Human Dignity and Why It Matters--SMCC Presentation

Human Dignity and Why It Matters

Richard Klaus

September 13, 2023

South Mountain Community College

 

Introduction:

 

·      Thank you for the invitation by Christian Challenge to present before you today!

 

·      Areopagus in the city of Athens

 

o   Functioned at times—judicial court and place of intellectual examination of ideas

 

o   Same city in which Socrates caused trouble by “corrupting the youth” and was put to death!

 

o   I hope for better things today!

 

 

·      We live in a time of cultural controversy: “Culture Wars”

 

o   Fractured society at the ideological level (the level of ideas)

 

·      Consider just a few of the cultural “hot spots” of clashing viewpoints…[1]

 

o   Euthanasia

o   Abortion

o   Sexual ethics

o   Transgenderism

o   Reproductive cloning

o   Organ donation and informed consent

o   Rationing of health care

o   Embryonic stem cell treatments

o   Biotechnological human enhancements (transhumansism)

o   Poverty alleviation policies

o   Affirmative action

o   Prison reform and the infliction of punishment

o   Death penalty

 

·      And yet… amid all this controversy across multiple issues there is a surprising agreement about a central concept in all of these debates

 

o   HUMAN DIGNITY (and human value)

 

o   John Kilner: There is widespread agreement that people matter![2]

 

o   Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)

 

§  Preamble (1^st paragraph)

 

“Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,” 

 

§  Preamble (5^th paragraph)

 

“Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter affirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,”

 

§  Article 1

 

“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.  They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

 

§  Numerous human rights documents and over 40 constitutions since the beginning of the 20^th century

 

·      I want to probe this concept of Human Dignity

 

·      My title: “Human Dignity and Why It Matters”

 

o   Title is intentionally vague!

 

o   At least two differing meanings…

 

§  (1) Focuses on the consequences or implications

 

·      What happens when we deny human dignity?

 

·      What areas of life are affected?

 

§  (2) Focuses on the foundation and framework which renders the concept of human dignity intelligible and defensible

 

·      My focus is on (2)—the philosophical justification of human dignity

 

·      In particular, I want to examine which philosophical worldview best accounts for human dignity?

 

o   Flow of talk…

 

§  (1) Examine the concept and definition of human dignity.

 

§  (2) What are consequences of denying human dignity?

 

§  (3) Argue that Christian theism, as a philosophical worldview, better accounts for human dignity than naturalistic materialism

 

The Concept of Human Dignity: What Are We Talking About?

 

·      If the concept of Human Dignity is so important, why have some called is “useless” (Ruth Macklin) and “stupid” (Steven Pinker)?

 

·      Failure to account for conceptual distinctions in our use of “dignity”

 

·      Three-fold distinction[3]:

 

o   Attributed dignity

 

§  Worth human beings confer on others or themselves

 

§  Comes in degrees

 

§  Created value

 

§  Attribute worth and value to others based on…

 

·      Position

·      Admiration

·      Talents or skills

 

§  Example: When we say that extreme poverty creates degrading and undignified living conditions

 

o   Intrinsic dignity

 

§  Worth or value that people have simply because they are human

 

§  Value, not conferred or created by human choices (individual or collective)

 

§  Discovered

 

o   Inflorescent dignity—human flourishing

 

§  The excellence of a human life consistent with and expressive of, intrinsic dignity

 

 

·      Intrinsic dignity is the key element needed to undergird the equality of human rights and universal human value

 

·      Intrinsic dignity cannot be a degreed property tied to the expression of a particular attribute

 

o   “Intrinsic human dignity, if it indeed exists, cannot be a degreed property like rationality, moral virtue, intelligence, height, or weight.  For at whatever degree each is manifested, that degree is accidental and not essential to the sort of thing that has that property.  For by their very nature these properties change, develop, diminish or cease to be actual over time for a human being who has them.”[4]

 

o   If degreed: some humans will have more intrinsic dignity than others

 

§  Problematic for upholding human rights

 

§  As philosopher Francis Beckwith argues:

 

“… we would have to abandon the idea of human equality and draw the conclusion that no two human beings have the same degree of dignity.”[5]

 

Problematic Moves in Understanding Human Dignity

 

·      Deny human dignity

 

o   Horrible consequences

 

§  Ashley Fernandes—“Why Did So Many Doctors Become Nazis?”

 

·      Ideas have consequences, some bad ideas have victims!

 

§  “Personalism posits the ultimate unit of value of human life is the individual person herself. Society is and ought to be built around this value. In short, society is created for the person, not the person for society, and hence the dignity and integrity of the person and her freedom cannot be sacrificed for the sake of society. No contingent factor—race, religion, economic status, disability, or actions of the past, present or future—can rob a person the dignity she is owed. Integrating this kind of rigorous, universal philosophical anthropology is an antidote to the corruption of medicine, and vital for the prevention of future genocides.”[6]

 

o   Sociologist, John Evans—What Is A Human? What the Answers Mean for Human Rights(Oxford: Oxford Press, 2016).

