Summary: Over the last 500 years, most “animal-friendly” theologians, such as John Calvin (1509 –1564), Matthew Hale (1609-1676), John Wesley (1703-1791), John Styles (1782 –1849), Karl Barth (1886-1968), C.S. Lewis (1898-1963), Stephen Webb (1961-2016), William Scully (1959-), and Michael Rennie Stead (1969-), have adopted a Pharisaic attitude towards animals. This can all be traced back to their (mis)interpretation of “dominion” (Genesis 1:26, 28) as God-assigned stewardship/surrogate lordship, the power of which is often abused, though Prof. Andrew Linzey adds that the inner logic of Christ’s lordship is the sacrifice of the higher for the lower (Linzey 1995:71). In this article, I will propose that “servanthood” devoid of any power or authority is a more accurate and safer translation/interpretation of “dominion” in Genesis 1.
1. Compassionate Stewardship?
The theologians aforementioned all seemingly progressively think that “dominion” should be interpreted as responsible and compassionate stewardship and care for creation instead of a license for exploitation, and that while humans are granted dominion in terms of power over animals, this privilege comes with the grave responsibility to treat animals with dignity and compassion.
2. The Right to Use Animals?
The kind of stewardship in their mind, however, includes the right to domesticate and raise innocent creatures of God in order to kill them for food or for clothing or for vivisection, and to use them for labour and entertainment, etc., provided they are treated with dignity while they live. They all fall short of mandating veganism for all. They all fail to recognize veganism as a core tenet of the Christian faith. They are, therefore pro animal welfare rather than pro animal rights.
3. Power Tends to Corrupt!
The major problem with all these theologians is that, instead of interpreting “dominion” as servanthood devoid of power and authority, they all (mis)interpret it as stewardship or lordship or surrogate Godhood, which inevitably presupposes some sort of power and authority. Although they argue that such a power must be qualified with responsibility and compassion, they have forgotten that power tends to corrupt (Lord Acton 1887). Whenever humans think they possess some sort of power over others, they almost always tend to abuse that power.
4. Two Models of “Dominion”
In fact, over the last 2000 years, numerous church leaders and theologians have (ab)used the term “dominion” in Genesis 1:26,28) to justify the enslavement, torture, abuse, rape, and murder of innocent creatures of God; and their interpretations of “dominion” can be classified as either hardcore or soft. IMO, these two models have problems in terms of accuracy and security, as a result of which I am proposing a third one below.
5. Dominion as Despotism
The first one is a hard one, namely, “dominion” as absolute despotic authority and power over animals, as purported by St. Augustine (354-430), St. Thomas Aquinas (1224/1225-1274), and Martin Luther (1483-1546), etc.
6. Dominion as Stewardship
The second one is a soft one, namely, “dominion” as stewardship (Linzey 1995:34) or benevolent lordship (Linzey 1995:106), which had existed since at least the 16th century, before it was formally established by Rev. Prof. Andrew Linzey (1995). Linzey justifies his interpretation on the ground that “dominion” is immediately followed by God’s prescription of a vegan diet to humans in Genesis 2:15; and subsequently by God’s commission to them to take good care of the Garden (Linzey 1995:34). Linzey even contends that the killing of a sentient creature who does not want to die could amount to murder (Linzey 1995:121), and that human species has the unique potential to become the “servant species” able to work with God in liberating animals (Linzey 1995:45, 57).
7. Nine Examples of Surrogate Lordship Abused
Unfortunately, it is precisely the power of “lordship” that has been abused by people with ulterior motives. For example, Karl Barth (1886-1968) associates human “lordship” over animals with the “primary meaning of requisitioning, disciplining, taming, harnessing, exploiting and making profitable use of” them (Barth 1961:351). John Stiles (1782 –1849) is adamant that “the whole world” is “under the dominion of enlightened man, the Lord and Governor of all” (Stiles 1839:244), that the human species is “the lordly delegate of his [God’s] power”, to whose “supreme dominion” all creatures are subject (Stiles 1839:186), such that humans are entitle to use animals and even take their lives for food, if they deem it necessary for their sustenance, provided that they do it with responsibility, reverence and care (Stiles 1839:186, 192-193).
Similarly, John Calvin (1509-1564) argues that humans were allowed by God to murder animals, skin them, and eat their flesh in Eden even BEFORE the Fall (Calvin 1554, Commentary of Genesis 1:28).
Matthew Hale (1609–1676) thinks that God's goodness allows humans to kill animals for food (Hale 1805:273), and that this is acceptable as long as it is done “sparingly, for necessity, and not for delight; or if for delight, yet not for luxury” (Hale 1805:274).
John Wesley (1703-1791), despite his doctor's advice, once interrupted his veganism in order to show that vegetarianism is a health choice rather than a moral issue (Wesley 1747/1931:2-4).
John Stiles (1782 –1849) contends that humans can use animals and even take their lives for food, if they deem it necessary for their sustenance, provided that they do it with responsibility, reverence and care (Stiles 1839:186, 192-193). He’s just opposed to the luxuries of animal-flesh-eating (Stiles 1839:178).
Matthew Scully (born 1959), in his book Dominion, denies any rights or power to animals and condones "humane farmers" giving innocent creatures of God a "merciful death" (Scully 2005).
Stephen H. Webb (1961-2016) supports factory farming, and scandalously speculates that Jesus's likely to frequent McDonald's (Webb 2011b:26).
Michael Rennie Stead (1969–) quotes that the true good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep (Luke 15:3-7; John 10:11), while adding that “the ‘good shepherd’ is the one who can maximise the return on investment from the flock, generating the highest yield of fleece or meat for the lowest price” (Stead 2019).
8. “Dominion” (yirdu) as Powerless Servanthood
I would like, therefore, to propose a third model of “dominion” in the compassionate spirit of Jesus Christ, namely, “dominion” as servanthood with no authority whatsoever on the part of humans over animals. For the ancient, pre-Masoretic Hebrew word in consonantal form for “dominion” is yirdu ( ירדו), which could refer to either radah (רָדָה /subjugate) or yarad (יָרַד /lower oneself) (cf. Ehrenfeld and Bentley 1985:301). IMO, only yarad could be the right interpretation, because, firstly, Jesus stresses, “I came to serve, NOT to be served!” (Matthew 20:28); secondly, “dominion” (Gen. 1:28) is immediately followed by a vegan diet prescribed by God to humans (Gen. 1:29) (cf. Linzey 1995:34); thirdly, humans are assigned to take good care of the Garden (Gen. 2:15) (cf. Ritenbaugh 1999).
9. Conclusion
In a word, to interpret human “dominion” over animals as servanthood bereft of authority, or humbly waiting on other creatures as a powerless servant, is far more accurate as well as safer than despotism and even stewardship, because it fits in with Jesus’ compassionate spirit, and because “power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely” (Lord Acton 1887).
In accordance with this definition of “dominion”, we are not God’s surrogates on earth; we have no rights whatsoever over other sentient creatures of God. We are not supposed to use our fellow conscious earthlings; we are only supposed to serve them or at least leave them alone. To use/abuse/exploit/harm/kill them, unless in a life or death, self-defence situation, is to go against God’s command.
Theologians who interpret “dominion” as stewardship or surrogate lordship with a view to condoning in a disguised way the use of innocent creatures of God for selfish, carnist, and destructive human purposes are not really animal-friendly. We have to be particularly careful about them because of the sugar-coated packaging of their theological discourses, such as responsible processing, reverential handling, and considerate treatment of animals in the name of God and Christ.
댓글