Report on event: Animals and Religion

SUMMARY

The CTPI event, “Animals and Religion” (16 April) was an opportunity to hear from a few New College faculty on their research on nonhuman animals and religion. About 37 participated in person, while 9 others were present online (Zoom). The panel and discussions were moderated by Rachel Muers, director of CTPI. Presentations by Bethany Sollereder, Suzanna Millar, and David Grumett formed the foundational groundwork on which further wide-ranging conversation ensued. A brief summary of the three presentations is provided below, followed by my critical thematic reflection.

Bethany Sollereder’s talk, ‘Animal Suffering and Evolution’ dealt with the often-neglected aspect of nonhuman experiences through the scope of an evolutionary timescale. Rather than discuss animal suffering in relation to (or as a result of) humans, Sollereder draws attention to living beings that preceded humans, with cognitive/sentient capacity to ‘suffer’—although as Sollereder points out, the definition of ‘who/what suffers’ remains contested. Theologians have variously proposed explanations that (i) deny the reality of evolution or the capacity for animal suffering, (ii) present fallenness and sin as reasons for animal suffering, (iii) or embrace suffering as integral to creation. Sollereder’s presentation brought perspective to the discussion, rightfully reminding us of the scope of the animal world—not to mention other living beings (plants, even microbes?) that could well be drawn into such considerations on theodicy. It seems appropriate that Christian theological discourse on the subject must remain mindful of the planetary scope of life and the scale of deep time in evolutionary history.

Turning the lens towards scriptural texts, Suzanna Millar discussed the multiple threads of intersectionality and power dynamics that nonhuman animals represent in the Hebrew Bible. Nathan’s subtle but dramatic parable of indictment against King David’s abuse of power (2 Samuel 12:1-4) features at its heart, a little ewe lamb, which Millar suggests, stand for interhuman power dynamic (between the rich and poor, host and stranger, men and women, and natives and foreigner). Simultaneously, the lamb also remarkably signifies inter-species compassion and intimacy. The presentation, aptly titled ‘The Hebrew Bible and Nonhuman Animals’, demonstrates that scripture actually charges the nonhuman animal with layers of significance, and as the pivotal point on which the prophet speaks his critique against power. Millar’s presentation highlights the potential blindness in hermeneutics that ignore the significance of nonhuman animals. To regard “species as an intersection” then, would be to open ourselves to a richer and more nuanced reading of scriptures—and in that way, finding both divine critique as well as consolation in the face of the nonhuman animal.

The final presentation by David Grumett, “Animal Theology and Farm Animal Welfare” focuses on the ethical and practical considerations of animal cruelty. It evaluates principles from Christian scripture and theology towards “practical animal welfare”. He notes that the notion of ‘unblemished animals’ in temple practices of the Old Testament presents challenges to contemporary animal farming practices that involve mutilation (castration, tail docking, beak trimming). Mutilations are made with the intent to maximise profits while some could be considered as preventive measures from diseases, etc. However, they are ultimately ways of manipulating normal animal behaviour or pattern to achieve the premeditated (human-serving) goals. Grumett argues that Christian scripture (and theology) fundamentally promotes compassion and welfare towards animal. This is also manifested in the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) which he notes, began as an organisation firmly rooted in Christian convictions.

REFLECTIONS

The three presentations proved to be thought provoking and generated fascinating comments and questions after. I will present here a brief critical reflection on the overlapping and interrelated themes/issues that were more prominently highlighted in the interaction. It must also be noted that my academic interest in cosmology, theology of creation, and indigenous lifeworlds/worldviews affect my analysis here (‘indigenous’ understood here as ‘radical intimacy with the land’).

Conceptualisation and hermeneutics.

It seems that certain concepts and interpretative frameworks needed further clarification on how they were being used. The notion of human ascendency and dominion was one such recurring theme. Several concerns being discussed in the exchange were: do humans have dominion over nature? What does dominion mean? Do we get rid of the notion of dominion? Do we need to reinterpret dominion? Other concepts seemed to struggle in the process of translation, especially when read into scripture or articulated in theological discussions. It was also emphasised that abstract terms such as ‘animal’, ‘nature’, ‘(de)humanisation’, ‘equality/equity’ etc. are not only absent in scripture (and in some cultures, more on this below), but are not universally understood in the same way. Similarly, what it means to be human may be perceived in subtly different ways across linguistic and cultural contexts. Ultimately, it seems that the discussion kept reverting to cosmological and fundamental questions: who are humans in relation to animals (and the earth)?

The Majority World and the persistence of ‘dominion’.

The discussion around ‘domination’ reminded me of the pushback I receive from interlocutors in India whenever I challenge their ‘dominion’ narrative. In short, their insistence on ‘dominion’ is grounded in the existential and immediate need for people in parts of the ‘developing’ world to manage nature and to make a living in the rugged terrains that they have lived in from time immemorial. Seen now with Christian reinterpretation, the management of the land (a necessary part of their indigenous lifeworlds) has assumed a God-given status—that it is God’s will for humans to have dominion over creation. In one sense, it may be true that the need for controlling nature is over in the west (as Sollereder rightfully points out during the interaction). However, the same is not the case in the majority of the world, where communities have not yet moved beyond the urgency and primacy for survival over the contingencies of nature. So, while I abhor to see trees cut to make roads, they remind me that the sick are taken in motorbikes to urban hospitals due to the terrible condition of their roads. Given this situation, how do we address Majority World anxieties towards more recent western-centric turn, that could well have the effect of resigning the (Majority) world to a perpetual state of infrastructure deficit (while at least representing the imagined noble ‘wild’ness in the imagination of western societies)? How can we ensure that theological articulations are mindful of intersectional communities (the poor and the ‘Fourth World’ communities[1]) and formulate human-animal theologies accordingly? As echoed in western discourses (‘rewilding’, ‘duty of care to creation’, ‘responsibility’, ‘healthy predators’, and ‘stewardship’), I think that indigenous notions of place-making, place-honouring, and place-managing could be nuanced and discussed for theological reflections. In other words, for the lack of a better theological concept, ‘dominion’ seems to be the most popular notion (although deeply problematic) that captures their existential needs, and that seems superficially warranted by scripture. Perhaps that is why ‘dominion’ continues to thrive, as observed also during the event discussion.

During the event discussion, there were phrases and suggestions voiced, such as the need for ‘systemic change’, for ‘thinking cosmologically’, and to ask ‘fundamental questions.’ How ‘systemic’ and ‘deep’ would we venture in our thinking? For instance, we may consider different conceptualisations of human relationship with the rest of creation. There may be other paradigms but let me discuss one instance here that I am most familiar with from my own research. Indigenous notions on eco-social relations (Himalayan upland communities) and ‘the circle of life’ (Indigenous American communities) could enrich theological articulations of biodiversity and inter-species flourishing. Additionally, their cosmological view of humans as being in fundamental and ontological relations with nonhumans imply that the boundaries between ‘nature’ and ‘human cultures’ are porous. To me, this seems to simplify the question of how much human intervention is needed to “sustain” nature and biodiversity. When humans are recognised as being part of nature, our activities are not as clearly differentiated from natural processes. Humans are not above the ecological landscape but are subjected to its variations and processes—in so far as their intention is to manage/honour the ecological balance (on which humans themselves survive). Thus, human intervention is understood as part of the ecological-social process. Here, there is no pretensions or ideation about our ascendent status over the rest of beings—whether speaking ontologically (as created beings) or functionally (as fragile humans at the mercies of nature[2]).

Rathiulung Elias KC, PhD candidate (World Christianity) and Project Manager CTPI