Moving Towards a Theology of Animals

First of all, let me apologize for my prolonged blogging silence, though I doubt many of you really noticed. Without further ado, allow me to introduce my next topic of conversation.

Introductory Questions Related to Building a Theology of Animals

Theologizing is all about answering questions. My next blogging topic is a consideration of animals from a Biblical view. This post will present some questions that I see as central to understanding how Christians ought to treat and think of animals. Subsequent will deal with these questions, though satisfactory answers may be lacking.

1) What is the essential distinction between Humans and Animals? The automatic answer is "image of godness", but what does this mean? What are the implications of this? What do humans have that animals do not? As we examine this in more depth, I hope to be able to convince you that this is much more difficult than one might think.

2) What is the essential relationship between humans and animals? Humans were given dominion over creation, but what does that mean? Does that mean that we have the right to do anything we want to animals, kill them, eat them, torture them, domesticate them, or wipe them out? Or does this give us responsibilities and duties towards animals?

3) What is the value of animal life in the eyes of God and, subsequently, why did God create them? Animals are not made in God's image, but do they have value? Are they all equally valuable? Is the life of a dog worth more than the life of a gnat? Probably, but why?

4) What effect, if any, did the fall have upon human-animal relations? Will animals be on the new earth? Will the original relationship between humans and animals be restored?

4) And finally, what are the practical implications for the Christian? Is eating meat okay? Is killing animals for furs okay? Is wiping out a colony of ants or termites because they threaten your house acceptable? Animal testing? Killing animals for pleasure? Hunting? Fishing? Is there a difference between what is ideal and what is permissible in these areas?

This may not seem like an important issue to you, but I would submit that, though probably not as important as a proper understanding of the trinity, a proper understanding of animals in God's plan and the practical implications of Scripture for the Christian is crucial. Animals suffer, often at the hands of humans. Humans were given responsibilities as God's representatives on earth to rule and have dominion over the earth. Understanding our proper relationship with animals and the essential difference between animals and humans are, I think, essential to understanding what it means to be in the image of God. In my neck of the woods, the pacific northwest, this is an extremely important issue to many people. Being able to explain what the Bible teaches about animals is crucial for living out and helping others live out their faith in the world. If there is inconsistency between our theology and our praxis we can misrepresent our faith to those who listen to our words and watch us for inconsistencies. Teaching the "whole counsel of God" should not only include teaching all of Scripture, but the implications of Scripture upon every area and aspect of our lives.

Responding to James Holden's Questions

This post's purpose is respond to James' questions left as a reply to my previous blog entry. I did read The Shack while I was in Alaska and will have a review of it up very soon, maybe even tonight.

I said that I wasn't looking to give answers in my last blog but receive answers. That was true. That does not mean that I didn't have answers to my own questions, but only that I am not satisfied with them. Bob Dylan wasn't really the point, which you all probably realized, nor did he really spark my questions as much as my own personal experiences did. Thanks James for your reply and you rightly discerned the influence my own experiences had upon my questions. The main reason I wanted to start blogging was for dialogue so I am grateful for the questions you asked. I hope I can allay your fears a bit. I am not placing my experiences on the level of the Scriptures. Experiences are too flighty and too easily misinterpreted to be the basis of truth. I agree with you that Scripture is true and reliable (and probably agree that there is absolute truth which is found in the Bible, you'd have to define 'absolute truth' for me though. I've always found it to be a very ambiguous term for such an absolute statement!).

But even if experience is an unreliable source of truth, it is an essential source for questions and questions are an essential tool of any serious thinker. And though the Bible is true, reliable, and revelation from God, it does not answer all of our questions. And many of the questions that it does answer are not answered clearly. This is not to find fault with the Bible, but with us humans who distort and misunderstand things all of the time. Even if we say, as I would, that Scripture is sufficient, that is not to say that we should cease to ask questions. If you do, you will ultimately rely upon your own understanding and presuppositions as your source of truth, not the Bible, because you will have no real way to analyze what you read or whatever curve ball life throws at you.

