In Search of Consistency: Ethics and Animals [Human–Animal Studies] Part 6 pps

justify their actions in light of the overarching Christian vision oflove and compassion in the midst of creation.Perhaps the most common objection to protectionist philosophy isthat lov

passage makes it clear that whatever Christians do, they must not do

anything that might cause others to falter or stumble along theirspiritual journey

While an individual of strong faith may see nothing wrong witheating bodies of anymals—whether or not they have been sacrificed

to idols—Paul notes that they must adjust their eating habits for thesake of others (Eiselen 1182) Christian love requires the faithful to

be sure that their flesh eating does not become a “stumbling block”for others (1 Cor 8:9) Those whose diet causes others to fall awayfrom Christianity, “sin against family,” and in so doing, “sinagainst Christ” (1 Cor 8:12) Certain foods are to be avoided notbecause they are forbidden—they are not—but because these itemsmight turn people away from Christ As with Peter’s dream, a moregeneral point is made through specific examples (in this case flesheating and wine drinking)

Divergent points of view have too often become catalysts for sion and stumbling blocks to faith, both of which scripture clearlyand strongly warns against In Romans 14, scripture instructs Christians

divi-to avoid foods that tend divi-to be contentious so that they might avoidturning others away from Christ Today, flesh and dairy productsare foods that might turn people away from the Christian commu-nity Will vegans attend a church function such as a “barbecue” or

“ice cream social”? Their Christlike compassion will not permit them

to eat anymal products, but I have never known a flesh eater tohave a moral complaint against veggie burgers or tofu dogs, orPopsicle socials

The teachings of Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 are just as evant today as in the time of Peter; diet continues to be divisive and

rel-controversial People are turned away by current Christian diets,

atti-tudes, and general indifference toward anymals The text of

1 Corinthians 8 concludes: “Therefore, if food is a cause of theirfalling, I will never eat meat, so that I may not cause one of them

to fall” (8:13) In short, if eating meat is a possible stumbling blockfor others, the Christian response ought to be, “I will be a vegetarianall my life!” (Eiselen 1182) Flesh eating in the Christian church hasbecome a barrier and stumbling block for vegans Today’s carnivo-rous Christian congregations, fattened on the flesh of factory-farmedcalves and the eggs of deprived battery hens (soon to be slaughteredfor chicken soup), turn the stomachs of more compassionate citizens.Flesh eating is a divisive and critical issue for contemporary Westerners

Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 instruct the faithful not to eat foodsthat might be morally repugnant to others—to abandon flesh eat-ing out of love for vegetarians and vegans who turn away fromChristian congregations red in tooth and fork.

e Ecclesiastes 3:18–21

There are few verses in either the Hebrew Scriptures or the NewTestament that challenge traditional views of anymals-as-“other” asblatantly as does Ecclesiastes 3:18–21:

I said in my heart with regard to human beings that God is testingthem to show that they are but animals For the fate of humans andthe fate of animals is the same; as one dies, so dies the other Theyall have the same breath, and humans have no advantage over theanimals; for all is vanity All go to one place; all are from the dust,and all turn to dust again Who knows whether the human spirit goesupward and the spirit of animals goes downward to the earth?

As noted previously, early Christian scholars, aligned with earlierGreek thinkers, argued that humans were both distinctly separateand above other creatures Yet Ecclesiastes states plainly, we “arebut animals.” If the Christian philosopher, Descartes, had spent moretime reading the Bible and less time reading Greek philosophy toreach his theological conclusions, perhaps he would not have erro-neously concluded that anymals are automata, machines made byGod for our purposes, machines bereft of soul, and thereby bereft

of consciousness, and thereby bereft of any form of sensation.Ecclesiastes clearly indicates that we are not so very different fromanymals, and that it is not clear what will happen to any of us after

death—except that all of our bodies will return to the dust from

which we have come

justify their actions in light of the overarching Christian vision oflove and compassion in the midst of creation.

Perhaps the most common objection to protectionist philosophy isthat love directed at anymals is “misplaced” love Linzey responds

to this objection: One kind of love is not a replacement for another;neither does love for anymals reduce an individual’s ability to lovepeople Linzey asserts that “sensitivity to suffering is a sign of graceand also a litmus test of our fidelity to the passionate Creator God”;

“any theology which desensitizes us to suffering cannot properly be

a theology centered on the divine vindication of innocent suffering”

(Linzey, After 132) Linzey concludes that an “understanding of God’s

love which limits our care and affection for other creatures is

spir-itually impoverished” (Linzey, After 131).

Linzey’s response is well supported by hagiographies Seeminglyboundless compassion has been associated with some of the greatestspiritual exemplars the world has known, from Gandhi to St Francis

of Assisi Lynn White called St Francis “the greatest spiritual lutionary in Western history” (1207) It is an embarrassment toChristians, who so often and so loudly vocalize their central tenet

revo-of love, that congregations and ministers alike indict love turnedtoward other species as misplaced Compassion—love—is not a lim-ited resource, but a capacity that Christians are to foster and enhancethroughout their lives

Love is not a “zero-sum game” or some sort of hydraulic fluid whosevolume is perforce static This is the argument of “compassion fatigue”and it only holds short-term Long-term, all religions and especiallyChristianity, teach that one can expand one’s capacity to love, andought consciously to do so (Halley, Unpublished)

The life of Jesus provides many examples of overflowing compassionand love Jesus did not assess the moral status of those he helped;

he did not assess the intellectual abilities of those he healed Jesushelped whomever came to him, and most Christians express anexpectation that the devout follow this example:

[ Jesus] didn’t say to blind Bartolomeus, once healed, “Now don’t you

go ogling beautiful women.” To the owner of the withered hand that

he restored, Jesus didn’t warn, “Don’t get your hand caught in the till;

no stealing now.” The neighbor to be loved according to the GoodSamaritan is the nearest person in need regardless of race, religion,

or nationality, and we can safely add gender or sexual orientation

“Will you call vile one for whom Christ did not disdain to die?”

