Rev. David Holwick L RESPONSIVE READING: Psalm 104:24-35
First Baptist Church
Ledgewood, New Jersey
March 29, 1992
Genesis 1:28; Leviticus 25:7
|
I. "Animal Rights" as a contemporary issue.
A. Daily Record newspaper:
1) Bunnies in Denville Video Store and SPCA.
2) Letters on hunting, deer control.
B. Vegetarianism: Call for boycott of meat by religious group.
C. Nichols Fur Store and red dye attack last Christmas.
1) They got off easy: Fran Trutt of the Animal Liberation Front
planted a radio-controlled pipe bomb near the United States
Surgical Corp. chairman's parking place.
D. Our relationship with animals creates difficult problems.
1) There is a high price to save them. (Spotted owl)
2) If we don't pay price, many will become extinct.
3) Should a pastor eat hamburgers?
4) Should a deacon hunt? (Bob Stark)
II. The philosophy behind the movement.
A. Humans and animals are fundamentally the same.
1) Scientists have not been able to prove that humans are
absolutely unique, since animals have been discovered to
make tools, communicate, use language, etc.
2) Therefore both have an equal right to live, and should not
be used by the other.
B. Most of the popular leaders speak against long-held Christian
assumptions, and even attack Christian faith as evil.
1) Peter Singer's foundational text, "Animal Liberation":
"It can no longer be maintained by anyone but a religious
fanatic that man is the special darling of the universe...
Or that other animals were created to provide us with food...
Or that we have divine authority over them, and divine
permission to kill them."
2) Katie McCabe: "The debate has been framed...as everything but
what it really is - a moral argument that penetrates to the
definition of humanity." (CT 8/18/90, p22)
C. End result: more rights given to animals than humans.
1) One leader has said that a gorilla has more right to live
than a retarded human.
2) Gary Francione is a law professor who argues animal-rights
cases.
He would not allow an animal to suffer even if the research
led to a cancer cure.
"I don't believe it is morally permissible to exploit weaker
beings even if we derive benefits."
On TV show - if one rat's life could cure every disease,
that rat should still not be killed.
(CT 6/18/90, p19)
3) Another TV show discussed given humans animal body parts.
Concerning pig values for a human baby, one participant
said she loved her baby more than she loved a pig.
Ingrid Newkirk, head of "People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals," retorted,
"Like racism or sexism, that remark is pure speciesism."
(CT 6/18/90, p19)
III. Old Testament teaching on animals.
A. Genesis lays the foundation.
1) Creation of animals called good. Gen 1:26
2) Man created to "rule & subdue" animals. Gen 1:27
a) Humans are unique. (CT 9/6/85, p37)
b) Yet "rule" does not mean destroy.
1> Ezek 34, shepherds rebuked for "ruling" harshly.
2> Metaphorically applied to humans, but applicable.
c) We are worth more than the animals, and we must act
better than them. (CT 6/18/90, p19)
3) We are also to "till/care for" God's garden. Gen 2:15
a) Animals are to be cared for. (Servant)
b) They are also to be used, in a responsible way.
c) Noah and boatload of animals: all saved.
4) The effect of the Fall: compromise and difficult choices.
a) In Eden, everything was vegetarian. Gen 1:29-30
b) After the Flood, animals are our food. Gen 9:3
B. Leviticus and other OT books give compassionate laws.
1) Animals rest & provided for on Sabbaths. Lev 25:7; Exod 23:11f
2) Lift up fallen animal. Exod 23:5
3) Don't slaughter infant animals. Lev 22:17
4) Don't slaughter mother and offspring. Lev 22:18
5) Don't take mother and eggs. Deut 22:6
6) Don't cruelly yoke ox & donkey. Deut 22:10
7) Don't muzzle ox treading out grain. Deut 25:4
8) Good people care for needs of their animals. Prov 12:10
IV. New Testament teaching.
A. Jesus ate meat, even after Resurrection.
1) Multiplication of fishes.
2) Passover Lamb.
B. Animals reveal God's care for us.
1) God cares and provides for birds. Matt 6:26
a) Note that he values humans even more. (CT 9/6/85, p37)
2) Pharisees criticized for placing animal welfare above humans.
a) Animals can be taken out of pit on Sabbath - how much
more a human. Luke 13:15f
V. Overriding Biblical principles.
A. Humans are creatures, as are animals, but of a higher order.
1) We are responsible to our Creator.
2) We are worth more to God than other animals.
B. God owns creation, we are his caretakers.
1) Animals should be seen as our partners.
2) They do not have rights, but we have obligations to them.
C. In the future, God will make the world a better place.
1) The Millennium will bring peace to the animal kingdom.
2) We should try to make it this way right now.
VI. What should Christians do?
A. Secular philosophies are empty.
1) Animals activists can't explain why they should care about
the death of a frog.
2) Scientists can say why they would kill that frog to save a
child.
3) In both cases they are basing their feelings on a faith
they've long since rejected.
B. Christianity offers dynamic view of our relationship with animals.
1) God made the animals for us; we can now unmake them.
a) Today lions can only go on their independent way
(Psalm 104) if we set aside space for them to do so.
b) Christians founded the SPCA.
Arthur Broome, an Anglican priest, founded England's SPCA.
He employed the first anti-cruelty inspectors.
2) As in Leviticus, we can show concern for God's creation in
small ways.
a) Bird feeders.
b) Trips to zoos and parks.
c) Protect animals from abuse.
C. God loves animals, but he loves you even more.
1) He will provide for you as he does for the wild birds.
2) So why are you worrying so much?
**************************** Notes *****************************
I. Main issues:
A. Eating meat.
B. Medical experimentation.
C. Fur clothing.
D. Hunting.
E. Endangered species.
II. Use pig heart to save human baby?
When one participant said it was natural for humans to care for
their own baby more than for the pig, Ingrid Newkirk, head of People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals, retorted, "Like racism or sexism, that remark is
pure speciesism." 6/18/90, p19
III. Animals treat each other poorly.
IV. Philosophical background.
A. Result of evolutionism and anti-God outlook.
1) Humans no different than animals, maybe even worse. (CT 9/6/85,p37)
a) Bible agrees that we're all God's creatures.
B. Scientists are unable to document absolute differences between humans and
animals.
1) But that doesn't mean we have to treat animals well - they eat each other.
6/18/90, p20.
2) The animal-rights movement would like to raise animals to the moral status of
humans.
3) It would be just a "logical" to lower humans to the moral status of animals.
C. Scientists object, but on weak basis.
1) At best, they allude to emotion - children will die.
2) In their heart of hearts they believe that human beings are morally different
from animals. Only they cannot say why they think so. 6/18/90, p20.
3) Scientists argue from a feeling that is based on thousands of
years of a faith in which they no longer believe. CT 6/18/90, p23.
V. Letter to Newspaper editor on hunting.
Kelly McConnell, age 16:
"I am disappointed by how some people view animals.
As Paul Krueger so religiously put it, 'Surely the
word of God is right, ethical and just.'
The Bible does speak of the killing of animals.'
Well of course, if it's in the Bible, it's gotta be right.
And if God said it, then there's no question! Oh, please!"
Copyright © 2024 by Rev. David Holwick
Created with the Freeware Edition of HelpNDoc: Full featured Documentation generator