
Abstract: There are two opposing forces in the Bible -- the vegan prophets versus the greedy priests (cf. Tabor 2024). Analogously, there have been animal-hostile theologians, e.g., St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and René Descartes -- who are adamant that humans are entitled to do whatever they want to animals on the ground that the latter have no reason -- and animal-friendly theologians in the past 2000 years. Animal-friendly theologians can further be divided into animal-welfare theologians, e.g., John Calvin, John Wesley, John Stiles, Matthew Scully, who think that though God cares about animals, it is ok to kill, eat and use them as long as they are treated not too badly while alive; and animal-rights vegan theologians, e.g., Pr. William Metcalfe, Pr. J.R. Hyland, Keith Akers, Prof. James Tabor, Pr. Robert Munro, Pr. Timo, Pr. Shells, Minister Craig Douglas Wescoe, who dare to make veganism a core tenet of Christianity, and to declare Jesus a Vegan Christ. And there are animal-hostile theologians disguised as animal-friendly theologians, too, e.g., Karl Barth, C.S. Lewis, and Stephen Webb.
1. Veggie Early Church Fathers
“I desire compassion, rather than sacrifice,” declares Jesus (Matt. 9:13; 12:7). All the twelve apostles of Jesus are vegan (Eusebius, Church History 2.23.5–6). Most early church fathers, e.g., St. Basil of Caesarea (330-378), St. John Chrysostom (347-407), Clement of Alexandria (150-215), Tertullian (155-220), and St. Jerome (342-420), are also vegans/veggies, but primarily for ascetic/spiritual and health reasons, not out of compassion for animals. Most of them (mis)interpret dominion in Genesis 1:26,28 as human lordship over animals and opine that meat-eating is a necessary evil, that God gave Noah and his offspring permission to eat meat as a reluctant concession to their depravation. The only exception is St. Jerome who argues that since the first coming of Jesus Christ as both Alpha and Omega returned us to the vegan Eden, we are no longer allowed to eat animal flesh (Jerome, “Against Jovinianus” in NPNF2(6):360).
2. Hard-core Animal-hostile Theologians
Hard-core animal-hostile theologians are represented by Saint Augustine (354 – 430), Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274), and René Descartes (1596 – 1650). Most Medieval priests and theologians took their stance. They maintain that as animals do not have reason or a rational soul, they do not belong to the human community of law, and humans are entitled to kill, eat and use them arbitrarily. Notable exceptions include St. Francis of Assisi (1181/82 – 1226), Isaac of Nineveh (613-700), St. Benedict of Nursia (c. 480 – 547), St. Richard of Chichester (1197–1253), The Cathars (11th–14th century), The Bogomils (10th–14th century), etc., who are somewhat akin to the early church fathers as far as animals are concerned. They have remarkable sympathy towards animals but dare not make veganism the mandate for all, and they still believe in human superiority over other animals.
2.1. St. Augustine Believes Animals are for Humans to Kill and Use
Following in the footsteps of Aristotle (Polit. i, 3), St. Augustine's attitude towards human-animal power relations is typically anthropocentric. He’s adamant that the human species has been made to the image of God on account of the intellect (Augustine 1991:76). “The irrational animals… are dissociated from us by their want of reason, and are therefore by the just appointment of the Creator subjected to us to kill or keep alive for our own uses” (Augustine 2014: 1.20). (Additionally, animals are regarded by Augustine as an analogy for wild human emotions to be subdued [1991:78-79].) For the same reason, “Thou shalt not kill” does not apply to animals (Augustine 2014: 1.20). In his view, because the human species has been weakened by their sin, they can now be harmed or killed by many wild animals. Nonetheless, if even in this state of condemnation, “man” can still tame so many animals, then “what ought we to think of that reign of his… once he has been renewed and set free?” (Augustine 1990:77), which outrageously suggests that humans will brutalize other animals even more seriously in the New Heaven and New Earth.
