Around 1,200 species will lose a quarter of their habitat if little is done to stop the uncontrolled expansion of the food system, research says

reports Daisy Dunne, Environment Correspondent for The Independent

More than 17,000 species across the world will lose some of their habitats if little is done to tackle uncontrolled agricultural expansion, a new study has found. The research uses modelling to estimate the extent to which continued agricultural expansion across the world could encroach on the habitat of nearly 20,000 species by 2050.

It finds that 88 per cent of these species will see some habitat loss by mid-century if little is done to curb food system expansion. Around 1,200 species could lose a quarter of their habitat.

“Business-as-usual” agriculture would also cause 33 species to lose at least 90 per cent of their habitat, according to the results. These species include 14 frogs and toads, nine rodents, and two primates, the white-throated guenon and Sclater’s guenon. Both these monkeys are native to Nigeria.

However, the research, published in the journal , also finds that habitat losses could be stemmed if large-scale changes are made to the food system. The largest savings could come from greater agricultural efficiency in developing-world regions, which could free up land from nature, according to the study authors.  

A global transition towards healthier diets, including eating less meat and dairy, could also help to stem habitat loss, said the study’s co-lead author Dr Michael Clark, a researcher of environmental sustainability from the University of Oxford. “We need to start combatting biodiversity loss at much larger scales than we currently are, and we need to start doing this now,” he told The Independent. “Until we start addressing what we eat, how it is produced, and everything in between, we’re not going to make widescale progress towards existing conservation and biodiversity targets.”

The way humans use land is currently the biggest threat to Earth’s biodiversity. However, the threat posed by the climate crisis is fast increasing, with some research suggesting that it could overtake the threat posed by land-use change by 2070. “It’s worth noting that we did not include the impacts of climate change: the huge habitat losses we projected are just from agricultural expansion,” the study’s co-lead author Dr David Williams, a conservation scientist from the University of Leeds, told The Independent. “When combined with climate change, overharvesting, hunting, pollution then things are likely to be even worse…But the conservation approaches we examined could all help reduce these threats as well.”

For the research, the authors created detailed maps showing where projected agricultural expansion could overlap with animal habitat under different scenarios. The first of these was a “business-as-usual” scenario for the world’s agriculture, which would see populations increase and the popularity of meat-based diets continue to rise in the future. The researchers find that, under this scenario, global cropland would increase by 26 per cent from 2010 to 2050. Increases in agricultural land would likely be largest in sub-Saharan Africa, south and southeast Asia and, to a lesser extent, Central and South America.

This increase would lead the 19,859 species examined to lose 7 per cent of their habitat, on average.   However, of these species, 1,280 are projected to lose more than a quarter of their remaining habitat, 350 could lose more than half and 33 could lose more than 90 per cent.

One group particularly threatened by agricultural expansion could be saddleback toads, a genus of tiny toads and frogs that are typically 1cm in length and live among leaves on the floor of Brazil’s Atlantic rainforest. Dr Williams said: “Many of them are already listed as being threatened with extinction, and out of the 21 species in our analysis, two are projected to lose more than 25 per cent of remaining habitat, four more than 20 per cent of remaining habitat, and seven more than 15 per cent of remaining habitat.”

The second scenario developed by the researchers studied habitat loss by 2050 if four different changes were made to the food system. These changes included global improvements to agricultural efficiency, a global transition to healthier diets with fewer animal products, a halving of food waste and global agricultural land-use planning to avoid competition between food production and wildlife. The authors find that, in a scenario with these four changes, global cropland would actually decrease by nearly 3.4 million square kilometres from 2010 to 2050. In addition, the average rate of habitat loss would be reduced to 1 per cent.

A global switch to more efficient agriculture would come with the largest savings because it would allow land to be freed up in biodiverse parts of the world, including sub-Saharan Africa, the researchers said.

In addition, a global switch to eating fewer animal products could help to stem habitat loss while also helping to tackle the climate crisis, the researchers said. Meat production is particularly polluting because cows and sheep are ruminants, meaning they belch out methane, a potent greenhouse gas. In addition, meat production also requires large amounts of land to be cleared for the production of animal feed and to create space for grazing. Deforestation causes CO2 to be released into the atmosphere.

“There are clear win-wins here. What we need to do to safeguard biodiversity is also going to be really good for people,” added Dr Williams.

“We should already be trying to transition to healthier diets, including fewer calories and animal-based products in richer countries, to improve human health across the world. We should already be trying to waste less food to improve food security in the global south and better support people and farmers across the world.”

Most people are unaware of the high failure rate – 90%+, of the animal testing model and of its failures to advance human health. Here is the latest very informative webinar from Dr Andre Menache, who is writing a chapter on the failure of the animal testing model, for my new book. Please feel free to circulate widely. Those of you who have my book on Eastern Orthodoxy Christianity and Animal Suffering, will know that I have written extensively on this subject.
As a Board member of the Animal Interfaith Alliance, representing the Pan Orthodox Concern for Animals charity, I recently proposed that this subject become a campaign for the AIA over the next year and this suggestion was unanimously agreed by the Board. Part of this process will be campaigning for a Parliamentary Early Day Motion asking for an independent panel to investigate the use and failures of this mode. I will keep you posted as we move forward.

Click on the link below:

GMT20201212 135857 AIA 1600×900 – YouTube

Dr Christina Nellist – (forthcoming mid 2021)

In my latest book, forty experts in a variety of disciplines and diverse cultures, interrogate various aspects of sustainable living and creation care in the era of climate change. They offer suggestions to policy makers and individuals alike, in the hope of steering us away from the cliff-edge and towards a sustainable and flourishing future, set within the confines of our planetary boundaries. That such a book is still necessary in 2021 is testament to the failure of successive governments across the world to: a) acknowledge the science and b) acknowledge the wisdom in the thousands of voices from across the world, which spoke and continue to speak, with knowledge and sincerity on this subject.

In the 70s and 80s many of us were teaching or producing scientific papers on various aspects
of what we now refer to as ‘climate change’. During this same period, some religious leaders,
like the Ecumenical Patriarch of the Orthodox Christian Church, His All Holiness Demetrios 1st,
expressed concern on the misuse and abuse of the natural environment. He called for individuals to change their hearts and minds and to view the world not as something solely
to be used as a resource, but rather, as something to nurture, by enabling creation’s flourishing. In 1989 he established the 1st September (the first day of the new ecclesiastical calendar), as the day dedicated to the protection of the natural environment, calling for Orthodox Christians to pray for the protection and preservation of God’s creation. This work on behalf of creation continues under his successor, His All Holiness, Bartholomew (also known as the Green Patriarch), culminating at this present time in the Halki Summit 111 (2019) entitled: Theological
Formation and Ecological Awareness: A Conversation on Education and the Environment, which essentially called for ‘Creation Care’ to be added to Orthodox Seminary and Academic educational programs. Similar calls and practical guidance are also found in other faiths and these are included in the book.

In the 80s and 90s progress also began to be made in the political sphere, with the 1992 Climate Convention in Rio and similar Conventions and commitments of intent, continuing until today. Yet, despite the grand words and commitments, we continue to stumble to the edge of the cliff, as if we are in some form of collective psychosis, because these very same governments refuse to implement the necessary strategies to effect real change. They appear to be more concerned with re-election, than saving the lives of their citizens and more than that, the lives, indeed existence, of the myriad other creatures on this planet. This is one of the reasons why those from a faith-based worldview are vitally important to the present debate on sustainable living in an increasingly unstable world. They provide an alternative voice and vision for the future, based in many cases upon teachings from sacred texts, which inform us that the entire world is interconnected and sacred. They provide spiritual, moral and ethical arguments on the link between climate change, a flourishing creation and goals for sustainable living.

Today, the vast majority of people understand that climate change is real and that it is dangerous. Whilst their level of knowledge on the subject varies (and it is likely that the
majority need to know more), with children to grandparents demonstrating on the streets in
countries across the world, there is at last, an acknowledgment that climate change is real
and that urgent and immediate action must be taken. Societies better understand their global
interconnectedness to each other, to other creatures and to our planetary boundaries. Our
presence, level of consumption and misuse of the natural world, has negatively changed our
atmosphere, weather patterns, environments and the lives of the creatures within those
environments. This misuse threatens all forms of life via food insecurity, rising sea levels,
mass migration and social unrest, to name just four from the awaiting crises.

Whilst recent attention has been diverted to the Covid 19 pandemic, the spectre of climate
change reality continues. One good thing arising from the pandemic is our reawakening
to the important things in life – our families, our green spaces and the creatures in them,
clean air and our health systems. Increasingly, we hear disparate voices repeating the same
message – we do not want more of the same, we want a ‘new normal’ and ‘building back
better’ policy decisions.

Dealing with Covid 19 has meant dramatic changes to the way we live, resulting
in our industries and economies grinding to a halt. Most surprising of all, is that this
‘lockdown’ has been achieved with a level of civic compliance never thought possible outside
of oppressive regimes. This indicates that the prospect of attaining the ‘new normal’ has
never been more attainable. What is required now is for politicians and policy makers to ride
the wave of desire for real change, rather than lazily returning to the destructive policies and
economic strategies of the past.

It is however, equally important for us as individuals to realise that in order to achieve
these changes, we must play our part by changing our desires and demands. Cheap
meat, cheap clothes or cheap flights are not cheap, if the full social, environmental and
economic cost of production, transportation and GHG emissions are taken into account. Cheap
is a delusion fed to us by those with other agendas; the real costs – unstable weather
patterns, habitat loss and species extinctions, ocean acidification and rising sea-levels are
now only too apparent.

Some changes are relatively easy for the individual– turning off the lights, buying green
energy; flying less often or not at all, driving more slowly, cycling or walking whenever
possible; reducing, recycling, reusing; avoiding fast fashion, giving up or reducing animal food
products and buying from local farms with better animal welfare standards whenever
possible; growing our own food; digging up lawns and planting meadows; planting more
trees; avoiding plastic; lobbying our MPs and for those who can – having less children. The
list is long enough to cater for varying degrees of commitment to change.

In this latest book, experts write with authority and clarity on various aspects of sustainable living in an era where climate change is acknowledged as the greatest threat to human existence on this planet. They write from faith-based or secular perspectives but share a desire to explain why we are in this situation and how we might affect real change, both as individuals and as societies, in order to mitigate the worst effects of climate change. They write in the hope that we – either as individuals or as decision makers in government and civil society – will be guided to respond far more quickly than is currently the case; for without swift action, we condemn future generations of human and non-human animals to lives of intolerable instability, with little hope of regaining what humans have squandered by our collective arrogance.

I have chosen two sections from the Eastern Orthodox Church’s Social Document (see details below) which are found just prior to the concluding section because they contain crucial teachings regarding the non-human animal creation. My comments are in italics:

“Our reconciliation with God must necessarily express itself also in our reconciliation with nature, including our reconciliation with animals.”  Human salvation is therefore in jeopardy if we fail to care for the animal creation.

” The animals that fill the world are testament to the bounty of God’s creative love, its variety and richness; and all the beasts of the natural order are enfolded in God’s love; not even a single sparrow falls without God seeing (Matthew 10:29). Moreover, animals by their very innocence remind us of the paradise that human sin has squandered, and their capacity for blameless suffering reminds us of the cosmic cataclysm induced by humanity’s alienation from God.” The suffering of animals ought to remind us of the innocent suffering of Christ.

“We must recall also that all the promises of scripture regarding the age that is to come concern not merely the spiritual destiny of humanity, but the future of a redeemed cosmos, in which plant and animal life are plentifully present, renewed in a condition of cosmic harmony.” Animals will be in the future Kingdom of God and are not to be dismissed as non-eternal beings.

On Friday, March 27, 2020 His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew appointed a special commission of theologians to prepare a document on the social teaching of the Orthodox Church, in the spirit of and reflecting upon the relevant decisions of the Holy and Great Council of Crete (June 2016). Commissioned in early 2017, the document assembled input from numerous eparchies of the Ecumenical Patriarchate throughout the world and was submitted to the Holy and Sacred Synod, which, in late 2019, congratulated the commission for its inspiring work and recommended the publication of this text.
For the Life of the Word: Toward a Social Ethos of the Orthodox Church is now online in twelve languages. The statement does not pronounce clear-cut responses to social challenges, but instead proposes general guidelines to difficult questions. The purpose is to initiate reflection and conversation on what “the Spirit is saying to the Churches” (Revelation 2:7). In the words of His Eminence Archbishop Elpidophoros, “This text opens us up to the implications of what it means to be loved by God, and to respond to that love by loving one another.”
While the document was completed prior to the outbreak of the COVID-19 crisis of 2020, it nonetheless addresses the importance of social responsibility, the voice of faith in a world of science, medicine and technology, as well as the response of the Church on matters related to health care, social justice, and public welfare. In this regard, the document provides a framework for addressing current challenges as well as challenges we haven’t yet imagined.
For the Life of the World presents a way of reaching out across social distancing at a time of global calamity – as our faithful are either self-isolated and quarantined (a term that literally refers to a period of forty days and reflects the church’s struggle during Great Lent) – in order to address the role of the Church at a time of spiritual crisis, challenge, and concern. Therefore, the document is being released during Great Lent as a period of self-discipline and reflection on our interdependence and vocation to care for one another. It is offered with humility and love for reflection and conversation as all of us “shelter in place.”

77 We must also recall, moreover, that human beings are part of the intricate and delicate web of creation, and that their welfare cannot be isolated from the welfare of the whole natural world. As St. Maximus the Confessor argued, in Christ all the dimensions of humanity’s alienation from its proper nature are overcome, including its alienation from the rest of the physical cosmos; and Christ came in part to restore to material creation its original nature as God’s earthly paradise.[59] Our reconciliation with God, therefore, must necessarily express itself also in our reconciliation with nature, including our reconciliation with animals. It is no coincidence that the creation narrative of Genesis describes the making of animal life and the making of humanity as occurring on the same day (Genesis 1:24–31). Nor should it be forgotten that, according to the story of the Great Flood, Noah’s covenant with God encompasses the animals in the ark and all their descendants, in perpetuity (Genesis 9:9–11). The unique grandeur of humanity in this world, the image of God within each person, is also a unique responsibility and ministry, a priesthood in service to the whole of creation in its anxious longing for God’s glory. Humanity shares the earth with all other living things, but singularly among living creatures possesses the ability and authority to care for it (or, sadly, to destroy it). The animals that fill the world are testament to the bounty of God’s creative love, its variety and richness; and all the beasts of the natural order are enfolded in God’s love; not even a single sparrow falls without God seeing (Matthew 10:29). Moreover, animals by their very innocence remind us of the paradise that human sin has squandered, and their capacity for blameless suffering reminds us of the cosmic cataclysm induced by humanity’s alienation from God. We must recall also that all the promises of scripture regarding the age that is to come concern not merely the spiritual destiny of humanity, but the future of a redeemed cosmos, in which plant and animal life are plentifully present, renewed in a condition of cosmic harmony.