If Christ didn’t disdain to die for any of us, [how] are Christiansnot to live for all of us? (Coffin)

Through Romans 8 and Colossians 1 Linzey demonstrates that Christ

died to redeem all of creation In addition to the many types of

peo-ple (Asians, tax collectors, women, and Republican politicians toname but a few) Christians are obliged to add the entirety of God’sbountiful creation Christian love is expected to be no less generousthan the love demonstrated by Jesus—by God

In the story of the good Samaritan and elsewhere, Christ expandedthe idea of “love your neighbor” outwards from the small circle of

“Jews” to a much larger circle of people including Samaritans St.Paul continued the process (Gal 3:28), extending the circle to includeall Gentiles Linzey is following the logic of Christianity through tohigher animals Perhaps there is no limit (Fundamentalists often go

in the opposite direction, imploding their ever-diminishing circle towards

a ring of “the faithful” and eventually just one’s own self.) (Halley,Unpublished communication)

The deity is represented in the New Testament as love itself Verses

1 John 4:8 and 1 John 4:16 state simply: “God is love.” In this sage love is “not merely an attribute of God but defines his nature,though in a practical rather than philosophic sense God’s nature

pas-is not exhausted by the quality of love, but love governs all its aspectsand expressions” (Buttrick 12:280) Christian love is understood tooriginate in the munificence of God’s love and to connect each of

us with the divine (C Allen 12:214) Consequently, it is not prising that almost all Christians agree that love is “the paramountscripture essential to the Christian way of life” (C Allen 12:214)

sur-Christians are called upon to love fully and well; love is central to

Christianity Christ’s love—God as love—these central teachings

demand a Christian life of radical compassion Christ modeled a life

of love that entailed the ultimate sacrifice: “In the light of Jesus,Christian loving can only properly be defined in terms of that kind

of loving which costs us something” (Linzey, After 102) Galatians

5:22–23 informs humanity that the “fruit of the Spirit is love, joy,peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.” Scripture demands a life of sacrificial, Christlike love, ademand that has long been central to Christian morality—thoughtoo often only in theory

Linzey highlights Christ’s example of loving self-sacrifice and theoriginal peaceable (vegan) kingdom created by God (Gen 1) Heencourages Christians to recognize the exploitation of sentient cre-ation as antithetical to God’s will Surely today’s violence towardanymals, intensified and aggrandized by modern methods of factoryfarming and technology (in a world of comparable health and abun-dance), are immeasurably worse than the simple violence of Noah’s

time Yet even the violence of Noah’s day was appalling in the eye of the deity,

so shocking and objectionable that the Almighty determined to make an end of all that had been created in order to stop the violence In his book, The Cosmic Covenant, Robert Murray defends eating other creatures How willsuch flesh-eating theologians answer the Christ challenge, the call tolive a life of loving self-sacrifice in a world of exploitation and vio-lence toward anymals?

Verses 1 John 4:8 and 1 John 4:16 shed light on the nature ofthe deity and carry the Christian imperative to live a life of love for

all, a love that entails self-sacrifice

g Isaiah 11:6–9

Linzey draws attention to God’s original creation as presented inGenesis 1, a creation of peace and nonviolence, a peaceable king-dom lost through the degradation of earthly creatures He notes that

God created all, that all share in the fall, and that all of creation

will share in redemption But Linzey does not focus on the idealworld, designed by God, anticipated in the future; Linzey does notemphasize God’s peaceable kingdom, which will eventually return tothis earth, transforming life as we know it

This future “state of peace and well-being” is “symbolized by theidyllic picture of powerful animals and poisonous reptiles in harmo-nious companionship with domesticated animals and truly spiritualhuman children” (Buttrick 5:249):

The wolf shall live with the lamb,

the leopard shall lie down with the kid,

the calf and the lion and the fatling together,

and a little child shall lead them

The cow and the bear shall graze,

their young shall lie down together;

and the lion shall eat straw like the ox

The nursing child shall play over the hole of the asp,

and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder’s den

They will not hurt or destroy

on all my holy mountain;

for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD

as the waters cover the sea (Isa 11:6–9)

According to scripture, “complete harmony and peace” will onceagain prevail on earth; “men and animals [will] live together in aparadise-like relationship, and no living creature [will] hurt or destroyanother” (C Allen 5:232) Violence will stop; there will be “recon-ciliation in the world of nature, and the ancient enmity betweenman and beast shall be done away” (Buttrick 5:249–50) Scriptureholds “an expectation that God will bring all bloodshed in creation

to an end Earthly violence is not chronic: Isaiah offers a vision ofreconciliation, concord, and trust” (Guthrie 598)

Psalms and Proverbs also allow us to glimpse an ing spiritual unity that includes the earth in its entirety Psalm 148exclaims: “Praise him, sun and moon;/Praise him, all you shiningstars!/Praise him, you highest heavens,/and you waters above theheavens! /Mountains and all hills,/fruit trees and all cedars!/Wildanimals and all cattle,/creeping things and flying birds! /Praisethe Lord!” This biblical worldview reveals all creatures, humans andanymals alike, praising God “All creation is a single hymn of praise

all-encompass-in which humans, animals and nature as a whole praise God withone voice” (Vischer 5)

This biblical vision of peace on earth and goodwill toward all ofcreation is not to be ignored by Christians, as it most assuredly seems

to be among contemporary congregations “The Lord’s Prayer,” one

of the most commonly repeated scriptural passages, reminds thedevout: “Your kingdom come./Your will be done, on earth as it is

in heaven” (Matt 10) This idyllic vision for the future involves all of contemporary Christendom; the fulfillment of God’s plan can and willhappen through the “work of all who believe in Jesus Christ andhis kingdom” (Buttrick 5:250–51) A Christian lifestyle ought to aidthe realization of God’s peaceable kingdom The “Our Father,” sooften uttered, “acknowledges a personal and social obligation” foreach Christian, to work toward this peaceful end (Buttrick 7:312),

to participate in the “final triumph of God’s will” through daily life(C Allen 8:115) The peaceable world ordained by God is to onceagain be realized on earth with the active participation of all Christians.Many contemporary believers dismiss the peaceable kingdom asbeautiful imagery that cannot be realized in this world, a hope beyond

hope for which we are not expected to strive On this view, most

of Christ’s teachings can be dismissed, for Christ was an idealist, asare many of the teachings in the Hebrew Scriptures But scripturecommands: “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is per-fect” (Matt 5:48) A peaceful, compassionate lifestyle, and the antic-

ipated peace that must ultimately follow, are the actualization of “the knowledge of the Lord” (Guthrie 598) Christians are expected to strivefor excellence Consistent with the works of other prophets, Micaimplores, “What does the LORD require of you but to do justice,and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” (Mica6:8) It is the duty of every Christian to assist in reestablishing God’speaceable kingdom on earth—to abstain from investing in cruelty,and to thereby help restore the vegan world designed and created

by the Almighty

This biblical vision of creatures living in peace is central to theChristian tradition At Christmastime people put up images depict-ing Jesus as a newborn babe, lying in a barnyard surrounded bywell-tended anymals (It is perhaps symbolic that Jesus was laid inthe feed bin [manger] of farmed anymals, where he rested safely onhis first night.) This idyllic vision, the promise of its return, and theexpectation for a Christian life call believers to change their behav-ior toward anymals through the love of God, for Christ transforms

“human character, and will ultimately change the whole creation”(Guthrie 598) Christians can choose not to consume flesh, the nurs-ing milk of cattle, or the undeveloped embryos of chickens Thelong-ago anymals living in a stable in Bethlehem did not mistakeJesus, lying in their feed bin, for food Neither should we mistakeother creatures for a legitimate source of sustenance when we haveother options that are scripturally preferable

3 Theoretical Considerations

a Theos-Centered Morality

An important difference must be noted between Linzey’s Generosity

Paradigm and most protectionist theories: Linzey’s ethic does not

focus on the lives of spotted collybia, banded geckoes, Devon cattle,

or the everglades, but rather on duty to God.

