Which man of you, having a son or an ox that has fallen into a well, will not immediately pull him out on a Sabbath day? Luke 14:5
This is a course/part/module for use in Christian Churches, parishes/youth groups/seminary institutions. It may also provide a useful framework for homilies.
This part/module establishes that concern and compassion for animals is not a modern phenomenon but one found both in the Bible and in the earliest teachings of the Christian Church. It provides an anamnesis of a lesser-known Orthodox tradition, where all animals are loved and protected by God and that their suffering is against God’s will. It reminds us that in our role as Image, we should strive to reflect the Archetype in our lives. It also highlights the soteriological implications of abuse and exploitation of God’s non-human animal beings. By causing harm to animals or by our indifference to it, human salvation is in jeopardy.
It is written for an Orthodox audience but its teachings are universal. Ideally, the course would be translated into different languages for use in Orthodox countries such as Romania, Serbia, Russia, etc. It can of course, be used by other Christian denominations. We will develop short videos by leading Orthodox theologians on each theme, which can be translated and/or replaced by theologians in different countries. I give permission for priests to adapt the material as they see fit; all I ask is the professional courtesy of authorship recognition.
Dr. Christina Nellist
The module is divided into seven/eight* themes/units:
1) The innate goodness of God’s creation.
2) The correct interpretation of Dominion.
3) Compassionate care through the Image of God.
4) Examples of Behavioural Guidance.
5) The concept of Sacramental Life.
6) Sins against the animal creation.
7) A role for the Church.
*8) Practical examples of Responsible Care.
*This unit may, if preferred, be incorporated into unit 7.
- IN THE BEGINNING: GOD’S GOOD CREATION
Now, among the “all things” our world must be embraced. It too, therefore, was made by His Word, as Scripture tells us in the book of Genesis.
On reading the various patristic texts on Genesis, there is consensus that: humans and animals receive the “breath of life”; God’s description of all of His creatures is “good” and “very good” and we learn of the innate harmony, unity and violence-free peaceableness of the original Edenic life.
The Fathers teach that God creates in order to be known to His creation and acknowledge not only the common ontology of all created beings but also their individual agency and integrity. Such ideas are evident in the work of early commentators such as St. Athanasius who teaches that:
“no part of creation is left void of him: He has filled all things everywhere.”
Knight (2017) observes that this has developed into an understanding that “everything is in God.”
By choosing to create, fill and sustain all things, the Christian God of the Fathers is a God who is intimately connected to His creatures, unlike the gods of the heretics.
The Fathers also recognized that only the human creatures had sinned and that only humans were in need of instruction and repentance. St. Irenaeus is clear:
While all things were made by God, certain of His creatures sinned and revolted from a state of submission to God, and others, indeed the great majority, persevered, and do still persevere, in [willing] subjection to Him who formed them.
Papavassiliou (2013) summarizes the different Christian theological interpretations of Genesis: those who dismiss Genesis as a myth of the pre-scientific world, those who try to work modern science into the creation narrative and those who take biblical texts literally as the Word of God.  He teaches that all three approaches are to some degree inaccurate for they view Genesis as an account of creation history rather than the traditional Eastern Orthodox perspective of theological revelation. In essence, Genesis gives us a glimpse into Who God is. This theophany helps us to ‘know’ more about God and His will. This in turn, helps us define our role as Image and determine which behaviours are, and are not, acceptable to God. This revelation also establishes that unrighteous and sinful behaviours are part of the criteria used to judge those who fail to repent and desist from sinful ways.
God’s original choice of a plant-based diet not only evidences the violence-free harmony of Edenic life, it also indicates the ideal diet. Had that not been the case, God would not have chosen this diet for us.
Q. In light of the above, ought we to be cautious of any teachings that try to justify the suffering of the animal creation?
Q. Do you believe that ‘all creation’ will be made anew?
Q. Do you believe that God’s original choice of diet was unsuitable for His creation?
2) WHAT IS DOMINION?
O God of our fathers and the Lord of mercy, Who made all things by Your Word. And in Your wisdom, built a man, That by You He might be the master of what is created. And manage the world in holiness and righteousness, And pass judgement with uprightness of soul; Give me the wisdom that sits by Your throne. 
Met. Kallistos of Diokleia (Ware) reflects the contemporary Orthodox view:
It is said, that we are to have dominion as humans over the created order but dominion does not mean domination or ruthless tyranny. This dominion that humans are given is part of being in God’s Image, so what this means is that just as God cares for His creation and loves it, so we, after the image of God, are to care and love creation. This to me is the basic position of the Orthodox Church in regard to animals.
Unfortunately, humanity has lost the liturgical relationship between the Creator God and the creation; instead of priests and stewards, human beings have been reduced to tyrants and abusers of nature.  Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew
These teachings not only support the premise that our behaviours should reflect the Image and Likeness of God but also acknowledge that some historical interpretations relevant to this subject are flawed.  Modern Eastern Orthodox scholarship accepts that the interpretation of dominion as domination is an error, as it ignores the blueprint of God as Archetype and fails to recognize God’s constraints on human freedom.
This Orthodox tradition stands in stark contrast to other flawed teachings exemplified by St. Aquinas (harking back to St. Augustine and Aristotle) who taught that animals ‘are naturally enslaved and accommodated to the uses of others.’ This ‘enslavement’ portrays a negative mind-set that inevitable creates the potential for negative relationships with animals. They are no longer beings of God but objects for our use. Such teachings stand in direct opposition to Orthodox teachings on how our relationships with ‘all things’ should reflect the ‘Image and Likeness’ of an all-loving and compassionate God.
Unfortunately for animals, humans and continued life on this planet, the dominant historical traditions have tended to separate humans from the rest of God’s creation. The consequences of this separationist theology and philosophy, has led to the misuse of our God-given responsibility as Icon of God, to ensure the flourishing of all of God’s created beings. This in turn, has led to our present climate crisis, species extinction and the pollution of our air, land and water.
One important aspect of our misuse of our role as Icon of God has been our willingness to view dominion as giving us the right to do whatsoever we please with the rest of the created world. St Gregory of Nyssa warns us against such theories:
“Use; do not misuse; so, too, Paul teaches you. Find your rest in temperate relaxation. Do not indulge in a frenzy of pleasures. Don’t make yourself a destroyer of absolutely all living things, whether they be four-footed and large or four-footed and small, birds, fish, exotic or common a good bargain or expensive. The sweat of the hunter ought not to fill your stomach like a bottomless well that many men digging cannot fill. Our gourmands do not, in fact, spare even the bottom of the sea, nor do they limit themselves to the fish that swim in the water, but they also bring up the crawling marine beasts from the ocean bed and drag them to shore. One pillages the oyster banks, one pursues the sea urchin, one captures the creeping cuttlefish, one plucks the octopus from the rock it grips, one eradicates the molluscs from their pedestal. All animal species, those that swim in the surface waters or live in the depths of the sea, all are thus brought up into the atmosphere. The artful skills of the hedonist cleverly devise traps appropriate to each.” 
Note the negative language used to depict those who hunt both land and marine animals; describing them as “artful hedonists” who pillage, pursue, capture, pluck and eradicate. ‘Artful’ describes one who acts in a sly, cunning, crafty or wily way, seeking to attain one’s ends by guileful or devious means. Hedonism is a school of thought that argues that pleasure is the primary or most important intrinsic good and stands in opposition to the tenets of Christianity. This negative language indicates both ‘the mind’ of this Father and the misuse inherent in the acts.