§78 Thus, in the lives of the saints, there are numerous stories about wild beasts, of the kind that would normally be horrifying or hostile to human beings, drawn to the kindness of holy men and women. In the seventh century, Abba Isaac of Nineveh defined a merciful heart as “a heart burning for the sake of the entire creation, for people, for birds, for animals . . . and for every created thing.”[60] This is a consistent theme in the witness of the saints. St. Gerasimos healed a wounded lion near the Jordan River; St. Hubertus, having received a vision of Christ while hunting deer, proclaimed an ethic of conservation for hunters; St. Columbanus befriended wolves, bears, birds, and rabbits; St. Sergius tamed a wild bear; St. Seraphim of Sarov fed the wild animals; St. Mary of Egypt may well have befriended the lion that guarded her remains; St. Innocent healed a wounded eagle; St. Melangell was known for her protection of wild rabbits and the taming of their predators; in the modern period, St. Paisios lived in harmony with snakes. And not only animals, but plants as well, must be objects of our love. St. Kosmas the Aetolian preached that “people will remain poor, because they have no love for trees”[61] and St. Amphilochios of Patmos asked, “Do you know that God gave us one more commandment that is not recorded in scripture? It is the commandment to love the trees.” The ascetic ethos and the Eucharistic spirit of the Orthodox Church perfectly coincide in this great sacramental vision of creation, which discerns the traces of God’s presence “everywhere present and filling all things” (Prayer to the Holy Spirit) even in a world still as yet languishing in bondage to sin and death. It is a vision, moreover, that perceives human beings as bound to all of creation, as well as one that encourages them to rejoice in the goodness and beauty of the whole world. This ethos and this spirit together remind us that gratitude and wonder, hope and joy, are our only appropriate—indeed, our truly creative and fruitful—attitude in the face of the ecological crisis now confronting the planet, because they alone can give us the willingness and the resolve to serve the good of creation as unremittingly as we must, out of love for it and its creator.

An excellent discussion.

Our Charity belongs to the Animal Interfaith Alliance. Despite our numerous differences in beliefs, we share a common belief that the creation, including the animal creation, should be nurtured and loved, rather than abused. For those who saw the powerful David Attenborough programme ‘Extinction’ last night, https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000mn4n/extinction-the-facts and who follow us and organisations like us, will not be surprised at its content. The short article below shows how close our respective religions are on such issues and remedies.

The Hindu and Jain Perspective
Two of the oldest religions of the world, Hinduism and Jainism have advocated a lifestyle which is in harmony with nature. The resources that nature has provided in the form of forests, rivers, oceans as well as the sun and the moon are worshipable to Hindus and Jains. The idea is not to exploit the world’s resources but to respect and revere them. It is
not unusual to see people in India offering prayers to the rivers, mountains, the sun and moon, or bowing down to an elephant. The idea that animals are sentient beings and have souls has been around for tens of thousands of years. The struggle that other cultures and faiths have with this idea is a source of mystery to faiths born in India namely Hinduism,
Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhism.
Compassion towards animals is a core belief of Hindus and Jains. Indeed, there is no spiritual progress without compassion towards all living beings. It is bad karma to harm animals – even insects. It is in the nature of a mosquito to bite you but it is bad karma to harm it. You may protect yourself from being bitten by taking preventive measures but you should not harm it. Just as every action has a reaction, good and bad karma will impact an individual’s actions.
Closely linked with the law of karma is the belief in reincarnation. The holy book of the Hindus, the Bhagavad Gita states that we have all been born before and will be born again. Our next birth depends on our actions in this birth.

The Hindu Perspective
The Bhumi (Earth) Project has put together a Hindu declaration on climate change. It quotes several ancient Hindu scriptures.
Atharva Veda (12.12): “The Earth is my mother and I am her child.”
The Mahabharata (109.10): “Dharma exists for the welfare of all beings. Hence, that by which the welfare of all beings is sustained, that for sure is Dharma.”
The Srimad Bhagvatam (11/2/41): “Ether, Air, Water, Earth, Planets, all creatures, directions, trees and plants, rivers and seas, they are all organs of God’s body. Remembering this a devotee respects all species.”

The Jain Perspective
The Jain Declaration on Nature was presented to Prince Philip at Buckingham Palace on 23 October 1990.

There are 24 Tirthankars, enlightened souls, in Jainism. The 24th Tirthankar, Lord Mahaveer was present around 2,600 years ago. He preached a complete and absolute compassion to all living beings. Jains are well known for running animal sanctuaries in India. There are 5 main concepts Jains live by:
Non-violence (Ahimsa); truth (Satya); non-stealing (Asetya); chastity (Brahmacharya); and Non-possessiveness or non-materialism (Aparigraha).

Jain monks live to the letter of these principles. From being extra vigilant in not harming even an ant or an insect to living by using a minimum amount of resources. Even a drop of water should not be wasted. There is another concept Jains live by. It is called ‘Abhay Daan’. It means giving someone protection from fear of death. So not only are you required to avoid
any violence (himsa), you have to be proactive in your non-violence (ahimsa). This means you should actively campaign against all forms of exploitation, especially of animals as they cannot fight for themselves. Many Hindus and Jains stop animals being taken for illegal slaughter.
Jains also believe in the idea of ‘Parasparopagraho Jivanam’, meaning that we are interdependent on other living beings as well as all that nature provided in the form of rivers, oceans, forests and mountains.

In 1958, Chairman Mao launched a war on sparrows because they were eating too much grain. The whole country was mobilised to kill millions of them. Around 195,00 were killed in one day in Shanghai alone. Sparrows were important to the food chain. The bugs they fed on thrived, the locust population spiralled out of control, as did grasshoppers. The insects
devoured the crops and famine followed. A salient lesson to human beings that when you disturb nature it reacts with ferocity. In the West the emphasis is on taming nature and taking everything out of it. This is the reason why the world is on the brink of disaster. In our own lifetime we are seeing droughts, cyclones, hurricanes and many other disasters. Driven
by short-term profits, the human race just does not see what is staring in its face. Future generations will suffer greatly for our folly.

Plant based healthy diet.
The health benefits of a vegetarian/vegan diet are indisputable. Various forms of cancer, diabetes and heart diseases are linked with meat eating. The biggest challenge facing the medical world now is that antibiotics are not working. This is because 45% of all antibiotics are fed to animals raised for meat and they are losing their potency. Without effective antibiotics, diseases like TB and pneumonia will rise once again. Surgery, childbirth and organ transplant will all become dangerous without antibiotics.

Economic Sustainability and the Planet
Capitalism has become the world order. The fight to restrain the forces of consumerism it has galvanised is futile. In 1909 Mahatma Gandhi talked about the danger of unplanned and reckless industrialisation. However, his voice and that of others like Ralph Waldo Emerson, John Ruskin, Henry David Thoreau and Leo Tolstoy were drowned out by the march of
industrialisation. We will have to narrow down to the biggest cause of the plight of the planet and what impacts mother Earth most negatively and try to tackle it.

Meat and Fish Consumption
The one single factor that poses the greatest threat to the planet is meat and fish consumption. Over 70 billion animals are raised and killed for meat consumption every year. Our planet is simply not big enough to sustain these numbers. The destruction of rainforests for cattle ranching, the insatiable demand to produce cereals to feed the animals, the waste
of water resources, the billions of tons of animals waste choking the waterways and the methane gas released by billions of farm animals is the cause of the plight of the planet. The earthworms, pollinating bees, insects and birds are all disappearing. We might have only a few harvests left. Huge trawlers used in fishing are killing off all marine life, mangrove forests and coral reefs. The future generations face a catastrophe with an uninhabitable planet.

Mankind’s brutal treatment of animals is leaving a cloud of unmovable despondency, which is leaving human beings bereft of any joy, happiness or peace. To mend the planet European nations and the United States need to urgently abandon meat, fish and dairy. A vegan diet is the only solution to save the world. Veganism is the ideal but vegetarianism can be a very important first step for those who cannot make a direct transition from being a carnivore to a vegan. The out-dated plea by the United Nations and some animal welfare organisations to reduce meat consumption will not work anymore. Justice will also be served to the downtrodden and poor nations of South America and Africa as instead of food cereals being fed to animals raised for meat , it will become accessible to them at affordable prices.

Animals have to be accorded fundamental rights. They should not be exported to other countries, they should not be hunted, they should not be imprisoned in cages, they should not be subject to horrific experiments. All forms of animal exploitation should become illegal.

We need a new dawn whereby mankind makes peace with the animal kingdom. We will not be doing any favours to animals, we will be doing ourselves a favour. Once the killing of billions of animals stops mankind will be at peace with itself. It is now or never.

Nitin Mehta MBE animalahimsa@gmail.com; http://www.nitinmehta.co.uk/
Founder Young Indian Vegetarians and Jain Animal Sanctuary; Member One Jain, UK. Aug 2020

I am editing a new book with the above title. Thus far I have circa 30 professors and experts in their field, writing on different aspects of our current crisis with a view of offering a way of achieving a sustainable future. Thus far we have contributions from Japan, Ukraine, South Africa, Lebanon, Greece, Austria, France, UK, USA, Canada, Brazil and Chile. It is therefore an important work with a wide distribution planned. Contributions so far are from Faiths, the legal profession, scientists, social scientists, philosophers and educators.

If you believe you have the necessary experience and wish to contribute, see the Chapter Submission Form below, at the end of the Call for Chapters and send it to the Publisher. Please note it is only an abstract that is needed by the 18th September, unless you already have a chapter to submit. Dr Christina

CALL FOR CHAPTERS.

This collection on the Climate Crisis and Creation Care highlights core discussions and studies in the fields of climate change, economic and social sustainability, food security, ecological justice and creation care and where appropriate, the link between these fields and relevant theological discussion.

Chapters considered for the collection should encourage debate and discussion regarding the most pressing economic, health, legal, social and theological implications of the climate crisis. This collection seeks to collate a wealth of global discussion.

Working Title:

Climate Crisis & Creation Care: Eco-Economic Sustainability, Ecological Integrity and Justice

Major Themes:

Part One:    Historical Perspectives on the Climate Crisis

Part Two:    Corruption and Governance

Part Three: Creation Care: A Moral, Religious and Social Science Imperative

Part Four:   The Age of Anxiety: Are We Prepared?

Part Five:    ‘Your Will Be Done’: Sustainable Living in an Unstable World

Core concepts to be discussed are:

• Historical reasons for the Climate Crisis
  • Theology and the treatment of animals and the natural environment.
  • Climate Change and Creation Care in Religious or Secular Education.
  • Care for the land – the importance of soil.
  • Sea life -The forgotten world.     
  • Physical and Mental Health Concerns relating to Climate Change.
• Mass Migration and increasing Social Instability.
• Justice for the natural world.
  • Animal Agriculture and its effects on climate change.
  • Food Security in an Unstable Environment
  • Examination of the animal testing model’s effects upon human health/ flourishing; animal suffering.
  • Planetary Boundaries Science
  • Eco-economics.
  • Corruption and Governance.   
  • Current policy criticisms and suggestions for change
  • Population control.
  • Green Energy options for local/rural communities.
  • How the current COVID-19 climate has influenced or been detrimental to the pro-sustainability movement.

This project is open to other interpretations and should you wish to propose an alternative theme please get in touch with the Editor cnellist@hotmail.com for consideration  

General Guidelines

• Proposals should be submitted to the Publisher at admin@cambridgescholars.com. 

• Chapters will normally be 6000 words, with editorial discretion for longer/shorter proposals.
• Chapters will be checked for suitability, language and grammar by our Desk Editors before being sent to a Guest Editor, and may be returned to the author for amendment and resubmission
• Cambridge Scholars retains the right of rejection for any works inappropriate for publication.
• Submissions should be made in the Publisher’s requested house style.

• Chapter authors will be asked to sign a short publishing contract on provisional acceptance. Chapters should be free of rights restrictions. Authors should have the authority to submit the chapter for publication.
• Royalties will not be paid to chapter authors

Provisional time-line:

Proposal (abstracts) submissions are expected by September 18th 2020.

Initial publisher reviews are expected to be completed by 27th November 2020. 

Should your proposal be provisionally accepted, submissions are expected within three months of notification of provisional acceptance, (end of Feb 2021)

We are however, happy to discuss suitable submission deadlines depending on individual circumstances.

Publisher Cambridge Scholars Publishing

………………

Cambridge Scholars Publishing:
Chapter submission form

Collection Title: Climate Crisis and Creation Care: Eco-Economic Sustainability, Ecological Integrity and Justice’

Editor Name: Dr. Christine Nellist

Chapter Title:

Chapter Description (of no more than 350 words):

Keywords (up to 6)

Is the chapter complete and ready to submit? YES / NO

If YES, please attach it in Word or similar, along with this completed form, to admin@cambridgescholars.com .

If NO, please note that there is a three month deadline from provisional acceptance.

Author Information: (if more than one author, please list the corresponding author)

Title (Dr, Professor, Mr, Ms, etc.)

First Name

Last Name

Job Title

Institution/Organisation

Author email

Word Count:

Has any part of this work been published previously?
(for example, in a different language; as a journal article;
as a book chapter; in a previous edition).

Are there any permissions required from other copyright holders? Please note that any required permissions should be submitted alongside the chapter.

Have you proofread the work in line with the standards laid out in the Proofreading and Referencing Guide on our website?

Guidelines

• Chapters will normally be no longer than 6000 words
• Chapters will be checked for suitability, language and grammar by our Desk Editors before being sent to a Guest Editor, and may be returned to the author for amendment and resubmission
• Chapter authors will be asked to sign a short publishing contract on provisional acceptance. Chapters should be free of rights restrictions. Authors should have the authority to submit the chapter for publication.
• Royalties will not be paid to chapter authors

Please return this completed form, along with your chapter, to admin@cambridgescholars.com.

……………………………………………………….

Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Boston Prot. No.529

+ B A R T H O L O M E W BY GOD’S MERCY ARCHBISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE-NEW ROME AND ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH TO ALL THE PLENITUDE OF THE CHURCH GRACE, PEACE AND MERCY FROM THE MAKER OF ALL CREATION OUR LORD, GOD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST

Dearest brother Hierarchs and beloved children in the Lord,
            It is a shared conviction that, in our time, the natural environment is threatened like never before in the history of humankind. The magnitude of this threat becomes manifest in the fact that what is at stake is not anymore the quality, but the preservation of life on our planet. For the first time in history, man is capable of destroying the conditions of life on earth. Nuclear weapons are the symbol of man’s Promethean titanism, the tangible expression of the “complex of omnipotence” of the contemporary “man-god.”           

In using the power that stems from science and technology, what is revealed today is the ambivalence of man’s freedom. Science serves life; it contributes to progress, to confronting illnesses and many conditions that were hitherto considered “fateful”; it creates new positive perspectives for the future. However, at the same time, it provides man with all-powerful means, whose misuse can be turned destructive. We are experiencing the unfolding destruction of the natural environment, of biodiversity, of flora and fauna, of the pollution of aquatic resources and the atmosphere, the progressing collapse of climate balance, as well as other excesses of boundaries and measures in many dimensions of life. The Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church (Crete, 2016) rightly and splendidly decreed that “scientific knowledge does not mobilize the moral will of man, who knows the dangers but continues to act as if he did not know.” (Encyclical, § 11)           

It is apparent that the protection of the common good, of the integrity of the natural environment, is the common responsibility of all inhabitants of the earth. The contemporary categorical imperative for humankind is that we live without destroying the environment. However, while on a personal level and on the level of many communities, groups, movements and organizations, there is a demonstration of great sensitivity and ecological responsibility, nations and economic agents are unable – in the name of geopolitical ambitions and the “autonomy of the economy” – to adopt the correct decisions for the protection of creation and instead cultivate the illusion that the pretended “global ecological destruction” is an ideological fabrication of ecological movements and that the natural environment has the power of renewing itself. Yet the crucial question remains: How much longer will nature endure the fruitless discussions and consultations, as well as any further delay in assuming decisive actions for its protection?           