 

§  Social science test: more than 3500 adults in the US

 

§  Three views:

 

·      Christian theological view—created in the image of God

 

·      Philosophical view—defines humans by possessing certain capacities (self-consciousness and rationality)

 

·      Biological view—defined and differentiated from animals solely by DNA

 

§  Q: How do these views affect one’s perceptions about humans rights?

 

·      Risk soldiers to stop a genocide in a foreign country

·      Allow kidneys to be bought from poor people

·      Have terminally ill people die by suicide to save money

·      Take blood from prisoners without their consent

·      Torture terror suspects to potentially save lives

 

§  “What came out was very striking.  The more a respondent agreed with the biological definition of a human, the more likely they were to see humans as being like machines and the less likely they were to see them as special, unique or all of equal value.  On the human rights questions, they were less willing to stop genocides and were more likely to accept buying kidneys, suicide to save money and taking blood from prisoners.  In contrast, those who agreed with the theological view were less likely to agree with suicide to save money and taking blood from prisoners against their will.”[7]

 

·      Misunderstand the nature of human dignity

 

o   Need intrinsic dignity

 

o   Dignity not a degreed property

 

§  It is an intrinsic, essential property

 

 

Grounding Human Dignity: The Need for Philosophical Justification

 

·      How do we explain and justify the needed concept of intrinsic human dignity?

 

·      Can’t we just agree and not worry about the philosophical justification?

 

·      Jacques Maritain

 

o   Catholic theologian, instrumental in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

 

o   “… someone expressed astonishment that certain champions of violently opposed ideologies had agreed on a list of those rights.  ‘Yes,” they said, ‘we agree about the rights but on condition that no one asks us why.’”[8]

 

·      “In a society such as ours, committed as we are to human equality, we cannot avoid worrying about distinctions in dignity, and we cannot forever avert our gaze from the question of what grounds our commitment.”[9] –Gilbert Meilaender

 

 

·      “Pragmatic foundations are inherently vulnerable and even if the moral edifice that is constructed above them is unlikely to collapse altogether, it is surely beholden on us to construct it as securely as possible.  Hence the question about which ideology best supports humanist ideals.” [10] --Nick Spencer

 

 

Which Worldview Best Accounts for Intrinsic Human Dignity

 

·      Comparative approach—compare worldviews to each other

 

o   “Ideally, a worldview should be evaluated in comparison with other worldviews—at least with major alternatives. The reason for this is that if we think a certain worldview faces some difficulty or problem, we might be tempted to dismiss it simply for that reason, without taking proper time to consider whether competing worldviews face the same or similar challenges—or perhaps even greater challenges. In other words, rather than asking, ‘Which worldview passes all the tests without any problem whatsoever?’ we should ask, ‘Which worldview passes the tests better than any other worldview?’ We will then be able to see which worldview is the most reasonable to believe. This worldview will be one that is most consistent and coherent, that best explains the most important features of the world we inhabit and our experiences of it, and that can best account for all the evidence available to us.”[11] —James Anderson

 

·      Naturalism with its attendant materialism cannot account for human dignity and value

 

·      Defining “naturalism”—can be difficult; multiple conceptions

 

o   E. O. Wilson—“The central idea (of naturalism) is that all tangible phenomena, from the birth of the stars to the workings of social institutions, are based on material processes that are ultimately reducible, however long and torturous the sequences, to the laws of physics.”[12]

 

o   John Searle: “There is exactly one overriding question in contemporary philosophy … :How do we fit in? … How can we square this self-conception of ourselves as mindful, meaning-creating, free, rational, etc., agents with a universe that consists entirely of mindless, meaningless, unfree, nonrational, brute physical particles?”[13]

 

o   Yuval Noah Harari—professor of history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. (sold over 20 million books)

 

§  “There are no such things as rights in biology.”

 

§  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men evolved differently, that they are born with certain mutable characteristics, and that among these are life and the pursuit of pleasure.”[14]

 

§  “He [Harari] concludes that the concept of equal rights is nothing but a ‘Christian myth.’”[15]

 

o   Harari is not the only atheist to acknowledge the deep connection between human dignity with its attendant human rights and Christian theism…

 

o   Nancy Pearcey draws attention to atheistic philosophers, Luc Ferry and Richard Rorty[16]

 

§  “Christianity is the first universalist ethos.” –Luc Ferry

 

§  “Rorty notes, Christianity gave rise to the concept of universal rights, derived from the conviction ‘that all human beings are created in the image of God.”