So let's get to James' questions,


So without regarding my experiences or the questions my experience asks I will attempt answers at your questions, on the basis of my theology alone - as best as I can.

1) According to the Bible, what saves a person?

Important question though I don't like the wording. I would answer simply that God saves someone. That's not what you are looking for. You want me to say believing in Jesus, or turning from sin or something along those lines, but really these do not save you. God saves you. Now on what basis does God save you? Isn't it on the basis of his own will? He saves you because he wants to? But here we run into some issues because I believe, based upon my debatable interpretation of Scripture, that God desires the salvation of all. We could go the Piper route and talk about God's differing wills, but, to be quite honest, that sounds ridiculous to me. Ultimately we cannot, methinks, really understand this from God's perspective. So what does God require of us if we wish to be 'saved' (I don't like that word...)? Repentance. Turning from your sin, the world system, and any other hope of salvation and follow Christ. This includes believing that Jesus died and rose from the dead, but believing these facts are not what save you, only prerequisites to really trusting in Jesus to save you.

2) According to the Bible, what keeps a person saved?

The Holy Spirit does. I do not believe that someone is saved forever because they believe in Jesus, no matter what happens afterward. Rather, the Holy Spirit preserves the elect (whatever that means).

3. What does it mean to be sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise?

I'll change the translation a bit to "sealed by the promised Holy Spirit". What does this mean? I'm not sure I can answer this fully, but I'll begin an answer anyway. The seal indicates ownership and, as 1:14 indicates, something of a preview or guarantee of our future inheritance. The real question is who receives this seal? The answer is obvious (I think): the elect. But who are the elect? From our perspective, I don't think that we can answer this.

4. What does Romans have to say about a person's life after he is saved?

Since I don't believe that Romans 7 refers to believers, I'll have to just say that they sound pretty darn near perfect.

5. Was Judas (a man who outwardly must have displayed some measure of faith) a true believer? I assume he gave up a lot to follow Jesus for three years.

Obviously not. But did he really display as much faith as we think? We are told little, but John knew that he stole from the money purse. He may not have seemed that good of a guy. We don't really know, we are told very very little.

6. What about the Pope or mother Theresa?

I think it is very possible that either are/were saved but I don't know. Even if I disagree with their theology, I recognize that it is not correct theology that saves a person (see James 2) but God saves a person. I can't answer this question from a human perspective either because I don't know their hearts. I'm more optimistic about Mother Theresa than I am about the average Baptist.

7. Why is it written, "They went out from us because they were not of us (1 John 2:19)?"

Because those false teachers that left the faith were never truly believers. But here's a better and more relevant question that I cannot answer, maybe you can: Did they know that they were not truly believers? Does anyone?

8. What did Paul mean when he rebuked the Galatians in chapter 3 for thinking that they needed to do something to keep their salvation?

That they were wrong to pervert the gospel by thinking that they had to follow the OTL in order to be saved.

---

I wasn't advocating works salvation in my last blog. Nor was I questioning the Scriptures. I hope it didn't sound that way. I was merely asking questions that were prompted by, yes, my experiences that do not seem to be clearly answered by Scripture. Here's my question in a nutshell James: Can someone ever really know that they are indeed a true believer? If the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, as you reminded us, how do we know that we aren't deceiving ourselves into thinking that our faith is genuine? If there are those who display, outwardly, evidence that their faith is sincere, yet they fall away, how do we test it? Works, it seems, is an inadequate test.

So for any of you who may have misinterpreted my last post's underlying question here it is more concretely: Can we ever be really assured of our salvation? Does the phrase 'assurance of salvation' even make sense?

And Now for Something Completely Different...

Those of you who know the reference in the title can laugh at the title. Those who don't can laugh at me.