2.2. Aquinas Denies Animals the Right to Love and Life
Thomas Aquinas anthropocentrically insists that “love thy neighbour” [Matthew 22:39; Mark 12:31] cannot be extended to irrational creatures because “they have no fellowship with man in the rational life”:-
The love of… our neighbor… cannot be extended to irrational creatures, since they have no fellowship with man in the rational life… no irrational creature can be loved out of charity… first…because it is not competent, properly speaking, to possess good… Secondly, because all friendship is based on some fellowship in life…as the Philosopher [Aristotle] proves (Ethic. viii, 5). Now irrational creatures can have no fellowship in human life which is regulated by reason…third…charity is based on the fellowship of everlasting happiness, to which the irrational creature cannot attain. The Summa Theologiæ of St. Thomas Aquinas, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 25, Article 3 https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3025.htm#article3
Aquinas also humanocentrically claims that “Thou shalt no kill” cannot refer to animals because they are created by God for man; and, devoid of reason, they are born to be enslaved:-
Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i, 20): "When we hear it said, 'Thou shalt not kill,' we do not take it as referring to trees, for they have no sense, nor to irrational animals, because they have no fellowship with us. I answer that, There is no sin in using a thing for the purpose for which it is. Now the order of things is such that the imperfect are for the perfect… and all animals are for man. Wherefore it is not unlawful if man use plants for the good of animals, and animals for the good of man, as the Philosopher states (Polit. i, 3)…this is in keeping with the commandment of God Himself: for it is written …(Genesis 9:3): "Everything that moveth and liveth shall be meat to you."…as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i, 20), "by a most just ordinance of the Creator, both their life and their death are subject to our use."…Dumb animals and plants are devoid of the life of reason… they are moved …by a kind of natural impulse, a sign of which is that they are naturally enslaved and accommodated to the uses of others… He that kills another's ox, sins [Exodus 21:35], not through killing the ox, but through injuring another man in his property. Wherefore this is not… sin of murder but… theft or robbery. (The Summa Theologiæ of St. Thomas Aquinas, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 64, Article 1 https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm#article1)
2.3. Descartes: Animals are God-created Machines
In his 1649 work, Passions of the Soul, René Descartes claims that “All living creatures have a soul: a rational soul for humans, a sensitive soul for animals, and a vegetative soul for plants.” In his 1637 work, Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting One's Reason and of Seeking Truth in the Sciences, he concedes that both humans and animals are created by God. However, he maintains that humans are endowed by God with a rational soul capable of reasoning, free will and a divine connection to God. Lacking this rational soul, animals are like machines. This view reinforces St. Augustine’s and Thomas Aquinas’ opinion that since animals do not have reason, they have no rights whatsoever and humans are entitled to use them to the bone.
2.4. Saint Francis' Compassion for Animals
Saint Francis of Assisi (1181-1226) the patron saint of animals had all-embracing love for every creature of God (Bonaventure 1904: 8.1). He regarded them as sisters and brothers (Bonaventure 1904: 8.6) and rescued many of them (Bonaventure 1904:8.6-11). He communicated with them well, instructing them to praise God (Bonaventure 1904:8.9), to be at peace with humans (Bonaventure 1904:8.11), and even to help people (Bonaventure: 1904:8.7). Reciprocally, animals liked the holy man (Bonaventure: 1904:8.10), listened to him (Bonaventure: 1904:8.7; 8.9), and would grieve to part with him (Bonaventure: 1904:8.7, 8.8). Whilst Francis still thought that the universe was created for humans' sake (Francis, 1959), and he did not draw up vegan rules for his order (possibly to avoid persecution) (Singer 2015:289), Peter Singer has not supported with any evidence his allegation that Francis ate flesh (ibid.). The story of the Holy Man rebuking Brother Juniper, not for cutting away a pig's foot but for damaging the property of the pig owner, comes from an unreliable source (The Little Flowers of St. Francis) (see Assisiproject 2019).