 

·      Human dignity—”an intrinsic, immaterial, nonempirical, non-degreed, and essential property had by human beings by nature.”[17]  --Francis Beckwith

 

o   This conception of human dignity does not comport well with a naturistic ontology and epistemology

 

Christian Theism and the Grounding of Human Dignity

 

·      As a Christian, I want to argue that Christian theism, as a philosophical system, provides the needed grounding for human dignity

 

·      Human dignity finds a coherent home in Christian theism

 

·      Many themes and concepts from within Christianity move toward this point[18]

 

·      Two themes in particular: Creation and Redemption

 

o   Creation in the image of God (Genesis 1-2)

 

o   Love of God displayed in Jesus Christ

 

§  John 3.16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

 

§  Especially the self-giving love displayed in the death of Jesus Christ

 

·      Romans 5.8—“But God demonstrates his own love toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.”

 

o   Gilbert Meilaender—“a great rupture in Western culture, a rupture that gradually reshaped the classical notion of dignity … by brining it within a system of thought and practice that worshipped as God a crucified man who suffered a criminal’s death upon on a cross.”[19]

 

 

o   “God stopped at nothing to reach out to humanity.  God in Christ suffered and bled and died.  What more could God do to demonstrate love for the world?  Belief in human dignity is deepened considerably by reflection on the ultimate nature of the price God paid at the cross.  The incalculably terrible suffering and death of Jesus Christ and the demonstration in that suffering and death of how very much God values each and every human being have contributed profoundly to a Christian moral tradition that exalts the immeasurable worth of the human being.”[20]  

--David Gushee

·      A cautionary caveat…

 

o   Claim is NOT that Christians have lived out or up to these ideals!

 

o   Nor… only Christians are or can be concerned for human dignity

 

§  Plenty of non-Christians—including naturalistic atheists—are concerned for such things

 

·      Key issue: the grounding of human dignity

 

·      What we’ve seen…

 

o   Near universal assent to human dignity

 

§  Tried to briefly spell out what that entails—intrinsic human dignity

 

o   But what worldview best provides the most philosophically coherent home for the concept of human dignity?

 

§  “Here, then, is our problem, from which we cannot for long continue to avert our gaze: Our society is committed to equal human dignity, and our history is in large part a long attempt to work out the meaning of that commitment.  Christians and Jews have an account of persons—as equidistant from God and of equal worth before God—that grounds and makes sense of this commitment we all share.  A society that rejects their account but wishes to retain the commitment faces, then, a serious crisis in the structure of its beliefs.”[21] –Gilbert Meilaender

 

§  “It may be that we cannot make good sense of an egalitarian and non-comparative understanding of human dignity, to which our civilization has in many ways been committed, if we abstract it entirely from the context of the religious beliefs that formed it.”[22]  --Gilbert Meilaender

 

o   In the end, I would argue…

 

o   Jesus Christ is not only the Savior in a religious sense, but he is also the Savior of the philosophical concept of human dignity.

 

o   Thank you.  [Questions and dialogue]

---

     [1] Much of this list is motivated by John F. Kilner’s lead essay, “Why This Book Matters: The Need for Common Ground in Debates Today” in Why People Matter: A Christian Engagement with Rival Views of Human Significance, ed. John F. Kilner, (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2017), 4-7.

     [2] John F. Kilner, ed., Why People Matter: A Christian Engagement with Rival Views of Human Significance, (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2017), 7.

     [3] See Daniel P. Sulmasy, “The Varieties of Human Dignity: A Logical and Conceptual Analysis” Medical Health Care and Philosophy 16 (2013), 937-944 for more details.

     [4] Francis J. Beckwith, “Dignity Never Been Photographed: Bioethics, Policy, and Steven Pinker’s Materialism,” in Taking Rites Seriously: Law, Politics, and the Reasonableness of Faith, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 89.

     [5] Francis J. Beckwith, “Dignity Never Been Photographed: Bioethics, Policy, and Steven Pinker’s Materialism,” in Taking Rites Seriously: Law, Politics, and the Reasonableness of Faith, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 90.

     [6] Ashley K. Fernandes, Why Did So Many Doctors Become Nazis” Tablet (December 9, 2020)—online: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/history/articles/fernandes-doctors-who-became-nazis . 

     [7] John H. Evans, “Does Science Undermine Human Rights?” New Scientist (August 3, 2016)—online: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23130850-200-who-we-think-we-are-and-why-it-matters/.

     [8] Nick Spencer, The Evolution of the West: How Christianity Has Shaped Our Values, (London: SPCK, 2016), 69.

     [9] Gilbert Meilaender, “Human Dignity: Exploring and Explicating the Council’s Vision,” in Human Dignity and Bioethics, ed. Edmund D. Pellegrino (Washington D.C.: The President’s Council on Bioethics, 2008), 275.

