep and who diligently seeks it until he finds it and rejoices (Matt. 18:11–13). As His commentary on His own story, Jesus makes it clear that he is comparing the lost sheep to a lost person, whom He names with the affectionate term "little one" (micros, v. 14). This is the language of tenderness. In another place, Jesus speaks metaphorically of using his followers as work animals, whose "yoke is easy and [whose] burden is light" (Matt. 11:30). Obviously, refraining from cruelty does not rule out killing an animal and eating it, but a case can be made that man’s treatment of animals should refrain from causing unnecessary pain and that the one who gets joy from or is unmoved by causing such pain is viewed as departing from the character of God.

Limitations

But there are limits to this respect. An animal is not to be a sexual partner with either man or woman (Lev. 18:23); bestiality is called "confusion" (KJV) or a violation of the natural order of things—an indication, again, that man and beast are qualitatively different. Further, no animal is to be reverenced or worshiped (Deut. 4:16–18), for despite the appearance of great power or other admirable qualities, the animal is merely a creature.

Modern Cultural Views

Modern philosophers have attempted to construct a basis for animal rights without admitting to divine creation. Some have suggested that since animals can feel pain, they must be treated with consideration.¹⁴ In this view, causing pain to animals cannot be offset by any benefit to be derived from them. Others argue that animals that demonstrate "cognition," or the apparent ability to process information, should be treated as special life forms with rights equal to those of humans.¹⁵ Yet, others go beyond that to assert that all sentient creatures—all animals—must absolutely be treated as equals of humans.¹⁶

Several activist groups have implemented these philosophies in social action. Goals range from changing the law in various ways,¹⁷ to stopping practices viewed as abusive (e.g., testing of products on animals; circuses and zoos; animal labor; furs) by applying market pressures to companies that engage in such practices, to "consciousness-raising" activities designed to encourage the public to become vegetarian or even vegan.¹⁸ Techniques range from literature distribution and advertising campaigns to the more radical activities of PETA, as described earlier, or the Animal Liberation Front, which some have called terrorism.¹⁹

Topics for Discussion

Diet: Is there a moral difference between vegetarianism and veganism? Is either necessary? permissible? Are there benefits or dangers to their voluntary practice?
Hunting: Are some forms of hunting less morally acceptable than others? Is it morally necessary to eat or otherwise to make use of what you kill? Is catch-and-release morally different from fishing for food?
Pets: What are the positives and negatives of pet ownership? What are the moral limitations on pet ownership?²⁰
Animal husbandry: Are there moral limitations on how animals can be raised for food or other products? To what extent must such animals be provided room, exercise, and similar comforts?
Animal testing: What are the arguments for and against testing of human products on animals? What should be the limitations on such testing? How should such limitations be enforced, and by whom?²¹

Though not every question above has a clear and unambiguous answer in Scripture, the biblical principles summarized earlier may provide the thoughtful student with bases for placing limitations on some of what goes on routinely in the modern world. They can also serve as the foundation for careful moral analysis in any student body.

¹http://www.nhregister.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15000578&BRD=1281&PAG=461&dep.

²Nugent has written an obscenity-laced book by the same name.

³http://www.tednugent.com/news/washington_times.shtml (page is no longer available).

⁴See, for example, http://www.tolerance.org/news/article_tol.jsp?id=1266. Civil rights organizations responded sharply and critically to the New Haven display, seeing an implication that blacks were being compared to animals and charging that the display minimized the suffering of the slavery era. PETA’s intent was clearly to get attention by making the comparison between humans and animals and to raise the estimation of animals, not to lower the estimation of humans or any group of humans. Despite their intentions, however, they certainly demonstrated gross insensitivity to historical realities. PETA cancelled the campaign almost immediately.

⁵See one discussion at See one discussion at http://www .answersingenesis.org/creation/v4/i1/man.asp. Incidentally, I would disagree with the author’s statement there that "language and creativity are impossible without a body," for the obvious reason that God exhibits them.. Incidentally, I would disagree with the author’s statement there that "language and creativity are impossible without a body," for the obvious reason that God exhibits them.

⁶Theologians refer to this principle as the "dominion mandate."

⁷David apparently coined the phrase, of course under inspiration (Ps. 24:1). It is cited twice by Paul (1 Cor. 10:26, 28) and even placed once in the mouth of God Himself (Ps. 50:12).

⁸An important question, which lies well beyond the scope of this essay, is that of culture’s role in biblical interpretation: to what extent is the Bible’s apparent teaching or example simply reflective of the culture of its day and to what extent is it unchanging for all cultures? Most Christians, for example, view Paul’s requirement that women wear head coverings in the assembly (1 Cor. 11) as culturally driven: the most popular view today is that in Paul’s culture, the head covering indicated submission whereas in this culture another behavior is likely more appropriate. Similarly, God allowed polygamy and divorce in some cultures, when that is clearly not His best will (e.g., Matt. 1 9:8). A few conservative Christians would argue, using the same line of thought, that even Jesus’ eating of meat, for example, might not necessarily indicate that such behavior was appropriate in a different culture such as ours. This is a large question with ample recent literature; see, for example, John Stott, ed., Down to Earth: Studies in Christianity and Culture (1980); D.A. Carson, ed., God and Culture (1993); David J. Hesselgrave, Communicating Christ Cross-Culturally, 2nd ed. (1991). In addition, the reader should consult standard works on hermeneutics, such as Walter C. Kaiser, Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics (1994). Incidentally, this topic was the focus of the annual Bible Faculty Leadership Summit held at Clearwater Christian College in 2006. For more information on the BFLS, see http://www.aaccs.info/calendar.asp.

⁹See, for example, http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=903.

¹⁰The statement is frequent; it occurs 15 times in Exodus, once in Joshua, and twice each in Jeremiah and Ezekiel respectively.

¹¹Specifically, they were to "buy" it "without price."

¹²This was the key idea behind all firstfruit offerings, including grain and even defeated cities in Canaan (.viz. Jericho).

¹³These two tasks are the primary responsibility of the shepherd, a common image in biblical culture. Of course, the classic passage on the shepherding nature of God Himself is Psalm 23.

¹⁴This is the view of Peter Singer, widely considered the father of the modern animal rights movement, in his book Animal Liberation, published in 1975.

¹⁵See, for example, Tom Regan, The Case for Animal Rights (1985). Regan suggests that such abilities should be recognized at least in adult mammals.

¹⁶This is the view of Gary Francione, Introduction to Animal Rights (2000). Francione is a law professor at Rutgers and oversees the Animal Rights Law Project there (http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/).

¹⁷See, for example., note 15.

¹⁸Vegans are vegetarians who also will not eat animal products that do not involve the death of the animal, such as eggs or milk. Traditional vegetarians are sometimes called "lacto-ovo" ("milk-egg") vegetarians to distinguish them from vegans.

¹⁹The ALF’s website is The ALF’s website is http://www.animalliberationfront.com/.

²⁰One consistent sore spot on this subject is parents who buy their small children chicks every Easter, with no knowledge or provision for their care. These "pets" often die painfully from the ignorance of their owners.

²¹This last question, of course, is a matter of political philosophy.

Dr. Dan Olinger teaches in the Seminary and Graduate School of Religion at Bob Jones University.