For Christians, “the duty of the steward is to carry out the plan

of the absent ruler The duty not to mistreat animals is owed to theabsent ruler, not to the animals” (Gunn, “Traditional” 151) Linzey’s

theory protects the environment and anymals from human abuse

and plundering, and this is done for the sake of God, not for the sake

of the land, seas, plants, or animals, including people

While the difference is central, the outcome is the tion Linzey’s theology of compassion offers a refreshing alternative

same—protec-to most people, who place human beings at the center Most of uspreserve forests and species in order to maintain quiet and beauti-ful places where we might take refuge from the bustle of urban exis-tence and enjoy hiking, killing wildlife, or just viewing the anymals.Others only preserve the abundance of species for possible medici-nal purposes—to maintain the gene pool—not for the anymals them-selves A God-centered vision offers a more enduring and ultimatereason to protect and preserve the world around us Perhaps “with-out a truly spiritual understanding of our relationship with the rest

of life on Earth, both the Environmental Movement and the AnimalWelfare Movement are condemned to irrelevance” (Porritt 15).While we might neglect our duties to others, or even to ourselves,those of faith are perhaps more committed to duties viewed as cen-tral to their relationship with the deity

Theology removes human self-interest from protectionist theoryand focuses on responsibility to God “As one cannot praise Rembrandtsincerely while trampling his paintings, so one cannot praise Godsincerely while trampling His works” (DeWitt 8)

b Hierarchy

“Hierarchy,” when applied to the biological world, entails certainspecies assuming a place of importance in relation to others Hierarchy,based on an assumption of human preeminence, is one of the cor-nerstones on which the traditional Western concept of “dominion”has been built and maintained Theists who envision a hierarchyoften reason “that God exists; that He has the right to decide which

of His creatures shall live or die; that He has the right to delegatethis right to others; and that He did delegate this right to humanbeings” (Singer, “Animals” 231) Any one of these assumptions mightreasonably be challenged, as Linzey has done, though he accepts ascripture-based hierarchy

Linzey asserts a biblical hierarchy rooted in Genesis: creation, thecovenant of Genesis 9, and dominion He accepts the traditionalhierarchy—humans have a special place over (but not against) the

myriad creation He asserts that humans have special responsibilities

(rather than exclusive privileges) in relation to the rest of creation.

He posits that anymals ought to be included in our moral circle,but not plants Linzey’s assertion of hierarchy appears untenable onfive counts

i divergent creation stories

First, there are two creation stories in the Bible and they cannotboth be reconciled with Linzey’s hierarchy Linzey only discusses thecreation story presented in Genesis 1, which informs that God cre-ated day and night, then atmosphere and water on the first and sec-ond day The third day brought dry land and vegetation followed

by the stars and planets on the fourth day On the fifth day Godcreated sea creatures and birds, and on the sixth the deity createdall the beasts of the earth, culminating in the creation of man andwoman (Gen 1:1–30)

Based on Genesis 1 creation, assuming a hierarchy of ascendingorder, the hierarchy would run as follows: time, basic earthly ele-ments, inanimate matter and vegetation, heavenly bodies, creatures

of sea and sky, animals—including people, who were created last.The creation story of Genesis 2, however, begins with mists, fol-lowed by the creation of man, then vegetation Rivers and miner-als are mentioned before the creation of anymals The final act of

creation is (once again) woman:

In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens , astream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of theground—then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground,and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became

a living being And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in theeast; and there he put the man whom he had formed Out of theground the LORD God made to grow every tree that is pleasant tothe sight and good for food

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should bealone; I will make him a helper as his partner.” So out of the groundthe Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of theair ; but for man there was not found a helper as his partner Sothe LORD God took one of his ribs [and made] a woman andbrought her to the man (Gen 2:4–9, 18–22)

The ascending order of creation in the second chapter of Genesislooks very different: basic earthly elements, man, vegetation, morecomplex inanimate matter, anymals, and finally woman

Linzey does not explain why the creation account in Genesis 2might reasonably be overlooked in forming a hierarchy based on theorder of creation If the recorded order of creation is to provide abasis for a hierarchy of any kind, both accounts must somehow bereconciled, and it is difficult to see how this might be accomplished.There is only one point of consensus: if the order of creation isascending, women are at the apex of creation in both accounts.

ii various covenants

The covenantal relationship is so pervasive in the Bible that it is oftenthought to be the essential way God relates to humans Certainly,many theologians of the Old Testament have followed Eichrodt instressing the centrality of the covenant to any insightful interpretation

of the text; the very names Old Testament and New Testament bearwitness to the overriding significance of successive covenantal under-standings (Gulick 187)

Given the handful of covenants in the Bible, it is unclear why Linzeyhas chosen to emphasize just one In fact, as noted by a colleagueand Hebrew Scriptures scholar, Dr Samantha Joo, “the Priestly edi-tor, schematizes Israel’s early history according to the main ‘signs’

of the different covenantal periods: Sabbath, rainbow, circumcision,and the giving of laws at Mt Sinai” (Unpublished communication).Yet Linzey does not discuss why he has chosen to emphasize justone of these important exchanges between God and humanity Whichcovenant is most important; are they all equal?

Furthermore, the covenant of Genesis 9 comes immediately afterGod has granted that humans may eat anymals Linzey does notexplain this seemingly unusual occurrence: How can God enter into

a covenant equally with all beings just after permitting one species

to eat many of the others simply because human beings seem tohave a strong, perhaps even uncontrollable, inclination to kill and

be wicked?