The fact that, during the period of the pandemic of the novel coronavirus Covid-19, with the mandatory restrictions of movement, the shutdown of factories, and the diminishment in industrial activity and production, we observed a reduction of pollution and encumbrance of the atmosphere, has proved the anthropogenic nature of the contemporary ecological crisis. It became once again clear that industry, the contemporary means of transportation, the automobile and the airplane, the non-negotiable priority of economic indicators and the like, negatively impact the environmental balance and that a change of direction toward an ecological economy constitutes an unwavering necessity.

There is no genuine progress that is founded on the destruction of the natural environment. It is inconceivable that we adopt economic decisions without also taking into account their ecological consequences. Economic development cannot remain a nightmare for ecology. We are certain that there is an alternative way of economic structure and development besides the economism and the orientation of economic activity toward the maximization of profiteering. The future of humanity is not the homo œconomicus.           

The Ecumenical Patriarchate, which in recent decades has pioneered in the field of the protection of the creation, will continue its ecological initiatives, the organization of ecological conferences, the mobilization of its faithful and especially the youth, the promotion of the environment’s protection as a fundamental subject for interreligious dialogue and the common initiatives of religions, the contacts with political leaders and institutions, the cooperation with environmental organizations and ecological movements. It is evident that the collaboration for the protection of the environment creates additional avenues of communication and possibilities for new common actions.           

We repeat that the environmental activities of the Ecumenical Patriarchate are an extension of its ecclesiological self-consciousness and do not comprise a simple circumstantial reaction to a new phenomenon. The very life of the Church is an applied ecology. The sacraments of the Church, its entire life of worship, its asceticism and communal life, the daily life of its faithful, express and generate the deepest respect for creation.

The ecological sensitivity of Orthodoxy was not created by but emerged from the contemporary environmental crisis. The struggle for the protection of creation is a central dimension of our faith. Respect for the environment is an act of doxology of God’s name, while the destruction of creation is an offense against the Creator, entirely irreconcilable with the basic tenets of Christian theology.

Most honorable brothers and dearly beloved children,
            The ecofriendly values of the Orthodox tradition, the precious legacy of the Fathers, constitute an embankment against the culture, whose axiological foundation is the domination of man over nature. Faith in Christ inspires and strengthens the human endeavor even before the immense challenges. From the perspective of faith, we are able to discover and assess not only the problematic dimensions, but also the positive possibilities and prospects of contemporary civilization.

We call upon Orthodox young men and women to realize the significance of living as faithful Christians and contemporary people. Faith in the eternal destiny of man strengthens our witness in the world.           

In this spirit, from the Phanar, we wish all of you a propitious and all-blessed new ecclesiastical year, fruitful in Christ-like deeds, for the benefit of all creation and to the glory of the all-wise Creator of all. And we invoke upon you, through the intercessions of the All-Holy Theotokos, the Pammakaristos, the grace and mercy of the God of wonders.
      

September 1, 2020                                                                                               

 +Bartholomew of Constantinople Fervent supplicant of all before God

We have been contacted today by the CEO of the Save the Asian Elephant animal protection group www.stae.org. They have asked us to comment on the below question, which is part of their latest action – the presentation to the UK government of a draft Parliamentary Bill.

Q: Highly endangered baby and calf Asian elephants are routinely snatched from the wild, isolated, starved and tortured for weeks by stabbing and ripping, beatings with planks and iron rods to “break their spirits” for easy use in tourist “entertainment” – rides, tricks, selfies – reinforced by constant, often fatal beatings throughout their life. Hundreds of tour companies in UK profit from driving up demand for such venues.  A petition (http://bit.ly/STAEpetition) demanding new UK law to ban such adverts and sales, and to allow ads for genuine sanctuaries only, has 1 million signatures of support. Should the UK Govt now act to introduce such law?  

I learnt of this ‘training’ process some thirty years ago and yet this evil, like so many other forms of evil perpetrated upon His creation, continues unabated.

Here is our response:

” The Pan Orthodox Concern for Animals Charity and the Eastern Orthodox Church denounces all forms of cruelty to the animal creation. Our Patriarchs are clear – cruelty to the animal creation is a sin with consequences for human salvation. We urge the UK government to continue its historical mandate to lead the way in Animal Protection Law by adopting the STAE’s proposed Parliamentary Bill, in order to reduce and prevent extreme cruelty to Asian Elephants. ”

For those of you who do not know of the brutal treatment involved in ‘taming’ elephants for human entertainment, or indeed as part of the process of using them as working animals, here are three photos that depict the process:

Please sign the petition and share: http://bit.ly/STAEpetition

Dr Christina Nellist. B.Ed; Ph.D, FOCAE. Editor of Pan Orthodox Concern For Animals.

Due to its strong liturgical, or rather meta-historical vision, the Orthodox Church often expresses an ambiguity towards its engagement with historical and social affairs, focusing instead on the transfiguration of the present aeon through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. That being said, one should not fail to point also to those few voices, either of clergy or lay people, who dare, following the example of the great Church Fathers of the past, to dialogue with the challenges posed by (post)modernity—not by rejecting the patristic character and liturgical/Eucharistic nature of the Church, but by robustly elaborating a theology of life and practice relevant for the needs of the world today.

In this light Christina Nellist’s study of Eastern Orthodoxy and animal suffering cannot but be received as a welcome surprise. It is the first scholarly book on this topic from an Orthodox point of view, although clearly influenced by the increasing concern in the broader world regarding ecological issues. Indeed, while this topic has been long debated in secular and other Christian contexts, the Orthodox now face the difficulty of responding to this challenge. In the introduction, the author presents her overarching hypothesis that Eastern Orthodoxy has the means, resources, and sufficient teachings to articulate a clear vision on the topic, something that she develops in detail in the subsequent chapters.

From the very beginning, the author’s basic concern is to highlight the soteriological consequences for those who abuse animals in any way. Nellist strongly criticizes aspects of the Orthodox tradition that do not take seriously into account the suffering of animals, pointing to a “gap,” “lack of clarity,” or “ambiguity” between theory (debate about the care of the environment) and practice (addressing animal suffering). For example, in chapter 1 and particularly chapter 5, she illustrates this “gap” with a field research study in Cyprus, in order to substantiate her argument for the indifference of the majority of the Orthodox toward animal suffering. The results of this research are quite striking—for one thing, that among the Orthodox the matter of whether animals have souls is still an open question! In contrast to this modern mentality, the tradition of the Church provides considerable material for establishing a comprehensive theology of compassion for animals. According to this tradition, put forth in details in chapters 2–4, there is a clear vision of a God who created the world and everything in it through love. By no means could such a loving God create any creature in order for it to suffer. Thus, “something is seriously wrong in the way the animals are used” (315). Here Nellist challenges the still current and sometimes one-sided radical anthropocentric view of creation which has led to all these catastrophic results.

In chapter 3, the author provides a Christological account of animal suffering based on patristic resources to argue that everything in creation, including animals, will be recapitulated in Christ in the eschaton. This understanding points to the sacred character of creation in its entirety, in other words to the latent but clear “ontological connection” between all creatures, often forgotten in our (ab-)use of animals (not to mention human beings as well).

It is uncontested that the goal of Christian life is deification, theosis, in other words our adoption by God the Father in Christ through the Spirit. It is clear then that theosis is a gift from God. At the same time, however, theosis is a result of the human podvig (ascetic struggle) in history, a synergy with the grace of God towards the transfiguration, as we “sacrifice our fallen nature, with its self-indulgent sinful passions” (87) and of commending creation into the hands of the Creator. One cannot profess this and at the same time ignore the “rights” of all God’s creatures to be saved, even though this should be done through the priestly role of the human being and not directly as the author’s argument seems to imply. It is true that in the Christian tradition “humans are favoured over the non-human creation” (321) often due to humans’ rationality or other faculties and skills. Undoubtedly, such a view has contributed to the present-day irreversible ecological catastrophe of our planet. This does not mean, though, that humanity should be deprived of its central, although compassionate role.

In chapter 4, Nellist builds on the importance of “Christ-like love” on the part of humans “for all of His created beings” (322), stressing in this way the “ontological link” between humans and the rest of the created world. Along these lines, she points to “exemplars” (e.g. saints) of “compassionate and violence-free lives” (322), especially with regards to the abuse of animals. Not only does the tradition provide us with certain exemplars of this compassionate and loving attitude towards all the creatures of God, but also—although still the minority—certain voices of contemporary Hierarchs (chs. 6–7) who speak about “a cosmic dimension” of sin or a “mortal sin” (Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, 222, 128) and “ecological sin” (Metropolitan John Zizioulas, 220; cf. Rom. 8:19). These figures call for a different ethos that expresses compassion, care, and love toward all creatures.

Quite interesting for a wider audience is chapter 8, where the author makes use of various secular scientific views (including ethology and economics) in order to challenge the traditional philosophical and theological views that distinguish between the superior human being and the inferior animals on account of certain abilities (language, cognition, etc.) attributed exclusively to human beings. Here we must raise a concern. Following certain developments of modern science, the author asserts that any difference between the creatures of God is a matter of degree. While this is true, and one has to admit certain misunderstandings of the role of humanity throughout history, one should avoid the danger of reductionism, which deprives humanity of its unique responsibility and role. On the one hand, the image of God with which humanity is endowed should also include all creatures due to the ontological connection between them (as well as to their common animalhood, which raises the question of to what extent the image of God partakes of animality). On the other hand, Christ himself became man, not an angel or any other creature, in order to save the world. One clearly needs to put away the “separationist ethos” implied in a false theological anthropocentrism, while retaining theologically the uniqueness of the specifically human vocation. In other words, what is at stake here is the very role and position of the human being within creation. Without being a master and possessor of creation, or being totally disconnected from the latter (false anthropocentrism), the human being should remain the primary agent of God in the image of Christ for the salvation of the world, and ecotheology should take this uniqueness into account.

The last chapter (9) is characterized by the author herself as the most challenging since it calls into question our daily practice, calling for a formulation of a new, deeply practical and not primarily theoretical ethos. By questioning the current animal food production system and the animal testing model, the author highlights the view that perceives animals as “resources, units of production or ‘disposable life’, rather than created beings with individual needs” (337). This runs strikingly counter to our worldview and lifestyle, but it is more or less based on the time-honored Christian tradition, which for centuries has provided concrete holy examples of a different way of life that respects and cares about all creatures in view of the coming Kingdom of God.

Such a book could not end without concrete suggestions put forward by the author. This is not a merely theoretical study, but a practical guide that seeks to present a concrete way of life, based on the foundations of our faith, and to challenge our customs and prejudices. To the question of “what we as individuals and as leaders of our Church can do” about animal suffering (345), Nellist points to prayer, engagement, stepping out into the secular world, teaching, and suggesting concrete alternatives to scientists and the food production system that will reverse the current situation of everyday animal abuse, giving hope that all creatures count in God’s eyes and are worthy of salvation.

Nellist has written a powerful and passionate book. It is suitable not only for theologians, philosophers, and scientists, but is also recommended for those who cannot tolerate animal suffering, who take their Christian identity seriously and desire to work alongside of God for the care, the “rights,” and the salvation of “all the things” within creation, including of course animals. It is not a matter of rationality or statistics, but of an ethos, a new culture, a new way of life implied in the very core of the Christian Gospel: the compassionate, loving relationship between God, human beings, and all creatures as it is foretasted in the Eucharist and will be fully realized in the eschaton.

Dr. Nikolaos Asproulis
Deputy Director, Volos Academy for Theological Studies
Lecturer, Hellenic Open University
asprou@acadimia.org
asproulisnik@yahoo.gr

This excellent video is by Scientist and Veterinarian Dr Andre Menache who explains why animal experimentation is bad, outdated science and how other methods provide better, more effective alternatives. This short video equips those campaigning against animal experimentation with the latest scientific arguments. I have written on this subject from a theological perspective and I concur with his findings, as do many other scientists. He will be writing a chapter on this topic for my new book on Climate Crisis and Creation Care: Eco-Economic Sustainability, Environmental Integrity and Justice.

Three questions face the theologian as they confront atonement: ‘ how does Christ’s death effect human salvation?,’ ‘ what does humanity need salvation from?,’ and ‘ why would a good God bother saving a recalcitrant and corrupted species?’ Human self-regard normally narrows focus onto the first question; theories of atonement (especially as presented from the pulpit) often brush over more fundamental issues regarding the human condition, assuming that ‘sin,’ ‘guilt’ and ‘divine love’ are satisfying answers to the latter problems. Much can be gained, however, by carefully considering human corruption and divine love, not only because our view of human depravity and status before God determine our view of atonement, but because our self-conception gives substantial clues about the future salvation of non-human creation.

That creation will be renewed and delivered from corruption is uncontroversial; (1) what it means for creation to be renewed and delivered is, strangely, a heated topic. (2)

Here, I briefly explicate the views of St. Athanasius (approx. 296-373AD) regarding human corruption ( what God saves from) and divine mercy (why God saves) as developed in On the Incarnation of the Word (OIW from here ), with an eye towards adapting his central argument to the salvation of non-human creatures.

Ultimately, I suggest that the reasons given by Athanasius for divine mercy towards mankind apply equally well to the entire creation, providing us with good reason to think that God will bodily resurrect at least some non-human animals despite the metaphysical difficulties surrounding animal immortality.

Athanasius on the Human Condition
God, Athanasius presumes, is perfect, and lacks nothing in power, knowledge or goodness; out of goodness and love, God creates a species of animals (humans), gifting to them rationality (the image of God, a reflection of His Word), and intending for this species to (3) live eternally in
“true life” ( OIW, 3.3) and in “correspondence with God” (which I take to be a state of moral perfection, where the faculties are calibrated and activities in line with the will of God) ( OIW,5.1). However, mankind, being from the beginning naturally mortal, is at risk of non-existence without God’s direct intervention (i.e. God causes the immortal component of humans to survive
death, and without this direct intervention, death is truly the end of our being).(4 )Through its own freedom, humanity has taken on a moral rot which destroys (disintegrates) the individual.(5)
Additionally, God, to prevent human character from festering, has affirmed and promised that the natural consequences of sin will be upheld–immorality (beyond “mere misdemeanors,” ( OIW, 7.4)) will result in death unto non-being. Mankind then faces two problems: disintegrating moral rot and God’s legally-binding promise that those who have festered will disintegrate into nothing.(6)

The stage is set: all of mankind, upon death, will perish without both overcoming God’s decree and taking on significant moral repair (a change in character which ontically prevents self-inflicted disintegration). These are the conditions from which humanity must be rescued, and for which the Word becomes incarnate as Christ

Athanasius on Divine Mercy
Why, though, would God save us from ourselves, and why would He help His rotten children escape a law binding them for their own good? Athanasius’ explanation is simple: it is a moral stain on a creator to neglect their creation, and to allow their creation to perish, especially if perishing would be worse than having never been made ( OIW, 6.7-6.10).
There are, of course, many kinds of imperfections which a neglectful creator might possess, and so a variety of reasons why God cannot (given His absolute perfection and total power) fail to offer salvation to humanity. Athanasius recognizes at least the following:

(1) perishing by neglect would be less than perfectly loving ( OIW, 8.2); (2) perishing by neglect would blasphemy or insult the nature of God Himself (since humanity is an image and representation of God, as a painting is to its subject) ( OIW, 6.4, 14.1); (3) humanity perishing by neglect would imply a weakness in God or constitute a failure of God to succeed in making functional creatures after He intended to do so ( OIW, 6.8-6.9, 8.2); (4) perishing would make the world worse overall than if humans had never been made, implying that God, by making and then neglecting humanity, has made the world worse through creation ( OIW, 6.7-6.9). At least these four reasons, taken together, explain why God saves mankind. Granted the assumption that the intended function of humanity involves a bodily existence, Athanasius can then easily infer the bodily resurrection from the human condition and perfection of God (albeit by filling in the gaps with some tacit premises).