2.5. Isaac of Nineveh Prays for the Reptiles
St. Isaac the Syrian, also known as Isaac of Nineveh, a prominent Christian monk, bishop, and theologian of the 7th century, taught that a true ascetic should not harm any creature and should instead live in peace with all of God's creations. Here are some of his quotes on this subject:
“It is a heart which is burning with love for…all creatures .... He will pray even for the reptiles, moved by the infinite pity which reigns in the hearts of those who are becoming united with God.” (Isaac the Syrian, Homily 71)
“The compassionate heart offers up tearful prayer continually, even for irrational beasts…” (Isaac the Syrian, Homily 81)
“If you love the Creator, then at once you love all creation… mankind… the animals, and all that lives.” (Isaac the Syrian, as cited in "Mercy On All")
2.6. The Veggie Cathars
The Cathars were a compassionate, vegan/vegetarian, deeply spiritual Christian dualist sect that flourished in parts of Southern France, especially in the Languedoc region, from the 11th to 14th centuries, until they were brutally exterminated by the medieval Catholic Church. While some of the Cathars were not strictly vegan in the modern sense, their practices of vegetarianism, compassion for animals, and non-violence bear strong similarities to vegan theology. They believed in abstaining from the consumption of animals and rejected the violence and corruption associated with the material world, reflecting an ethical framework that aligns with aspects of vegan spirituality today. The Cathar community was indeed a merciful, egalitarian, utopia-like structure, including both women and men in the Perfecti as well as the Credentes.
3. Animal-friendly Theologians as Hypocrites
Ever since Martin Luther (1483-1586), most famous theologians have either totally evaded the topic of animals or claimed to be more or less sympathetic towards animals, i.e., animal friendly. Most of these “animal-friendly” theologians, e.g., John Calvin (1509-1564), Matthew Hale (1609–1676), John Wesley (1703-1791), and John Stiles (1782 –1849), Matthew Scully (1959-), and Michael Rennie Stead (1969–), think that as long as the animals are treated not too cruelly while alive, it is alright to use them for food, for labour, for transport, for entertainment, etc. They are indeed animal-welfare theologians rather than animal-rights theologians because they fail to acknowledge animals’ basic right to life. They are sort of hypocrites when it comes to animal rights.
Three of their major problems are: firstly, they interpret “dominion” in Genesis 1:26, 28 as surrogate lordship or stewardship instead of servanthood (Chen 2024), but power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely (Lord Acton 1887); secondly, they misinterpret God’s permission for Noah and his offspring to eat “every moving thing” in Genesis 9:3 as God’s permission for humans to kill and consume animals whilst the correct translation of the phrase is “every creeper” plant (cf. Metcalfe 1840; Jahn 1992: Col.11; Reeves 2014),); thirdly, they fail to recognize that Jesus is a Vegan Christ who died for animal liberation (Akers 2020).
3.1. Martin Luther Insisted on his "Christian liberty" to Eat Animal Flesh
A typical example is Martin Luther. On the one hand, he praised the mouse for being a divine creature with such beautiful feet and hair (LW 1.52); on the other hand, he was a carnivorous glutton with a large belly (Cochlaeus 2003:352; Connolly 2008). On the one hand, he admitted that God made His covenant with not only humans but also the animals (LW 2.106; 2.143–4); on the other hand, he opined that if intimations of our animality did not make us anxious, we would not need the good news proclaimed in Genesis that we are superior to all the other creatures (LW 1.105; Clough 2009:50). Whereas he asserted that God is present in all earthly creatures, he insisted on his "Christian liberty" to eat animal flesh (LW 22:451). While conceding that God gave every animal a soul (LW 22.30, 22.37, 28.191), he argued that humans now have absolute tyrannical power over all the animals (LW 2.132). Luther's sympathy for animals was therefore crocodile tears.
