A CHRISTIAN MINISTER EXPLAINS WHY HE CAN MORALLY TRAP GOD'S LITTLE CREATURES
by Stephen Vantassel M.A.
© 1995 Stephen Vantassel

As I go about my trapping, customers usually ask, if I had to go to  school to learn my job. I smile and tell them that I learned the hard  way, by experience.  I then proceed to tell them, much to their  surprise, that I have a Masters degree in Hebrew Bible. In fact, the  Rev. Billy Graham's signature resides on my diploma because he was chairman  of the board when I graduated from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary  in 1989. Sometimes, my customer will ask me how I, as a minister, could  kill God's creatures. This article is a more detailed answer to that  very question.

One area in the debate over the treatment of animals that is sorely  neglected is the manner in which one's religious faith impacts one's  perspective on the ways humans and animals should interact. Too often  people account for various views by appealing to the person's place  in society, sociological background, income and education and even his/her  gender.  While each of those aspects do impact our view of animal  related subjects, they overlook  the fact that we are not just  physical beings, but we are spiritual beings as well. We want to relate  to something greater than ourselves. I would like to suggest to you  that much of the reason for society's change in attitude toward animals  stems directly to a change in the way society views God and religion. Ever since Christianity began to lose its hold in American Society,  animal rights philosophy/religion has begun to grow in strength. But  that topic is for another article.            

As a Christian, I believe that humans can hunt, trap, fish and otherwise  use animals for their purpose because God has given humanity rulership  over the world.  Take for example, the often maligned verse of  Genesis 1:28. Quoting from the Revised Standard Version, " And God blessed  them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the  earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of sea, and the  birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."   The key words here, for the purposes of our discussion are 'subdue'  and 'dominion'. 'Subdue' translates the Hebrew verb kabash and  it means essentially, forced servitude (Theological Word Book of  the Old Testament vol. 1 p. 951). (On a side note, the reader should  understand that the Hebrew transliteration does not exactly follow scholarly  form. It is written in a close approximation as possible given the font  constraints of my program). The next word, 'dominion' translates the  Hebrew verb  rada.  It means to have control over as  in one nation ruling another (Theological Word Book of the Old Testament  vol. 2 p. 833).  I won't recoil from the fact that God gave humanity  the authority to bring creation under subjection and control. To my  mind, that means that God has allowed humans to make decisions about  their use of the environment. It also suggests that as Dr. Oswalt has  said that nature will not do man's bidding easily (Theological Word  Book of the Old Testament vol. 1 p. 951). In short, man will have  to work at making the world a better place in which to live.       

But before you begin thinking that Christianity believes that mankind  is authorized to do with the world whatever it wants, note that God  also commanded  Adam, the first man, to till and to keep the garden  (Gen. 2:15).  The word translated "till" is the Hebrew verb   'ebed. It is translated in various ways but in agricultural situations  it means 'to work or tend' (Theological Word Book of the Old Testament  vol. 2 p.639). The second word, 'keep', translates the Hebrew verb   shamar. It means 'to guard or protect.' It is used elsewhere  in the Old Testament of a shepherd guarding the flock  (Theological  Word Book of the Old Testament vol. 2 p.939, Gen 30:31). Thus the  garden of Eden wasn't just some spot where Adam could lounge around  biting off grapes. Rather it was a place where he was the manager in  charge. I say manager because Adam didn't own the garden, God did. So  in Christian Theology, the garden is a microcosm of the earth. Just  as Adam had to till (translate work) and keep (translate protect) the  garden, so we must do the same for the World's true owner, God himself. 

By now you should perceive that the Christian position on environmental  responsibility lies between the extreme positions of the preservationists  (non-use school) and the laissez-faire industrialist schools (no barriers  to use school). Contrary to much popular understanding, the Scripture  does not teach that mankind can do as he wishes with the world. I would  agree that historically, many Christians have neglected to see their  role as keeper of the planet along with their tending responsibilities.  However, I should point out that it is only relatively recently that  the world has been as populated or exploited as it is now. I would argue  that in the medieval ages it was beneficial for humanity both spiritually  and environmentally to cut down paganism's sacred oak groves. Christianity  allowed people to see a tree as a piece of creation that God meant to  be used not worshipped.  I would also argue that part of that use  of a tree is not cutting it down so that we can control erosion and  pollution. Although an environmental extremist might disagree, the role  of creation is to serve the needs of humanity as humanity serves its  Creator.        

Turn your attention to Psalm 8, which in poetic language reinforces  the teachings of Genesis 1-2. Here we have King David telling his listeners  that God has positioned Mankind a little lower than the angels but higher  than the animals. Note the last few verses where he covers pretty much  all the animal classes from domesticated to the wild. When reading these  passages of Scripture, I hope you will understand how historic Christianity  perceives the role of humanity and nature together.