Athanasius’ explanation of divine mercy can be turned into a straightforward argument, as I have done below, emphasizing especially the proper functioning of human creatures:
P1. God is perfect (or perfectly loving) and the creator of humanity.
P2. It is an imperfection in (or unloving of) a creator to refrain from doing what is necessary to ensure the proper functioning of their creations, unless doing so would be outside their power or involve taking on a worse imperfection.
P3. All humans are meant to be (have the proper function of being) beautiful instances of their species, free from unnecessary suffering, regularly exercising their noetic powers in co-creation with God, and in a state of constant adoration of both God and His works.
P4. In order for any human to be a beautiful instance of its species, free from unnecessary suffering, regularly exercising their noetic powers in co-creation with God, and in a state of constant adoration of both God and His works, it is necessary that they be given both a bodily resurrection and at least an opportunity to repair the dysfunction (7) which prevents
satisfactory co-creation with and adoration of God and His works.
P4a. It would be an imperfection (or unloving of) the creator of humanity to refrain from giving all humans a bodily resurrection and at least an opportunity to repair the dysfunction which prevents satisfactory co-creation with and adoration of God and His works, unless doing so would be outside the creator’s power or involve taking on a worse imperfection. (P2, P3, P4)
P5. It is neither an imperfection in God, nor beyond His power, to give all humans both a bodily resurrection and at least an opportunity to repair the dysfunction which prevents satisfactory co-creation with and adoration of God and His works.
______________________________________________________________________________∴ God will give all humans a bodily resurrection and at least an opportunity to repair the dysfunction which prevents satisfactory co-creation with and adoration of God and His works. (P1, P4a, P5)

Note that (P2) involves a qualification of any creator’s duty to their creation. Athanasius, in line with the mainstream Christian tradition, still affirms that some will be damned, though not that they will perish ( OIW, 56.3). To avoid making damnation an imperfection in God, I have tried to be charitable towards Athanasius’ argument, treating neglect as an imperfection only when that neglect is not the lesser of two evils or beyond a creator’s power. This leaves room for the possibility that overriding human autonomy in order to save would involve a worse imperfection
than allowing some to perish or live eternally in a state of dysfunction.

Adapting Athanasius’ Argument
This argument can be easily adapted to the conclusion that God will resurrect some non-human animals. For all that must be assumed is the existence of some non-human creatures which God could (without taking on worse imperfections) resurrect and repair, and that these creatures
have not fulfilled their function prior to death. If this assumption is granted, then we have good reason to believe that some non-human animals will be resurrected, so as to have full opportunity to fulfill their proper functions, regardless of the metaphysical difficulties involved. A
general form of the argument might run as follows.
P1. God is perfect (or perfectly loving) and the creator of all non-human animals. P2. It is an imperfection in (or unloving of) a creator to refrain from doing what is necessary to ensure the proper functioning of their creations, unless doing so would be outside their power or involve taking on a worse imperfection.
P3. There are some non-human animals x with proper function f which have died without fulfilling f . P4. In order for these non-human animals x to fulfill f after having died without fulfilling f , they must be bodily resurrected and repaired in such a way as to give x opportunity to fulfill f.
P5. It is neither an imperfection in God, nor beyond His power, to bodily resurrect and repair these non-human animals x in such a way as to give x opportunity to fulfill f. ______________________________________________________________________________ ∴ God will bodily resurrect and repair these non-human animals x in such a way as to give x opportunity to fulfill f. (P1, P4a, P5)

(P3) is not a mere assumption. Consider domestic animals, such as dogs: dogs have been brought into being by purposive and intentional acts of humans over the course of tens of thousands of years. Modern dogs, because they have been quite literally designed (8) by humans, plausibly have proper functions, perhaps varying by breed. At least some are meant for human companionship and partnership in work and life. Since an artificer likely has the power to infuse a proper function into an artifact (as God has such an ability in creating humanity and humanity in creating tools), it seems plausible that dogs have such a function simply given the fact that humans formed them with such a function in mind. Dogs are not wild animals, but are, for better or worse, unable to be fully themselves without membership in human life. (This is evident in the ease with which abused dogs form human bonds while struggling, for the rest of theirs lives, to interact properly with members of their own species.) How horrible, then, is the great suffering we have inflicted on domestic dogs. Countless numbers die from starvation, abuse, neglect, and abandonment, and in their deaths they are deprived of human love, affection, and partnership.
Despite being our own creations, and inseperable from human influence, we torture and destroy them, stripping them of their ability to be what they are, and thereby showing our own depravity.

And what of the countless other domesticated and captured creatures? What of entire species driven to extinction by anthropogenic destruction of habitat and environment? Surely many of these animals have (as does every being just in virtue of being) the (9) proper function of being beautiful, wonderful beings in their own right, deserving of lives in which they can exist as fully themselves (though, of course, the life and happiness of some animals can simultaneously be beautifully and functionally subordinated to the life and happiness of others, as the breath of a field mouse is snuffed out by a corn snake without violation of function or beauty).(10) Surely humanity is not the sole, intrinsically valuable artwork of God (OIW, 14), but also the totality of the created order, as its gorgeous components form a functional, self-propelling whole through vast and incomprehensible relations of dependence.

Athanasius’ argument as it is applied to animals can be made even stronger by the suggestion that animals who have perished in this age without fulfilling their function have done so through no fault of their own. There is, in other words, no divine decree of death which non-human animals must be delivered from, thereby strengthening (P5*). How, then, can we assume that the burden of proof lies with those who would affirm the
bodily resurrection of non-human creatures? How can we, on the grounds of speculation, presume ourselves to know the proper functions of each component-animal we have destroyed, much less the entire creaturely economy? At the very least, a hopeful skepticism is warranted.

NOTES

1 Isaiah 2:4, 65:17-25; Romans 8:19-23; 2 Peter 3:13; Revelation 21:1
2 I have, many times, witnessed indignant anger towards those suggesting a resurrection of non-human animals. “They have no immortal soul!,” some, like Fr. Trenham, declare, as though the nature of mind and animal consciousness is a settled matter. Many fear, it seems to me, that resurrection of non-human animals would somehow cheapen the uniqueness of humanity, and react defensively to such a
suggestion (Fr. Josiah Trenham, “Pets.”). 3 “He gave them a further gift, and He did not barely create man, as He did all the irrational creatures on the earth, but made them after His own image, giving them a portion even of the power of His own Word; so that having as it were a kind of reflexion of the Word, and being made rational, they might be able to abide ever in blessedness, living the truth life which belongs to the saints in paradise” (Athanasius. On the Incarnation, 3.3).
4 NT Wright, in The Resurrection of the Son of God , surveys a wide spectrum of Jewish and Christian views on the afterlife. Particularly interesting for our purposes is that Athanasius, by affirming humanity’s
natural mortality, seems to be tapping into a line of thought developed very early on, perhaps in the text of Genesis itself, which claimed that the human being would cease to be without direct, divine intervention, not due to their possessing some immortal component capable of surviving death on its own (Wright, N.T. The Resurrection of the Son of God, pgs. 92, 104, 107-108).
5 “..in other words, that they should be disintegrated and abide in death and corruption” (Athanasius. On the Incarnation , 4.5-4.6, also 5.1).
6 Both Athanasius and Augustine interpret Eden in this way, reading the commandment which forbids eating from the tree as a symbol of man’s choices and the law given to man to make these consequences clear. “But knowing once more how the will of man could sway to either side, in anticipation He secured the grace given them by a law…if they kept the grace and remained good, they might still keep the life in paradise without sorrow or pain or care besides having the promise of incorruption in heaven; but if they transgressed and turned back, and became evil, they might know that they were incurring that corruption in death which was theirs by nature …” (Athanasius. On the Incarnation, 3.4). “The reason for the prohibition was to show that the rational soul is not in its own power but ought to be subject to God, and must guard the order of its salvation by obedience, or by disobedience be corrupted. Hence God called the tree which he had forbidden to be touched the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, because anyone who had touched it contrary to the prohibition would discover the penalty of sin, and so would be able to distinguish between the good of obedience and the evil of disobedience” (Augustine. The Nature of the Good , XXXV). That is, man is free to live in accordance with beauty and goodness, with a plethora of possible expressions of this beauty, and, upon death, to be kept from perishing (“of every tree that is in
the garden, eating thou shalt eat”), or to live in the ways which lead to self-disintegration and non-existence (“but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, ye shall not eat of it, but on the day that ye eat, dying ye shall die”) (Athanasius. On the Incarnation, 3.5). God gives the law, as symbolized by
commandment and the trees, to show humanity the natural consequences of their sin. 7 By ‘beautiful animal of its species,’ I mean that a human being has the function of being truly human, a sort of animal with certain essential characteristics. In my view, being a human is to be bodily; that is, a
human being is a composite being, a sort of organism. The immaterial, perhaps immortal component of human beings (whatever this may be, I am not sure) which continues on after death is not fully or truly a human being, put part of a human being. 8 Though there is disagreement on the history of canine domestication, the domestic dog is estimated to have originated between 33,000 and 10,000 years ago. Though I myself take the findings of geneticists on their own authority, my more scientifically literate readers may be interested in the following: (Wang et al. “Out of Southern East Asia: The Natural History of Domestic Dogs across the World.”) 9 This doctrine of the goodness of all beings is, I am tempted to say, foundational to Christian thought, and should, if it is not already explicitly, be considered an essential article of faith. For a technical, philosophical introduction to the doctrine, see: (Macdonald, Scott (ed.). Being and Goodness ). Augustine’s work stands out as one of the most clear, non-technical expressions of the goodness of all created beings. Augustine writes, “Every natural being, so far as it is such, is good. There can be no
being which does not derive its existence from the most high and true God,” and “Even the thorns and thistles which the earth produces according to the will of God in judgement, in order to afflict the sinner by making him labour, are not rightly to be found fault with” (Augustine. On the Nature of the Good, I; XXXVI.). See also: (Augustine. Confessions, Bk. 7). See also my explication of Thomas Aquinas’ views on the correlation between being and goodness: (Marks, Pierce. “Aquinas’ Metaethic: The Link Between Being and Goodness in Aquinas’ Thought.”). To be clear, neither Agustine nor Aquinas would be very sympathetic to animal resurrection, and I mention them as clear expounders of the convertibility of being and goodness. 10 “When things pass away and others succeed them there is a specific beauty in the temporal order, so that those things which die or cease to be what they were, do not defile or disturb the measure, form or order of the created universe. A well-prepared speech is beautiful even though all its syllables and sounds pass in succession as if they are born to die” (Augustine. The Nature of the Good, VIII).

REFERENCES
Athanasius of Alexandria, “On the Incarnation of the Word,” in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (V2-04), ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1891).

Augustine of Hippo, Confessions , ed. Mark Vessey, trans. Albert Outler (New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 2007).

Augustine of Hippo, “The Nature of the Good,” in Augustine: Earlier Writings, trans. John Burleigh (The Westminster Press, 1953), 326–248.

Scott MacDonald, ed., Being and Goodness : The Concept of the Good in Metaphysics and Philosophical Theology (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1991).

Pierce Marks, “Aquinas’ Metaethic: The Link Between Being and Goodness in Aquinas’ Thought,” (2020 Newberry Library Center for Renaissance Studies Multidisciplinary Graduate Conference, n.d.),
https://www.academia.edu/43062743/Aquinas_Metaethic_The_Link_Between_Being_and_Goodness_in_Aquinas_Thought

N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Fortress press, 2017).

RefeGuo-Dong Wang, Weiwei Zhai, He-Chuan Yang, Lu Wang, Li Zhong, Yan-Hu Liu, Ruo-Xi Fan, Ting-Ting Yin, Chun-Ling Zhu, Andrei D Poyarkov, David M Irwin, Marjo K Hytönen, Hannes Lohi, Chung-I Wu, Peter Savolainen, and Ya-Ping Zhang. “Out of Southern East Asia: The Natural History of Domestic Dogs across the World.” Cell Research 26, no. 1
(2015): 21-33.

Fr. Josiah Trenham, “Pets,” YouTube Video, Patristic Nectar Films, November 1, 2019,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNABQW6He80.

THIS ARTICLE IS BY: Pierce Alexander Marks
attemptingfaith.wordpress.com
June 23rd, 2020. USED WITH PERMISSION.

An edited version of this short article appears in the latest edition of the Green Christian magazine:

I was recently asked by Green Christian Magazine to write a short article which incorporated the various topics outlined in the title. Obviously this short article cannot do justice to the multiple animal suffering issues caused by the use of animals for human/non-human food; I will therefore, give some links/references for further study.

COVID 19.

I will begin by stating that the Covid 19 pandemic was entirely predictable and will undoubtedly, be followed by other epidemics and pandemics in the future. How can I be so sure? Numerous articles and scientific papers have informed us that similar zoonotic diseases such as the influenza pandemic of 1918, HIV, Ebola, MERS, SARS, H1N1 Swine flu and H5N1 avian flu, have arisen from similar sources. It is entirely reasonable therefore, to postulate that new epi/pandemics will emerge over time, perhaps within the next decade, with similar outcomes.  

The overall loss of life for animals involved in these outbreaks is not recorded but an educated assessment would put the numbers in the billions. It would be naive to think that these animals have a pain-free death, for the usual mode of slaughter for such numbers is burying, drowning or burning them alive. Yet the fault lies not with the animals themselves but in the way humans keep them and use them.

WET MARKETS

In many traditional markets across Asia, both wild and domestic animals are kept together in appalling conditions and unnaturally occurring confined spaces. I have encountered wet-markets in many of the countries I have lived and worked in, although the vast majority, are found in countries like China, Vietnam and Cambodia. These countries have little, if any, animal protection laws and if they do exist, laws are unlikely to be enforced. Therefore, undercover investigations are vital in capturing the reality on the ground: https://animalequality.org.uk/act/ban-wet-markets.

The plight of the animals within these markets is often too distressing for people to view, but unless we take courage and view the reality we are unlikely to fully understand what we need to change and of equal importance, to convince others of the need to engage with the issues involved, one such, is the illegal trade in wild animals. What is abundantly clear to all who view this or similar videos is that the unsanitary conditions alone make it inevitable that future zoonotic diseases will arise.

INTENSIVE FARMING PRACTICES and INCONVENIENT TRUTHS

Rather like Mt 7:3-5, we cannot simply point the finger at others, for our own intensive farming systems, by definition, also keep large numbers of animals in relatively small and confined spaces, where diseases easily spread and at times jump the human/non-human animal barrier. In order to keep infections low, it is common practice for farmers to use and overuse antibiotics. See the Compassion in World Farming website for details of how the misuse of antibiotics in the intensive farming industry has significantly contributed to the antibiotic resistant super-bugs now found in our societies.  Such systems also cause immense suffering to animals, e.g. the numerous versions of amputations on a variety of species and without analgesia.