3.2. John Calvin: Humans’re Allowed by God to Abuse Animals Even Before the Fall
John Calvin (1509-1564) is a typical hypocrite when it comes to animals. On the one hand, he describes the animal world as a “most glorious theater” (Calvin 1989, Institutes of the Christian Religion: Ch. 6, Section 2) that discloses God's goodness and majesty; on the other, he views the animal world as a warehouse (Calvin 1840-57, Calvin’s Commentary on the Bible, Genesis 9, v. 3), from which humans can take their food, for the entire universe “was established especially for the sake of mankind” (Calvin 1989, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Ch. 16, Section 6). On the one hand, he concedes that God cares about animals (Calvin 1989, Institutes of the Christian Religion: Ch. 16, Section 1); on the other, he argues that humans were allowed by God to murder animals, skin them and eat their flesh even in Eden before the Fall (Calvin 1840-57, Calvin’s Commentary on the Bible, Genesis 9, v. 3)! While he admits that the Bible still requires humans to "practice justice even in dealing with animals" (Calvin 1847-1850, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, Ch. VIII, Section 2), he frequently uses animals as negative metaphors (e.g., Calvin 1998, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 3, Ch.4, Section 16; Calvin 1960, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.2.13, 3.9.1, 1.5.4; see Huff 1999).
3.3. Matthew Hale: Trustees of God’s Animals May Take their Lives Sparingly
Sir Matthew Hale, Lord Chief Justice of the King’s bench, opines that humans are assigned by God to be trustees and accountant of His animal creatures (1805:273). Quoting Prov. 12.10, he claims that it has always been his practice to be merciful to beasts, to decline any cruelty to any of God’s creatures, and as far as possible, to prevent it in others, on the ground of the stewardship that God has committed to him (1805:273). Meanwhile, Hale, however, contends “that ‘Law of Justice’ requires using the nonhuman world with ‘Temperance and Moderation,’ for the ‘Support of the Exigencies’ of human life, yet with ‘Mercy and Compassion’” (1805:273). He believes that since God has indulged mankind so much so that He has given them permission to take animals’ lives for food, it is alright to take the lives of these sensible creatures “sparingly, for necessity, and not for delight; or if for delight, yet not for luxury” (1805:274).
3.4 John Wesley Interrupted his Vegetarianism to Avoid Offending the Bishop
John Wesley (1703-1791), the founder of Methodism, was a vegetarian (Wesley 1736). He thought that knowing that God cares about all creatures, and that animals suffer terribly, and that we should treat them more kindly (Wesley 1872b, II.6). Anyway, God will liberate them (Wesley 1872b, III.2), and they will have a place in the New Heaven and New Earth, where all their sufferings will be compensated for (Wesley 1872b, III.4). Paradoxically, Wesley, despite his doctor's advice (Wesley 1747/1931:2-4), once interrupted his vegetarianism in order to avoid offending his “brothers”, in particular, Dr. Gibson the Bishop of London (Allan Bevere 2007), and to show that vegetarianism is a health choice rather than a moral issue. ("Lest I make my brother to offend" comes straight from Paul the anti-vegan apostate [1 Corinthians 8:12-13].) Wesley’s anthropocentric contradictoriness stems from his misinterpretation of “dominion” in Genesis 1:28 as humans’ God-appointed governorship over animals (Wesley 1872b, I.3), and of “made in God’s image” as being exclusive to humanity (Wesley 1765, v.26-28).
3.5. John Stiles Believes We Can Responsibly Kill Animals for Food
English Congregational minister cum animal rights writer Pastor Dr. John Stiles (1782 –1849) claims to be against all forms of animal cruelty. He believes that animal can suffer, and do suffer immensely because of humans (Stiles 1839:6-7). He warns that God will at length visit the oppressors of animals with due vengeance (Stiles 1839:196-197). Stiles, however, contends that humans can use animals and even take their lives for food, if they deem it necessary for their sustenance, provided that they do it with responsibility, reverence and care (Stiles 1839:186, 192-193). He’s just opposed to the luxuries of animal-flesh-eating (Stiles 1839:178). Pastor Stiles and his colleagues’ two-faced stance concerning animals stems from their misinterpretation of “dominion” in Genesis 1:26, 28 as surrogate lordship/stewardship instead of powerless servanthood (Stiles 1839:186).