An important teaching of use to leaders of the Eastern Orthodox Church is St. Maximus’s teaching that those who eat food for purposes other than for nourishment or healing are to be condemned as self-indulgent because they misuse God gifts. Importantly, he states “in all things misuse is a sin.”
There are numerous contemporary studies detailing how our present levels of consumption and production of animal food products are not only the cause of high levels of suffering to animals and harmful to human health but also unsustainable from an environmental perspective and a significant factor in global warming.
Q. Do you believe our treatment of animals reflects the Image and Likeness of God?
Q. Do you understand the impact of the animal-based diet upon global warming?
3) COMPASSIONATE CARE: IMAGE OF GOD
God has foreseen all, He has neglected nothing. His eye… watches over all. He is present everywhere… If God has not left the sea urchin outside His providence, is He without care for you?  St. Basil the Great
If we believe that God’s theophany has a cosmic dimension and His relationship with all created beings is essentially a loving and compassionate one, this will determine, or at the very least, inform our own theological, ethical and moral positions in relation to our treatment and relationship with non-human animal beings and their environments.
The traditional Eastern Orthodox teaching is that we as Image are to strive to achieve the ‘Image and Likeness’ of an all-loving God by emulating His ‘qualities’ in our lives. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew informs us that God’s blueprint “by definition predetermines an analogous ethos that is imposed upon us.”
Orthodoxy acknowledges that whilst we can never know God’s essence we can know some things about God. Through St. Irenaeus and others, we learn that the Archetype is “the source of all that is good” and “has in Himself the disposition [to show kindness], because He is good”. God is “patient, benign, merciful, mighty to save.” We also learn that he who “worketh righteousness, is acceptable to Him” for God “has loved righteousness, and hated iniquity.” St. Irenaeus also teaches that God is desirous of “mercy not sacrifice” and that God’s instruction “can never be exhausted.”
Good One, who in Your mercy sustain beings: above and those below and distribute the treasure of Your mercy to men and animals. 
God’s loving, merciful and providential care for animals is not only taught by the Fathers such as St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who teaches that as the Father provides for animals, so too should we, but also in the Psalms and New Testament:
Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them.
The Fathers are equally clear that a God Who is the source of all love, compassion, mercy and goodness is “without blame, and worketh no evil,” nor cruel, abusive or exploitative. This too is an important part of reflecting the ‘Image and Likeness’ of God.
The Desert Fathers knew that a person with a pure heart was able to sense the connection with the rest of creation and especially with the animal world…This connection is not merely emotional; it is profoundly spiritual in its motive and context. It gives a sense of continuity and community with all of creation while providing an expression of identity and compassion with it [and] recognition that…all things were created in Christ and in Christ all things hold together.
Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew not only gives legitimacy to calls for Eastern Orthodox theological discussions on the subject of animal suffering, he also supports the suggestion that the leaders of the Eastern Orthodox Church have a significant role to play in reducing that suffering.
Not only are we to live with a Eucharistic and liturgical ethos Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew teaches that how we respond and treat those in need, “especially through the lifestyle we lead”, reflects how we worship God. Importantly, he exhorts us to respond to nature:
with the same delicacy, the same sensitivity and tenderness, with which we respond to a human being in a relationship.
Thus, love for God, love for human beings, and love for animals cannot be separated sharply. There may be a hierarchy of priority, but it is not a sharp distinction of comparison.
This extension to the normative understanding of caring relationships might seem a contemporary fashion yet as we noted, this would be a misreading of Eastern Orthodox tradition.
Which of you, having a son or an ox that has fallen into a well, will not immediately pull him out on a Sabbath day? Christ in Luke 14:5
Holy people are most loving and gentle in their dealings with their fellows, and even with the lower animals: for this reason, was it said that ‘A righteous man is merciful to the life of his beast.’  St. John Chrysostom
Q. In light of what we know of God, do we believe that God would be indifferent to the suffering of any of His created beings?
4) BEHAVIOURAL GUIDANCE
Your righteousness is like the mountains of God; Your judgements are a great deep; Men and cattle, You will save O Lord How you multiply Your mercy, O God. 
Both the Old and New Testaments offer us numerous examples of universally accepted ‘good’ and ‘virtuous’ behaviours. Such behaviours are an indication of God’s will and desired actions for humankind, which should “govern and rule in all things.”
The Fathers grounded their theology in scripture and the concept of an all-loving God, Who encourages righteous and merciful treatment of His non-human animals.
On occasion, there is also evidence of an equivalence of care, the most obvious of which is God’s condescension to save a remnant of each species of animal from the Flood, including those that some humans view as having no value and His subsequent covenant with them all. There are also specific teachings from Exodus and Deuteronomy regarding animal protection, which includes instructions to act in order to reduce animal suffering.
In Exodus, we find two teachings that are striking because the instructions are to be undertaken even if the animal’s owner is an enemy:
If you meet your enemy’s ox or his donkey going astray, you shall surely bring it back to him again. 
There is a similar teaching in Exodus 23:5 where compassion is also in play:
If you see your enemy’s donkey fallen beneath its load, you shall not walk away from it, but shall surely help him with it.
Such teachings emphasize the constant requirement to act with compassion and mercy to all created beings rather than indulging ourselves in the sinful passion of enmity. Significantly, Deuteronomy repeats these teachings, although here the animals belong to one’s family:
When you see your brother’s young bull or his sheep wandering on the road, you should not ignore them: you shall certainly return them to your brother.
You shall not see your brother’s donkey or his young bull fall down on the road and ignore them: you shall surely help him lift them up again. 
Repetition of teachings to protect, rescue and behave compassionately to animals that are lost or in danger of injury, be they owned by one’s family, neighbour, stranger or one’s enemy are not to be ignored. They too are examples of the behavioural guidance that we as Image are to emulate. Met. John of Pergamon (Zizioulas) speaks to the point:
All this calls for what we may describe as an ecological asceticism. It is noteworthy that the great figures of the Christian ascetical tradition were all sensitive towards the suffering of all creatures. The equivalent of a St. Francis of Assisi is abundantly present in the monastic tradition of the East. There are accounts of the lives of the desert saints, which present the ascetic as weeping for the suffering or death of every creature and as leading a peaceful and friendly co-existence even with the beasts. This is not romanticism. It springs from a loving heart and the conviction that between the natural world and ourselves there is an organic unity and interdependence that makes us share a common fate just as we have the same Creator.
If we apply these teachings to contemporary societies and include animals that are abandoned, we ought to be mindful of the above teachings before negatively labelling those in animal protection organisations who cooperate with God by acting in exactly the same compassionate ways.  Perhaps we ought to consider engaging with people or organisations who rescue animals that are lost, abandoned or in need of loving homes, for they can legitimately be viewed as cooperating with God.
Some might reject this point by arguing that the rescuing or taking animals into our homes and providing for them, is a modern phenomenon. This is not the case. Scripture provides us with a teaching on exactly these points:
But if your brother is not near you, or if you do not know him, then you shall bring them to your own house and they shall remain with you until your brother seeks them: then you shall restore them to him.
St. Gregory of Nyssa acknowledges early patristic affirmation of this teaching when asking:
Are we not willing to shelter pigs and dogs under our roof? 
In addition, whilst these teachings depict animals falling onto the road rather than into a pit, they are the foreshadowing of Christ’s teachings in Matthew and Luke.