If Linzey is going to support his assertion of the importance ofthe Genesis 9 covenant, he will need to explain why he has chosen

to emphasize this particular covenant, and how it stands in relation

to other covenants made exclusively between God and human beings

iii hierarchy order

If there is a hierarchy indicated through scriptural accounts of theorder of creation, Linzey does not indicate why the order must nec-essarily be ascending Nothing in scripture suggests that God cre-

ated the universe in any particular order of moral standing Nothing

indicates that the first act of creation, or the last (or the third, forthat matter) might be the apex, or might be considered any part of

a hierarchy

Even if Linzey’s notion of ascending hierarchy is accepted, it isnot clear how such a notion might offer moral guidance in light oftwo accounts of biblical creation How are Christians to understand

or build an ethic on a hierarchy where vegetation falls between manand anymals, as in the second creation account? How might peopleorganize a hierarchy where one must choose between an ascendingorder in which woman stands at the apex, and a descending orderwhere the basic elements of earthly matter are the most likely can-didates for wearing the crown of God’s creation?

iv Book of Job

In the book of Job “God’s character is revealed in and throughnature” (Gulick 188) In responding to Job’s heartfelt questioning,the deity offers “a panoramic vision” of the natural world in whichJob lived (Gulick 189) God answers Job from a force of nature, not

a terrifying tornado, nor the everyday wind that drifts across nents unseen, but a whirlwind, “a dust-bearing wind that, paradox-ically, can be seen” and which literally “turns things around—perhapseven one’s assumptions about the nature of God or the godliness ofnature” (Gulick 189) And this is precisely what a close read of Job,with regard to nature, can do These passages in Job belie any hier-archy that assumes humans to be self-important, such as might beindicated by a hierarchy that places us apart from or above the rest

from the unpleasant sounds of humans in busy settlements, wheredomineering drivers shout at little, laboring burros ( Job 39:5–8).Third, the earth was created for all creatures; God sustains all crea-tures, and what comes to pass does not revolve around human beings.

It is written that God caused it to “rain on a land where no onelives, on the desert, which is empty of human life; to satisfy thewaste and desolate land, and to make the ground put forth grass”( Job 38:26–27) The deity does not care only about humanity, andhuman-centered desires, but sees to the needs of all creatures Finally,human beings have a tendency toward self-importance and arro-gance, which are not consistent with our place amid creation Godasks the presumptuous human: “Where were you when I laid thefoundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding” ( Job38:4) We are but another earthly creature, in the eyes of God, notvery capable, not particularly bright

The Book of Job reminds Jews and Christians that God fully created nature outside the domain of human beings—evenbeyond our comprehension We have no power, no place in these

purpose-wild lands God has consideration for all of creation and provides

for the needs of all creatures The deity specifically set lands apart

to facilitate the lives of multitudinous creatures placed peacefully tant from human domination In these passages the deity addressesthe tendency of humans to feel self-important, our tendency to viewourselves as entitled Hebrew Scriptures remind readers: [C]ertain

dis-areas of God’s creation are outside human control, beyond acceptable

and proper realms of human influence (Vischer 9) Scripture clearly

states that God attends to every creature’s need, even the needs of

those animals that require protection from the exploitative ways ofhuman beings The Book of Job speaks loudly against human-cen-tered utilitarian assessments of creation

The Book of Job is backed by Genesis, where people are placed

in God’s good garden to “till it and keep it” (2:15) This passagesuggests that people were intended to take care of the needs of oth-ers living in the Garden of Eden—to tend creation This role denotesspecific laborer’s duties assigned by God—not an elevated status People

have been inclined to view this God-given role as indicative of apeak position in an imagined biblical hierarchy, but notions of ahierarchy remain unsupported by scripture, and gardeners are notnecessarily viewed as holding an elevated status Certainly, however,

those who dutifully tend to the needs of others are viewed as spiritually

elevated in the Christian world Unfortunately, this is not the rolethat we have taken.

Job, through the visions of nature provided by God, comes to anew understanding, about which he says, “I heard of you by thehearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you; therefore I despisemyself, and repent in dust and ashes” ( Job 42:5–6) Through nature,Job sees the fullness of God and comes to understand his smallness;

he then repents of his previous arrogance

v hierarchy as a Greek concept

Linzey notes that “hierarchy” is not a concept rooted in the Hebrewtradition, which was based on monarchy; the concept of hierarchy

the slave, and the slave to the beasts” (Linzey, Animal Theology 18).

Dominion is thus seen not as a service rendered God through ation, but as human supremacy Hebrew Scriptures, with an over-lay of Greek philosophy, resulted in a biblical interpretation rooted

cre-in hierarchy Lcre-inzey accepts this tacre-inted cre-interpretation of scripture.Second, Linzey asserts that “foundational material in scripture doesindeed make distinctions not only between humans and animals, but

also between animals and vegetables” (Animal Theology 35) He argues

that anymals therefore ought to be included in the Christian moralcircle, but not plants His assertion is based on scriptural accounts

of creation, dominion, the covenant, and the incarnation of God asman None of his arguments seem tenable:

• Linzey notes that creation offers “circles of greater or lesser

inti-macy with God,” indicating hierarchy (Linzey, Animal Theology 34).

But, as noted, there are two stories of creation, offering divergentorders Linzey does not even bring up this devastating blow to ahierarchical theory of creation

• Linzey argues that humans were given dominion over anymalsbecause “what we owe animals is more than what we owe veg-

etables or arguably even ecosystems” (Animal Theology 34) But

Linzey notes that dominion in Genesis 1 entails “tilling and

keep-ing the garden,” a plant-centered, divinely ordained dominion (Animal Theology 34) If human beings had not been given dominion overplants, it would have been difficult for them to feed themselvesand all the many anymals It is plants that humans were firstinstructed to tend

Linzey also reasons that we owe anymals in ways we do not owe

plants But dominion aside, the Christian obligation to love is not

dependent on what is owed, but on what is needed, as exemplified

by Jesus Overall, plants require less care, but the amount of careneeded is not a legitimate indicator of moral standing, only oftime and attention needed to satisfy a particular set of wants

• Linzey cites the covenant, noting that fish, cattle, and “every mal” are included, while parsley, soybeans, and “every plant” arenot Yet Linzey notes that God makes the covenant with “all liv-ing things,” and with the earth as a whole Plants qualify on bothcounts; therefore, God’s covenant includes plant life, and thecovenant cannot convincingly be used as part of an argument todemonstrate that anymals, but not plants, are the proper objects

ani-of Christian moral responsibility

• Linzey ascribes special meaning to Jesus as having animal flesh.God did not enter into the life of an artichoke or a palm tree,but rather the fleshly existence of a mammal Linzey argues thatthis offers special significance for fleshly beings But Linzey deniesthat the specifics of Christ’s incarnation hold an “exclusivist, overlyparticularistic, understanding of the incarnation”; he warns against

an interpretation of Christ’s body “that excludes not only animals,but also women; not only women but all Gentile, uncircumcised

men” (Animal Theology 69) It would seem that either Christ’s

incar-nation as a Middle Eastern male is an important statement, anaffirmation for Middle Eastern males (in which case women from

Poland are excluded), or it is not important that Christ was a Middle

Eastern male—or a mammal as opposed to a plant Given thatLinzey denies the importance not only of Christ’s gender and race,but of his species, there can be little reason to exclude plants based

on Jesus’s status as an animal

Linzey becomes entangled in the same difficulties that face allthose who wish to expand moral concern to include nonhuman ani-mals: Where do we draw the line? Linzey draws the line between

plants and anymals, based on scripture, allowing a gray area whereslugs and earthworms dwell But Linzey’s scriptural backing for thisdivision is inconclusive at best, and his arguments contradictory.