INTENSIVE FARMING AND ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE

The ever-increasing demand for cheap non-human animal food is also a considerable factor in Climate Change. Extensive deforestation has led to habitat loss and reductions in biodiversity. The sheer scale of the industry has also led to significant water, soil and air pollution, to levels that threaten human life on our planet. See my article in the International Journal of Orthodox Theology, 9:3 (2018) 144-172 and a short video on a this article was given at the International Orthodox Theological Association in Romania last year and is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H56_maAVdTk.

We must however, not overlook the fact that many non-intensive farming practices also cause significant suffering to animals and appear to be caused by the desire to increase profits, which in many cases is achieved by curtailing or ignoring animal welfare provision- see: ciwf.org, PETA and CEFAW: https://www1.chester.ac.uk/news/cefaw-policy-framework-consultation-underway.

It is clear that the Pastoral System and Organic farming methods are preferable to intensive practices but these cannot provide enough food for our country unless radical changes are made: to our methods of farming; the help given to farmers transitioning from animal to plant-based farming and increased encouragement to the public to significantly reduce their animal food consumption.

It is clear at this time of lock-down, that radical conditions are being imposed by governments and more importantly, accepted by society for the greater good. This is encouraging, for I would argue that it will never be more opportune than it is now, to formulate a radical rethink and approach to food provision in this country

CHRISTIAN ANIMAL GROUPS

By God’s grace, some churches have formed ‘animal protection’ societies such as the Anglican Society for the Welfare of Animals, Catholic Concern for Animals and Pan Orthodox Concern for Animals.  In order to make their voices stronger, these and other faith groups have established the Animal Interfaith Alliance.  The AIA recently sent a letter to the UN Environment Secretary asking for the banning of ‘wet-markets’ and a basic standard of welfare for animals across the globe. The letter’s contents are far-reaching: A worldwide ban on wet markets; A worldwide ban on the wildlife trade; A worldwide ban on the use of animals in traditional medicine; A worldwide ban on factory farming – all farming should be practised to a minimum of RSPCA Assured/Freedom Food standards; A worldwide ban on the long distance transport of animals and the promotion of plant-based sources of nutrition, which in turn, will promote the health of the world’s population.

It is important to remember that this last request is part of proposals advocated by scientists around the globe, including the UNFAO & IPCC, in order to address Climate Change, which silently and almost unobserved, is pushing us further towards the cliff-edge.

The AIA also recommend that the United Nations works in association with organisations such as the World Organisation for Animal Health (the OIE), the International Coalition for Animal Welfare (ICFAW) and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) to advise on animal welfare standards: https://animal-interfaith-alliance.com/2020/03/28/covid-19-when-will-we-heed-natures-warnings-2/

Most demands, if not all, will not be met but it is important that we try, for some things must change in order to reduce the risk of similar pan/epidemics in the future.

Other material is available from Christian magazines such as The Ark and Animal Watch, whilst other Christian groups focus on the wider yet interconnected issues of Climate Change, e.g. Green Christian. All of these endeavours are encouraging and blaze a path to a more enlightened view of the world and the creatures that live in it. 

A ROLE FOR THE CHURCH

In most, if not all societies, animals are simply things not beings; merely resources to use as humans see fit. In the West, this originates from laws created at the time of Emperor Justinian (Roman Law) where only humans are defined as ‘persons’ and everything else as a ‘thing’ or ‘object’. Unfortunately for animals, Christianity also accepted the ancient Greek philosophical tripartite system of souls – Human, Animal, and Vegetable, resulting in the common teaching that only humans have eternal souls.  If one is categorized as a soul-less ‘it’, it should not surprise us to find numerous examples of animal abuse in the rearing, selling and slaughtering of animals.

Yet, we can look to our sacred texts and find another, though less prominent tradition, which teaches us to care for animals in a variety of compassionate ways. This critical examination began with White’s article in 1967[i], which criticized Christianity’s anthropocentrism and ends (at present) with Nellist’s work in 2018/20, which found that compassion for animals is not new but found in the earliest teachings of the Christian church and offers an alternative and more inclusive view of the world.

The challenge for the Christian church is how to move from the flawed anthropocentric teachings of the past, to a position that incorporates compassionate teachings for the whole of God’s creation.   

Two courses that encourage compassion for animals are available to use with parishioners and/or youth groups are: Clough’s ‘Creature Kind’, (developed and running) https://www.becreaturekind.org/ and Nellist’s ‘Creation Care: Christian Responsibility’. The latter encourages other denominations to adapt the course and is developing videos to accompany the texts, see: http://panorthodoxconcernforanimals.org/creation-care-christian-responsibility-course/ This course has just received accreditation in South Africa from the Association of Christian Religious Practitioners for their Continual Professional Development program.

Ultimately, our role as individual Christians is to examine our consciences and decide if we can continue to consume animal-food sourced from systems that cause immense suffering for animals and a major contributor to climate change: http://panorthodoxconcernforanimals.org/uncategorized/climate-change-food-calculator-whats-your-diets-carbon-footprint/.

IN CONCLUSION

Regardless of whether Covid 19 is the creation Dr Shi Zengli at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, or from the ‘wet markets’ of Asia, what is clear is that world governments and institutions have failed to address the suffering of animals within food production systems.  They have also failed to learn the lessons from previous epidemics.  Had these lessons been learnt, the suffering of animals would have been greatly reduced and the current pandemic, which is destroying so many human and non-human lives and prompting widespread economic meltdown, could have been prevented. 

As Image of God, we are called to care and love as Christ cares and loves us. This requires us at times to speak truth to power. At this most dangerous of times, I believe it is our Christian duty to call upon powerful organisations such as governments and the United Nations to do everything in their power to put measures in place that mitigate the risk of future pandemics from occurring.  These measures must include increasing the welfare of animals in all forms of food production systems.

                                             ………………………………………………………………………………..

Bio

Dr. Christina Nellist is an Eastern Orthodox Theologian specializing in Animal Suffering and Human Soteriology.  Her 2020 book Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Animal Suffering: Ancient Teachings in Modern Theology, is available from Cambridge Scholars Publishing. She is a Fellow at the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics; a former Visiting Fellow in the Department of Theology, Religion and Philosophy at the University of Winchester and Guest Lecturer on Veterinary Ethics at the Iberia America University Veterinary School, Santiago, Chile. She is a board member of the Animal Interfaith Alliance and Editor & co-founder of the Pan-Orthodox Concern for Animals charity. She is a former Advisor and Consultant in the Sciences and Special Education both in the UK and abroad and a former Animal Protection Consultant to the Chief Veterinary Officers of Chile and The Seychelles on stray-dog control and public health education programs.

---

[i] Lynn White, jr., “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis,” Science 155, no. 3767 (10 March 1967), 1206.

This year marks the 50th anniversary of Earth Day, whose mission is to work with civil and faith communities for developing local solutions to global problems, including climate change, plastic pollution, and threats to biodiversity. Earth Day promotes programs ranging from low-impact actions to “a billion acts of green” to address the paramount challenge of our time.

Of course, every day is earth day! Every day is an opportunity to celebrate “the earth as the Lord’s and that all who dwell therein belong to the Lord” (Psalm 24.1). Every day is a reminder of our vulnerability and solidarity. In fact, today, more than ever, we are also reminded of our responsibility to the earth and each other in light of that interdependence between the earth and all its inhabitants. The ecological responsibility and the respect of the sacredness and the beauty of every human person, of the elderly and the disabled, the poor and the marginalized, the sick and the suffering, are today the universal categorical imperative for the whole humanity.

In recent weeks, with the alarming spread of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), we have been painfully reminded of the interconnection among human beings throughout the world. So we are obliged to reflect further on the exigency and urgency of our response to issues that are increasingly gathering momentum and threatening our survival.

While it may be strained to draw sweeping comparisons or simplistic connections between the human impact on the natural environment and a global crisis like COVID-19, can we not wonder whether the mandated human isolation to prevent the spread of the virus has resulted in clearer water and cleaner air and in a reevaluation of our relationship with nature and its ability to heal us? We hasten to add, of course, that no loss of human life can ever justify any ecological renewal of the planet, but there is no doubt that individual action and community response are vital in encountering climate change and the coronavirus pandemic. And we fervently pray for the quick return of normalcy in these surreal times.

Crisis is a moment of clear and definitive judgment. And the COVID-19 crisis is a compelling moment of truth and assessment of our respect and regard for the precious gifts that we have received and been entrusted with by God. Over the past decades, we have underlined and declared that when we are isolated from God, then we, inevitably, if not inadvertently, also exploit the planet’s resources. Indeed, we have repeatedly associated and even identified such behavior against God’s creation with sin. Like us, the earth, too, is suffering from “isolation” and alienation. “The whole of creation is groaning with labor pains to this day . . . eagerly longing for . . . its liberation by the children of God” (Romans 8.19–22). This time of uncertainty and insecurity has taught us to care for one another. Will we also learn, at last, to mitigate our impact on the environment?

As a result of the ecological disruption created by the global crisis of this coronavirus pandemic, Earth Day will be celebrated electronically this year throughout the world. How paradoxical that the earth continues to inspire, instruct, and invite us toward a renewed commitment and restored covenant with creation. How will we respond? Our prayer is that this critical moment will be for all of us and for the entire planet an occasion for renewal and redemption, for liberation and transformation, as well as for inspiration and illumination.

Orthodox Christians are preparing to mark this week the most important holiday of the Christian world – Resurrection Sunday. The festive feeling is eclipsed by the tragedy of the situation and quarantine restrictions imposed due to the global COVID-19 pandemic. This year, we cannot traditionally gather at Holy Week liturgies and personally greet one another in temples at Easter services. We are aware that isolation, together with our deep faith and sincere prayer, will overcome evil.

On the eve of Resurrection Sunday, His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew spoke in an exclusive interview with Ukrinform about the philosophy of existence in times of crisis, the lessons of the current situation, and about how believers should behave amid the pandemic in everyday life and while celebrating Easter.

‘SOCIAL DISTANCING’ IS NOW A WAY OF CARING FOR OUR NEIGHBOR

Question: Your All-Holiness, the greatest Orthodox holiday of Easter is approaching. Would You be so kind to recall times from the history of Christianity when believers could not attend holy ordinances and perform sacraments for objective reasons? How have these obstacles been overcome in the past?

Answer: Easter is indeed the feast of feasts, the night that St. Gregory of Nyssa describes as “brighter than any day.” It is the source of all other feasts and the center of our liturgical calendar, the feast that gives meaning to our faith and life. This is why it is so vital and crucial for Christians all over the world.There have indeed been occasions in the past when Christians have been unable to celebrate Easter. History has experienced pandemics and plagues. And Christianity has experienced persecution and punishment. We need only think of the periods of oppression and martyrdom – both in the early Christian Church, but also in more recent times. The difference today is that we are aware of science and medicine, which in the case of the pandemic of COVID-19 propose a self-isolation for the protection of our lives.In the early Church, monasticism was described as “white martyrdom” in contrast to the “blood martyrdom” of the martyrs. Today, our moral decision as human beings in accepting “social distancing” is a way of confronting the virus and caring for our neighbor.

Question: There is much debate now about whether sacraments can become a source of infection. What is the best way now for communion, confession, baptism, church marriage, etc.?

Answer: It is tempting, but also a form of escapism to dwell on the details of sacramental life. In the Middle Ages, scholars and superstition thrived on discussing topics such as the exact moment when the bread and wine were transformed into Christ’s body and blood, and how precisely a confession or baptism was valid or invalid.As we indicated in one of our addresses to the faithful, what is at stake is not our identity as believers, but only our identity as human beings that “bear flesh and dwell in the world;”

Our faith is a living faith, and there is no exceptional circumstance that can limit or suppress it. What must be limited and suppressed in these extraordinary circumstances are gatherings and large congregations of people. Let us remain in our homes. Let us be careful and protect those around us. And there, from our homes, strengthened by the power of our spiritual unity, let each and every one of us pray for all humankind.

THE WORLD HAS ABRUPTLY CHANGED, JUST LIKE THE RELATIONSHIP OF ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS WITH THE CHURCH

Question: In Ukraine, we have examples when some churches and their leaders do not adhere to general quarantine rules, exposing the lives of believers to danger. Is there the responsibility for such actions in the church world?

Answer: As Orthodox Christians, it is important that we remember not simply our personal or pious obligations, but also our communal and social responsibility. The success of those working so hard to respond to and overcome COVID-19 depends on our participation and cooperation. This is an invaluable contribution to all of society, a sacrifice equally worthy of praise and gratitude as those fighting this battle on the front lines.

Question: How should practicing Christians behave during the quarantine? What tips for maintaining spiritual and moral stability can You give?

Answer: We speak of this time as a crisis – from the Greek word κρίσις – which means that we will be judged by our response to the circumstances that we face. This is an opportunity for us to learn life-changing and world-transforming lessons.

All of us recognize that what we previously considered “normal” in our world or “routine” in our life has been shattered and turned upside down. What we were accustomed to, what we have taken pleasure in, has abruptly changed or stopped. No longer can we take even the simplest things for granted.

For us as Orthodox Christians, this also applies to our relationship with the church and, above all, with God. We can no longer take traditional or conventional ways for granted – like attending a service, lighting a candle, kissing the icons, singing with the choir, lining up for communion.In this crisis, then, we have learned that the church is more than just a building. We have discovered that each of our homes and families are called to become and to be what St. John Chrysostom describes as a “small church” (ἐκκλησία μικρά) – not just in name, but in actual practice. We should all be thankful for this precious lesson to our Lord who assures us: “where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them” (Mt 18:20). Indeed, Jesus Christ is closer to us than we to ourselves.

THE CHURCH MUST NOT BE AFRAID OF THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD

Question: Now we can see many examples of the “transition” of the church to the online mode. Is this a positive practice in Your opinion? Will there be a live broadcast of the festive Easter service from the Ecumenical Patriarchate?

Answer: One of the positive outcomes of this universal challenge is that we must now think deliberately and creatively about our relationships to one another. Working together from a distance, through the diverse means of modern technology, has provided not only the possibility of supporting one another as a means of consolation and survival but also of advancing our dreams and programs as a way of cooperation and progress.

We are deeply encouraged to learn of new ways ventured by churches, which were previously reserved toward such changes. After all, we are a living tradition, and the Body of Christ is an organic, vibrant community. We must always be attentive but never afraid in our use of technology, which must be employed as a means for the benefit of the people of God.So, we rejoice when we hear of the diverse ways with which churches are responding to their vocation at this critical moment. We are delighted to see how they are uniting their efforts in addressing their faithful and focusing their attention on their pastoral needs.The Ecumenical Patriarchate will indeed broadcast the Easter vigil from the Phanar, as well as all the services throughout Holy and Great Week.

THIS CRISIS HAS REMINDED US THAT THE WORLD IS LARGER THAN ANY SINGLE RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY

Question: What lessons do You think we all need to learn from this situation of a common threat to humanity and a common confrontation with it?

Answer: The lessons that all of us have learned will prove indispensable when we emerge from this crisis. We have been reminded that the world is larger than our individual interests and concerns, larger than our jurisdictional parishes and congregations, larger than any single church or religious community.We have realized that we must always do something more than what only affects our lives or our families.