Which man of you, having a son or an ox that has fallen into a well, will not immediately pull him out on a Sabbath day? Luke 14:5
As such, these texts not only give ethical and moral guidance but also emphasize the spiritual teaching within the texts. In addition, we see that equivalence of care, first expounded in Genesis, is repeated in both Exodus and Deuteronomy:
Six days you shall labor and do all your works, but the seventh day…you shall do no work-you, your son and your daughter, your male servant, your female servant, your ox, your donkey, and all of your cattle, and your resident alien dwelling among you; that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you.
Such teachings indicate not only an equivalence of care and compassion but also that the Sabbath law is made for all created beings and importantly, that non-human animals may be viewed, as an extension of one’s family or household. This is an important point, which has relevance to later discussions on contemporary Eastern Orthodox teachings on extending justice, mercy and rights to the non-human animal creation.
Further examples on compassion and mercy being extended to non-human animals are found in Dt 22: 6-7 where we are instructed that the mother of young birds must not be taken with the young; in Dt 22:10 where we should not plough with animals of uneven strength and in Dt 25:4 where working animals should not be muzzled. This is reinforced in Ps 144 which again informs us that God’s mercy extends to all, regardless of who receives it:
“The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works”
As noted above, Ps 35 gives testimony to God’s righteousness, judgment and mercy linked to the saving of animals. That cattle are to be saved and that they are to receive mercy should concern us in light of the great suffering they endure in our animal food production industries.
The ‘rightness’ of these types of behaviour is further evidenced in the traditional Orthodox interpretation of Proverbs where a righteous man is identified as one who has “compassion on the lives of his cattle.” From this, we may reasonably conclude that an ‘unrighteous man’ is one who lacks compassion for his animals.
As noted, there is a patristic tradition of compassion and mercy to animals and the most famous commentary is from St. Isaac the Syrian who, we can argue, teaches that mercy is mercy, regardless of who receives it. There are however, less well-known texts, where he teaches on mercy, justice, compassion, non-violence and oppression. For example, he teaches us that the enactment of mercy brings us closer to God and importantly for this theme, of the criticisms we are likely to encounter because of such ascetic practices.
Of equal importance is St. Isaac’s teaching below, which is both a profound observation and of relevance to all forms of suffering:
“Oppression is eradicated by compassion and renunciation” 
For those who show compassion and mercy to animals, the criticisms and accusations of sentimentalism or indifference to human suffering is commonplace, yet research does not support either charge. Despite criticisms and scorn, St. Isaac urges us to persist, for it is only through love and compassion that evil in all its forms is overcome.
Perhaps those who continue to extend their compassion and love to animals will take heart from these and the following teaching. Here St. Isaac offers a teaching on inclusivity, which extends to all of God’s created beings and is another key component of a compassionate Orthodox position on animal suffering:
And what is a merciful heart…the burning of the heart unto the whole creation, man, fowls and beasts, demons and whatever exists. So that by the recollection and the sight of them the eyes shed tears on account of the force of mercy which moves the heart by great compassion…Then the heart becomes weak and it is not able to bear hearing or examining injury or any insignificant suffering of anything in creation…And therefore, even in behalf of the irrational beings and the enemies of truth and even in behalf of those who do harm to it, at all time he offers prayers with tears that they may be guarded and strengthened: even in behalf of the kinds of reptiles, on account of his great compassion which is poured out in his heart without measure, after the example of God.
In Lossky, the translation has “can no longer bear to see or learn from others of any suffering, even the smallest pain being inflicted upon a creature.” In this teaching, St. Isaac draws us back to the key point of Image-mercy, love and compassion “are after the example of God.”
We find similar commentary from Lossky on St. Gregory’s teaching that the Image of God is conceivable “through the idea of participation in the infinite goodness of God.”
Teachings on Image through participation in God’s goodness requiring a heart full of mercy and compassion “after the example of God” reaffirm teachings on behavioural guidance and the need to reflect that Image in our treatment of animals and the wider environment. It is through such participation and behaviours that oppression in all its forms is overcome.
There are other sources to support St. Isaac’s teachings. For example, St. John Chrysostom observes that Holy people are loving and gentle in their dealings with animals and by Theodore the Studite, who asks:
Is not someone who sees a beast of burden being carried over a precipice seized with pity? 
The above teachings not only serve to highlight the spiritual interconnection between all created beings they are also important for recognising the need for engagement with our contemporaries who cooperate with God by rescuing animals from harm. Indeed, we might view the modern-day animal shelters/sanctuaries as contemporary examples of the Ark.
The significance of these texts for the subject of animal suffering in contemporary societies cannot be understated. One such example is as follows. Too many people are unwilling to neuter their animals and many use the excuse that the church forbids this procedure. As a consequence, many animals become pregnant, which in turn, results in large numbers of animals being abandoned and poisoned. It is important to note that this is not the position of the Church. Metropolitan Kallistos informs us that:
To my knowledge, the Orthodox Church has never forbidden the neutering of animals and i consider that used in a responsible way this is a good method of preventing unwanted animals…Poisoning seems to me an evil way to dispose of animals because it will usually involve a lingering and painful death. There are more humane ways of dealing with the problem. 68
These abandonments and/or poisonings are a dereliction of our duty as Image to care for God’s creation. They are two of the most intractable problems of animal protection and cause immense suffering to millions of animals throughout the world.
Q. If, as the Fathers teach, we are to embrace all of creation  and if, we are to hear the cry of the earth, should we not therefore, be willing to hear the very real cries of the suffering animals?
Q. If incidents of compassionate care, reverence and respect between man and animals are a standard mark of Orthodox sanctity, ought we to be wary of dismissing our contemporaries who exhibit similar character traits?
Q. In light of the above, would you now consider neutering your animals?
5) SACRAMENTAL LIFE
And do not wonder that the whole world was ransomed; for it was no mere man, but the only-begotten Son of God, who died on its behalf.
Orthodox tradition recognizes that Christ sanctifies His creation through His Incarnation, Crucifixion, Resurrection and the Eucharistic offering.
There are numerous biblical and patristic teachings where “the earth” and at times animals are portrayed as praising and knowing God, to support the point. Theokritoff (2009) and Gschwandtner (2012) provide numerous examples of this spiritual insight in ecclesial texts relating to the Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection; where the entire created world is depicted as reacting to these salvific events with clear statements that the earth and all that is in it, recognizes and knows God.
All things proclaim your greatness and your strength.
The whole creation was altered by Thy Passion: for all things suffered with Thee, knowing, O Word, that Thou holdest all in unity.
In the twenty-third year, let the ass praise Him, that gave its foal for Him to ride on, that lost the bonds, that opened the mouth of the dumb, that opened also the mouth of the wild asses.
The creatures complained that they were worshipped; in silence they sought release. The All-Releaser heard, and because He endured it not He came down put on the form of a servant in the womb, came forth, set free Creation. R., Blessed be He Who made his creation his gain!
Other texts indicate that creation has a voice that cries out to God and has ‘human’ characteristics ranging from fear to joy. St. Anastasius of Sinai teaches that not only did creation rejoice, but also that it did so when it learnt of its “transformation from corruption to incorruption.”
