Stephen Webb, theologian and author of On God and Dogs and Good Eating, has an intriguing article at The Other Journal called “Theology from the Pet Side Up: A Christian Agenda for NOT Saving the World” which combines two of my pet interests (pardon the pun), Christian concern for animals and the theology of nature. In it he argues that Christians should not sentimentalize “unspoilt nature” and ecosystems which routinely sacrifice, often in brutal and painful ways, individual creatures for the sake of the integrity of the whole. Rather, he says, we should see pets as in some ways the paradigm for what God intends for animals. They are to be brought into the circle of communion and companionship which God has established. Consequently, he suggests that Christian concern for “the environment” should properly begin with attention to particular creatures:
[T]heologians are often in too much of a hurry to talk about nature these days, and thus they do not take the time to reflect about the nature that is closest to them—their pets. Environmentalists lift up the values of interdependence and holism, which they adopt from ecology, but these principles are another way of saying that eco-systems do not care about individuals. Rather than interdependence, I would want to emphasize relationships. Interdependence suggests that nature works quite well on its own accord, and human intervention inevitably upsets the balance. When I think of interdependence, I think of a spider’s web, not a mutual affirmation of difference and dignity.
Christians have no business promulgating the aesthetic appreciation of coherence—a part of the whole is good as long as it contributes something to that whole—which reflects the old idea that this is the best of all possible worlds. The world is fallen, and nature is not what God intended it to be. The violence of nature is not all our fault, either, because the world into which Adam and Eve were expelled was already at odds with the peaceable harmony of Eden. If nature is fallen and its fall preceded our own, then there is little we can do to change nature in any dramatic way. Yet we can, like Noah with his ark, save a few fellow creatures from suffering as we try to warn others about God’s impending judgment.
[…]
Beginning a theology of the environment by reflecting on pets will lead to a very different place than beginning with nature in general or wild animals with their freedom threatened by human population growth. The nature that God pronounced good in the Genesis creation account was not the nature that forced humans to toil for their food and animals to fight each other. Animals were named by Adam, which suggests that the authority of humanity over animals is not incompatible with intimacy and friendship. Animals are meant to stand in relation with God by being in relation with humanity. In his science fiction novel, Perelandra, C. S. Lewis describes a planet where the fall has not (yet) occurred. He portrays the animals as both mysterious and gentle, living according to their own laws but also welcoming human company.
Traditionally, Christian theology portrays heaven as a garden, not a wild jungle, a place, like the original Garden of Eden, where God allows life to grow without the countless sacrifices of violent death. It is thus possible to argue that pets are the paradigm for the destiny of all animal life. In other words, according to the Christian myth, animals were originally domesticated, in the sense of being nonviolent and being in a positive relationship with us, and they will be again.
I think Webb is right to resist turning nature as we find it into something that is normative for our attitudes toward the natural world. Nature is red in tooth and claw, and it’s proper for humans to alleviate (or at least not exacerbate) the suffering that seems endemic to our fallen world.
But I also think Webb is a bit dismissive of legitimate environmental concerns. Granted that nature is “fallen” or, at the very least, not what God ultimately intends her to be, and granted further that we shouldn’t idealize “wild” nature, does it follow that we shouldn’t be concerned with fostering what integrity and beauty she displays? Webb is right that environmentalism can take on religious overtones, but this argument is often used by conservatives to shrug off environmental issues. Just because some people make an ersatz religion out of environmental concern doesn’t mean that there aren’t real problems that need attending to, for our own sake if for no other reason. The need to adress environmental problems arises quite naturally from the concern for the well-being of individuals (including our animal friends) that Webb places at the center of the Christian ethos.
A Thinking Reed 
Leave a reply to Anonymous Cancel reply