The point of the following blog is not to give you answers to any questions. I want your help with questions that haunt and confuse me. Bob Dylan is kind of just a foil.

The latest issue of CT has a couple interesting articles in it that would make good blog posts, especially for Nate (about giving, Africa, AIDS, small gospel, and humility). But one short little blurb has me curious and interested and thinking about important things. This blurb is about Bob Dylan. If you don't like him or his music don't turn me off yet. I'm not going to go on about why I like him or his music. Even if you can't stand the man, I think that the following may be interesting, thought provoking, and informative.

Some really fast background for the ignorant...
Bob Dylan (born Robert Zimmerman or Shabtai Zisel ben Avraham) is well known for his many reinventions of himself and his music. He began as a folk/blues guitar/harmonica player in the clubs of NY and released his first album in 1962. He reinvented himself as a folk-rock singer, and then made enemies of his former fans as he shifted to electric guitar (he even had angry fans try and attack him on stage and one grab an axe to destroy his sound system). He then kind of shifted back to folk rock, then released a country album, and then shifted to pop-rock. Then, in 1979, came the period most important to what I want to talk about. He became a born-again Christian, and a passionate one at that. He used to try and convert his team, his producers and his fans. He released three Evangelical albums, prayed with his band and crew before every concert, and began to talk about Jesus as Lord. Over the years, his faith became more quiet. His next couple albums had Christian and secular songs until there was no more sign of Christianity in his albums. He had one song in one album that some thought was a "reaffirmation of his faith" but there was nothing explicit or obvious. His musical style shifted back to his original folk/blues. As for his religious beliefs many have speculated that he has returned to Judaism, where he started. He has shown up a couple of Jewish services at Synagogues over the years but does not regularly attend anywhere. Others think he is no longer religious at all. In reality, it seems, no one really knows except for Bob Dylan. His religious journey began as a Jew, then to atheism, then to evangelical Christian, and now what?
In 1997 he said this:
"Here's the thing with me and the religious thing. This is the flat-out truth: I find the religiosity and philosophy in the music. I don't find it anywhere else. Songs like "Let Me Rest on a Peaceful Mountain" or "I Saw the Light"—that's my religion. I don't adhere to rabbis, preachers, evangelists, all of that. I've learned more from the songs than I've learned from any of this kind of entity. The songs are my lexicon. I believe the songs."

Bob Dylan was always vague in interviews. Now he really doesn't give any. This quote is about the best we have to go on for the last 20 years. What Dylan really believes and subscribes to does not seem to be the same Christianity than I subscribe to, but whether he has any faith or trust in Jesus Christ left? Who knows for sure?

Okay so the CT article and how it got me thinking...
So the CT article was just a little blurb in reaction to a new documentary on Dylan's 'Jesus Years'. It criticizes the documentary for treating Dylan's 'Jesus Years' as a mere "phase in his artistic development." The article holds out hope that Dylan's faith may still be there, subtle and below the surface.

Just reading and thinking about Dylan and his conversion, whether real or not, has brought several important questions about the Christian Life.

1) If Dylan is not a Christian, is he 'no longer a Christian', never a Christian, an apostate beyond hope of redemption, or someone who never really understood the gospel and may still yet receive Christ? Isn't it strange how some people who seem very passionate about their faith, whose faith we would never doubt, lose that passion and their faith? If they were never saved where did that passion come from? How do we know any passion we or anyone else ever has is real? Do these people know that they are not saved or do they think that they are? If he is no longer saved, then how do we define a Christian? Or the elect? Are the elect merely those who persevere? Or is there something noticeably different about them from the outset that distinguishes from those who will not endure? If Dylan's conversion was insincere, do any of you have reasons that Dylan embraced Christianity insincerely? He lost most of his fan base for ten years. He did not gain money. He became more obscure for the decade. Was he merely a confused individual who needed a crutch and found it temporarily in 'Jesus'?