We have admired the doctors and nurses, who sacrifice their lives for the healing of others. We have witnessed those working in grocery stores and pharmacies, those driving trucks and delivering goods, and especially those volunteering their time or donating their money for our more vulnerable brothers and sisters. All these actions of selfless love exude the fragrance of the Resurrection.Ultimately, we have learned what the Scriptures and Saints have always known and declared – that “whoever does not love their brother, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen” (1 Jn 4:20).

Permit us to close with our wholehearted and fervent wishes to all the people in Ukraine – to those who have already celebrated Easter on April 12 and to those who are celebrating Pascha on April 19 – our sincerest paternal wishes on the “feast of feasts” at this challenging time. Christ is Risen, my beloved brothers and sisters, my dearest families and children. The clouds of darkness and shadow of death have been overcome by His Resurrection.

Χριστός Ἀνέστη!Olga Budnyk, Istanbul-Ankara
* You can watch the services from the Ecumenical Patriarchate live on Facebook.

This excellent video by Prof Clough, aligns with the place of animals within Orthodox theology as outlined in my book, which includes an in-depth investigation on Noah’s failure see pp. 53-64, Ch Two of, Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Animal Suffering: Ancient Voices in Modern Theology.

In this article Fr John Chryssavgis explores the rich tradition of the Desert Monastics and their relationship to animals and the natural world.

Used with permission.

---

In the early third to the late fourth centuries, the dry desert of Egypt became a testing ground for exploring hidden truths not only about heaven but also about earth. More precisely, it served as a forging ground for drawing connections between the two. The hermits who lived in that harsh spiritual laboratory analyzed what it means to be human in a natural world—with all the tensions and temptations, all the struggle and survival, all the contacts with good and conflicts with evil. These men and women dared to push the limits, to challenge the norms.

Their questions and responses are found in collections of aphorisms—or apophthegmata (“sayings”)—preserved in Greek, Latin, Syriac, and Coptic.[1] 

Listening to their words, meditating on them in silence and subsequently transmitting them to others, help us to live humanely, to be more human, to be truly alive. Their stories were ways in which the desert elders maintained a sense of continuity with their past, while fostering a sense of connection with future generations. These stories from the deserts of Egypt, Palestine, and Sinai are more than just a part of the Christian past. They are a part of our human heritage; they communicate eternal values, spiritual truths.

It may be surprising to find that such ancient texts are so fresh and accessible in our age. It was a strange way of life, strange even to secular society in the fourth century and perhaps for many Christians of the time. These were men and women who chose to live outside towns and villages, as far as possible from civilization, often entirely alone. They had very few possessions, choosing to do without them in order to be free for God. They lived in simple huts or rough caves, eating and drinking a sparse diet of bread or herbs with water. Their clothing entailed a simple garment, with a sheepskin that could be used as a blanket or rug. They were neither scholars nor preachers, neither teachers nor clerics, and they came from all kinds of backgrounds. They learned how to be still and silent, to know themselves and to know God, themselves ultimately becoming part of God’s redeeming work for the whole world.

So did these early desert hermits recognize or overlook the natural and aesthetic beauty of creation through their austere life and harsh discipline? What is the relationship of the desert dwellers who filled this region with their environment and with animals? In renouncing the world, did the Desert Fathers and Mothers overlook the world, or did they enjoy a new awareness of everything in the world—human, animal, and natural?

In the Life of Anthony, we are told by Athanasius of Alexandria that Abba Anthony saw the desert for the first time “fell in love with it” (Chapter 50). The desert was home for Antony and the other elders who lived there. It was there that they experienced a sense of connection with the earth as well as their communion with heaven. It is there that they also experienced a sense of continuity with the entire creation.

Abba John said: “Let us imitate our Fathers. For they lived in this place with much austerity and peace.” (John, Saying 4)

In the desert, holiness was part and parcel of wholeness. If at-one-ment with their neighbor was of the essence in the spirituality of the desert, so too was at-tune-ment to their environment, to the world, and to God.

Abba John said: “My children, let us not pollute this place, since our Fathers have previously cleansed it.” (Saying 5)

The same worldview and conviction informs the attitude of the desert hermits to animals. In fact, when it comes to respecting or relating to animals, there is an abundance of stories describing the connection that the desert dwellers enjoyed with their untamed “co-inhabitants.”

One of the Fathers used to talk about Abba Paul, from lower Egypt. He used to take various kinds of snakes in his bare hands. The brothers admired him, saying: “Tell us what you have done to receive this grace.” He replied: “Forgive me, but if someone acquires purity, then everything cooperates with that person, just as it was for Adam and Eve in paradise.” (Paul, Saying 1)

Abba Antony also said: “Reverence with moderation allows people to become stewards even over wild animals.” (Anthony, Saying 1)

Anthony certainly grasped the truth of this statement. He had, after all, persuaded the animals of his region to live at peace with him without disturbing him. In fact, the notion of resembling Adam and Eve before their Fall from the condition of grace, is the ideal to which the desert hermits aspired.

They said of Abba Pambo that his face was like that of Moses, who received the image of the glory of Adam when his face shone. Pambo’s face likewise shone like fire. It was the same with Abba Silvanus and Abba Sisoes. (Pambo, Saying 12)

Of course, we find such a relationship with nature and animals in later mystics as well. It is a relationship that transcends place; we see it in the writing of Isaac the Syrian (in the seventh century) as well as in the life of Francis of Assisi (1181–1226). And it is a relationship that transcends time; we observe it in the lives of the early hermits as well as in the nineteenth-century life of Seraphim of Sarov (1759–1833).

However, what is at stake here is much more than mere emotional attachment to animals. The connection of the early monks and of the later mystics with their natural surroundings as well as with the native animals is neither superficial nor sentimental; it is, in fact, deeply sacred and spiritual. It stems from an inner conviction that God created this world out of love, which further implies that God cares for the world and for all that exists in the world, both animate and inanimate.

Through this lens, then, the desert hermits are revealed to be—in a most intense and most intimate manner—“materialists.” In the desert, everything—including the smallest form of life and the slightest speck of dust—really mattered! In God’s eyes, the wild animals and the sand dunes are of sacred importance and have their unique place alongside humanity. In their understanding of heaven, birds and trees could never be eliminated or excluded.

For the early fathers and mothers of Egypt, the purpose of fleeing to the desert was precisely in order to restore a lost order, to reestablish a reconciliation with all creation, to reaffirm a connection between the natural world and God. The world becomes a wasteland unless it comes alive in an authentic human being, who in turn becomes the eyes, the conscience, and the heart of the world. So if we miss the story of the desert, we create an alienation between the world and ourselves, ultimately causing a division within ourselves. When we neglect the world of the spirit, we also neglect the spirit of the world. And when we disregard the world of the soul, we definitely overlook the living mystery of all God’s creation.

[1] For one of the most popular anthologies, see Benedicta Ward, The Sayings of the Desert Fathers: The Alphabetical Collection, Mowbrays, 1975. Revised edition: Liturgical Press, 1984.

The Fr. John Chryssavgis is a Greek Orthodox theologian, environment adviser to the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and author of numerous books on the Church Fathers and Orthodox Spirituality, most recently Creation as Sacrament: Reflections on Ecology and Spirituality

---

---

I have adjusted the formatting to make it easier to adapt. Aug 2020

This is a course/part/module for use in Christian Churches, parishes/youth groups/seminary institutions.

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 Romanian, Serbian, Russian, etc. It can of course, be used by other Christian denominations. We will develop short videos by leading theologians on each theme, which can be translated or replaced by theologians in these 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:

 Creation Care: Christian Responsibility

By Dr. Christina Nellist

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

STRUCTURE

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.

The module is divided into seven/eight* themes/units/lessons:

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.

SUGGESTED ASSIGNMENTS FOR ACADEMIES/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 Eastern Orthodox ethical approach to the use of animals and the environment.

2) Two 15 minute Homilies on Creation Care based on the material provided in the course.

Bibliography/Video

LESSONS:

1. 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.^[1]

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”^[2] 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.^[3] 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.”^[4]

Knight (2017) observes that this has developed into an understanding that “everything is in God.”^[5]

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.^[6]

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. ⁷

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. ⁸ 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. ⁹ 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.

Discussion points:

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?

REFERENCES

1 St. Irenaeus, 2.2:5.

2 Gn 1:20-22, 24-5, 30-31.

3 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.

4 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. 

5 Panentheism.

6 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.

7 St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.18.7; 3.9:1, “all flesh shall see the salvation of God.”; also, 4.4.3.

8 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. 

9 For an investigation of Orthodox understanding of early Church texts on Genesis, see Bouteneff, Beginnings. Ancient Christian Readings of the Biblical Creation Narratives. 2008. 

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. ¹

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. ²

His All Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew speaks to the point:

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. ³

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. ⁴ 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.’ ⁵ 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.” ⁶

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.” ⁷

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. ⁸

Discussion points:

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?

REFERENCES

1. Wisdom 9:1-4.

2. Oxford interview, March 2014, see Nellist, Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Animal Suffering: Ancient Voices in Modern Theology, Ch. 6.

3. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, ‘The Orthodox Church and the Environment’ in, Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 364; also Chryssavgis, On Earth as in Heaven: Ecological Vision and Initiatives of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. 2011. 

4. Recognition of errors in theological teachings is evidenced throughout the history of the Church.

5. 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. 

6. St. Gregory of Nyssa, On Love for the Poor, 198. 

7. St. Maximus, Three Centuries on Love, No 86.

8. See Knight, A. ‘Animal Agriculture and Climate Change’ in The Global Guide to Animal Protection, ed. A. Linzey, 254-256. 2013. 

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? ¹                                     

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. ² Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew informs us that God’s blueprint “by definition predetermines an analogous ethos that is imposed upon us.” ³

Orthodoxy acknowledges that whilst we can never know God’s essence ⁴ 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” ⁵ and “has in Himself the disposition [to show kindness], because He is good”. ⁶ God is “patient, benign, merciful, mighty to save.” ⁷ We also learn that he who “worketh righteousness, is acceptable to Him” ⁸ for God “has loved righteousness, and hated iniquity.” ⁹ St. Irenaeus also teaches that God is desirous of “mercy not sacrifice” ¹⁰ and that God’s instruction “can never be exhausted.” ¹¹

Good One, who in Your mercy sustain beings: above and those below and distribute the treasure of Your mercy to men and animals. ¹²

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, ¹³ but also in the Psalms ¹⁴ 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. ¹⁵

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,” ¹⁶ nor cruel, abusive or exploitative. ¹⁷ 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. ¹⁸

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 ¹⁹ Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew teaches that how we respond and treat those in need, “especially through the lifestyle we lead”, reflects how we worship God. ²⁰ 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. ²¹

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. ²²

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. The early Fathers, like St. Cyril of Alexandria, used the following interpretation of Christ’s teaching in Luke 14:5:

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?    

St Cyril and St John Chrysostom are very clear:

Christ refutes their unrelenting shamelessness by the convincing arguments that he uses. ”Whose son of you” he says, “or whose ox shall fall into a pit and he will not immediately draw him out on the Sabbath day.” If the law forbids showing mercy on the Sabbath, why do you take compassion on that which has fallen into the pit…The God of all does not cease to be kind. ²³

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.’ ²⁴

Discussion points:

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?

REFERENCES

1 St. Basil the Great, Hexaemeron 7:5.

2 St. Irenaeus, The Doctrine of the Apostolic Preaching 32-4, 100; also Against Heresies, 3.21.10.

3 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, ‘Environment and Ethics’ in Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 135; also Chryssavgis, On Earth as in Heaven.

4 E.g., St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2:13.4; 4.9.1. Knowing God also includes the wider sense of perceiving and experiencing God. 

5 St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.13.3; 4.11.2.

6 St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2.29.2; 2.30.9.

7 St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.20.

8 St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.12.7.

9 St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.6.1.

10 St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.17.4.

11 St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2.28.3; 2.13.9.

12 St. Ephrem the Syrian, Table Blessings, Memra IX in Hansbury, Hymns of St Ephrem the Syrian, 36.

13 St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Homilies Homily 7:6; also Mt 10:29-30; Mt 6: 26; Lk 12:6; Jn 5:  17.

14 Ps 103:10-21. See also Psalms 35:7, 49:10-14; 144:9; 145:9; 146:9.

15 Mt 6:26; also 2 Cor 1:3. 

16 St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.18.3.

17 St. Clement, Exhortation to the Heathen, CANNPNF O2-1.

18 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, Encountering the Mystery 106.

19 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, Encountering the Mystery, 98-103; also, Chryssavgis, Speaking the Truth in Love, 118, 270-1, 351.

20 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, ‘On the Theological and Spiritual Insights of Pope John Paul II’ in Chryssavgis, Speaking the Truth in Love, 297. 

21 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, ‘On the Theological and Spiritual Insights of Pope John Paul II’ in Chryssavgis, Speaking the Truth in Love.

22 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, Encountering the Mystery, 107.

23 Cyril of Alexandria, Homily 101, 236. 24 Attwater, St. John Chrysostom, 59.

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. ¹

Both the Old and New Testaments offer us numerous examples of universally accepted ‘good’ and ‘virtuous’ behaviours. ² Such behaviours are an indication of God’s will and desired actions for humankind, which should “govern and rule in all things.” ³

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. ⁴ 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. ⁵

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. ⁶

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. ⁷

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 ⁸ 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. ⁹

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. ¹⁰ 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. ¹¹

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 ¹²

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? ¹³

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. ¹⁴

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?

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. ¹⁵

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. ¹⁶ 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.” ¹⁷

As noted above, Ps 35 gives testimony to God’s righteousness, judgment and mercy linked to the saving of animals. ¹⁸ 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.” ¹⁹   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. ²⁰ There are however, less well-known texts, where he teaches on mercy, justice, compassion, non-violence and oppression^{. 21} 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. ²² 

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” ²³

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. ²⁴ 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.²⁵

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.” ²⁶

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? ²⁷

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.²⁸

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.

Discussion points:

Q. If, as the Fathers teach, we are to embrace all of creation ²⁹ 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?

REFERENCES

1 Ps 35:7.

2 St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.32.2; Gal 5:22.

3 St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.34.4.

4 Gn 9: 9-10. 

5 Ex 23: 4.

6 Dt 22:1; also, Dt 22:3. 

7 Dt 22:4.

8 Here we may legitimately add ‘stranger’.

9 ‘Comments on Laudato Si’.’ 

10 Sentimentalism or indifference to human suffering is a frequent charge, though research does not support the charges.

11 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.

12 Dt 22:2.

13 St. Gregory of Nyssa, 2nd Homily, On the Love of the Poor, 203. 

14 Mt 12:11-12; Lk 14:5.

15 Dt 5:13-14; also Ex 23:12. There is a similar teaching in St. Ephrem’s Hymns on the Nativity. 

16 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 & Cohn-Sherbok, After Noah, 30.

17 Ps 144:9, 36.

18 Ps 35:7.

19 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.

20 St. Isaac, Mystic Treaties, Homily 74.

21 St. Isaac, Six Treaties on the Behaviour of Excellence, Treatise 1, Ch. 8, in Mystic Treatises.

22 Fr. J. Breck and Met. John of Pergamon (Zizioulas) make similar comments for contemporary ethicists.

23 St. Isaac, Mystic Treaties Ch. 1, 63.

24 The opposite appears to be the case. 

25 St. Isaac, Mystic Treaties, Ch. 1, Homily 74. 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.

26 Lossky, Mystical Theology, 118. 

27 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. 