     [10] Nick Spencer, The Evolution of the West: How Christianity Has Shaped Our Values, (London: SPCK, 2016), 70.

     [11] James N. Anderson, Why Should I Believe Christianity? (Scottland: Christian Focus, 2016), 48-49.

     [12] Quoted in Scott B. Rae, “More Than Meets the Eye: Naturalism and Human Significance,” in Why People Matter: A Christian Engagement with Rival Views of Human Significance, ed. John F. Kilner, (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2017), 95.  Rae is quoting E. O. Wilson, Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, (New York: Knopf, 1998), 266.

     [13] Quoted in Scott B. Rae, “More Than Meets the Eye: Naturalism and Human Significance,” in Why People Matter: A Christian Engagement with Rival Views of Human Significance, ed. John F. Kilner, (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2017), 95.  Rae is quoting John R. Searle, Freedom and Neurobiology: Reflections on Free Will, Language, and Political Power, (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007), 4-5.

     [14] Andrew Wilson, “We (Do Not) Hold These Truths to Be Self-Evident,” Crossway (September 10, 2023)—online: https://www.crossway.org/articles/we-do-not-hold-these-truths-to-be-self-evident/?utm_source=Crossway+Marketing&utm_campaign=9eb62330ff-20230911+Acad%2BArt%2BGov%2BHist-Truths+Self-Evident&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0275bcaa4b-982ebf4e4d-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D.  Wilson is quoting Yuval Noah Harari, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (London: Vintage, 2011), 123.

     [15] Nancy R. Pearcey, Love Thy Body: Answering Hard Questions About Life and Sexuality (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2018), 65.  Pearcey is quoting Yuval Noah Harari, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (New York: HarperCollins, 2015), 108-110.

     [16] Nancy R. Pearcey, Love Thy Body: Answering Hard Questions About Life and Sexuality (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2018, 101.

     [17] Francis J. Beckwith, “Dignity Never Been Photographed: Bioethics, Policy, and Steven Pinker’s Materialism,” in Taking Rites Seriously: Law, Politics, and the Reasonableness of Faith, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 91.

     [18] See the essays by John F. Kilner, “Special Connection and Intended Reflection: Creation in God’s Image and Human Significance,” and David P. Gushee, “Nothing Is Merely Human: Various Biblical Bases for Human Significance,” both in Why People Matter: A Christian Engagement with Rival Views of Human Significance, ed. John F. Kilner, (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2017).

     [19] Gilbert Meilaender, “Human Dignity: Exploring and Explicating the Council’s Vision,” in Human Dignity and Bioethics, ed. Edmund D. Pellegrino (Washington D.C.: The President’s Council on Bioethics, 2008), 261.

     [20] David P. Gushee, “Nothing Is Merely Human: Various Biblical Bases for Human Significance,” in Why People Matter: A Christian Engagement with Rival Views of Human Significance, ed. John F. Kilner, (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2017), 181-182.

     [21] Gilbert Meilaender, “Human Dignity: Exploring and Explicating the Council’s Vision,” in Human Dignity and Bioethics, ed. Edmund D. Pellegrino (Washington D.C.: The President’s Council on Bioethics, 2008), 263-264.

     [22] Gilbert Meilaender, “Human Dignity: Exploring and Explicating the Council’s Vision,” in Human Dignity and Bioethics, ed. Edmund D. Pellegrino (Washington D.C.: The President’s Council on Bioethics, 2008), 262.

Moral Choices 12.4: Going Vegetarian? A Response with a Focus on the Teaching and Example of Jesus

 Case 12.4: Going Vegetarian?

You are friends with several people in your community who are committed vegetarians.  You have always eaten meat and not really thought much about it until you became friends with some of your current peer group.  They have challenged your views on eating meat and have encouraged you to join them in going vegetarian.  Some have gone a bit further and gone vegan, which means that they use no animal products at all.  They maintain that it is a healthier diet and that you’ll feel better once you make the transition.  But the main reason they give is that they don’t want to contribute to the mistreatment of animals that are kept and processed for food.  According to your friends, the animals have the right not to be abused or killed for food.  They cite the abuses that come from factory farming of animals and urge you not to violate your conscience with the food you eat.  Some of these friends are Christians.  They remind you that at creation the first human beings were vegetarians, and when the kingdom of God comes in its fullness at Jesus’ return, there will be peace in the kingdom and there will be no predator-prey relationships.  They maintain that minimizing meat today might be a way to anticipate life in the fullness of God’s kingdom.

 

·      How do you respond to your friends who are vegetarians/vegans?  Do you think they have a valid point?  Why or why not?

·      What do you think of their theologically based reasoning for their views?

·      What do you think of their views on animal rights not to be mistreated?

