There Is Nothing Humane About Killing Innocent Creatures Who Don't Want to Die. By Dr Chapman Chen

Summary: Many modern “animal-friendly” theologians—such as John Calvin, C. S. Lewis, Karl Barth, Stephen Webb, and David Clough—actually :maintain that it is acceptable to kill the innocent creatures of God for human purposes, such as food or clothing, provided that the animals are treated humanely, compassionately, and respectfully while they are still alive. Yet, as Ed Winters (2021) rightly stresses, there is nothing humane about killing someone who does not want to die. The inconsistency of these theologians can be traced back to their anthropocentric interpretation of the word “dominion” in Genesis 1:26 and 1:28. In my view, the ancient Hebrew word yirdu (“dominion”) therein should be understood as humble servanthood in the compassionate spirit of Jesus Christ rather than powerful lordship. Even “stewardship” is problematic because humans tend to abuse power whenever they believe they possess it over others (cf. Lord Acton 1887). The attempt by the above theologians to justify the killing of animals through the notion of “humane treatment” recalls Gary Francione’s (1995) argument that animal welfare laws serve to legitimise animal exploitation. Nevertheless, it remains necessary to reduce the unspeakable suffering of enslaved animals until they can be fully liberated. Therefore, when advocating for better conditions for farmed animals through legislation, it must be made clear to the public that such laws are merely interim measures and that the ultimate, proper goal is the complete abolition of animal farming. #VeganChrist #VeganGod #VeganTheology #VeganChurch

Full Text: https://www.vegantheology.net/post/there-is-nothing-humane-about-killing-innocent-creatures-who-don-t-want-to-die-by-dr-chapman-chen

1. “Animal-Friendly” Theologians like Calvin, Barth, Lewis, Webb, & Clough

Many modern “animal-friendly” theologians think that it is alright to kill innocent creatures of God for human uses, like food, clothing, etc., provided that the animals are treated humanely while they are still alive.

For example, John Calvin (1509-1564), while admitting that humans are required by God to "practice justice even in dealing with animals" (Calvin 1847-1850, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, Ch. VIII, Section 2), it is always permissible 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 9:3).

The atrocities committed against trillions of guiltless creatures of God in hunting lodges, slaughterhouses, and medical labs are also barefacedly described by Karl Barth (1886 – 1968) as potentially sacred, “respect[ful]…considerate, friendly…understanding…sympathetic” (Barth 1961, 352).  “The killing of animals in obedience is possible only as a deeply reverential act of repentance, gratitude and praise on the part of the forgiven sinner in face of the One who is the Creator and Lord of man and beast,” wrote Barth (1936) in Church Dogmatics, vol. III/4. 

In Vivisection, C.S. Lewis contends that a Christian pathologist who cuts up innocent creatures of God deserves respect as long as he/she does his/her job carefully, with a deep sense of responsibility and an awareness of the high standard to be met to justify such sacrifices (Lewis 1947:8).

Stephen Webb (1961 – 2016) opines that "animals... are creatures to be cherished... with respect and compassion” (Webb 2001:140, 220). However, in "A Response to William T. Cavanaugh", Webb asserts that McDonald's provides calorie-dense fuel at an “affordable” price, implicitly concluding that Christians should accept fast food and factory farming as necessary realities. Webb goes so far as to suggest that as Jesus was pro-grassroots and pro-simple eating, He is likely to patronize McDonald's were He to come back in flesh today (Webb 2011b:26)!! 

David Clough (1968 – ) argues that it is acceptable for humans to be “conscientious omnivores” (Clough 2016, 7), provided that “the animals concerned have been given a good life,” for such use of them supposedly “respects their relationship to us as fellow creatures of God” (Clough 2016, 2).

2. Nothing Humane About Killing An Innocent Creature Who Doesn’t Wanna Die!

 But there is nothing sympathetic, or reverential, or responsible, or respectful, or compassionate, or conscientious about murdering an innocent creature of God who does not want to die. Ed Winters (2021) eloquently and convincingly debunks "humane slaughter" as follows:-

So then we might make the argument that the act of killing is moral in a slaughterhouse because it’s done humanely. However, synonyms for the word humane include compassionate, benevolent and kind. Would you say it’s benevolent to take the life of someone who doesn’t need to die? Or, to put it another way, to cut the throat of someone needlessly.

The very act of taking someone’s life when they don’t need to die is the polar opposite of being compassionate, benevolent and indeed humane. Humane slaughter is an oxymoron that seeks to reassure us that we don’t need to worry about the animals, even though we would never want the bloody knife in our own hand. 

