Theological

January 23, 2021 by Stephen M. Vantassel

Response to Ben DeVries

Response to Ben DeVries’ Questions

Ben DeVries is a Christian animal welfare/rights activist who believes that Christians have been neglectful of our responsibility to the animal kingdom. He asked me to respond to five questions as a way to encourage dialogue. Since his website, Not One Sparrow was shut down, I decided to make the material available on my site. Unfortunately, when Ben closed his site, I lost my answers (didn’t keep a copy for myself). So my answers below will not be identical to what I originally posted. Nevertheless, my answer expresses my views at the present time.

Question #1. In your book Dominion Over Wildlife? you recognize God’s calling for us to steward his compassion, and to recognize the dignity and value of his creatures, which I appreciate. But I’m wondering about your use of the terminology of “shepherdism” to describe your view of stewardship: “Shepherdism believes that humans ought to use their power to responsibly care for the earth and mitigate the imbalances that inevitably occur due to human activity. Shepherdism rejects the idea that use equals abuse. What is good for animals is conceived as applying first to the continuation of the species rather than to the future of any individual animal.” While there is much to share in common with the foundations of your perspective, doesn’t a verse such as Luke 12:6 recognize God’s attention to each and every animal, a truth which we also deduce from God’s omniscience and care of all creation in whole and in part. And should we not also take a lead from the biblical model of faithful shepherding (such as carefully expounded by former shepherd W. Philip Keller in A Shepherd Looks at Psalm 23), which we know to have been carefully compassionate and infinitely sensitive to the needs of the individual animals, as attested to directly by David and analogically by Jesus?

Question #1. Answer

The Lukan passage concerning God’s awareness of the sparrow that falls simply shows that God is mindful of his creation. Death is a natural part of God’s creation. So when the sparrow falls, God takes notice but its death is not a problem. Humans, on the other hand, were not made to die. Death is a result of our Fall in Adam. In addition, the Lukan passage clearly shows how much more valuable humans are to God than sparrows. Your question fails to understand that Christ is not providing us with a theology of animal welfare and certainly not animal rights. Christ was simply using a common practice in N.T. Israel of trapping sparrows for food, and showing his disciples that just as God is mindful of animals, how much more is he mindful of those created in his image. To derive a rejection of animal death or even of humans here is simply reading information there that would have never crossed the disciple’s minds.

As for Psalm 23, shepherds looked after flocks not for the flocks well-being but their own. Healthy, prosperous flocks meant that the shepherd ate and lived better. Yes, shepherds ate the animals they protected. They also killed a lot of animals that wanted to eat their property. Your question assumes a romantic vision of shepherding that has little resemblance to reality. Infinitely sensitive to the needs of individual animals is not even possible for humans, even if such a behavior was wanted by God.

Dominion over Wildlife? An Environmental-Theology of Human-Wildlife Relations, by Stephen M. Vantassel.

Question #2. While you rightly emphasize the priority of human suffering and violence in Scripture due to our having been made in God’s image, is it also possible you minimize the significance of animal pain and violence before God? I know you interact with several relevant passages in your book, but doesn’t Scripture present non-violence as God’s original and ultimate ideal for all creation, and acknowledge the very real suffering of animals as the result of human fallenness (Joel 1:15-20, Romans 8:19-22)? Theologically, if God carefully created each of His creatures and remembers them individually, even marks their passing (Luke 12:6, Matthew 10:29, does he not care about their individual treatment and pain, and desire us to make concerted efforts to minimize the latter?