If Linzey’s hierarchy is abandoned in light of the above tions, Linzey’s Generosity Paradigm changes in a most remarkableway In the absence of hierarchy, Linzey’s theory presents all of cre-ation as filled with divine significance His theory then offers a pow-

objec-erful theology of compassion: All of creation is inherently and equally valuable and is rightly the benefactor of the self-sacri ficing service of Christendom.

Such an all-encompassing ethic is difficult to envision, let alone ment: How do we serve both bacteria and humankind? How do wefeed a lion without sacrificing the lamb?

imple-Implementing self-sacrificing service toward all creation is a ing spiritual goal On further reflection, self-sacrificing service to all

daunt-of creation is no more or less daunting than the biblical injunction

to “love your neighbor” (Lev 19:18, Matt 22:39, James 2:8) The

essence of a well-lived Christian life is love, and the Generosity

Paradigm appropriately prescribes a Christian life of “audacious erosity daring to love all the suffering, perishing creation” (Kohak

gen-170) Though such an inclusive vision is daunting, Hebrews reminds

us that faith entails “the giving of substance to the things which arehoped for, the discerning of things which are not seen” (Mascall 40).Christians are called to move toward their spiritual goals in theprocess of daily living as evidence of faith in things not seen, notunderstood, or perhaps which seem downright impossible

Linzey’s Generosity Paradigm, bereft of hierarchy, suggests thatChristians ought to approach all of creation with an attitude of ser-vice and self-sacrifice, asking not what can be gained from each small

part of creation, but what we might best do for that aspect of creation in order to serve God To be a Christian, then, is to feed a stray cat, towater a wilting plant, and to maintain dwindling rain forests

It is important to note that even in the absence of hierarchy

Linzey’s theological vision does not require equal treatment for a

crys-tal, a chrysanthemum, a bacterium, a katydid, and a capybara, only

equal regard for each, out of duty to God Christian duty requires us

to help all suffering and failing members of creation in whateverway they need assistance, whenever and wherever we perceive such

a need This final requirement limits what humans may do to anyaspect of creation, even the bacteria, and provides a much-neededcap on the “advancements” of science We may not endanger or

destroy God’s good work for our own perceived benefits, even atthe expense of microorganisms.

With the toppling of hierarchy, Linzey’s theory becomes a trulycomprehensive theology of compassion All of creation is united byshared origin, through both the covenant and the anticipated redemp-tion As Christ exemplified self-sacrificing service, so are Christians

to live lives of self-sacrificing service toward every aspect of creation.This all-embracing love is exemplified by saints such as Therese ofLisieux and Julian of Norwich Therese of Lisieux saw the specialplace of the large and small, including the seemingly insignificantand commonplace, in the world of God:

Jesus set the book of nature before me and I saw that all the flowers

he has created are lovely The splendor of the rose and the whiteness

of the lily do not rob the little violet of its scent nor the daisy of itssimple charm I realized that if every tiny flower wanted to be a rose,spring would lose its loveliness and there would be no wildflowers tomake the meadows gay

It is just the same in the world of souls—which is the garden ofJesus He has created the great saints who are like the lilies and theroses, but he has also created much lesser saints and they must becontent to be the daisies or the violets which rejoice his eyes when-ever he glances down Perfection consists in doing his will, in beingthat which he wants us to be

Jesus, help me to simplify my life by learning what you want me

to be—and becoming that person (Therese)

Christian belief, as expressed by some of those considered closest toGod, places the notion that all creation is equally valuable to Goddead center Neither can this be dismissed as a purely Roman Catholicdevelopment; the Christian tendency to overthrow the human hier-archy begins with Christ (Mark 12:10; Matt 11:25) and is main-tained by St Paul (1 Cor 1:28) Of course differences can always

be used to justify hierarchy You could say that Therese only refers

to different people when she speaks of different types of flowers: Whilethe violet may be as valuable as a rose, and a child as precious as

a king in the eye of the divine, this doesn’t mean that a violet is asvaluable as a child However, the logic of scripture creates a momen-tum to expand the circle of God’s love; once we have accepted thatthe lowly is loved as much by God as the great, why then shouldmen and women consider themselves better than the rest of cre-ation? Christians are called upon to offer self-sacrificing service toevery ringless honey mushroom and torrey pine, every megamouth

and spotted skunk, every bronzed cowbird and triangle spider, everymixed breed mutt and lonely veal calf, to show regard for eachprickle on every thistle, and each drop of water to the very depths

of the oceans This type of inclusive love for God, through actsdirected at creation, is expressed in a vision of St Julian of Norwich:

He showed me a little thing, the quantity of an hazel-nut in the palm

of my hand; and it was round as a ball I looked upon with eye of

my understanding, and thought: What may this be? And it was answered generally thus: It is all that is made I marveled how it might last, for

methought it might suddenly have fallen to naught for little[ness] And

I was answered in my understanding: It lasteth, and ever shall [last],for that God loveth it And so All-thing hath the Being by the love

of God

In this Little Thing I saw three properties The first is that Godmade it, the second is that God loveth it, the third, that God keep-eth it (Mascall 49f )

c The Christian Life

Linzey writes that it is a contradiction to infringe on human rights

for the sake of anymal rights (Animal Gospel 100) In many Western

countries humans have a vast array of rights, including the right tovote and the right to free speech We do not even grant anymalsthe most fundamental right, the right to life Linzey’s blanket state-ment ignores the nuances of rights that are critical to the conclu-sion he draws

While Linzey might reasonably argue that it does not make sense

to kill people to save anymals, on what grounds does he contendthat one ought not to bomb a fur store for the cause of anymalrights? Whether or not we judge it acceptable or not to harm oneanimal to save others depends on the circumstances If a drug-crazedmaniac is about to kill a thousand helpless children, few would deign

to prosecute the brave citizen who destroys the assailant’s gun in thehope of saving all of the children Whether or not it is acceptable

to destroy property to save others depends completely on the tion Most of us would feel it acceptable to risk harming property—even overtly harm the property of—a violent and dangerous animal(including human beings) in order to save innocents Clearly, then,

situa-it is not necessarily wrong to infringe on the property rights of some

to save others Some, such as those who threaten the lives of ers, legally annul their right not to be harmed, and we do no wrong

oth-to protect self, or others in need of help, against such individuals

Perhaps the current system of exclusive human rights is unjust inand of itself, and Christians are called upon to abrogate propertyrights that stand against the protection of millions of innocent lives,such as the lives of foxes on fox farms and the lives of cattle atslaughter houses What would Jesus do?

Anymal Liberationists have, to date, killed no one They havebombed property, released “property,” and spray-painted property.Each of these activities infringes on much-coveted “property rights.”Why does Linzey believe that human rights—including propertyrights—ought to be protected by those seeking to liberate anymalsthat people have labeled as “stock,” “lab subjects,” or “investments”?