2) If he is still a Christian, how far afield can someone go and remain a believer? Can they lose all outward evidence and still remain a believer as they go through deep struggle and difficulty internally? Can one abandon his faith and remain 'Saved'? Can someone just be a Christian privately? Is it possible that he just quit being public about his faith? Can a real Christian leave everyone in the dark about his faith?

Obviously we cannot definitively or definitely answer questions regarding Bob Dylan's sincerity or present condition. I hope, but very strongly doubt, that his faith in Christ remains. If nothing else thinking about this really scares me. I have known others whose faith seemed obvious before it disappeared when the slightest test approached like snow melts before the sun. How can I know whether my or another's faith is real, fake, or temporary? Are the 'goats' among us aware that they are goats? I don;t think they (hopefully not we) are. Is it possible that someday my or your passion will fade and we will just be Christians internally, with no outward sign or word?

Tell me what you think about these thoughts and questions. Tell me what you think about Bob Dylan. Tell me if this blog post was a waste of time.

Again, I'm looking for help. I'm not seeking to give you answers.

Sources: Wikipedia, Christianity Today (Dec 2008)

Hellish Questions

Just because I am posting a new blog does not mean you, dear readers - whoever you may be, do not have an obligation or invitation (the latter is nicer I guess) to comment on the story I posted directly prior. I really want interaction, suggestions, critiques, reactions, complements, and insults. So suffice to say, if you haven't read it or commented please do if you have the time. Thanks Brenda for your reaction. I am awaiting the thoughts you are chewing on.

But let's move from creative writing to dull writing (or fiction to nonfiction if you prefer those terms). What all do we really know about hell and the eternal state of the wicked? I'm going to pull an Austin Surls here and just ask some questions instead of offering answers. But I'm going to be Austin Surls on steroids because I have more than one question to ask. Unlike Surls however, I'm going to give some of my own thoughts after I ask these questions, just not today. I do want to learn from yall (forgive my 4 years in Virginia). Let us begin a dialogue then my friends. Here are some questions (JUST QUESTIONS don't burn me for heresy... yet!) for us to discuss:

1) Is Hellfire literal or a metaphor?

1a) If the latter, does hell involve physical punishment? Or just separation from God?

2) If those entering hell are judged by their works (seen clearly in Rev. 20 and elsewhere) can we assume that there are different levels of hell?

2b) If we do assume that there are different levels of hell, how extreme are the differences between the worst person in hell and the 'best' person in hell? Or do these questions even make sense?

2c) If we are assuming different levels of hell, what are the factors that determine how bad your hell is? Works would seem obvious... Does how much 'light' you had on this earth factor in? Does much suffering experienced on the old earth lighten your suffering in hell at all? Or does the person who lived a life of luxury and the person who starved to death receive the same level of punishment?

3) Is God being hypocritical to tell us to love our enemies when he tortures His? Why or why not?

4) Is there any room in Scripture for Annihilationism (notice I am not asking you if you believe in Annihilationsism....)?

5) As I tried to remind yall about earlier, we are not looking forward to eternity in heaven but upon a new earth. That being remembered, how similar to the earth is Hell actually? We may not be able to say anything here really- just speculate.

6) For those with a very 'nice' view of God, here's a question for you, does God love those in Hell? If so, tell me what that even means. For those who say that God only loves the elect (or for some, perhaps, the Elect), does God only love some of His enemies whereas we are to love all of our enemies? Or are we only to love our e/Elect enemies?

7) (new 11/23/08) What about babies who have not yet received the gospel?... harder than you think....

8) Or does Scripture really not give us very many answers about Hell and we really just have to say we don't know. In other words, my questions are pointless and I'm wasting your precious time.

You may assume many things about me because of the questions I am asking. Don't. I'm just asking questions about a difficult issue. Unfortunately I think it is too often treated as a clearly defined cut and dry issue.

(If 8 questions are too many for you to handle just tackle 1 or 2)

The lake of fire, methinks, is murkier than we think....