Question #2. Answer

I think God himself as revealed in Scripture minimizes animal pain and suffering. First, consider the flood of Genesis. God’s judgement caused the death of untold numbers of “innocent” animals. Certainly it was within God’s power to punish the guilty individually. Second, Jesus himself demonstrated a rather cavalier treatment towards animals. Let’s consider a few of the Gospel accounts. 1. Matthew 8:4. Jesus tells the healed leper to go to the priests and offer the appropriate sacrifice. Why didn’t Jesus care for the animal that would die when He knew animal sacrifices would no longer be needed? 2. Matthew 8:30. Jesus sends the demons into some swine. Now consider the scenario. The swine did not belong to Christ and Christ did not seem to care that these sentient creatures (which some scientists claim are quite intelligent) were going to be demonized. How is that humane? Then when the swine drowned, Christ did not seem to care one iota about their demise. And an inhumane demise at that, namely drowning. 3. Luke 15:23. Jesus tells the story of the Prodigal Son. Note the story includes the fatted calf as part of the celebration. How did the calf get fattened? Could it have been a stall-fed calf. Kept in confinement to keep it tender? Has echoes of factory farming doesn’t it? and for my last illustration 4. John 21:5-13. The post-resurrection Christ helps the disciples kill lots of fish and then cooks some for them. Why no concern for the fish?

In regards to the verses you mention, I would just say that there is a difference between animals in our direct control and those that are wild. God cares about our purposes for animals. Why are we doing what we are doing? Just because an animal experiences pain does not mean something wrong happened. We must consider the purpose behind that pain. But the bible clearly allows a wide variety of animal uses, all of which involve pain whether psychological or physical. Pain caused by herding, hunting, fishing, trapping and slaughter for meat and sacrifice. It seems to me the problem for animal protectionist Christians is the life and testimony of Jesus.

Question #3. I understand your reasons for focusing on the case study of wildlife harvesting, trapping in particular, in your book. You were addressing a topic of personal expertise and one of the strongest areas of critique from the animal advocacy community, while also addressing an issue with an ancient and likely even biblical history. However, I appreciated the following quote from you: “It is difficult to imagine how the Biblical writers could have envisioned a time when our power over creation would allow us to inflict incredible suffering on animals while keeping them alive, as is done in animal experimentation and industrial farming” (pg. 14). What can we say then about, and to, these animal use models and industries as to how far they frequently miss the mark of Scriptural expectations of domestic animal stewardship and husbandry?

Question #4. Along the lines of my previous question, you mention that Paul “reject(s) any argument that justifies one’s food choices on theological grounds” in passages such as I Timothy 4:1-5 and Colossians 2:16-17 (pg. 96-97). You’re right to acknowledge that vegetarianism was far from a New Testament expectation, and even allowing for the ethical trajectory of redemptive direction which seems to have been inaugurated by the same biblical authors, we’ve also made an effort at not one sparrow not to present vegetarianism as an expectation in respect for the same root freedom of conscience. Even so, doesn’t the theological value of stewardship give us reason to reject certain sources of animal products, such as the industrial farming mentioned above, if we know them to be grossly contrary to God’s will for animal husbandry?

Question #5. Finally, and thank you for taking the time to respond to these questions, from your book as well as your blog post “Why Love One and Eat the Other?” I have the sense that you don’t have place a very high value on companion animals, or keeping pets. Could you perhaps explain why if so, or clarify if this is not the case? While there are certainly excess of pet ownership, many of us who love animals and advocate for them do so because of the unique personalities and vibrancy of life which we’ve found in our own pets, and I often think these relationships offer some of the most poignant insights into how God views each of His beloved creatures, and the relationship of mutual affirmation he ideally desires us to have with all of them. Could you comment on this?

Unfortunately, more and more self-professed Christians are adopting a quasi-animal rights perspective on human-animal relations. Whereas the church, for thousands of years, has held humanity has the right and privilege to use animals for human needs and wants (provided they didn’t serve the sole purpose of inflicting pain and injury), these individuals believe that Christ wants us to extend reconciliation to the animal kingdom.

I was invited by Ben DeVries of Not One Sparrow to answer questions related to this issue. I also had the opportunity to ask him questions. I will let you decide whether I answered him in a biblically grounded fashion and whether he did the same.

http://www.notonesparrow.com/blog/2010/5/26/dominion-over-wildlife.html (site is no longer functioning).

http://www.notonesparrow.com/blog/2010/5/27/five-questions-for-stephen-vantassel.html

http://www.notonesparrow.com/blog/2010/5/28/five-questions-for-not-one-sparrow.html

For the record, I welcome anyone who can explain to me what exactly Ben DeVries position is. I have asked him on several occasions, and I still haven’t received an answer. For example, 1. When may humans morally kill animals? 2. Since he believes eating meat is a personal decision based on conscience, how does this fact impact his understanding of extending reconciliation to animal kingdom? 3. Is hunting, trapping, and fishing moral and a proper activity for the Christian? and 4. Why didn’t Christ rescue the pigs he saw drown when the demons entered them?