 

 

            

Case 12.4 concerns the moral legitimacy of eating meat and the arguments in support of the supposed moral superiority of vegetarianism.  I will argue that the moral imperative to vegetarianism is incorrect, and that Christians should feel no guilt in eating meat.  Toward this end, specific focus will be directed to the teaching and example of Jesus Christ.  A brief look at a few apostolic texts and a consideration of Isaiah 11 as used by pro-vegetarian interpreters will be addressed.  

A brief word about the focus and methodology of this paper.  I am primarily speaking to Christians who affirm something of the authority and relevance of the scriptural teaching as found in the Bible.  Space constraints forbid a fuller answer that could be developed without dependence on Scripture.[1]

Key Foundational Beliefs

            Although space will not allow a full treatment, the following points should be seen as foundational for any Christian understanding of how to approach meat-eating.  First, humans are distinct from animals by virtue of being created in the image of God (Genesis 1.26-28).  As such, humans have more value than animals and have “dominion” over the animals.  Second, animals throughout the entirety of the Old Testament are used for sacrifices and for food; this is all divinely sanctioned.  Third, although the Scriptures do speak against cruelty to animals there is a distinction that is assumed between “suffering” and “cruelty.”  Animals may be used for food and thus undergo “suffering,” but this is morally legitimate.  As Stephen Vantassel argues, “In one sense everyone could agree that human actions with animals can cause suffering, but should they agree that this suffering involves moral guilt?... I can concede that the animal is suffering, but I do not concede that the action is necessarily morally evil or unjust.”[2]  This distinction will be helpful in considering the teaching and example of Christ Jesus since he seemingly allows for a certain amount of suffering for animals.  “For if, as many animal rights activists subtly suggest, the killing of animals is, by definition, cruelty, then we have, in effect, made Jesus Christ a participant in cruelty and thereby besmirched his character.”[3]

Jesus and the Apostolic View of Meat-Eating

For Christians, the person and practice of Jesus of Nazareth is paramount in understanding who God is and what he desires.  When one examines the biblical evidence, the portrait and practice of Jesus is not one who endorses the premises of the “animal rights” position.  Consider the following items that demonstrate Jesus’ view of animal use and suffering.

First, in Luke 5.1-11 Jesus kills fish “for the sole purpose of demonstrating his power, and possibly enriching the disciples.”[4]  Stephen Vantassel draws out the ethical implications of this action:

Christ’s acceptance of fishing provides a useful rubric by which to investigate the issue of the treatment of wild animals and trapping.  Animal activists contend that fishing is cruel because fish suffer during the capture process.  Despite the pain fish underwent, Christ never condemned fishing.[5]

 

Furthermore, Jesus commands his disciples to fish in order to obtain tax money (Matthew 17.27).  Vantassel notes that the crucial issue is not whether the fish died but “the important fact is that Christ would permit the fish to suffer the pains/stress of being hooked and removed from its natural environment in order to recover a coin and pay a tax.”[6]

            Second, Jesus’ approach to the sacrificial system and food laws of his time do not align with those who promote the animal rights perspective.  Vantassel perceptively notes, “If Christ was so concerned about the suffering of animals in food production then why didn’t He condemn the sacrificial system as immoral and add further restrictions to the laws of kashrut regarding clean meat (Mk 7:19).”[7]  In fact, Jesus actually commands a recently healed leper “to go show yourself to the priest and make an offering for your cleansing, just as Moses commanded, as a testimony to them” (Luke 5.14).  Such a command was, essentially, a command to go kill an animal in that the directive in Leviticus 14.1-20 required the death of a bird and two lambs.  Furthermore, Jesus’ teaching in Mark 7 is taken by Mark to entail that Jesus “declared all foods clean” (Mark 7.19).  This truth effectively expands the dietary choices of God’s people—not narrow them.  Finally, in concert with the point above, the book of Acts depicts the risen Lord Jesus as saying, “Get up, Peter, kill and eat!” (Acts 10.13).  This is a direct command from Jesus to kill animals and eat them.

            Third, Jesus feeds thousands of people on at least two different occasions with fish (feeding of 5000: Matthew 14.13-21; Mark 6.30-44; Luke 9.10-17; John 6.1-14/feeding of 4000: Matthew 15.32-39; Mark 8.1-10).  Someone may object: “These were not live fish which were killed; thus, there is no suffering.”  This is true, but one still needs to explain why Jesus would use an object lesson of fish which reinforces meat-eating.  Taken in conjunction with the above points about Jesus killing fish and commanding disciples to fish, this takes on added significance.

            Fourth, Jesus himself eats fish after his resurrection (Luke 24.42; John 21.9-13).[8]  He does this to help demonstrate his actual resurrection; that he is truly an embodied being, risen from the dead.