It is not “logically self-contradictory” (Animal Gospel 100) to infringe

human rights—especially property rights—for the sake of anymalrights—for the sake of saving innocent and helpless others caught in

a web of greed and indifference Does Linzey think direct actionagainst material possessions for the purpose of saving lives—thoughthere be some risk of bodily harm—is wrong when millions are beingslaughtered for food, tormented for science, and enslaved for enter-tainment? Would Linzey argue that the rights of property ownersought to be respected even if the “property” is a human slave? Linzeydoes not even address the breadth and depth of this complex question.Perhaps Linzey was closer to the truth when he commented, “I don’t

think there are many moderates in heaven” (Animal Gospel 46).

Maybe it makes no sense to infringe on human rights for the sake

of anymal rights, as Linzey contends, but he has not adequately sented the complications of such an assumption or proven that hisconclusion is the correct conclusion for protectionist Christians

pre-Conclusion

Linzey is the preeminent protectionist theologian He is one of thefirst to attempt to formulate a Christian protectionist theology Through

a careful assessment of scripture, Linzey demonstrates the viability

of protectionist theology He effectively shows that Christians shouldextend the Christian duty of compassionate, self-sacrificing service toembrace anymals He shows that protection of anymals is not merely

a personal choice, but a duty before God His theory offers much

to challenge historic and contemporary Christian assumptions of how

we ought to live amidst the wealth and beauty of creation

However, his work is not without difficulties In particular, animportant part of Linzey’s theory depends on a pre-Christian notion

of hierarchy that is antithetical to Christianity If hierarchy is removedfrom Linzey’s theory, his work offers an expansive protectionist spir-itual vision

CONSISTENCY ACROSS RELIGIOUS TRADITIONS

When it comes to the ethical treatment of animals, we need to nize frankly that some other religions have traditions of compassion thatequal, even surpass, that of Christianity [I]nsights from a variety

recog-of religious traditions can be seen as implicitly or explicitly supportive

of a new ethical sensitivity to animals (Linzey, Animal Gospel 53)

Studying comparative religions allows people to see moral ideas thatstretch across the lines of faith traditions (Kimball) Protectionism isjust such a moral ideal This chapter provides a sampling of pro-tectionist teachings across religious traditions In the previous chap-ter, which presented and critiqued Andrew Linzey’s work, he concludesthat the ideal moral standard set by Judeo-Christian scripture is pro-tectionist in nature, requiring that we offer self-sacrificing service toanymals Judeo-Christian scriptures and teachings are dealt with inde-pendently in this book because most English-speaking readers arelikely to have grown up, at least marginally, with this religious back-ground Nonetheless, there are other faith traditions to be explored,and I hope readers will also come from other faith traditions, maybeeven one of the faiths covered herein Perhaps most importantly,whatever one’s religious convictions, protectionist teachings are likely

to be part of every faith tradition Spiritual teachings of ism have, in fact, flourished around the globe, across religious tra-ditions, and back to the beginnings of recorded history

protection-Organized religions are a force to contend with; the protectionistmovement is small, though strong What person of faith, whetherBuddhist or Christian, could reasonably suggest that it is religiously

and morally irrelevant whether or not the food they choose to eat—

but do not need to eat—causes great suffering for other creatures?Yet the moral force of religious institutions and the moral force ofmost people are disconnected from the protectionist movement Theprotectionist movement would gain both strength and support if peo-ple committed to major religions were moved to honor the protectionistteachings within their particular religious tradition Of more impor-tance, people of faith would gain moral strength and credence if

they ceased to participate in the ongoing, tremendous suffering caused

to anymals and instead took a stand against such cruelty

The role of this book is to present moral ideals rather than actual

or common practices The following sketch of protectionist teachings

is therefore not proof that faithful Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, orDaoists treat anymals better than serious Jews or Christians (though

in some ways this is certainly the case) This is an exploration ofprotectionist religious lore, not an explanation of common practices.For instance, the section on indigenous peoples does not suggest,

as has often been assumed, that ancient cultures might serve as moralexemplars of human interaction with the natural world As with allcommunities, indigenous peoples do not necessarily follow their spir-itual teachings Furthermore, not all indigenous teachings are beneficial

to earth or anymals “There is a tendency in Western society toromanticize and idealize older, indigenous cultures No doubt, wehave much to learn from them But this should not prevent us fromasking critical questions as part of the ongoing debate on animalethics” (184) Sometimes even ancient rituals intended to show respectfor anymals are inimical to protectionism, as in the case of ritualkilling of buffalo in Indonesia:

Ritual slaughtering, even though accompanied by a feeling of respectfor the buffalo about to be slaughtered, nevertheless is a cruel busi-ness—the blood must flow To cut the throat is a necessity; the buffaloshould die slowly so that all the blood can leave the body The ani-mal is stabbed with spears in non-lethal places so as to make theprocess last In order to prevent the buffalo from tearing itself loose

in fear, its tendons are sometimes cut before slaughtering takes place.(Noske 187)

Religious rituals of respect are “not always conducive to animal fare” (Noske 189) The water buffalo would surely decline to receivesuch respect, if given the opportunity to choose

wel-Many peoples who practice ancient lifeways are sometimes ibly cruel to anymals and remarkably destructive to the natural world.For instance, in the twentieth century the Makah (of western Washing-ton state) continued whaling long after whales were severely depleted,landing a whale in 1926, when there were few to be found TheMakah stopped whaling only when whaling “brought little in theway of cash income”; then the Makah switched to more lucrativeenterprises: hunting seal, otter, salmon, and halibut, and logging old-

incred-growth forests (Marr 25–33) The Makah helped European settlersstrip the seas They sold tons of salmon to canneries and caught

thousands of pounds of halibut each day (Marr 32) By 1934 the

Makah fishing banks off Cape Flattery were depleted to about fourth their former size (Colson 8) A few Makah grew wealthy offthe sea, bought Western fishing vessels, and hunted as far north asthe Bering Sea All told, the Makah killed 1,985 seals in 1894 toearn $30,000; in 1896 “the federal government moved to protectthe declining fur seal populations,” and commercial seal hunting wasbanned shortly thereafter (Marr 25, 29) The disappointed seal huntersthen turned to old growth forests and “started a sales program withtheir timber But when the timber was cut, the companies leftand the jobs were gone” (Marr 4) While the environmental dam-age the Makah caused was a direct result of the influx of white peo-ple, the fact remains that the Makah joined willingly, even greedily,

one-in the frenzy of killone-ing for profit While the Makah suffered underthe power and influence of Caucasians, anymals suffered under thepower and influence of the Makah

The Makah are not the only group of indigenous peoples in America

to contribute to the suffering and death of individuals, or the mation of species, for profit A Seminole gunned down an endan-gered Florida panther for the “ritual use of panther parts” (Schwarz

deci-297, 293) Gill nets are “inexcusably detrimental to the ment—trapping even the smallest of fish”; Native Americans arelegally protected from legislation banning the use of gill nets, andvarious groups continue to fish with gill nets (Preece 167) For thesake of good luck, or to prevent bad luck, the Koyukon of interior

environ-Alaska seek and kill rare anymals (R Nelson, Make 28, 112–13).