To add further support to this argument, we may look to the corpus of patristic teachings on the sanctification of creation. Theokritoff (2009) informs us that St. Gregory Nazianzen taught that Christ sanctified everything He touched: Christ “sleeps in order to bless sleep” “weeps in order to make tears blessed”  and explicitly links Christ’s baptism with the sanctification of the baptismal waters. St. Basil of Seleucia taught that Christ saved the world and liberated the earth and recounts all the benefits of salvation including “a principle of purification for the world” and a “renewing of nature.”  This style of commentary exists until today. Met. Kallistos of Diokleia (Ware) often retells the following account from Mount Athos:
An elder is distracted in his morning prayer by the dawn chorus of frogs from a nearby marsh and sends his disciple to tell them to be quiet until the monks have finished the Midnight Office. When the disciple duly transmits the message, the frogs reply, `We have already said the Midnight Office and are in the middle of Matins; can’t you wait till we’ve finished? 
One need not travel to Mount Athos to experience something similar, for all have encountered the dawn and dusk chorus of birdsong. Such texts appear to answer the above question by illustrating that all creation has a type of knowledge of God and that He in turn knows each of His created beings. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew teaches that all creation also requires “an appropriate veneration”:
If the earth is sacred, then our relationship with the natural environment is mystical or sacramental…it contains the seed and trace of God…from this belief in the sacredness and beauty of all creation, the Orthodox Church articulates its crucial concept of cosmic transfiguration. 
This mutual ontology has relevance for discussions on the sanctification and salvation of animals which ought to influence our treatment of animals in the ‘animal industries’ and elsewhere. Ecumenical Patriarch. Bartholomew refers to this as a “deep ecology” that is “inextricably linked with deep theology”:
“Even a stone,” writes Basil the Great, “bears the mark of God’s Word. This is true of an ant, a bee, and a mosquito, the smallest of creatures. For He spread the wide heavens and laid the immense seas; and He created the tiny hollow shaft of the bee’s sting.” 
The fish, then, is a soteriological statement of faith…Therefore, any misuse or abuse of fishing and fisheries relates in a personal and profound way to Christ Himself. It leaves a scar on the very Body of Christ Himself.
Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew’s teaching here lends support to the suggestion that in our cruelty and in the inflicting of pain to animals, we may continue to inflict suffering on Christ. His profound teachings have obvious implications for our treatment of all forms of animals.
Despite the fact that animals are not specifically mentioned in the new ecclesial text for the environment we are nonetheless informed that “all things” and the “whole earth” sings Gods praise and importantly, that they are to be protected “from every abuse”:
You give life to all and conduct all things with ineffable judgments; from harmful pollutions and from every abuse save those who cry out, “God of our fathers, blessed are you!” By your will, Lord, you adorned the heavens with stars, while you made the whole earth fair with flowers and trees as it sings, “God of our fathers, blessed are you.”
We have therefore a tradition originating in the early Church, confirmed in biblical texts and lasting until today, of all created beings knowing God, calling to God and blessing and praising God. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew synthesizes these early teachings and illustrates their relevance for us today:
Our deep appreciation for the natural environment is directly related to the Orthodox sacramental dimension of life and the world…somewhat resembling a wide-angle lens that we can better appreciate the broader implications of such problems as the threat to ocean fisheries, the disappearance of wetlands, the damage to coral reefs, or the destruction of animal and plant life. 90
Q. If animals are sacred and to be saved, what are the soteriological implications for us if we allow violent and abusive practices to continue without comment?
6) WHAT IS SIN AGAINST ANIMALS?
Nothing in creation had gone astray in its notions of God, save the human being only. 
Some humans may not have realised that their actions are abusive and thus have no idea of the resulting negative soteriological implications.
As soon as you say that animals are part of God’s creation and we humans have a God given responsibility towards the creation, then at once, one sees that animal suffering is both a moral and spiritual question. That is why the Ecumenical Patriarch was so right to insist that the misuse of creation is a sin. 92 Met. Kallistos of Diokleia (Ware)
Those who do evil acts and just as importantly, those who are indifferent to those evil acts, together with those who harm creation even out of negligence constitute not simply an evil, but a grave sin. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew
By defining which actions are sinful, Eastern Orthodoxy can provide the opportunity of bringing people closer to God. This in turn would lead to a reduction in animal suffering, which will be welcomed, by those who suffer the abuse and those who witness it.
Sinful practices would certainly include ‘traditional’ practices such as sport or recreational hunting and bullfighting.
St. Cyril of Jerusalem outlines the traditional view that all sins are the work of Satan and that if one continues to sin, one will be judged and found wanting. Immediately following this passage St Cyril identifies a further three examples of sin and evil, two of which involve the abuse and exploitation of animals:
Now the pomp of the devil is the madness of theatres, and horse races, and hunting, and all such vanity from which that holy man praying to be delivered says to God, turn my eyes from looking vanity (Ps 118, 37) …Do not be interested…nor in the madness of them who in hunts expose themselves to wild beasts, that they may pamper their miserable appetite…Also ignore horse races, that frantic and soul-subverting spectacle. For all these are the pomp of the devil. 
St. Cyril clearly identifies hunting and horse racing as two examples of “the pomp of the devil”. Whilst we may debate what level of concern he had for the animals involved in these spectacles, the key point is that he defines them as sinful and “soul-subverting” spectacles. It is clear that these practices have negative soteriological implications for those who watch or indulge in such practices.
That St. Cyril identified hunting and horse racing as examples of the devil’s work is profoundly significant when examined in the light of species extinction; the social problems resulting from animal cruelty and interpersonal violence and gambling. Note also his reference to vanity which I submit has relevance for some of the other animal suffering themes, such as the wearing of fur or ‘traditional medicines’ to enhance sexual prowess.
Such opinion is further supported by Canon Law. At the Council in Trullo, (A.D. 692) some three hundred years later, we find not only the same teachings but also an indication of how sinful these practices were believed to be by the severity of the penalties imposed – priests are “deposed” and laymen “cut off.”  This is confirmed by the Byzantine canonist Balsamon’s notes on the Ancient Epitome of Canon LI:
Wherefore those who have once sinned deliberately are admonished to cease. If they are not willing to obey, they are to be deposed. But those who are constantly engaged in this wickedness, if they are clerics, they must be deposed from their clerical place, if laymen they must be cut off. 
The recognition of wickedness and the negative soteriological implications of these practices for human salvation several centuries after St Cyril’s warnings, together with their inclusion into Canon Law, is not something the Fathers would have undertaken without a great of deal of deliberation. As such, I believe we have a clear indication of the ‘mind of the Fathers’ on this theme and, the seriousness of the sin and evil inherent in these practices.
Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew highlights the soteriological implications of our choices:
We are all endowed with freedom and responsibility; all of us, therefore, bear the consequences of our choices in our use or abuse of the natural environment.
Justice extends even beyond one’s fellow human beings to the entire creation. The burning of forests, the criminal exploitation of natural resources…all of these constitutes expressions of transgressing the virtue of justice.
His teachings and choice of language corroborate the argument that the abuse and exploitation of animals have consequences for not only the abused animals in the form of pain, fear and suffering but also soteriological implications for humankind.
In addition to those who directly perpetrate acts of cruelty and exploitation, those who know of such acts but are indifferent to them and those who know but shy away from trying in some way to alleviate the abuse, are in a sense giving tacit approval to that process and are accessories after the fact. A useful analogy here is the judgement and guilt of those who accept stolen goods. Essentially, we create the demand.
In order to overcome our sins against animals we must endeavour not only to purify, consecrate and sanctify ourselves through kenosis, self-emptying and humility by living virtuous and violence-free lives, all of which we have heard numerous times before, we must also understand the soteriological consequences of animal abuse. I submit that the only institution that can offer this spiritual advice and teaching is the Church. Met. John of Pergamon (Zizioulas) speaks to the point:
The Church must now introduce in its teaching about sin, the sin against the environment, the ecological sin. Repentance must be extended to cover also the damage we do to nature both as individuals and as societies. This must be brought to the conscience of every Christian who cares for his or her salvation.
Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew teaches that ecological evils have their root both in a “destruction of religious piety within the human heart” and a too narrow definition of sin in the individual’s sense of guilt or wrongdoing:
Yet, sin also contains a cosmic dimension; and repentance from environmental sin demands a radical transformation of the way that we choose to live. 
Calls for the widening of our concept of sin to include the abuse and exploitation of creation and of the need for transfigured lives have clear relevance for animal suffering.
Such teachings from leading Eastern Orthodox theologians are tremendously important not only for the suffering animals but also for those who try to protect them and are sensitive to their suffering.
The laity (and priests) ought to be taught that even if abuse is not directly inflicted by us, we are culpable via our demands for cheap animal food products; by our vanity in demanding fur when alternatives are available; by our demands for sporting activities or traditions that demand the incarceration or death of innocent creatures and by our demands for cures for the numerous ailments caused by our gluttony and individual selfish behaviours.
This knowledge will materialise when the leaders of the Eastern Orthodox Church and academic institutions, include animal suffering in its education of its priests and, when the leaders of the Eastern Orthodox Church and its academics engage with the subject of animal suffering in their deliberations on sin and evil.
Q. Are we sufficiently concerned about the suffering of animals?
Q. Do we believe the most effective method of bringing Orthodox teachings to the conscience of every Christian is through an occasional pronouncement by senior theologians in the hope that it will filter down to the laity?
Q. Do we believe Orthodox teachings on this subject are more likely to reach that audience via knowledgeable priests in every local community?
7) A ROLE FOR THE CHURCH
Religion today comprises a central dimension of human life, both on the personal and the social levels. No longer can religion be relegated to a matter of individual preference or private practice. Religion is becoming increasingly meaningful and momentous in appreciating the past, analysing the present, and even assessing the future of our world. In our day, religion claims a public face and a social profile; and it is invited to participate in contemporary communal discourse.
Eastern Orthodox theologians have repeatedly called for humanity to change its ethos from one based upon a theory of continual consumption, to one with a Eucharistic and aesthetic ethos of love, virtue, sacrifice, abstinence and purification of sin. In essence, they remind us of patristic teachings to restrict and control our desires.
This ascetic ethos “is not negation, but a reasonable and tempered use of the world.”
Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew also draws our attention to the inconvenient truth of the missing dimension and need for sacrifice:
This need for an ascetic spirit can be summed up in a single key word: sacrifice. This is the missing dimension of our environmental ethos and ecological action.
He clarifies this point with teachings on self-limitation in consumption and interprets self-restraint in terms of love, humility, self-control, simplicity and social justice, all of which are important teachings for our choice of diet and the products we choose to purchase.  Crucially, he acknowledges the fundamental problem of inaction and the difficulties in effecting change:
We are all painfully aware of the fundamental obstacle that confronts us in our work for the environment. It is precisely this: how to move from the theory to action, from word to deeds. 
For this spiritual revolution to occur, we must experience radical metanoia, a conversion of attitudes, habits and practices, for ways that we have misused or abused God’s Word, God’s gifts, and God’s creation.
These are profound teachings and reminiscent of the warnings from the prophets of old. This spiritual revolution is also required for a conversion in the way we view animals and thus the way we treat them.
Many of his teachings urge us to reflect the asceticism of the early Fathers and of the urgent need for changes in human behaviour. In our greed and lust for ever increasing profit, we “violently and cunningly subordinate and exploit creation.” This not only destroys creation but also “undermines the foundations and conditions necessary for the survival of future generations.” This aligns with Met. Kallistos of Diokleia’s (Ware) comment on “evil profit”, St. Irenaeus’s teaching that we must not use our freedom as a “cloak of maliciousness” and St. John Chrysostom’s acknowledgement of the link between food and ill health:
Don’t you daily observe thousands of disorders stemming from laden tables and immoderate eating? 
It also hints at the environmental crisis, which is beginning to evidence the devastating results of our continued abuse and misuse of animals. Our inability to move from theory to practice indicates that our weaknesses make it difficult for us to attain the Christian ideals.
Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew advocates an important contemporary role for religion and in so doing buttresses the argument that the Church has an important role to play in the subject of animal suffering. He teaches that there is an urgent need to exercise “Christian responsibility towards” creation by:
fostering the forces of justice for manifestation of the Kingdom of God in human kind and in the whole creation.
The continuing challenge is how to apply these teachings on extending our understanding of community, justice, rights and caring relationships with animals, to contemporary practices that result in animal suffering.
These are inconvenient truths, yet necessary areas to consider and debate if we are to reduce animal suffering and effect real change in human hearts.
None of this will be easy, for there is acceptance of the gap between Eastern Orthodox theory and practice and of the difficulties in changing attitudes, habits and the ‘traditions of men’. Despite these difficulties, the leaders of the Eastern Orthodox Church have the authority and responsibility to be a voice for the voiceless, in its stand against every form of sin and evil in the contemporary world.
Stylios (1989) offers a practical route for effecting this change:
This in practice means that Christians will be leaders in every ecological movement, which seeks to maintain and protect the natural environment. 
Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew affirms this view:
…we cannot but be convinced environmentalists and firm believers in the sanctity of the material world…It is a pledge that we make to God that we shall embrace all of creation. It is what Orthodox theologians call “inaugurated eschatology,” or the final state already established and being realized in the present.
We urgently appeal to those in positions of social and economic, as well as political and cultural, responsibility to hear the cry of the earth and to attend to the needs of the marginalized, but above all to respond to the plea of millions and support the consensus of the world for the healing of our wounded creation. We are convinced that there can be no sincere and enduring resolution to the challenge of the ecological crisis and climate change unless the response is concerted and collective, unless the responsibility is shared and accountable, unless we give priority to solidarity and service.
He also buttresses the arguments on the sin of indifference and inaction:
For indifference entails inaction, which in turn encourages further abuse, increasing the causes that originally provoke and preserve this indifference. 
Thus, the invocation and supplication of the Church and us all to God as the Lord of lords and Ruler of all for the restoration of creation are essentially a petition of repentance for our sinfulness in destroying the world instead of working to preserve and sustain its ever-flourishing resources reasonably and carefully. When we pray to and entreat God for the preservation of the natural environment, we are ultimately imploring God to change the mind-set of the powerful in the world, enlightening them not to destroy the planet’s ecosystem for reasons of financial profit and ephemeral interest. This in turn, however, also concerns each one of us inasmuch as we all generate small ecological damage in our individual capacity and ignorance.
We need however, to be cautious of resting the blame of our current situation solely at the feet of the powerful. We as individuals are accountable for our own choices and actions. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew speaks to the point in his statement on theological praxis, which must move:
From the distant periphery of some abstract theology or religious institutionalism to the centre stage of our practical spirituality and pastoral ministry…our theology and spirituality must once again assume flesh; they must become “incarnate”. They must be closely connected to our fellow human beings as well as to the natural environment.
These are crucial teachings not only for the animal suffering theme but also for humanity. We can see this most clearly in the link between animal abuse and the Corona virus pandemic of 2019/20. He recognizes that the environment is crying for liberation; the soteriological implications of sins and indifference to that suffering and, that the leaders of the Church and its academics and priests, must develop programs of practical application. He especially advises “the clergy and others in parish ministry to encourage and promote love for nature.”