28 Met. Kallistos of Diokleia, in Nellist, Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Animal Suffering: Ancient Voices in Modern Theology, Chapter Six, pp. 162, 184.

29 St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.2:5. 

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. ¹

The Orthodox tradition recognizes that Christ sanctifies His creation through His Incarnation, Crucifixion, Resurrection and the Eucharistic offering. ²

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. ³

The whole creation was altered by Thy Passion: for all things suffered with Thee, knowing, O Word, that Thou holdest all in unity. ⁴

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. ⁵

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! ⁶

Other texts indicate that creation has a voice that cries out to God and has ‘human’ characteristics ranging from fear to joy. ⁷ 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.” ⁸ 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” ⁹ and explicitly links Christ’s baptism with the sanctification of the baptismal waters. ¹⁰ St. Basil of Seleucia taught that Christ saved the world and liberated the earth ¹¹ and recounts all the benefits of salvation including “a principle of purification for the world” and a “renewing of nature.” ¹²  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? ¹³

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. ¹⁴ Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew teaches that all creation also requires “an appropriate veneration” ¹⁵:

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. ¹⁶

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.” ¹⁷

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. ¹⁸

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 ¹⁹ 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.” ²⁰

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 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. ²¹

Discussion points:

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?

REFERENCES

1 St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Homilies, 13:2; see also 13:35 & 15:3.

2 St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.18.6.

3 Mode 4, Joseph was amazed, in Mikrayiannanites, ‘Vespers for the Environment’ 386.

4 E.g. Holy Saturday, Mother Mary and Ware, Kallistos, The Lenton Triodion, 625, 627; also Col. 1:16-17. 

5 St. Ephrem the Syrian, Nineteen Hymns, 13:27.

6 St. Ephrem the Syrian, 14:35, refrain.

7 St. Andrew of Crete, On the Dormition of Mary, 145-146.

8 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.

9 St. Gregory Nazianzen, Select Orations, 37.2, On the Words of the Gospel.

10 St. Gregory Nazianzen, Select Orations, 29.10, The Third Theological Oration. On The Son; also, 39.15-16 Theophany On the Holy Lights.

11 St. Basil of Seleucia, Third Homily on Pascha, SC.187:209. 

12 St. Basil of Seleucia, SC.187:215.

13 This a frequent story used by Met. Kallistos. Ref: Elder Joseph the Hésychaste, Letter 57 in, Expression of Monastic Experience, 315. Also cited in E. Theokritoff, Creation and Salvation in Orthodox Worship.

14 E.g., Mt 10:29.

15 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, Encountering the Mystery, 90.

16 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, Encountering the Mystery, 92-3. 

17 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’ in Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 261; also Chryssavgis, On Earth as in Heaven.

18 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 at http://www.ciwf.org.uk/research/?page=2.

19 Please note that there is only one mention of a plant 

20 Mikrayiannanites, Monk Gerasimos, ‘Vespers for the Environment’ in Chryssavgis and Foltz, 2013: 392. 

21 Bartholomew, ‘The Orthodox Church and the Environment’ in Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 360-361

6) WHAT IS SIN AGAINST ANIMALS?

Nothing in creation had gone astray in its notions of God, save the human being only. ¹

Some humans may not have realised that their actions are abusive and thus have no idea of the resulting negative soteriological implications. Here, the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and Met. Kallistos of Diokleia informs us that this is not the case:

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. ²

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. ³

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. ⁴ 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, ⁵ 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. ⁶

St. Cyril clearly identifies hunting and horse racing ⁷ 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. ⁸ 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.” ⁹ 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. ¹⁰

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. ¹¹

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. ¹²

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. ¹³

Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew teaches that ecological evils have their root both in a “destruction of religious piety within the human heart” ¹⁴ 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. ¹⁵

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.

Discussion points:

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?

REFERENCES

1 St. Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word 43:3, CANNPNF 2-04.

2 ‘The Ascetic Corrective’ in Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, (2003); also ‘Message of the Synaxis’ (2009:201);  Chryssavgis, On Earth as in Heaven. 

3 Met. Kallistos of Diokleia, in Nellist p. 83.

4 St. Cyril of Jerusalem, First Mystagogical Catechesis, 5, 282.

5 Tsironi writes on the theatre at that time ending with “the stripping of women on stage.”

6 St. Cyril of Jerusalem, First Mystagogical Catechesis, 6, 283.

7 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. 

8 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.

9 Canon LI, The Canons of the Council in Trullo, The Seven Ecumenical Councils.

10 Canon LI. 

11 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, ‘Address by His All Holiness during the Presentation Ceremony of the Sophie Prize’ in Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 284; also Chryssavgis, On Earth as in Heaven.

12 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; also Chryssavgis, On Earth as in Heaven. 

13 ‘Comments on Laudato Si’.’ 

14 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.

15 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, ‘The Orthodox Church and the Environment’ in, Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 360; also Chryssavgis, On Earth as in Heaven. 

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. ₁

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. ² 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.” ³

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. ⁴

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. ⁵ 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. ⁶

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. ⁷

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.” ⁸ This aligns with Met. Kallistos of Diokleia’s (Ware) comment on “evil profit” ⁹, St. Irenaeus’s teaching that we must not use our freedom as a “cloak of maliciousness” ¹⁰ 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? ¹¹

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. ¹²

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. ¹³

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’. ¹⁴ 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. ¹⁵

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. ¹⁶

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^{. 17}

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. ¹⁸

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^{. 19}

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. ²⁰

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 ²¹; the soteriological implications of sins and indifference to that sufferingand, 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.” ²²

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. ²³ In essence, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew gives Eastern Orthodox Christians the authority to be leaders or involved in environmental, conservation and animal protection organisations.

Discussion points:

Q. How has your community been effected by the Corona Virus pandemic?

Q. If animals were truly to be included into our community and to be accorded ‘rights’ ²⁴_, 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? ²⁵

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.

REFERENCES

1 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

2 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.

3 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew,  On Earth as in Heaven p. 113; also Cosmic Grace, 259.

4 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, ‘Sacrifice: The Missing Dimension’ 275; also, ‘The Ascetic Corrective’ in Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 295-9; Chryssavgis, On Earth as in Heaven.

5 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, ‘The Ascetic Way’ in Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 188; also, Speaking the Truth, 89-91, 352-3.

6 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, ‘Sacrifice: The Missing Dimension’  in Cosmic Grace, p. 275; also Chryssavgis, On Earth as in Heaven.

7 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. 

8 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’; also Chryssavgis, On Earth as in Heaven.

9 See Nellist, Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Animal Suffering: Ancient Voices in Modern Theology. p. 181

10 St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.37.4; 4.16.5.

11 St. Chrysostom, On Repentance and Almsgiving, 10.5, 130.

12 E.g., Bishop Isaias, Chapter Seven of my book on Animal Suffering and Limouris, Justice, Peace, 23.28. 

13 Limouris, Justice, Peace, 6.

14 St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4:12. 

15 Stylios in Harakas, Ecological Reflections; also, Bartholomew, ‘Encounter and Dialogue’ in Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 347; also Chryssavgis, On Earth as in Heaven.

16 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, Encountering the Mystery, 107.

17 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.

18 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, ‘A Collective Responsibility’ in Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 374; also ‘The Immorality of Indifference’ 290;  also Chryssavgis, On Earth as in Heaven. 

19 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

20 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, Cosmic Grace, 358, 359-365. See also Chryssavgis, On Earth as in Heaven.

21 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; also Chryssavgis, On Earth as in Heaven. 

22 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, ‘Education and Parish Action’ in Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace, 110-111; also Chryssavgis, On Earth as in Heaven.

23 Chryssavgis, ‘A New Heaven and a New Earth: Orthodox Christian Insights from Theology, Spirituality and the Sacraments’ 155.

24 An excellent discussion on this is Donaldson and Kymlicka, Zoopolis: A Political Theory of Animal Rights.  

25 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.

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? Christ’s teaching in 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.¹  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 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 priests to teach a coherent message that will result in:

reductions in animal suffering;

improvements in human health;

improvements in the environment;

advancing our spiritual journeys.

REFERENCES

1 See www.ciwf.org.uk for details on the misuse of antibiotics in farming and the link with antibiotic resistance in humans. 

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

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 (ed.) Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids, Michigan/ Cambridge, UK. 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. Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Animal Suffering: Ancient Voices in Modern Theology. Cambridge Scholars Publishing 2018, 2020.

—————– ‘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.

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.

VIDEO

Ware, K. Met. 2019 ‘Compassion for Animals in the Orthodox Church.’ Available at:

Full length recording of Met. Kallistos of Diokleia’s paper Compassion for Animals in the Orthodox Church.

Further videos are to be added.

Perspectives from the Saints, History and Medical Science

by Fred Krueger

Santa Rosa, California

Fasting has always been a pillar of spiritual formation in the Church of Christ. It builds discipline, restraint and cultivates obedience to Church guidance. Anciently the Christian fast was a total fast. No solid food was taken.

Over the centuries, a moderating influence entered parish life. Health and strength issues required special treatment and dispensations became normal for a variety of personal situations. At the same time, as Orthodox converged on America from European countries, they brought different assumptions about fasting. Archimandrite Akakios at the St. Gregory Palamas Monastery in Etna, California, describes some of the problems with establishing a common rule for fasting in America.

The limited instances where fasting is practiced in modernist American Orthodox jurisdictions are beset by confusion and innovation…. Many of the Orthodox immigrants who came from the Old World failed to preserve their fasting routines in a land where new foods and new menus changed their way of life. Many came with an improper understanding of fasting to begin with…. The spirit of reform embraced by the calendar change… included specific proposals for the relaxation of fasting rules. Brought to the Americas by immigrants — some of them coming as Hierarchs to serve the Church — this revisionist spirit deeply affected the Orthodox population here. The Eastern European [Uniate] Catholics who converted to Orthodoxy in America came from a spiritual milieu in which fasting neither took the same form nor had the same theological significance as it does in the Orthodox Church. And the national Slavic Churches in the emigration also understood asceticism from a far more Western than Orthodox perspective. So it is that the ethnic Orthodox Churches saw the birth of “relaxed fasts” and “moderate” fasting rules…. All of this they passed on to a new generation of Orthodox and to converts…. Wholly unfamiliar with Orthodox fasting traditions, many Orthodox today have taken these contrived notions in the immigrant Churches as authentic practices and have come to treat them as part and parcel of Church teaching.

The current Orthodox fast as practiced in America is intertwined with the religious reforms that arose in Russia around the time of Tsar Peter the Great (1672-1725). Prior to his era, fasting was far stricter and considered essential for spiritual growth. The consequence is that our modern fasting rules are largely an abstinence from heavy foods. This change explains why we no longer claim that the “fast” transforms, because by itself it does not. In our era, when we fast, we mostly become vegetarians for certain times of the year.

During the time when fasting rules were being relaxed, the Archbishop of Constantinople +Ecumenical Patriach Nicephorus Theotokis (1731-1800) wrote the following about the new rules:

When we fast, we search the earth and sea up and down: the earth to collect seeds, fruits, spices, and every other edible thing; the sea to find shellfish, mollusks, sea urchins, and anything edible therein. We prepare dry foods, salted foods, pickled foods, and sweet foods, and concoct many different dishes, seasoned with oil, sweeteners and spices. Then we fill the table even more than when we are eating meat. And yet we imagine that we are still fasting…. Whoever taught… that such a variety and such quantities of food constitutes a fast? Where did they hear that anyone who simply avoids meats or fish is fasting, even if he eats a great amount and different kinds of food? Fasting is one thing, a great variety in food is another. Fasting is one thing, eating great  amounts of food another.

Prior to the 18th century, strict fasting was essential for Orthodox Christians. Listen to what Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite writes about fasting:

Canon 69 of the Holy Apostles declares that any hierarch, priest, deacon, subdeacon or reader… who does not fast during Great Lent and on Wednesday and Friday is to be deposed. If a layperson does not fast during these times (unless he cannot on account of illness), he is to be excommunicated.

To our modern thinking, the severity in this earlier rule seems shocking. Rather than criticize the old rule’s strictness or defend our modern dispensations, let’s review the implications of fasting. By subjecting the fasting rule to modern medical research, perhaps we can bring into focus some of the basic benefits that accompany fasting. To structure this examination, I will present simple conclusions about fasting from three perspectives: its effects on human physiology and functioning of the body, on the psychological state of our minds, and finally on our spiritual lives.

The physiological effects of fasting are many. When the body goes without food, medical research reports that a series of important physical changes occur. Initially, the digestive tract receives a rest. During this rest, the body uses its energies to increase its autolytic (or self-healing) actions. The body’s energies are then used to repair and restore bodily functions. In contrast, with a steady supply of nourishment, the systems of the body continually work to process food and maintain the system. Without rest, the body wears down over time. In those over thirty years of age, this causes a gradual, but steady buildup of toxins, plaque, and deposits which gradually stiffen and clog the system. This happens because a continual stream of food produces a continual accumulation of waste. In contrast, on a genuine no food fast day (i.e., the original Christian fast), the autolytic functions work from deep down at the cellular level of the body and perform a long series of “house-cleaning” functions so that a rejuvenation and mini-healing occurs. During these times the body uses its energies to attack and remove disease formations, tumors, or any unnatural growth in its system.  

Fasting provides more than rest to the assimilative organs. A cleansing also takes place. Body wastes and toxins are eliminated from the digestive and circulatory systems which freshen circulatory functions. It removes disease in its formative stage, including cardiovascular and circulatory diseases, diseases of the digestive system, and the locomotor system – including rheumatism, respiratory diseases and asthma, etc. At the same time a strengthening of the immune system occurs.

Research at the University of California at San Francisco’s School of Medicine finds other health benefits. These include a sharply reduced risk of cancer (because the autolytic process attacks and dissolves tumors at the stage of their formation as well as other abnormal pre-cancerous growths). The autolysis causes a slowing of the aging process. Several different studies show that the only proven method for improving health and increasing lifespan is to reduce caloric intake. According to Dr. Mark Mattson, chief of neurosciences at the National Institute on Aging, “fasting shows more ability to provide beneficial qualities to the older body” than any drug or medication.

The National Academy of Sciences cites additional benefits of stress reduction, increased insulin sensitivity and reduced morbidity.

Fasting is also highly beneficial to digestion health. When you are not eating, a different set of microbes emerges and cleans up your gut wall, processing the sugars which is important for maintain immune balance.

Besides the revitalization of digestive organs, the additional physiological benefits include clearer skin, improved hearing and taste, reduction of allergies, weight loss, drug detoxification, and heightened disease resistance. Fasting clears out problems from overeating and a sedentary lifestyle. No wonder so many of the desert fathers lived past 100 years of age! These physical benefits derive from genuine fasting, but most importantly they do not derive from merely an abstinence from meat and heavy foods. Generally what is happening physically reflects what is taking place psychically and spiritually.

Next a set of psychological and psychic benefits emerge from fasting. During a fast the mind develops clarity and the will is strengthened – because it is exercised through the denial of the desire to eat. Something fascinating now happens. True fasting (i.e., water only) causes a cautionary attitude to arise so that one is careful not to break the fast. Fasting then becomes a cornerstone for a life of restraint and thoughtfulness. This happens because fasting from all forms of food and nutrition stretches out and addresses the tendency toward consumerism and materialism. Fasting thus witnesses to the conflict between the indulgences cherished by the modern mentality and the ascetic life of the Church. An important implication is that traditional spiritual formation cannot be attained without old style fasting.