3.6. Matthew Scully
A more recent example is Matthew Scully (born 1959), former special assistant to President George W. Bush. In his 2003 book Dominion, he asserts that humans are abusing dominion, the first and greatest power given to them on earth, particularly in terms of factory farming. On the other hand, he denies any rights or power to animals and condones "humane farmers" giving innocent creatures of God a "merciful death".
3.7. Bishop Dr. Michael Rennies Stead Wants to Reap the Greatest Profit from the Flock
Like Andrew Linzey (Linzey 1995:34) and David Clough (2015), Australian Anglican Bishop Dr. Michael Rennie Stead (2019) contends that “dominion” means that humanity is appointed by God to exercise a rule over animals that is modelled on God’s rule, with a responsibility to protect and care for the creation. However, the Steadian concept of 'stewardship' includes the right to domesticate and raise innocent creatures of God in order to kill them for food, provided they are treated with “dignity” while they live. Stead even has the face to quote that the true good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep (Luke 15:3-7; John 10:11), while adding that “the ‘good shepherd’ is the one who can maximise the return on investment from the flock, generating the highest yield of fleece or meat for the lowest price” (Stead 2019). So Jesus the good shepherd died for His sheep, while Michael Rennies Stead, wants to use the sheep to the bone in order to maximize his own profit and to gratify his self-serving, carnist lust.
4. Animal-hostile Theologians in Disguise
Some of those so-called animal-friendly theologians are not only hypocritical but animal-hostile deep down. For example, Karl Barth (1886-1968) asserts that dominion in terms of human lordship over animals presupposes requisitioning, disciplining, taming, harnessing, exploiting, making profitable use of animals, and that butchers, vivisectionists, and hunters are honourable and respectful as long as they do their job like a serious, reverential high priest (Barth 1961:351-355). C.S. Lewis (1898 – 1963) even pseudoscientifically postulates that most animals cannot possible feel pain, on the ground that they can just experience of a succession of disconnected sensations (Lewis 1959:120), echoing Descartes’ (1637) theory that animals are machines sans feelings. Stephen H. Webb (1961-2016) concedes that God loves all suffering animals (Webb 2001:140), but he himself supports factory farming, and scandalously speculates that Jesus's likely to frequent McDonald's (Webb 2011b:26).
5. Animal-rights Vegan Theologians
Genuine animal-friendly theologians must be vegan themselves and must advocate veganism as a core tenet of veganism, recognising Jesus as a Vegan Christ who died at least partly for the cause of animal liberation, and animals are our beloved sisters and brothers. This is because God is love (1 John 4:8); God loves the world (John 3:16), including ALL His creation (Psalm 145:9); Christ is compassion (Matthew 9:13; 12:7); Jesus was crucified at least partly for liberating from the Holy Temple animals about to be slaughtered and sacrificed (Mark 11:18; Akers 2020). These constitute the bottom line of Christianity, a vegan faith in quintessence. Salient examples of real animal rights vegan theologians/priests include Thomas Tryon (1634 – 1703), Pastor William Metcalfe (1788 – 1862), Pastor J.R. Hyland (1933 – 2007), Vicar James Thompson (1930-2015), Prof. James Tabor (1946-), Keith Akers (?-), Pastor Robert Munro (1963- ), Pastor Timo (?-), Pastor Shells (?-), and Craig Douglas Wescoe (?-), etc.