In light of such statements and initiatives, it seems incongruous to suggest that involvement with animal protection and conservation groups would be excluded from Eastern Orthodox Church involvement; especially as the Patriarch “sealed a friendship of common purpose and active cooperation for the preservation of the environment” with the President of the WWF as far back as 1993.  In essence, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew gives Eastern Orthodox Christians the authority to be leaders or involved in environmental, conservation and animal protection organisations.
Q. How has your community been effected by tne Corona Virus pandemic?
Q. If animals were truly to be included into our community and to be accorded ‘rights’ ought we to refrain from referring to them as ‘resources’ and recognise them as other examples of God’s created beings?
Q. If animals were truly to receive justice, can we continue to justify for example, our present animal food production systems, which cause harm, suffering and death to trillions?
Q. If we are to ‘speak for the voiceless’ ought we to be requesting drastic alterations to the animal food industries so that they favoured the sentient beings over the vested interests or “evil profit”?
Q. If animals were included into our community and to receive justice, rights and mercy, are we right to justify the testing of a variety of chemicals and industrial products on animals, many of whom suffer terribly and die in their millions each year, because this method is cheaper than developing humane alternatives?
Q. Do animals have the right not to be abused or exploited in other ways? Examples here would be the right of protection from hunters who kill for fun or the latest fashion, or protection from the loss of their freedom to satisfy human entertainment needs.
8) PRACTICAL EXAMPLES OF RESPONSIBLE CARE.
Which man of you, having a son or an ox that has fallen into a well, will not immediately pull him out on a Sabbath day? Luke 14:5
The continuing challenge before us is how we are to apply both ancient and contemporary teachings on compassionate care for “all things” in creation and extending our understanding of community, justice, mercy and rights, to the animal creation and our environment.
Responsible care means that we consciously try to prevent animals from suffering and the destruction of their environment. For animals, this is often described as avoiding any form of treatment that is not to the animal’s benefit, such as any veterinary procedure that is entirely due to the preference of the owner or arbitrary breed requirements such as ear cropping and tail docking. It would also include any form of suffering caused by direct and indirect forms of abuse and exploitation such as direct cruelty and any circumstance that resulted in profits acquired at the expense of the animal’s physical and psychological well-being.
As a general rule we can use the following steps as guidelines for specific care for animals:
1) Provide food and clean water daily.
2) Provide adequate shelter.
3) Exercise your animals.
4) Provide veterinary care.
5) Neuter your cats, dogs, rabbits.
6) Educate your friends/family/priests.
In addition further practical proposals for the Church might include:
1) Promoting the vegan/vegetarian diet as the dietary ideal. In alignment with the leading scientific reports of our time, our leaders could urge Orthodox Christians to give up the animal-food based diets entirely or, as a first step, abstain from foods produced in intensive farming practices. In so doing, the Church reiterates God’s original intent; the concept of ascesis and the contemporary science, which highlights the damage caused by an animal-based diet to humans, animals and the planet.  In so doing, the impact on animal suffering, human health and environmental damage would be enormous.
2) Patriarchs and Bishops could declare their intention not to consume or provide animal products at their meetings. This would send a strong message and example to both clergy and laity.
3) Prohibit intensive farming practices on Church land. This would reinforce and live-out the Church’s desire to prevent animal suffering and promote animal flourishing.
4) Our leaders could affirm the sin of inflicting harm upon God’s animal creation in order to achieve ever-increasing profits.
5) Restate patristic teachings on the negative soteriological consequences of hunting and horse racing.
6) Prohibit hunting on Church land in order to protect the animals and in order to guide humans away from evil practices and towards salvation. Skeet clubs can be the substitute offered as a dispensation in order to facilitate the salvific plan.
7) Define the wearing of fur as an example of human ego and sin.
8) Educate our priests on the many problems associated with animal suffering. Training would enable our priests to teach a coherent message that will result in the reduction of animal suffering, improvements in our health and the environment and in advancing our spiritual journeys.
SUGGESTED ASSIGNMENTS FOR SEMINARIES
1) A 5000-word paper on either of the following themes:
a) Reflecting God’s love and compassion in our relationships and treatment of animals.
b) An ethical approach on the use of animals and the environment.
Chryssavgis, J. ‘A New Heaven and a New Earth: Orthodox Christian Insights from Theology, Spirituality, and the Sacraments’ in, Toward An Ecology of Transfiguration: Orthodox Christian Perspectives on Environment, Nature and Creation. Chryssavgis, J. and B. V. Foltz, (eds.) 152-162. NY: Fordham University Press, 2013.
————- On Earth as in Heaven: Ecological Vision and Initiatives of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. (ed.) Fordham University Press, 2011.
————–Cosmic Grace, Humble Prayer: The Ecological Vision of the Green
Patriarch Bartholomew 1. (ed.) Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009.
Gschwandtner, K.The Role of Non-Human Creation in the Liturgical Feasts of the Eastern Orthodox Tradition: Towards an Orthodox Ecological Theology. 2012. Durham E-Theses. http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/4424.
Nellist, C. A. ‘Towards an Animal Theology of the Eastern Orthodox Church.’ Greek Orthodox Theological Review, Holy Cross Orthodox Press Volume 61, no. 3-4 (Fall-Winter 2016): 125-140.
—————–Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Animal Suffering: Ancient Voices in Modern Theology. Cambridge Scholars Publishing 2018, 2020.
Theokritoff, E, Living in God’s Creation: Orthodox Perspectives on Ecology. Crestwood, NY: SVSP, 2009.
————— ‘Creation and Salvation in Orthodox Worship’ Journal of Religion, Nature & the Environment, Vol. 5. 10: 97-108. (Jan 2001)
Ware, K. Met. ‘Orthodox Christianity: Compassion for Animals’ in The Routledge Handbook of Religion and Animal Ethics, Andrew Linzey and Clair Linzey ((eds.), Routledge. 2018.
————–‘Saints and Beasts: The Undistorted Image’ The Franciscan, Vol V, No. 4, (Autumn 1963) 144-152.
Zizioulas, J. Met. ‘Preserving God’s Creation: Three Lectures on Theology and Ecology, Parts 1-3.’ King’s Theological Review 12 (Spring 1989):1-5; 12 (Autumn. 1989): 41-45; 13 (Spring 1990):1-5.
————–‘Proprietor or Priest of Creation?’ Keynote Address of the Fifth Symposium of Religion, Science and the Environment, 2nd June 2003. Available at: http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/MetJohnCreation.php.
Ware, K. Met. 2019 ‘Compassion for Animals in the Orthodox Church.’
Further videos are to be added.
 St. Irenaeus, 2.2:5.
 Gn 1:20-22, 24-5, 30-31.
 See St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.2.4; 2.6.2, “when even dumb animals tremble and yield at the invocation of His name”; 4.20.1; 2.1:1; 3.16.6 “summing up all things in Himself.”; 2.11.1; 3.8.3; 4.20.6; 4.9.1.
 St. Athanasius, On the Incarnation, S: 8:1; see also St. Basil who informs us that nothing is outside God’s providence or neglected by him, Hexaemeron, 8: 5. CANNPNF 2-08. In a moment of inspired perception, which points to God’s constant involvement in creation, Maximus states, “God, properly speaking, is everything” St. Maximus, Scholia on the Divine Names 4.25 PG. 4. 296BC. This restates St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2.2.5; also, St. Maximus, Amb 7 c.f. 1 Cor 15:28; St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Homily 6:8; Ps 85:9.