As the will is strengthened, the person who fasts increases in self-control. At the same time fasting results in a heightened sensitivity to others – because feelings become far more sensitive and acute. This causes those who fast to sense the plight of poor people. In this way alms-giving is connected to fasting because without fasting, we scarcely cultivate the sensitivities of the heart that foster compassion for those who have little.

On a longer fast – over more than a day, the body begins to stimulate the production of the hormone serotonin to insulate itself from the pangs of hunger. The initial day of fasting may at first be difficult, but the morning of the second day can be quite enjoyable because serotonin creates a distinct feeling of euphoria. The person who fasts will feel alert, active and often even excited to continue fasting. Studies show that most people who follow the original fasting rule report heightened mental clarity, a more positive mental outlook, and emotional serenity when embracing traditional fasting rules.

A regular pattern of once a week fasting produces an optimistic outlook on life as well as an overall feeling of purity, cleanliness and self-control. A conclusion from medical studies is that fasting can be enjoyable and healthy.

Medical studies on the spiritual side of fasting are elusive because science is not effective in probing into this aspect of life. Nevertheless we discern deeper implications to fasting when Jesus tells the apostles (after they  ask him why they could not heal the boy possessed with a demon) “…this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting” (Matthew 17:15-21).

When the physical body is regularly cleansed by fasting, an additional result is that psychic and spiritual impressions become stronger and more frequent. One’s energy becomes more refined. The world may even appear transparent. At this time prayers have a higher and more uplifted quality. One’s whole being experiences a sense that the etheric and spiritual worlds intertwine and are drawing closer together. Sleep is deeper and more fulfilling. The saints frequently write that visions and holy experiences are more readily attained during times of fasting.

The enhanced sensitivities that accompany a fast open a realization that the fast cannot be restricted merely to a denial of meat and other heavy foods, but it must include a denial of negative thoughts, anger and all of the passionate tendencies. This is why Saint Basil writes, “there is a physical fast, but alongside it there is also a spiritual fast.” He continues:

In the physical fast the body abstains from food. In the spiritual fast, the faster abstains from evil intentions, words and deeds. One who truly fasts abstains from anger, rage, malice and vengeance. One who truly fasts abstains from idle and foul talk, gossip, condemnation, flattery, lying and all manner of spiteful talk. In a word, a real faster withdraws from all evil…. As much as you subtract from the body, so much will you add to the strength of the soul.

Saint John Chrysostom makes a similar observation.

“It is necessary for one who is fasting to curb anger, to accustom himself to condescension, to have a contrite heart, to repulse impure thoughts and desires, and to reflect on what good has been done by us in this or any other week, and which deficiency we have corrected in ourselves. This is true fasting.”

As for those who worry that fasting might harm their health, they need only recall the longevity of the saints who cultivated fasting as a way of life. Denial of food for them was the doorway to health and vitality.

 Saint Alypius the Stylite lived for 118 years; Saint Anthony the Great – 105; Saint Theodosius the Great – 105; Saint Paul of Thebes – 113; Saint Paul of Komel – 112; Saint Cyril the Anchorite – 108; Saint Kevin of Glendalough – 105.

This list is only a short beginning. These saints did not require special foods, vitamins or nutritional supplements to live long inspired and productive lives.

While our present fasting rules carry some benefit, we should recognize that they only scratch the surface of the potential latent in fasting to bring healing and transformation.

As Archbishop Nicephorus wrote several centuries ago, “fasting is one thing, but eating a great variety of vegetables and seeds is another thing entirely,” but it should not be called fasting. As we examine the many dimensions to fasting, we should recognize that a recovery of this ancient practice is necessary if we are also going to recover our rightful heritage of spiritual experiences and attainment.

For those individuals who might wish to start fasting in the traditional manner, here are a few guidelines.

Drink at least seven or eight full glasses of water during the fast day. This is because – at least in our western diet – so many toxins are released during the fast and the water helps to flush them out. Think of the task this way: “The solution to the body’s internal pollution is dilution.”

For those who are habitually champion meat eaters, there can be an acid buildup – the result of too many fats and toxins which are released during the fast. This can show up as a slight stomach ache. Address this by adding a  teaspoon of baking soda in a glass of water. This neutralizes the acid which is being cleansed out of the body into the stomach. This is usually experienced by first time or new fasters.

A headache may also occur at first and these are symptoms of psychological resistance to the fast. Those who possess obsessive-compulsive eating disorders usually have layers of issues and so they need a firm rule that holds them to guidelines – one day of fasting per week and no more.

A full day of fasting can begin after the evening meal on Tuesday, continue all through Wednesday and conclude at breakfast on Thursday. By following this simple rule every week, the traditional benefits of fasting can return in your experience.

Basically fasting is like a muscle. The more you practice it, the easier it becomes to fast. After several months of once a week fasting, your body becomes so adjusted to the fast that it does not miss the food. In fact you look forward to it because of the many spiritual, mental and physical benefits that arise from it.

Appendix A Biblical Accounts of Fasting

* Moses fasted for forty days and forty nights while he was on the mountain with God. (Exodus 34:28)

* King Jehosaphat proclaimed a fast throughout Judah for victory over the Moabites and Ammonites who were attacking them (2 Chronicles 20:3).

* The prophet Isaiah chastised the Israelites for their unrighteous methods in their fasting. He clarified the reasons for fasting and listed the benefits that would result. “Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the straps of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free…. Is it not to share your bread with the hungry and bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked, to cover him, and not to hide yourself from your own flesh? Then shall your light break forth like the dawn, and your healing shall spring up speedily; your righteousness shall go before you; the glory of the Lord shall be your guard” (Isaiah 58:3-13).

* The prophet Joel called for a fast to avert the judgement of God.

* The people of Nineveh in response to Jonah’s prophecy, fasted to avert the judgement of God (Jonah 3:7).

* Jesus also warned against fasting to gain favor from men. He warned his followers that they should fast in private, not letting others know they were fasting (Matthew 6:16–18).

* Jesus fasted for forty days and forty nights while in the desert, prior to the three temptations (Matthew 4:2, Luke 4:2).

* The prophetess Anna, who proclaimed the birth of Jesus in the Temple, fasted regularly (Luke 2:37).

Appendix B Quotes from the Saints on Fasting

 St Symeon the New Theologian:

Let each one of us keep in mind the benefit of fasting… For this healer of our souls is effective, in the case of one to quiet the fevers and impulses of the flesh, in another to assuage bad temper, in yet another to drive away sleep, in another to stir up zeal, and in yet another to restore purity of mind and to set him free from evil thoughts. In one it will control his unbridled tongue and restrain it by the fear of God and prevent it from uttering idle and corrupt words. In another it will invisibly guard his eyes and fix them on high instead of allowing them to roam hither and thither, and thus cause him to look on himself and teach him to be mindful of his own faults and shortcomings.

Fasting gradually disperses and drives away spiritual darkness and the veil of sin that lies on the soul, just as the sun dispels the mist. Fasting enables us spiritually to see that spiritual air in which Christ, the Sun who knows no setting, does not rise, but shines without ceasing.

Fasting, aided by vigil, penetrates and softens the hardness of heart. where once the vapors of drunkenness were causes of fountains of compunction to spring forth. I beseech you, brethren, let each of us strive that this may happen in us! Once this happens we shall readily, with God’s help, cleave through the whole sea of passions and pass through the waves of the temptations inflicted by the cruel tyrant, and so come to anchor in the port of impassibility.

Saint Nikolai of Zicha

Gluttony makes a man gloomy and fearful, but fasting makes him joyful and courageous. And, as gluttony calls forth greater and greater gluttony, so fasting stimulates greater and greater endurance. When a man realizes the grace that comes through fasting, he desires to fast more and more. And the graces that come through fasting are countless….

St. Nikolai Velimirovich

Bodily purity is primarily attained through fasting, and through bodily purity comes spiritual purity. Abstinence from food, according to the words of that son of grace, St. Ephraim the Syrian, means: ‘Not to desire or demand much food, either sweet or costly; to eat nothing outside the stated times; not to give one’s self over to gratification of the appetite; not to stir up hunger in oneself by looking at good food; and not to desire one or another sort of food.’

Abba Daniel of Sketis:

In proportion as the body grows fat, so does the soul wither away.

St. Dorotheos of Gaza

Everyone who wants to purify himself of the sins of the whole year during these days must first of all restrain himself from the pleasure of eating. For the pleasure of eating, as the Fathers say, caused all man’s evil. Likewise he must take care not to break the fast without great necessity or to look for pleasurable things to eat, or weigh himself down by eating and drinking until he is full.

and

The Holy Fathers have taught, as if with one voice, that the stomach is the gateway to the passions. Watchfulness in this area is, therefore, absolutely essential to spiritual progress.

Saint Seraphim of Sarov

The holy fasters did not approach strict fasting suddenly, but little by little they became capable of being satisfied by the most meagre food. Despite all this they did not know weakness, but were always hale and ready for action. Among them sickness was rare, and their life was extraordinarily lengthy.

and

To the extent that the flesh of the faster becomes thin and light, spiritual life arrives at perfection and reveals itself through wondrous manifestations, and the spirit performs its actions as if in a bodiless body. External feelings are shut off, and the mind that renounces the earth is raised up to heaven and is wholly immersed in the contemplation of the spiritual world.

St. Shenuda, Coptic Orthodox Church:

Consistent fasting regulated the lives of the Fathers. A stable lifestyle, to which they become accustomed regulated their lives. As for the pitied laymen, they sway from one extreme to another when fasting. They deprive themselves of food only to break their fast to partake of anything they desire. They abstain for awhile to allow themselves what they want for another period, then go back to indulgence, thus they sway between abstention and indulgence. They build, then destroy, and then build again, only to demolish again without recovery. True fasting is to train oneself in self-control, to follow for the rest of your life. Self-control becomes a blessing for his life, not only during the time of fasting when we change the time and the food we eat, but also during the normal days.

Evagrios the Solitary, a student of Saint John Chrysostom and desert monk who lived in the remote Egyptian desert, describes why fasting is so prominent in Christian life:

Fast before the Lord according to your strength, for to do this will purge your iniquities and sins; it exalts the soul, sanctifies the mind, drives away the demons, and prepares you for God’s presence… To abstain from food, then, should be a matter of our own choice and an ascetic labor.

Metropolitan Kallistos Ware writes,

Ultimately, to fast is to love, to see clearly, to restore the original beauty of the world. To fast is to move away from what I want to what the world needs. It is to liberate creation from control and compulsion. Fasting is to value everything for itself and not 12 simply for ourselves. It is to be filled with a sense of goodness, of Godliness. It is to see all things in God and God in all things.

Anestis Keselopoulos

The central position that fasting holds in the tradition of the Orthodox Church is neither coincidental nor unrelated to the ecological crisis but has unmistakable prophetic significance. Fasting is not some outward conventional act but the voluntary privation of food that heightens man’s awareness of his dependency on the outside world. This awareness has decisive importance for ethics. By fasting, man obediently accepts the divine commandment so that he can grow into the likeness of God. In so doing, he recognizes his created nature. In other words, he acknowledges that his ‘very being is on loan.’

Appendix C Glossary of Terms

Autolysis

The vital or functioning tissues of the fasting organism are nourished off the food reserves stored in the body. These reserves are stored as rather complex substances, such as sugar (glycogen), fat, protein, etc., and are no more fitted for entrance into the bloodstream and use by the cells than are the fats, proteins and carbohydrates of another animal, or another food. Before they can be taken up by the circulation and assimilated by the cells, they must first be digested. Autolysis (a-tol-i-sis) is derived from the Greek and means, literally, self-loosing. It is used in physiology to designate the process of digestion or disintegration of tissue by ferments (enzymes) generated in the cells themselves. It is a process of self-digestion–intra-cellular digestion.

 Fasting and tumors

Abnormal growths possess a lower grade of vitality than normal growths, hence are easier to destroy. I think it may be equally true that they do not command the support of the organism as do normal growths, as they are lacking in nerve and blood supply. This lack of support makes them the ready victims of the autolytic processes of the body. It is generally held by men with wide experience with the fast that abnormal tissues are broken down and eliminated more rapidly than normal tissue during periods of abstinence. Physiologists have studied the process of autolysis, although they have suggested no practical use that may be made of it save that of employing it to reduce weight. It now remains for physiologists to learn that by means of rigidly controlled autolysis, the body is able to digest tumors and utilize the proteins and other food elements contained in them to nourish its vital tissues. Why have they not investigated this vitally important subject? The facts have been before the world for more than a hundred years.

 More than a hundred years ago Sylvester Graham wrote: “It is a general law of the vital economy, that when, by any means, the general function of decomposition exceeds that of composition or nutrition, the decomposing absorbents always first lay hold of and remove those substances which are of least use to the economy; and hence, all morbid accumulations, such as wens, tumors, abscesses, etc., are rapidly diminished and often wholly removed under severe and protracted abstinence or fasting” (The Science of Life, pp. 194-195).

The process of autolysis may be put to great practical use and may be made to serve in getting rid of tumors and other growths. To fully understand this, it is necessary for the reader to know that tumors are made up of flesh and blood and bone. There are many names for the different kinds of tumors, but the names all indicate the kind of tissue of which the tumor is composed. For example, an osteoma is made up of bone tissue; a myoma is composed of muscular tissue; a neuroma is constituted of nerve tissue; a lipoma consists of fatty tissue; a fibroma is composed of fibrous tissues; an epithelioma is composed of epithelial tissue, etc. Growths of this nature are known, technically, as neoplasms (new growth) to distinguish them from mere swellings or enlargements. A large lump in the breast may be nothing more than an enlarged lymphatic gland, or an enlarged mammary gland. Such an enlarged gland may be very painful, but it is no neoplasm.

Tumors being composed of tissues, the same kinds of tissues as the other structures of the body, are susceptible of autolytic disintegration, the same as normal tissue, and do, as a matter of experience, undergo dissolution and absorption under a variety of circumstances, but especially during a fast. The reader who can understand how fasting reduces the amount of fat on the body and how it reduces the size of the muscles, can also understand how it will reduce the size of a tumor, or cause it to disappear altogether. He needs, then, only to realize that the process of disintegrating (autolyzing) the tumor takes place much more rapidly than it does in the normal tissues.

 Additional Information

The single most scientifically proven advantages to traditional fasting involve improved health, rejuvenation and extended life expectancy. Part of this phenomenon is caused by a number of the benefits mentioned above. These include a slower metabolic rate, more efficient protein production, an improved immune system, and the increased production of hormones all combine and contribute to these long-term benefits of fasting. In addition to the Human Growth Hormone that is released more frequently during a fast, an anti-aging hormone is also produced . The medical conclusion is “the only reliable way to extend the lifespan of a human, (or any mammal) is undernutrition without malnutrition.”

A study was performed on earthworms that demonstrated the benefits of an extension of life due to fasting. The initial experiment was performed in the 1930s by isolating one worm and putting it on a cycle of fasting and feeding. The isolated worm outlasted its relatives by an amazing nineteen generations, while still maintaining its youthful physiological traits. The worm was able to survive on its own tissue for months. Once the size of the worm began to decrease, the scientists would resume feeding it at which point it showed great vigor and renewed energy. “The life-span extension of these worms was the equivalent of keeping a man alive for 600 to 700 years.”