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.

---

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}. 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.