Another reason why Christians can't be animal rightists is because we  can never preach that eating animals is wrong. The Apostle Paul   clearly states that anyone who forbids another from eating certain foods  (like meat) is preaching a doctrine of demons (1 Tim 4:1-3).  While  at college, I met with woman who hosted a booth explaining the horrors  of factory farming. I took a few moments to speak with her that I too  was bothered by cows being held in stalls so small that they couldn't  move around. But I wanted to find out what her philosophy towards animals  was so I asked her if it was okay if I ate meat from a cow that was  cared for by a farmer who let them roam the open fields. In short, could  I morally eat meat from a cow that was well cared for? She said, No.  I then responded, "then the issue isn't how the animal is treated. The  real issue is that the animal is killed at all."  Regrettably,  it is this non-use attitude that undergirds much of the animal rights  movement. They cry about abuse but it is only a smoke screen for their  real concern, that the animal is killed at all. As a Christian, I may  agree with some of their animal welfare concerns but not that animals  cannot be eaten. For me to say that I can't eat an animal is tantamount  to saying that what God gave for us to use is defective. This is not  to mention the fact that if eating animals is wrong, translate sin,  then my Savior, Jesus Christ sinned because he ate fish (Jn 21:1-14  ). I haven't even mentioned how Jesus actually helped the apostles catch  more fish (Jn 21:1-14).   

Christianity teaches that humanity has a stewardship role on the earth.  Unlike the preservationists, we believe that it is our job to manage  the animal kingdom with the natural predators that God has provided  to keep populations in balance. We disagree that letting nature take  its course is the correct action. For we are part of that nature. It  always strikes me as strange how animal rights people think its okay  for diseases to reduce a burdensome animal population, but they don't  think it's okay for a human to preemptively reduce that population and  even make money doing it.

If Biblical grounds aren't enough for you to accept my understanding  of man and creation, perhaps you might want to look at the contradictions  inherent in the animal rightists school of thought. The fact is many  animal rightists believe that people are little more than highly evolved  animals.  They contend that since we are more highly evolved it  is unfair of us to exploit our lower companions (Singer p. 9; note how  he calls an infant just another animal). For if the Antis truly believed  that we are nothing more than animals, then why can't we act like the  animals we are? If you evaluate these evolutionary animal rightist like  Peter Singer  you will notice that the animal rights philosophy  cheats.  By claiming that we should be concerned about the suffering  of another animal it borrows from morals that lie outside the animal  evolutionary realm.  After all, if the evolutionary principle of  natural selection is true, then why can't we, the more powerful animals  exploit other less powerful animals to fulfill our purposes? Does a  coyote care about the suffering of a fawn? Besides even if evolution  inserted compassion into the human animal why do all of us have to follow  that feeling? Does evolution say we will go to hell if we don't obey  evolution's orders? It is only when one inserts the idea of rights and  responsibilities, which I understand can't come from natural selection,  does one hope to have grounds for treating other creatures in a considerate  manner. In short, Peter Singer borrows from Christ's teachings about  compassion and care but rejects Christ's life of eating fish and the  teachings of his apostles.

In Christian terms, since animals are not humans they do not command  the same moral rights as humans do. Just as plants are not on the same  vital plane as animals. I'm confident that many biologists are shaking  their heads saying, but we are animals. To that I can only say, Scripture  and experience both tell us that humans, while sharing many animal like  characteristics, have something in them that is fundamentally different  than what animals possess. Some call this different thing, soul, others  spirit, still others reason. Whatever, you want to call it, the fact  remains that we are as different to animals as a car is to a horse and  buggy. Peter Singer's criticism of this doctrine relies on little more  than its a declining doctrine (Animal p. 19 foot note). Since when does  a belief become less true just because fewer people may believe it?  His second argument against the soul doctrine is also vacuous. He claims  that on a logical basis the soul doctrine cannot stand because Christianity  has not provided a reasoned explanation of why only humans can have  souls (Animal p. 19). To that I would say, what kind of an argument  would be needed to convince Singer? It seems to me that the Bible clearly  teaches that humanity is created in God's image (Gen.1:26) . Scripture  never asserts that animals are created in God's image. The image of  God consists of our ability to self-aware, to control our surroundings  and to create. I have yet to see an animal build a space craft and go  to the moon.        

In conclusion, a Christian minister can trap because he is simply fulfilling  his responsibility to be a manager and caretaker of the earth that God  has entrusted to his care. Trapping is just one aspect of asserting  my God given right to express dominion and care over the world that  God bestowed to me. Just because I may not need the raccoons meat for  food,  or that I enjoy the experience of catching animals, doesn't  mean that I am not playing an important role in the balance of nature.  What I must always consider is whether I am properly caring for God's  property.  I believe the successes of  modern animal management  demonstrate that my lawful trapping activities is a proper expression  of my care for God's property.

References

Harris, R. Laird et al.  Theological  Wordbook of the Old Testament. Vol. 1-2. Chicago: Moody Press, 1980.

 Lindsell, Harold.  Harper Study Bible. Revised Standard Version. Grand Rapids Mich.:  Zondervan Bible Pub. 1971.

 Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation:  A new ethics for our treatment of animals. New York, New York: Avon  Books, 1975.