5.1. Thomas Tryon: Violence Against Any Sentient Being will Lead to God’s Wrath and Curse
English merchant and writer Thomas Tryon (1634-1703) was the first person to employ the term “animal rights”, as well as the first theologian in the last 400 years to mandate vegetarianism based on faith and compassion (Tryon 1697/1683), declaring that eating animal flesh is against the spirit of Jesus Christ and God’s principle of eternal love (Tryon 1697: 247). Despite his humble beginnings, Tryon managed to educate himself and became a significant thinker in the tradition of animal theology. His most important work is The Way to Health, Long Life, and Happiness (1697/1683), which stresses the Bible's teachings against violence towards animals and highlights the negative impacts of flesh consumption on the spiritual, mental, and physical health of humans. Tryon is adamant that oppressing, abusing, and killing any sentient being will inevitably lead to God’s wrath and curse.
5.2. Pastor William Metcalfe Proclaims Christianity as a Veggie Faith.
Pastor William Metcalfe (1788-1862), English-American founder of the vegetarian Philadelphia Bible Christian Church and the American Vegetarian Society, is a much underestimated theologian and animal rights activist (besides a homeopathic physician). He is likely the first, or one of the first, theologians/priests after St. Jerome to re-examine the Bible from a veggie perspective, and proclaim or argue that vegetarianism is a core tenet of the Christian faith; that Jesus was/is a veggie Christ who neither declared all foods clean nor ate fish; that “Thou shalt not kill” is “benevolently intended” by God to reach the animal creation; that we should be go veggie not only for the sake of asceticism and health, but also out of compassion and mercy; that the “moving things” which God permitted Noah and his offspring to eat are actually creeper plants; that the animal sacrifices in the OT “were not of divine appointment”, that the decree issued by the Jerusalem Council around 50 AD is a veggie decree; and that God did not really want Peter to kill and eat unclean animals. Metcalfe is also the first theologian to propose a set of animal rights activism strategy.
5.3. Pastor J. R. Hyland: The Evolution of a Sacrificial Cult
Pastor Janet Regina Hyland (1998/1988) points out that when Abraham 's attempt at sacrificing his own son Isaac was stopped by an angel from God at the last minute, legitimized human sacrifice came to an official end. Unfortunately, that marked "the beginning of a cult of animal sacrifice that eventually became the central act of worship among the Hebrews” despite the verbal protest of Isaiah and other prophets. The Temple was turned by the chief priests and scribes into a gigantic slaughterhouse, "awash in the blood of its victims." When Jesus took direct action to stop the economic flow therein, they plotted to have Him killed. After Jesus' death, His disciples carried on His Vegan Church. But then Paul who had never met Jesus came along. As a committed Pharisee, he was a staunch supporter of the sacrifices that were at the heart of Temple worship. While Jesus rejected the concept of a tetchy God, whose wrath cannot be appeased by anything but the blood of a sacrificial victim, Paul "claimed that Jesus died in place of the sinner and that his shed blood met all the demands for retribution demanded by a God who was outraged by sin", thereby ironically transforming Jesus into a sacrificial lamb, the very thing He was protesting (cf. Thompson 2024).
5.4. Vicar James Thompson the Animals’ Padre
Vicar James Thompson (1930-2015) from Wales, known affectionately as the “Animals’ Padre”, is one of the first modern-day Christian priests and theologians to recognize Jesus as an animal liberator, to support militant direct action to rescue animals, to openly accuse mainstream churches of anthropocentrically limiting God’s compassion to humans, to interpret “dominion” in Genesis 1 as stewardship instead of despotism, and to conduct blessing services for animals (Thompson 1994; Jones 2022). His weaknesses include his misbelieving that Jesus ate fish without questioning the text concerned and the context; and his interpreting “dominion” in Genesis 1 as human authority over animals though not necessarily as tyranny.