Menominee Indians of Wisconsin engage in modern forestry for nomic gain, as do the natives of southeast Alaska—with disastrousecological consequences (Buege 83) For the price of furs, natives ofsoutheast Alaska hunted otter nearly to oblivion in a very short time,after having lived compatibly with this abundant species for cen-turies In February of 1998 a single indigenous person from theNorthwest Territories of Canada “chased 162 wolves to their deaths

eco-on a snowmobile in a single seaseco-on,” while a dozen other nativeskilled 500 more wolves during the same time period (Preece 166).Hunting, even when done out of dire need, entails “chasing, fright-ening, wounding, and killing other living beings” (Noske 185)

Indigenous peoples often focus on killing anymals as central to their

cultural heritage For most protectionists, this poses no problem if such people have no other way to feed themselves But for many indigenouspeoples, hunting is no longer necessary Why do these ancient cul-tures hold out the killing of anymals as the foundation of their cul-ture when, for most, hunting is no longer necessary? Is it becausethis was the primary role for men—the role that afforded them powerand prestige (Gaard 68–69)? Clearly hunting is not the core of indi-genous cultures for women, and they form at least half of everycommunity

This chapter does not contend that Hindus or indigenous peoplesare protectionists, only that their sacred lore offers protectionist teach-ings In practice, sacred teachings are no better than religious prac-titioners Each spiritual tradition offers a wealth of protectionistideals—but actual practices may be a different matter “One canhave a worldview of noble thoughts but if there is no call to act

on the basis of that worldview, then the ideas themselves may be oflittle value” (R Taylor 50) This chapter exposes a firm protection-ist core across major religious traditions but does not—cannot—

demonstrate that adherents of these faiths actually live a protectionist

lifestyle Nor does this chapter suggest that scholars and ers within these particular religions would agree that their faith orscripture offer a protectionist vision In fact, as is the case withChristianity, many defend alternative points of view Linzey notesthat protectionism “appears to have no obvious religious tradition towhich it can appeal and in which it feels unambiguously at home”

practition-(Animal Gospel 56).

Religions are notoriously complicated, necessarily so across turies, through massive cultural changes, in light of divergent inter-pretations of sacred lore, and in light of the many branches thatdevelop from divergent understandings of faith (such as the hundreds

cen-of Protestant churches, each with its own particular dogma and ditions) Paul Waldau writes:

tra-Upon even a cursory examination, one finds that, over the millennia

of their existence, these traditions have provided an astonishing array

of views and materials, some of which are in significant tension witheach other Since such diversity leads to challenging problems on vir-tually any subject that believers, scholars, and other interested partiesmight explore, it also affects significantly many issues that arise whenone seeks to describe each tradition’s views of animals (3)

This chapter does not purport to prove that any religious traditions

are unambiguously protectionist Each religious tradition fosters ings and practices that are the nemesis of those who hope for a bet-ter future for anymals as surely as each tradition holds sacred lorethat offers a protectionist spiritual vision that might help to providethis better future But many of the less compassionate elements ofreligious traditions are “cultural baggage”: viewpoints or practicesthat have become standard simply because of the predominant cul-ture (Waldau 16) Such “baggage” is unavoidable because sacred sto-ries and writ travel amidst humanity, reaching us only through other

teach-human beings “Thus, racist, sexist, or even speciesist” tendencies in

scriptures, or more generally in religious traditions, “do not sarily imply a divine sanction of, respectively, racism, patriarchy, orthe exclusive importance of humans, as so often has been the inter-pretation” (Waldau 18) Sacred writings that mention anymals, even

neces-if they are simply recording practices of the time, have regularly

been taken as descriptive of how things ought to be For example,

for Christians, human beings are often assumed to be more tant than any other species Is it not highly likely that this view isnothing more than human arrogance, a human contrivance passed

impor-from one human being to another, contrary to divine intent (Waldau

18–19)? Would a just and loving deity wish one creation (humanbeings) to treat the rest of creation as lesser—as we do? Wouldn’t

an all-knowing God anticipate the misery such a situation wouldbring —has brought—to anymals?

With this in mind, the following offers a mere smattering of some

of the strongest protectionist elements found in the sacred lore ofindigenous, Hindu, Buddhist, Daoist, and Islamic religious traditions.Though providing only a cursory sampling, this chapter reveals thewealth of protectionist teachings in a handful of dominant religioustraditions The humble hope is to show that, as common sense sug-gests, the world’s great religions (and no doubt many smaller faithtraditions) are protectionist at heart After all, wouldn’t we think itodd if the great religions of the world encouraged us to be crueland selfish toward anymals?

1 Indigenous Traditions

It is difficult to determine exactly what “indigenous” means Is anindividual “indigenous” simply by genetics? If a newborn Inuit (north-ern North America) is adopted by French parents living in Paris,what does it mean for that individual to be indigenous to the Arcticregions of North America when, as an adult, she is French in lan-guage, custom, and nationality? Is a French boy adopted into a tra-ditional Inuit tribe at birth more “indigenous” than the Inuit adopted

by a French couple? And what of an Inuit who lives in the Arctic,works as a dentist, wears Western suits, drives an SUV, eats at fast-food restaurants, and hunts gray whales with high-powered gunsfrom fast-moving boats? Is she indigenous? Is indigenous a fact ofbirth or a lifestyle? Is it about ways of believing, thinking, and liv-ing? Is indigenous at least as much cultural as biological?

“Indigenous” literally means native If we are to take the term erally, human beings are all indigenous to Africa, the continent weall seem to have come from There are no native Americans Thereare no indigenous Australians, Indonesians, or Brazilians There are

lit-no indigelit-nous Europeans We are all transplants, except Africans inAfrica Some of us have arrived in Europe or the United Statesmore recently, while others migrated long ago When we arrived isunimportant with regard to the term “indigenous”; it seems we areall indigenous to Africa Human beings are not native to any otherland

Furthermore, many indigenous peoples now live just like otherWesterners Before the coming of Caucasians, it was easier for indige-nous peoples to avoid upsetting the ecological balance because oftheir small populations and because of a dearth of technology.Indigenous peoples in the United States are now granted access totop-notch medical care and their populations have grown accord-ingly Most of these indigenous people would be at a loss withoutmanufactured clothing, gasoline-powered transport, and the best inUnited States weaponry with which to kill anymals that some ofthem hunt Many have left the lands of their grandmothers Whenindigenous peoples come into contact with those of pale face, his-tory has shown that change is the order of the day Western influencehas transformed nearly every society; indigenous peoples are no excep-tion The lifeways portrayed by mythology have largely (but not com-pletely) ceased to exist For example, the Inuit use high-powered

guns, fast-moving boats, steel traps, and snowmobiles to hunt andfish; the Makah of northwestern Washington state recently huntedwhales with the aid of U.S government-funded helicopters, pre-sumably reenacting ancient “traditions.” Can these indigenous peo-ples claim to be part of a “hunting and gathering” culture?