 E.g. Valentinus and the unbegotten Dyad-Proarch, which had nothing to do with creation of our world (kenoma) and was the result of ungovernable passions of a lower Aeon-Sophia, see Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.3.
 St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.18.7; 3.9:1, “all flesh shall see the salvation of God.” See also, 4.4.3.
 Papavassiliou, V. ‘The Theology of Genesis.’ Available at: http://gocas.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=39%3Alessons-in-orthodox-faith&id=113%3A280112-the-theology-of-genesis&Itemid=114.
 For an investigation of Orthodox understanding of early Church texts on Genesis, see Bouteneff, Beginnings.Ancient Christian Readings of the Biblical Creation Narratives. 2008.
 Wisdom 9:1-4.
 Oxford interview, March 2014, see Nellist, Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Animal Suffering: Ancient Voices in Modern Theology, Ch. 6.
 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, “The Orthodox Church and the Environment” in, Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 364; See also Chryssavgis, On Earth as in Heaven: Ecological Vision and Initiatives of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. 2011.
 Recognition of errors in theological teachings is evidenced throughout the history of the Church.
 St. Aquinas, Summa Theologica, “Whether it is Unlawful to Kill Any Living Thing” Second Part of the Second Part, (QQ. 1-189) Q. 64:1, Reply to Objection 2. It will be interesting to see how the Catholic Church reacts to Pope Francis’ Encyclical Laudato Si which challenges this traditional view and also acknowledges that Christians “have at times incorrectly interpreted the Scriptures” LS: 67, 68, 117.
 St. Gregory of Nyssa, On Love for the Poor, 198.
 St. Maximus, Three Centuries on Love, No 86.
See Knight, A. ‘Animal Agriculture and Climate Change’ in The Global Guide to Animal Protection, ed. A. Linzey, 254-256. 2013.
 St. Basil, In Hexaemeron 7:5.
 St. Irenaeus, “The Doctrine of the Apostolic Preaching” 32-4, 100. See also Against Heresies, 3.21.10.
 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, “Environment and Ethics” in Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 135. See also Chryssavgis, On Earth as in Heaven.
 E.g., St. Irenaeus,Against Heresies, 2:13.4; 4.9.1. Knowing God also includes the wider sense of perceiving and experiencing God.
 St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.13.3; 4.11.2.
 St. Irenaeus, 2.29.2; 2.30.9.
 St. Irenaeus, 3.20.
 St. Irenaeus, 3.12.7.
 St. Irenaeus,3.6.1.
 St. Irenaeus,4.17.4.
 St. Irenaeus,2.28.3; 2.13.9.
 St. Ephrem the Syrian, Table Blessings, Memra IX in Hansbury, Hymns of St Ephrem the Syrian, 36.
 St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Homilies Homily 7:6; See also Mt 10:29-30; Mt 6: 26; Lk 12:6; Jn 5: 17.
 Ps 103:10-21. See also Psalms 35:7, 49:10-14; 144:9; 145:9; 146:9.
 Mt 6:26. See also 2 Cor 1:3.
 St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.18.3.
 St. Clement, Exhortation to the Heathen, CANNPNF O2-1.
 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, Encountering the Mystery 106.
 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, Encountering the Mystery, 98-103; also, Chryssavgis, Speaking the Truth in Love, 118, 270-1, 351.
 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, “On the Theological and Spiritual Insights of Pope John Paul II”in, Chryssavgis, Speaking the Truth in Love, 297.
 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, “On the Theological and Spiritual Insights of Pope John Paul II”in Chryssavgis, Speaking the Truth in Love,
 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, Encountering the Mystery, 107.
 Attwater, St. John Chrysostom, 59
 Ps 35:7.
 St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.32.2; Gal 5:22.
 St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.34.4.
 Gn 9: 9-10.
 Ex 23: 4.
 Dt 22:1; also, Dt 22:3.
 Dt 22:4.
 Here we may legitimately add ‘stranger’.
 “Comments on Laudato Si’.”
 Sentimentalism or indifference to human suffering is a frequent charge, though research does not support the charges.
 See, Cyprus Case Study, Ch. Five of Nellist, Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Animal Suffering: Ancient Voices in Modern Theology, which examines the relationship between the Eastern Orthodox Church and animal protection groups on the island.
 Dt 22:2.
 St. Gregory of Nyssa, 2nd Homily On the Love of the Poor, 203.
 Mt 12:11-12; Lk 14:5.
 Dt 5:13-14. See also Ex 23:12. There is a similar teaching in St. Ephrem’s Hymns on the Nativity.
 Linzey & Cohn-Sherbok, inform us that the 3rd century scholar Levi directly interpreted this “biblical legislation” to prove the morally advanced position of the Jewish people, Numbers Rabbah, 10.1, 17.5, in Linzey After Noah, 30.
 Ps 144:9, 36.
 Ps 35:7.
 Pr 12:10. See St. John Chrysostom’s reference to this passage in relation to his comments on Holy people and kindness to animals in, Attwater, St. John Chrysostom, 59. It is interesting to note that the Hebrew text translates as “The righteous person knows the needs [nefesh, literally ‘soul’] of his animal” in Gross, “An Overview of Jewish Animal Ethics” paper given at the Animal Welfare and Religion Symposium, Winchester University, 2nd Nov, 2016 and based on his chapter “Jewish Animal Ethics.” In The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Ethics and Morality, Ch. 26.
 St. Isaac, Mystic Treaties, Homily74.
 St. Isaac, Six Treaties on the Behaviour of Excellence, Treatise 1, Ch. 8. In Mystic Treatises.
 Fr. J. Breck and Met. John of Pergamon (Zizioulas) make similar comments for contemporary ethicists.
 St. Isaac, Mystic Treaties, Ch. 1, 63.
 The opposite appears to be the case.
 St. Isaac, Mystic Treaties, Ch. 1, Homily74. For slightly different translations, see Met. Kallistos (Ware) “The Soul in Greek Christianity” in, Crabbe, From Soul to Self, 49-69. Dr. Sebastian Brock, expert in Syriac studies, defines ‘compassionate’ as the closet to the original Syriac meaning.
 Lossky, Mystical Theology, 118.
 Catecheses 52. Available at: https://web.archive.org/web/20160305063629/ http:/anastasis.org.uk/. I remind the reader of St Ephrem’s teaching that God’s mercy extends to non-human animals in his Table Blessings.
 Met. Kallistos of Diokleia, in Nellist, Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Animal Suffering, Chapter Six, pp. 162, 184.
69 St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.2:5.
 St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Homilies, 13:2; see also 13:35 & 15:3.
 St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.18.6.
 Mode 4, Joseph was amazed in, Mikrayiannanites, “Vespers for the Environment,” 386.
 E.g. Holy Saturday, Mother Mary and Ware, Kallistos, The Lenton Triodion, 625, 627; See also Col. 1:16-17.
 St. Ephrem the Syrian, Nineteen Hymns, 13:27.
 St. Ephrem the Syrian, 14:35, refrain.
 St. Andrew of Crete, On the Dormition of Mary, 145-146.
 St. Anastasius of Sinai, (1985:163) Joie de la transfiguration: D’après les Pères d’Orient Spiritualité Orientale 39. Coune, D. M. (Ed.) Bégrolles-en-Mauges: Abbaye de Bellefontaine, cited in Gschwandtner, Role of Non-Human Creation, 134.