Stephen M. Vantassel, CWCP, ACE, is the owner of Wildlife Control Consultant, LLC. He helps people restore their balance with nature through publishing, training, consulting, and the internet. He has published numerous articles in trade and academic publications available at {Stephen’s Academia.edu Page} along with several books {WCC Store}). Listen to his podcast “Living the Wild Life” at {Pest Geek Podcast}. Click the links for past {shows} and {interviews}. Please subscribe to {Stephen’s YouTube Channel} He is a sought after speaker and trainer. If you would like to have Stephen speak at your event or use his consultation services, send an e-mail to [email protected] Copyright All postings are the property of Stephen M. Vantassel and Wildlife Control Consultant, LLC. Text (not images) may be reprinted in non-profit publications provided that the author and website URL is included. If images wish to be used, explicit and written permission must be obtained from Wildlife Control Consultant, LLC.

September 17, 2020 by Stephen M. Vantassel

Why Love One and Eat the Other?

While in Denver, Colorado, in mid-October, I saw a billboard that said, “Why love one and eat the other?” You could see the sign at the Mercy for Animals website but it appears the page is not longer available (9/17/2020). It shows a picture of a dog and a pig. It is an ingenious marketing ploy. But as usual, it is yet another example of how animal rights protest industry advocates miss the point. But they do so for a reason. They know that most people think with their hearts and not their minds. Which in simpler terms, means that people are frequently inconsistent. Thus the charge, why love one and eat the other? is a compelling question because it feeds off people’s inconsistency.

Why love one and not the other? applies to why we love dogs more than a pig.

They want to argue that a dog is morally equivalent to a pig. In one sense they are correct. A pig is of no lesser moral value than a dog. The only reason why American’s don’t eat dog is because of a cultural bias. This is why I contend that the point of the sign for Christians is to understand that eating a dog is equivalent to eating a pig. God says we are free to eat both. If you condemn eating dogs, then perhaps the reason for your opinion stems from a cultural bigotry that you haven’t repented of.

Of course, I am not referring to eating a dog that is owned by someone else. That would be theft. But there is no moral problem (as far as God is concerned) to raise a dog and then eat him. If you think there is a problem with that, then you should take up your problem with Jesus who had declared all foods clean (Mk 7:19). Remember, what we eat is determined by culture. Christ wants us to avoid cultural bigotry when it comes to diet. So for the Christian, the why love one and eat the other? only applies in terms of personal preference. We have the moral freedom to eat a dog (though it may not be legal in your area) and a pig. Whether you do so or not is a not primarily a moral question (though it could be in some circumstances) but a choice of preference.

For more information about why animal rights ideology is morally and environmentally wrong get a copy of my book, Dominion over Wildlife?

July 21, 2020 by Stephen M. Vantassel

Question 1 Debate

Question 1 was a 1996 Ballot Initiative presented to Massachusetts’ voters. There were three essential goals of Question 1. First, it banned certain body-gripping traps by statute (body-gripping included footholds and snares) and severely restricted conibear-style traps. Second, it removed the requirement that members of the state’s Wildlife Board hold hunting, fishing or trapping licenses. (This was an attempt to remove the dedication to sportsmen’s interests in wildlife regulations). Finally, Question 1 banned certain forms of hunting such as hunting bears with dogs. It shouldn’t be any surprise that the whole campaign was marketed as “Ban Cruel Traps” and was supported with significant funding from the Humane Society of the United States.

I, Stephen M. Vantassel, owned Wildlife Removal Service, Inc. in Springfield, MA during that time. I was actively opposing the ballot initiative because it would essentially damage wildlife management and increase the cost of handling human-wildlife conflicts. I reached out to Dan Yorke, at the time a talk show host on Channel 40 ABC, Springfield, to dedicate a show to the subject. He agreed and reached out to Peter Teraspulsky an original signatory of the Ballot Initiative to join the conversation.