5.5. Keith Akers: Jesus Died for the Cause of Animal Liberation
Keith Akers, a Colorado writer and activist, has published influential books and articles on vegan theology, most notably The Lost Religion of Jesus (2020/2000). His major contributions to the field include his sound arguments that Jesus was a pioneering animal rights vegan activist who actually died for the cause as a result of His emptying the Temple of animals about to be slaughtered for sacrifice; that Jesus strove to return the people to the original vegan Law of God rather than to create a new religion separate from Judaism; that not Orthodox Christianity or the modern-day Christianity but early Jewish Christianity got the core of Jesus' vegan message; and that Paul the anti-vegan apostate violated Jesus' vegan teachings as well as the Jerusalem Council's vegan decree.
5.6. Prof. James Tabor: Jesus’ Eucharist is Vegan
Prof. James Tabor (2024a) contends that Jesus is vegan, that those fishy stories about Jesus are later additions made by Luke and John to counter critics like Celsus who claimed, 'Maybe they only saw a ghost or an apparition'? Tabor (2012) argues that Jesus’ Eucharist is necessarily vegan, for Jesus kept the Torah, which strictly forbade the consumption of blood and meat from which the blood had not been properly drained, so much that it’s inconceivable even symbolically (Tabor 2012: 15, 44-46, 151). Tabor indicates that the Eucharist as Jesus’ blood and flesh comes straight from Paul and smacks of black cannibalistic magic. Tabor backs up his argument with Didache. Similar to Keith Akers, Tabor points out that Jesus cleansed the Temple because those priests and scribes have turned the Temple from a house of prayer into “a den of shredders of animals” (Tabor 2024b), and that all those animal sacrificial rituals in the OT are a product of “the lying pen of the scribes” (Jeremiah 8:8).
5.7. Pastor Robert Munro: Jesus Did Not Die for the Forgiveness of your Sins
Pastor Robert Munro (2024) contends that Jesus and His brother James were animal rights activists, that Jesus was crucified for trying to stop the slaughter of animals in the Temple just before Passover which threatened the income and food supply of the priests, rather than the atonement of our sins, “You are responsible for your own sins only through confession and repentance may sin be forgiven.” Munro also argues that “thou shalt not kill” applies to animals as well as humans, and that the Evil One lures good people to consume animal flesh so that the Evil One can stay evil.
6. Two Prominent Animal Theologians
On the other hand, even prominent animal theologians such as Prof. Andrew Linzey (1952-), who academically confirms that “dominion” (Gen. 1:26) means stewardship rather than despotism, and Prof. David Clough (1968-), who argues that when the Word became flesh (John 1:14), God stepped over the boundary between creator and creation and took on creatureliness (Clough 2012: 103), dare not present veganism as the mandate for all. Even they, just like the early church fathers and the animal-welfare theologians, view animal flesh-eating as a necessary evil, veganism an “ideal”. Moreover, they still believe that Jesus ate fish and/or lamb.
7. Conclusion
In order to honour the omni-benevolent God and do good to our fellow creatures, we had better follow the Vegan Christ, and distinguish among genuine animal-rights vegan theologians, animal-welfare theologians, and animal-hostile theologians. Animal-hostile theologians like Aquinas and Descartes who regard God’s beloved innocent creatures as machines to be used to the bone do not deserve to be called Christians. “Animal-friendly” theologians, e.g., John Calvin, Matthew Scully, and Michael Rennie Stead, who opine that there are humane, respectful, and Christly ways to exploit animals for food, for labour, for transport, for experiments, for entertainment, etc. are hypocritical animal-welfare theologians. For Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines "humane" as "having or showing compassion or benevolence.” But how can there be anything compassionate or benevolent about killing a sentient being who does not want to die? Only genuine animal-rights vegan theologians, e.g., J.R. Hyland, Keith Akers, James Tabor, Pr. Robert Munro, Pr. Timo, Pr. Shells, Minister Craig Douglas Wescoe, who recognize veganism or all-round compassion for sentient creatures of God as a core tenet of Christianity and Jesus as a Vegan Christ, deserve our respect.
Comments