            Fifth, Jesus is not above allowing demonic activity to influence and kill 2000 pigs.  This does not directly address the issue of eating meat, but it does reinforce the principle that people are more valuable than animals.  In this case, 2000 pigs are sacrificed to save one human.

            Sixth, Jesus’ examples used in his teaching presuppose the moral legitimacy of eating meat.  In Luke 12.24 Jesus states, “Consider the ravens, for they neither sow nor reap; they have no storeroom nor barn, and yet God feeds them; how much more valuable you are than the birds!”  As Paul Copan notes, God provides for ravens by giving them meat to eat.[9]  “Perhaps we could paraphrase here too: ‘If God provides meat for the ravens, will he not do so for you, who are much more valuable than they?’”[10]  In other parables, Jesus mentions the eating of oxen and fattened livestock at times of celebration (Matthew 22.4; Luke 15.23).[11]  These positive representations of killing and eating animals seem to presuppose their moral legitimacy by Jesus.

            In turning to the apostolic witness regarding meat-eating there is nothing that is inconsistent with the teaching of Jesus on this issue.  A full discussion is not possible here of all the relevant texts, so a few key passages will be noted.  In Romans 14 the apostle Paul is addressing the issue of eating meat versus eating vegetables.  His context revolves the Jew/Gentile differences resulting from upholding the ceremonial food laws.  Paul recognizes that the one who is strong in faith “may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only” (Romans 14.2).  Later in this text he echoes the thought of Jesus when notes, “All things indeed are clean” and, thus, are morally allowable if done in a manner with consistent with love toward another person’s conscience (Romans 14.20).  There is no hint of any moral prohibition on meat-eating in principle.

            Another Pauline text of relevance is 1 Timothy 4.1-5.

¹But the Spirit explicitly says that in the later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, ²by means of the hypocrisy of liars, seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, ³men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth.  ⁴For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; ⁵for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.         

 

Although the background to this text is the familiar Jew/Gentile split and the food laws, Paul’s express teaching allows for the acceptance of all kinds of meat.  Such foods are recognized as good and to be received with gratitude.  Especially noteworthy are the strong words regarding those who would forbid such food.  These words need to be heeded by all those who seek to place an ethical limitation on what foods are acceptable in God’s sight.

Vegetarianism in Anticipation of the Eternal Kingdom: A Valid View?

            The argument that minimizing meat-eating is a way to anticipate the eternal kingdom has been made based on Isaiah 11.6-9:

⁶And the wolf will dwell with the lamb, and the leopard will lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little boy will lead them.  ⁷Also the cow and the bear will graze, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox.  ⁸The nursing child will play by the hole of the cobra, and the weaned child will put his hand on the viper’s den.  ⁹They will not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain, for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.

 

There are, however, several problems in appealing to this text for the conclusion that one ought to minimize or, even, outright deny meat-eating.  

            First, according to Vantassel, this passage should be read as an “anthropocentric blessing.”  He elaborates:

We would suggest the passage is not about the cessation of animal death (i.e., a time when sheep would no longer be eaten by humans), it is about the cessation of predation and animal attacks that harm human interests.  In other words, in the messianic age, shepherds will be liberated from the burden of having to guard their sheep at night (Lk 2:8).  The reason this observation is overlooked is likely due to the urban context of most biblical interpreters.  When one is not familiar with the challenges of raising livestock where hungry predators roam, it is difficult [for] readers to appreciate how great a blessing the conversion of predators to grass eaters would be.[12]

 

This anthropocentric perspective by itself may not overthrow the pro-vegetarian reading of this passage but it does give one pause.  This pause is further extenuated by other passages in Isaiah which may be reasonably taken to refer to the future state and in which there is indication that eating meat may be involved.  Consider Isaiah 25.6: “On this mountain the Lord Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for all peoples, a banquet of aged wine—the best of meats and the finest of wines” (NIV).[13]

            Second, this passage may not require that every element of it be taken literally.  The main point is that there will be no harm for God’s people.  One reason to think that perhaps there are non-literal elements in it is that later in Isaiah it is said, “No lion will be there, nor will any vicious beast go up on it” (Isaiah 35.9).  This leads Paul Copan to ask, “So which do we take literally—feasting on fine meats, lion with lamb, or no lion at all?”[14]

            Third, even if it is granted that there will be no meat-eating in the new creation there are still reasons to avoid the conclusion that one ought not to eat now.  Jesus’ bodily resurrection is the beginning of the new creation and yet, as was seen above, he ate meat in his resurrected body.  Furthermore, since marriage is not going to be a part of the new creation, should we, by this logic, also forbid (or, at least, discourage) marriage now?  Would it not be a good thing to live out this ideal state now?  In light of 1 Timothy 4.1-5, which mentions both abstaining from certain foods and marriage in a negative light, the answer to those questions should be “no.”  Paul Copan concludes, “If we admit that marriage has a vital place for humanity up until the new heavens and earth arrive (as part of the ‘dominion’ task), then the ‘dominion’ of meat-eating should also be included up until the very end.”[15]

Conclusion

            The attempt to defend vegetarianism from the Bible and Christian doctrine is fraught with numerous difficulties.  This view fails to fully reckon with the teaching and practice of Jesus and the apostles.  Its use of Isaiah 11.6-9 is underdeveloped and fails to consider contextual issues within Isaiah and the larger body of scriptural data.  There is no moral imperative to avoid meat-eating.  Rather, there is the freedom to “eat all things” (Romans 14.2).