 St. Gregory Nazianzen, Select Orations, 37.2 On the Words of the Gospel.
 St. Gregory Nazianzen, Select Orations, 29.10 The Third Theological Oration. On The Son; also, 39.15-16 Theophany On the Holy Lights.
80 St. Basil of Seleucia, Third Homily on Pascha, SC.187:209.
 St. Basil of Seleucia, SC.187:215.
 This a frequent story used by Met. Kallistos. Ref: Elder Joseph the Hésychaste, Letter 57 in, Expression of Monastic Experience, 315. Also cited in Theokritoff, “Creation and Salvation in Orthodox Worship.”
 E.g., Mt 10:29.
 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, Encountering the Mystery, 90.
 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, Encountering the Mystery, 92-3.
 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, “Address before the Twelfth Ordinary General Assembly of the Roman Catholic Synod of Bishop.” in Chryssavgis, Speaking the Truth, 281; also, “Ecumenical Imperative: A Common Responsibility” inChryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 261. See also Chryssavgis, On Earth as in Heaven.
 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, “The Sacredness of Fish” in Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 300-1. See also Chryssavgis, On Earth as in Heaven. Scotland’s fish farming creates as much nitrogen as yearly sewage from 3.2 million people; also, Lymbery, Farmageddon and Compassion in World Farming research available athttp://www.ciwf.org.uk/research/?page=2.
 Please note that there is only one mention of a plant.
 Mikrayiannanites, Monk Gerasimos, ‘Vespers for the Environment’ in Chryssavgis and Foltz, 2013: 392.
90 Bartholomew, “The Orthodox Church and the Environment.” In Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 360-361
 St. Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word 43:3, CANNPNF 2-04.
92. Met. Kallistos of Diokleia, in Nellist p. 83.
 “The Ascetic Corrective” in Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, (2003); also “Message of the Synaxis,”(2009:201) See also Chryssavgis, On Earth as in Heaven.
 St. Cyril of Jerusalem, First Mystagogical Catechesis, 5, 282.
 Tsironi writes on the theatre at that time ending with “the stripping of women on stage.”
 St. Cyril of Jerusalem, First Mystagogical Catechesis, 6, 283.
 See https://www.animalaid.org.uk/the-issues/our-campaigns/horse-racing/for details of the number of horses killed in British racecourses and the use of whips.
 There would be few within the Church who do not understand the consequences for society in general or for the individuals and their families, caught in the nightmare of addiction to gambling.
 Canon LI, The Canons of the Council in Trullo, The Seven Ecumenical Councils.
 Canon LI.
 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, “Address by His All Holiness during the Presentation Ceremony of the Sophie Prize” in Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 284. See also Chryssavgis, On Earth as in Heaven.
 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, “Justice: Environmental and Human” composed as “Foreword” to proceedings of the fourth summer seminar at Halki in June (1997) in Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 173; also, “Environmental Rights” in Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 260. See also Chryssavgis, On Earth as in Heaven.
 “Comments on Laudato Si’.”
 Also, Limouris, Justice, Peace, WCC, 1990: 20, where the distorted heart is defined as the root cause of idolatry, injustice, exploitation and belligerence in humanity and the lack of peace among human beings.
Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, “The Orthodox Church and the Environment” in, Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 360. See also Chryssavgis, On Earth as in Heaven.
 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, “Creation Care and Ecological Justice: Reflections by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew.” The Oxford Union, 4th November 2015. https://www.patriarchate.org/-/creation-care-and-ecological-justice-reflections-by-ecumenical-patriarch-bartholomew
 E.g. Ecumenical Patriarch. Bartholomew, “Message of His All Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew for the day of prayer for the protection of the Environment,” 1st Sept 2015.
 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, “A Rich Heritage”in Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 189. See also Chryssavgis, On Earth as in Heaven.
 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, “Sacrifice: The Missing Dimension,”275; also, “The Ascetic Corrective” in Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 295-9. See also Chryssavgis, On Earth as in Heaven.
 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, “The Ascetic Way” in Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 188; also, Speaking the Truth, 89-91, 352-3.
 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, “Sacrifice: The Missing Dimension,” in Cosmic Grace, p. 275. See also Chryssavgis, On Earth as in Heaven.
 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, “Address before the Twelfth Ordinary General Assembly” in Chryssavgis, Speaking the Truth, 283; also, Limouris, Justice, Peace, 11-12; St Cyril, Catechetical Homilies, Homily 2:5.
 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, “Foretaste of the Resurrection” in Chryssavgis, Speaking the Truth, 41; also, “Creator and Creation” in Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 176. For similar sentiments, see Dimitrios 1, “Message on Environmental Protection Day.” See also Chryssavgis, On Earth as in Heaven.
 See Nellist, Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Animal Suffering: Ancient Voices in Modern Theology, Chapter Six, p. 181
 St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.37.4; 4.16.5.
 St. Chrysostom, On Repentance and Almsgiving, 10.5, 130.
 Limouris, Justice, Peace, 6.
 E.g., Bishop Isaias, Chapter Seven of my book on Animal Suffering and Limouris, Justice, Peace, 23.28.
 St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4:12.
 Stylios in Harakas, Ecological Reflections; also, Bartholomew, “Encounter and Dialogue” in Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 347. See also Chryssavgis, On Earth as in Heaven.
 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, Encountering the Mystery, 107.
 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, “Joint Message on the World Day of Prayer for Creation from the Vatican and from the Phanar.” 1st September 2017. https://www.patriarchate.org/-/joint-message-on-the-world-day-of-prayer-for-creation.
 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, “A Collective Responsibility” inChryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 374; also “The Immorality of Indifference,”290. See also Chryssavgis, On Earth as in Heaven.
 Ecumenical Patriarch. Bartholomew, “Message by H. A. H. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew upon the Day of Prayer for the Protection of Creation,” https://www.patriarchate.org/-/patriarchikon-menyma-epi-te-eorte-tes-indiktou-2012
 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, Cosmic Grace, 358, 359-365. See also Chryssavgis, On Earth as in Heaven.
 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, “Climate Change” in Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 350-1; also, “A New Worldview,” a section from the lead article “Thine Own From Thine Own” dedicated to the preservation of the natural environment, in Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 330. See also Chryssavgis, On Earth as in Heaven.
 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, “Education and Parish Action” in Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 110-111 See also Chryssavgis, On Earth as in Heaven.
 Chryssavgis, “A New Heaven and a New Earth: Orthodox Christian Insights from Theology, Spirituality and the Sacraments,” 155.
 An excellent discussion on this is Donaldson and Kymlicka, Zoopolis: A Political Theory of Animal Rights.
 See Knight, A. The Costs and Benefits of Animal Experiments, 2011. When we examine the available research on the animal testing model, such as Linzey and Linzey The Ethical Case Against Animal Experiments, 2017 https://muse.jhu.edu/book/57527 (2017) and Bailey and Taylor “Non-human Primates in Neuroscience Research: The Case Against its Scientific Necessity.” ATLA 44, (2016): 43-69, we find few systematic studies examining the validity of this model. According to Knight (2011) the use of this model in advancing human health or significant biomedical knowledge is poor. The USFDA state that between 92-97% of drugs that pass pre-clinical tests on animals “fail to make it to the market because they are proven to be ineffective and or unsafe in people.” If this level of failure were found in any other industry, it would be rejected and substituted with procedures that are more reliable.
 See www.ciwf.org.uk for details on the misuse of antibiotics in farming and the link with antibiotic resistance in humans.