3. Misinterpretation of “Dominion” (Gen. 1:26, 28) as Lordship

The internal contradiction of these “animal-friendly” theologians all comes from their interpretation of “dominion” in Genesis 1:26, 28 as God-like “stewardship” and “lordship” instead of humble servanthood.

John Calvin claims that God had put them “in subjection unto us” and given them to us for food (Calvin 1987, Sermons on Deuteronomy [Sermon 141 on Deut. 22:6-7, pp. 706-707]. “Man was appointed by God to have dominion over the beasts, and everything a man does to an animal is either a lawful exercise, or a sacrilegious abuse, of an authority by divine right,” wrote C.S. Lewis (1959:126). “If that of his lordship over the living beast is serious enough, it takes on a new gravity when he sees himself compelled to express his lordship by depriving it of its life,” Karl Barth argues in Church Dogmatics, Vol. III/4. David Clough asserts that the human characteristic of bearing the image of God is a vocation to play God to other animals (Clough 2012:166), which Clough ties to “dominion” and “stewardship” [Clough 2015].)

4. “Dominion (Yirdu)” (Gen. 1:26, 28) as Servanthood

In my submission, dominion in Genesis 1:26 and 1:28 should be understood not as human authority over animals but as servanthood, in the compassionate spirit of Jesus Christ. The ancient, pre-Masoretic Hebrew consonantal form of “dominion” is ירדו (yirdu), which can be read either as רָדָה (rādāh, “to subjugate”) or יָרַד (yārad, “to lower oneself”) (cf. Ehrenfeld and Bentley 1985: 301). I maintain that only yārad provides the correct interpretation, for two major reasons. First, Jesus declares that He “came to serve, not to be served” (Matt. 20:28) and teaches that “anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all” (Mark 9:35). Second, the command to “have dominion” (Gen. 1:28) is immediately followed by God’s prescription of a vegan diet for humanity (Gen. 1:29) (cf. Linzey 1995: 34). On this basis, Linzey argues that “dominion” means “stewardship” rather than despotism, and further contends that humanity has the unique potential to become the “servant species,” working with God for the liberation of animals (Linzey 1995: 34, 45, 57). Yet, as mentioned above, many theologians misinterpret “stewardship” as a God-given lordship of power or as an agency representing God.

5. Animal Welfare Laws Sanitize Animal Abuse?

The abovementioned theologians’ attempt to justify human abuse of animals with humane treatment of them reminds us of law expert Gary Francione’s (1995, 1996) argument that animal welfare laws legitimize and cosmetically sanitize animal exploitation. “Animal welfare reforms merely make people feel better about consuming animals. They do nothing to challenge the property status of animals and, in fact, make exploitation more efficient.” — Gary L. Francione, Rain Without Thunder (1996, p. 9).

On the other hand, it remains necessary to reduce the suffering of enslaved animals before they can be completely liberated. Thus, when advocating for better conditions for farmed animals through legislation, we must emphasize to the public that such “animal welfare” laws are merely interim, expedient, and temporary measures to mitigate the suffering of these innocent creatures—beings who are, in truth, entitled to the right to life and freedom.

6. Conclusion

To sum up, the notion of “humane killing” is a theological and moral contradiction. To claim that one can compassionately murder an innocent creature of God who does not wish to die is to distort both reason and revelation. As long as theologians continue to interpret “dominion” as lordship rather than servanthood, they will perpetuate the same anthropocentric arrogance that fuels animal exploitation. True faith demands repentance from such violence and a return to the original peaceable vision of Eden, where humans and animals lived without bloodshed. The only genuinely humane path is not the regulation of slaughter, but its abolition—so that all creatures of God may share in the freedom and compassion of His kingdom.

References

Clough, David (2016). "Consuming Animal Creatures: The Christian Ethics of Eating Animals." Studies in Christian Ethics, Oct. DOI: 10.1177/0953946816674147

Clough, David (2015). "In Whose Image are Animals Made?" Theological Animal: Explorations in Theological and Animal Studies, Jan. 20. https://thenephesh.wordpress.com/category/david-clough/

Clough, David (2012). On Animals: Volume I: Systematic Theology. London: T&T Clark.

Webb, Stephen H., “Against the Gourmands: In Praise of Fast Food as a Form of Fasting”, The Other Journal 19 (2011a), 2-13.

Webb, Stephen H. (2011b). “A Response to William T. Cavanaugh’s “Out to Lunch”,” The Other Journal 19, 20-24.

Webb, Stephen (2001). Good Eating. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press.

Winters, Ed (2021). “Every argument for killing animals debunked: The ethical case for veganism.” Euronews, Jan. 27. https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/01/27/every-argument-for-killing-animals-debunked-the-ethical-case-for-veganism