---

     [1] This footnote will have to serve as a guide to this literature.  The work of Tim Hsiao utilizes a “natural law” perspective which argues for the moral legitimacy of eating meat.  See the following articles (the first two are popular in nature whereas the remaining are peer-reviewed, full expositions): “There is Nothing Morally Wrong with Eating Meat,” in What Would Jesus Really Eat? The Biblical Case for Eating Meat, eds. Wes Jamison and Paul Copan, (Florida: Castle Quay Books, 2019), 51-60; “Human Lives Matter: Reflections on Human Exceptionalism,” in What Would Jesus Really Eat? The Biblical Case for Eating Meat, eds. Wes Jamison and Paul Copan, (Florida: Castle Quay Books, 2019), 61-71; “In Defense of Eating Meat,” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28.2 (2015), 277-291; “Industrial Farming is Not Cruel to Animals,” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 30.1 (2017), 37-54.

     [2] Stephen M. Vantassel, “Animal Suffering Should Not Trump Environmental Stewardship,” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 53.3 (2010), 463.

     [3] Stephen Vantassel, “A Biblical Assessment of Andrew Linzey’s View of Animal Rights,” Emmaus Journal 12 (2003), 192-193.

     [4] Stephen Vantassel, “A Biblical Assessment of Andrew Linzey’s View of Animal Rights,” Emmaus Journal 12 (2003), 190.

     [5] Stephen Vantassel, “Should Wildlife Trapping Have a Place in a Christian Environmental Ethic?” Evangelical Review of Society and Politics1.2 (2007), 41.

     [6] Stephen Vantassel, “A Biblical Assessment of Andrew Linzey’s View of Animal Rights,” Emmaus Journal 12 (2003), 190-191.

     [7] Stephen M. Vantassel and Nelson D. Kloosterman, “Compassionate Eating as Distortion of Scripture: Using Religion to Serve Food Morality,” Evangelical Review of Society and Politics 5.1 (2011), 41.  Vantassel explains in a footnote that Josephus in ‘Wars 6:423-424’ “says, the number of sacrifices for Passover numbered 254,500, suggesting a first century equivalent of industrial agriculture.”  Consider, also, the words of Wes Jamison, “There is simply no way the Jews could have raised and slaughtered the number of animals commanded by God without intensive agricultural practices… Although the Old Testament sacrifices differed quantitatively from modern intensive animal slaughter, there is little qualitative difference.”  This, as Jamison notes, helps to answer the charge by philosopher John Hare, “There is nothing in ancient Israel like our factory farming and how we treat chickens and veal calves.”  See Wes Jamison, “Joy or Grief? Understanding the Challenges to Christian Meat-Eating,” in What Would Jesus Really Eat? The Biblical Case for Eating Meat, eds. Wes Jamison and Paul Copan, (Florida: Castle Quay Books, 2019), 40.

     [8] In that this example, and many of the above, revolve around fish, Paul Copan’s words are worth hearing: “Some may argue that fish are not technically considered ‘meat’ according to certain modern regulatory (or other) standards; for example, vegetarians of the pescatarian variety will include fish in their diet but avoid all other meat.  But why think that modern regulatory standards are relevant for inhabitants of first-century Palestine?  This is an arbitrary imposition.  Clearly Jesus is cooking and eating animals.  Ultimately, all such trivial distinctions are rendered irrelevant by the fact that Jesus ‘declared all foods clean’ or kosher (Mark 7:19).”  Paul Copan, “What Would Jesus Eat? From Kosher to Everything,” in What Would Jesus Really Eat? The Biblical Case for Eating Meat, eds. Wes Jamison and Paul Copan, (Florida: Castle Quay Books, 2019), 98.

     [9] “In the wild, ravens are opportunistic feeders and their diet varies based on habitat and available food sources. They are omnivorous and will feed on everything from small mammals to nesting birds, eggs and berries. They will also eat carrion, scavenge from other predators and even from human landfills. A group, or a flock, of ravens will raid seabird colonies, consuming the eggs and young of these colonies.” Smithsonian’s Natural Zoo and Conservation Biology Institute, “Common Raven: Fact Sheet” (no date)—online: https://nationalzoo.si.edu/animals/common-raven#:~:text=They%20are%20omnivorous%20and%20will,and%20young%20of%20these%20colonies.  The biblical narrative also illustrates this when ravens bring bread and meat to Elijah in 1 Kings 17.6.