Exactly who qualifies as “indigenous” is unclear Taken literally,

we humans are all indigenous to Africa If we ignore this fact andconsider comparatively ancient civilizations “indigenous” to whatevernations they populate, we must still contend with the problems ofinfant adoption, relocation, children born of marriages with thoseoutside “indigenous” communities, and Western influence Nonetheless,

we will not throw the Inuit baby out with the muddied indigenousbathwater In spite of our inability to conclusively define “indige-nous,” this chapter discusses indigenous peoples, and it does so in

the present tense Some of the practices mentioned have been

aban-doned Some of the peoples mentioned are no more indigenous turally than the Inuit child raised by a French couple in Paris Butother ancient cultures referenced in this section have maintainedmany of their traditional lifeways almost unchanged by the materi-alistic consumer cultures that have infected the globe

cul-It is also important to note that indigenous cultures are not onereligion in the same sense as Christianity and Islam Christians share

a similar history and a single founder Similarly, all Christian tions are indebted to a shared Christian history and heritage Not

tradi-so with indigenous faiths Each indigenous faith is an independentspiritual practice and belief system There are, of course, many impor-tant similarities across a number of indigenous faiths Even so, thesefaiths are independent of one another In this way “indigenous faiths”are different from other religions discussed in this section, and forthis reason the section on indigenous faiths offers specific samplesfrom a handful of different groups of people

With this in mind, protectionist teachings of indigenous cultures

are presented in the present tense, without judging whether or not

these ancient spiritual traditions are still practiced, without judgingwhether or not such people might reasonably be considered “indige-nous” in any sense of the word

Traditional hunter-gatherer societies depend directly on the rounding environment for survival As a result, they live in closecontact with nature and with other species, and generally admire

sur-and respect the natural world in sur-and of itself (W Clark, Indians 124).

Moral codes teaching respect for nature were central to the views of most ancient cultures (VanStone 122) Sustainable lifestyles,complete with protectionist philosophies, were often built into indige-nous belief and practice (Kwiatkowska 268, 271)

world-Myth is critical to understanding these ancient lifeways becausemyths contain the worldviews of peoples, and a directive for howone ought to live within these communities Myths and legends “areneither fables nor fireside stories; rather, they are “deliberate con-structs employed by the ancient seers and sages to encapsulate andcondense into easily assimilated forms their views of the world, ofultimate reality, and of the relationships between the Creator, theuniverse, and humanity” (Henare 201–02) For example, myths, andthe worldviews they encompass, are the core of Maori culture andcontain the Maori spiritual vision (Henare 202) Distant Time Stories

of the Koyukon (interior Alaska) are the sacred word of the people,best understood in relation to the historic position of the Bible inWestern societies ( Jette, “On Ten’a” 298–367)

Myth is a living reality Indigenous Mesoamericans, dwelling inthe mountains of Mexico, such as the Nahua near Mexico City, viewmyth as a living reality; myth is an ever-present truth (Silva 307).Myth ties traditional Koyukon people to their past while governingdaily life (C Thompson) Tales told through myth are “believed tohave occurred in remote times” but are believed to affect “daily lifeand human destiny” (Silva 307) Mayans today still use myth to teachchildren (Montejo 177) Myth is not about the past, ultimately, butabout the present because a people’s “spiritual connection to theCreator or Great Mystery happens in this life, in this place, in thismoment” (Gonzolas 499)

The role of myth is complex, including such important elements

as “education about tribal history, ethics, and spiritual values; oralmaps of sacred homelands and information about the extended kin

of plants and animals” (Gonzales 499) Koyukon myths are cal records, a directive of traditions and customs that offer spiritualand moral insights, social cohesion, and entertainment ( Jette, “OnTen’a” 298–367; McFadyen 595) Mayan myths “contain symbolicand ethical messages that are passed from generation to generation”(Montejo 177)

histori-Most importantly for our purposes, myths define and regulatehuman interactions with the natural world For example, Koyukonmyths provide people “with a foundation for understanding the

natural world” (R Nelson, Make 18, 227) Mayan myths “ensure

respect and compassion for other living beings with whom we sharethe world” (Montejo 177) Myths also instruct people in a vast array

of rituals that guide human interactions with the larger world Ritualactions permeate traditional Koyukon lifeways so that almost everyact is an act of worship, a religious act Through rituals traditionalKoyukon discover the Distant Time Stories perpetually asserted inthe world around them; life is a religious act ever renewed in thedaily rituals of living ( Jette, “On Ten’a”)

Myths explaining creation provide insights into how the temporaland spiritual realms are joined in everyday life Creation is an ongo-ing process for many indigenous peoples because the sacred is ever-

present in the surrounding world Mayan Popol Vuh creation stories

highlight interconnections between indigenous peoples, anymals, andthe land on which all dwell They remind humans that all creaturesshare in the breath of creation, that all the creatures of sky, earth,

and sea are sacred The Popol Vuh relates how plants and anymals

were created before human beings, and how these earlier life-formshelped create humanity People were made from maize; anymalshelped to gather the food “which entered into the flesh and blood

of the first human beings” (Montejo 177) The Popol Vuh teaches

that, from the start, we were dependent, part of a larger preexistent

system In the Popol Vuh there is a

collective survival that must exist between humans, plants, and animals.Humans are not separate [since] according to Mayan creation myths,corn entered into the body and became the flesh of human beings.This, in turn, explains the profound respect, appreciation, and com-passion that Mayans feel for trees and animals for whom they prayduring the cyclical ceremonies of the Mayan new year (Montejo 177–78)

The Popol Vuh also makes clear the Creator’s intent for anymals:

“You the deer: sleep along the rivers, in the canyons Be here inthe meadows, in the thickets, in the forests, multiply yourselves .You precious birds: your nests, your houses are in the trees, in thebushes Multiply there, scatter there, in the branches of trees, thebranches of bushes” (Montejo 183) Their sacred lore makes it clear

to Mayans that they are to show “understanding, respect, and passion” for all of the extended creation; “[t]he fact that the Creatorand Shaper provided each animal with its own habitat means thateach has the right to a place and the right to live without beingexterminated” (Montejo 183) This means that the anymals of the