The video below is the clip of the show where we had our discussion. As you can see, Mr. Yorke wasn’t that interested, but I am glad that at least I had the opportunity to defend scientific wildlife management and to show the irrationality of the animal rights protest industry. Enjoy. For additional information on the foolishness of Question 1, visit Question 1. Or you can purchase a copy of my book, Dominion over Wildlife? An Environmental-Theology of Human-Wildlife Relations (2009, Wipf and Stock).

April 29, 2019 by Stephen M. Vantassel

Death Before the Fall

According to his website, https://ronaldosborn.com/, Dr. Osborn is Executive Director of the John Weidner Foundation as well as an independent scholar interested in violence, moral theory, human rights, and religion. He has authored Humanism and the Death of God: Searching for the Good After Darwin, Marx, and Nietzsche (Oxford University Press, 2017), as well as the book, Death Before the Fall, under review here.

Osborn’s academic credentials are impressive. He is clearly a smart man who is able to move in powerful academic circles as demonstrated by the significant theologians who endorsed his book. But if Death Before the Fall is an accurate indication of his mature thought and perspective, Osborne is clearly a conflicted man as well.

As the book title and subheading suggests, Osborn uses the question of the origins of animal death as a means to discuss the relationship of science and the bible. For those outside of conservative evangelicalism, the question may seem strange, if not altogether weird. Permit me to explain. Many Christians believe that before Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden, there was no animal death. Adam and Eve were vegetarians as were the animals that shared the land with them. Predation, they argue, only started after Adam and Eve sinned, also known theologically as the Fall. Where this argument gets interesting is how the argument is used against evolution. Since evolution says that animals lived and died millennia before humans even emerged, Christians holding to the “no death before the Fall” argument, deny the validity of evolution. It’s a classic case of faith versus science.

Osborn will have none of this. He argues that Christians who deny evolution are: 1. reading the bible too literally and 2. wrongly using creationism as a litmus test for orthodoxy. The rejection of literalism explains why John H. Walton endorsed the book. Walton has argued for years that the early chapters of Genesis should be read as poetic and more about the who and the why of creation rather than the how. Osborn’s argument is less exegetical than Tremper Longman III’s back cover endorsement insinuates and certainly less than Walton’s. Instead, Osborn’s approach is perspectival. He assumes contemporary science is true and then reads (or misreads depending on your point of view) Genesis to see how it holds up against scientific scrutiny. Unsurprisingly, he finds that literal readings of Genesis have some cracks in its coherence, such as the problems in the descriptions of Genesis 1 and 2. Readers should know that Osborn has not done very much study of how some of the alleged problems with the literal reading account have been addressed. For example, on pp. 55-6, Osborn asks how could Adam have named all the animals on the earth within 24 hours. Of course, Adam couldn’t. But reading in context, couldn’t it be understood that the passage meant to say that Adam named all the animals in the Garden, rather than the planet? (Read Gen 2:19 in light of Gen 2:15).

Osborn spends more time focussing on how biblical literalists (also called fundamentalists) have used the their reading of Genesis as a test for Christian orthodoxy. The vehemence and constant attention to this issue, primarily through the first half of the book, is so strident that I came to see this book more as a personal defense and self-justification for the author’s position. A sort of printed catharsis, where he could demean people who he had felt demeaned him. That he even felt that his criticisms were harsh is supported by his final chapter, Conclusion, where he admits that the pro-evolution side also may have some specks in their eyes. I don’t like the use of psycho-analysis to disparage and explain away belief of people. But Osborn’s criticisms lacked sufficient nuance and used fundamentalist labels (without explaining the difference between intellectual fundamentalism and cultural fundamentalism see George M. Marsden’s classic Fundamentalism and American Culture) as a way to marginalize and demean people rather than engage in the substance of their arguments.