     [10] Paul Copan, “What Would Jesus Eat? From Kosher to Everything,” in What Would Jesus Really Eat? The Biblical Case for Eating Meat, eds. Wes Jamison and Paul Copan, (Florida: Castle Quay Books, 2019), 100.

     [11] Vantassel adds this interesting note: “I also think that Luke 15:27 ‘fatted calf’ also provides some additional insight.  If we look at Prov. 15:17 as the stall fed calf, isn’t is possible that the fatted calf was a stall fed calf?  While the calf certainly didn’t suffer the degradations of the alleged actions of modern veal manufacturing, certainly the calf was treated a certain way to develop tender meat.” Stephen Vantassel, “Should Wildlife Trapping Have a Place in a Christian Environmental Ethic?” Evangelical Review of Society and Politics 1.2 (2007), 41.

     [12] Stephen M. Vantassel and Nelson D. Kloosterman, “Compassionate Eating as Distortion of Scripture: Using Religion to Serve Food Morality,” Evangelical Review of Society and Politics 5.1 (2011), 40-41.

     [13] The phrase “best of meats” is more literally translated “rich food, filled with marrow.”  See J. Alec Moyter, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 209.

     [14] Paul Copan, “What Would Jesus Eat? From Kosher to Everything,” in What Would Jesus Really Eat? The Biblical Case for Eating Meat, eds. Wes Jamison and Paul Copan, (Florida: Castle Quay Books, 2019), 104.

     [15] Paul Copan, “What Would Jesus Eat? From Kosher to Everything,” in What Would Jesus Really Eat? The Biblical Case for Eating Meat, eds. Wes Jamison and Paul Copan, (Florida: Castle Quay Books, 2019), 104.

Christians and Transgender Pronoun Usage: Some Articles and Resources

What should Christians think of the practice of "volunteering pronouns" and using someone's preferred pronouns if they differ from their biological sex? Here are a number of articles that address the issue by arguing that Christians should not engage in this practice 

NEW: Ask Chris T ollefsen: An Ethics Advice Column (May 30, 2024)

• This is the question Tollefsen is addressing in this column:

I’m wondering if it is ever permissible to use the “new” or chosen name and pronouns of a person suffering from gender dysphoria (that are not in accord with their biological sex) despite this action’s implicitly affirming this incongruence of their thoughts with human anthropology and biological truth? 

The specific situation that comes to mind is if a patient presents to the hospital in a mental health crisis (a suicide attempt) and [hospital staff’s] refusal to use [his preferred] names or pronouns would be counter-therapeutic, diminish patient–physician trust/rapport, and exacerbate the mental suffering of a person in need of acute psychiatric care. 

 

Christians Volunteering Pronouns? by Andrew T. Walker at American Reformer (August 19, 2022)

A Response to an Employer's Request for Pronouns by Amy K. Hall at The Stream (May 11, 2023).  Provides a nice example from a real-life situation as well as a template of what to communicate and how to do with courage and wisdom.

Why I No Longer Use Transgender Pronouns--and Why You Shouldn't Either by Rosario Butterfield at Reformation 21 (April 3, 2023)

Words as Weapons: Why We Must Stand Our Grounds Over Pronouns by Jonathon Van Maren at The European Conservative (February 7, 2022)

"Language is the first domino in the war over reality—and pronouns have nothing to do with politeness and everything to do with ideological submission... 

"What do we actually cede if we play along with ‘preferred pronouns’? We are conceding that the person demanding that he be called a ‘she’ actually is a woman. Once that is established, what grounds do we have for keeping him out of the female bathroom, or off the girl’s swim team, or out of a rape crisis center for women traumatized by men? The simple answer is that there are none. He has demanded that we call him a woman, and we have agreed to do so to be courteous. That courtesy will then be used as a bludgeon." 

 Is It a Sin for a Christian to Use Transgender Pronouns? by Michael Brown at Ask Dr. Brown (April 4, 2023)

Examining the Case for "Pronoun Hospitality" by Richard Klaus at White Rose Review (January 6, 2021)

Cognitive Liberty: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Conscience and "What Are Your Pronouns?" Video interview with Dr. Nicholas Meriwether at Ratio Christi: Thoughtful Christianity (September 30, 2022)

• The U.S. Sixth Circuit of Appeals decision in favor of Dr. Nicholas Meriwether.

Why Pronouns Matter... a Lot by Greg Koukl at Stand to Reason (6/1/2021).

Why Agree to Use Preferred Names but Not Preferred Pronouns? by Amy K. Hall at Stand to Reason (1/20/2022).