Having believed that the literal reading of the creation narratives has been properly destroyed, Osborn in Part 2, engages the remaining question of why God would allow innocent animals to suffer pain and predation. The issue falls on the same line as why do humans suffer? If God is all good, all powerful, why would he allow animals to suffer. After debunking the arguments biblical literalists use to defend God’s moral character, he reviews other solutions. Osborn respects but does not wholly endorse C.S. Lewis’ claim that animals have sentience but not consciousness as well as the suggestion that animal suffering has demonic origins. Osborn then turns to Job’s encounter with God in the whirlwind. I think Osborn’s point was to emphasize that chaos is part of creation and we may not know the final answer. Next Osborn tries to use Kenosis theology to address the problem of animal pain. Christ will ultimately save the cosmos, including animals. I should note that Osborn’s claim (pp.160-1) that penal substitutionary atonement is not an ancient doctrine is likely wrong (see https://www.tms.edu/blog/penal-substitution-in-church-history/). Unfortunately, Osborn’s approach hint’s towards an Open Theism view, though he does not state this. Certainly his comments condemning Reformed views of God’s sovereignty suggest an idea that God either willingly neglects control (Arminian view) or is unable to control (Open Theist view). Regardless, it appears to me that Osborn has not considered the consequences of his view for Christian faith.

Bottom line

Animal suffering is a valid question for Christians to consider. Unfortunately, Osborn’s investigation is hindered by 1. his repeated ad hominem attacks on his opponents and 2. his lack of biblical and theological training. The first problem is distracting for readers and also shows his own blind spot to the problems with his perspective. The second problem is he doesn’t understand the implications of his beliefs on Christian faith to an extent needed. In addition, his lack of training meant he didn’t read widely enough. For example, he didn’t consider Meredith G. Kline’s view that before the Fall, death served humanity. After the Fall, the situation reversed. Thus animal death and suffering is not a moral problem. If he or readers of this review think that Isaiah will save the day here, I would suggest reading Hillary Marlow’s Biblical Prophets & Contemporary Environmental Ethics and my book, Dominion over Wildlife? An Environmental-Theology of Human-Wildlife Relations.

Stephen M. Vantassel, Ph.D. Trinity Theological Seminary, Newburgh, IN, is a tutor of theology at King’s Evangelical Divinity School, Broadstairs, UK. He is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Society for Christian Ethics. His research interests include, ethics, particularly questions on human-wildlife relations, doctrine of creation, environment, and war. Stephen has used his vast experience in the field of wildlife control to inform his understanding of ethics related to humanity’s use of the environment as presented in his articles and his dissertation. His interest center of ethics, particularly questions on human-wildlife relations, doctrine of creation, environment, and war. Stephen is also the assistant editor and book review editor for the Evangelical Review of Society and Politics. Stephen is available for presentations, debates, panel discussions, and preaching. He can be contacted at [email protected]

November 5, 2018 by Stephen M. Vantassel

Euthanasia & Carcass Disposal

Surface carcass disposal is one, albeit a rare option, for disposing of animal carcasses. Photo: Stephen M. Vantassel

I recently gave a talk entitled, “Euthanasia & Carcass Disposal: Tips and Pitfalls” at the National Pest Management Association’s (NPMA) 2018 Pestworld in Orlando Florida on Friday, October 26. It was a tough time for a presentation as it was right after lunch (1:00 pm) and on the last day of the conference. Plus, let’s just say that animal euthanasia & carcass disposal are not the most riveting and profit making topics for a pest control operator (PCO) or wildlife control operator (WCO) to attend.

But I was grateful for the opportunity. I was honored that the NPMA chose me to present on this important and controversial topic. The fact is, unlike bugs, the public cares deeply about how vertebrate animals are killed and disposed of. Even if the animal is a pest, the public cares. I explained to the approximately 32 people in attendance, that failure to have proper animal handling protocols in place can put your business in a public relations nightmare. Not all publicity is good publicity.

Attendees learned the distinction between euthanasia and humane dispatch and why that distinction matters. Likewise, I spoke on why translocation is not necessarily a humane way to handle nuisance wildlife. I ended the presentation discussing various ways to dispose of animal carcasses. I described methods that would work in either rural or urban settings, and sometimes both.

If you would like to see the Powerpoint, visit my Academia.edu site and download the pdf.

Response to Ben DeVries’ Questions

Question #1. Answer

Question #2. Answer

Bottom line

Recent Posts

Search

Tags