The American Spectator : Thriving Christianity

Text Size

Thriving Christianity

By Mark Tooley on 2.28.11 @ 6:08AM

Its numbers increase worldwide with every new day.

Most secular media in the U.S. imply that the world is largely dividing between resurgent Islam and enlightened secularists, with isolated evangelicals and Catholics left on the sideline. A recent report by the ;International Bulletin of Missionary Research indicates otherwise, with one third of the world professing Christianity, virtually unchanged as a global percentage since 100 years ago. Christians today are estimated to number about 2.3 billion. About 1.5 billion are estimated to attend church regularly at over 5 million congregations, up from 400,000 100 years ago.

There are 1.6 estimated Muslims, 951 million Hindus, and 468 million Buddhists. Atheists are thought to be 137 million, a declining number. The report estimates about 80,000 new Christians every day, 79,000 new Muslims every day, and 300 fewer atheists every day. These atheists are presumably disproportionately represented in the West, while religion is thriving in the Global South, where charismatic Christianity is exploding. Over 600 million Christians, including millions of Roman Catholics, are charismatic or Pentecostal.

Where Christians live has shifted dramatically of course. Once Christian Europe is now largely secularized, while "heathen" Africa is largely now either Christian or Islamic. China is on its way to possibly becoming the nation with the most practicing Christians. And Latin America has surging Catholic and evangelical populations. Contrary to common assumptions, America remains about as religious as ever. A 2008 Baylor University survey showed the percentage of American atheists at about 4 percent, unchanged since 1944. The survey also showed that only about 10 percent of Americans are religiously unaffiliated, unlike the 15 percent or so claimed in other recent surveys that claim growing secularization. Baylor found that many "unaffiliated" are actually tied to non-denominational churches or spiritual groups. Mainline Protestantism continues its 45-year meltdown, with Americans less and less identified with old denominations. But Americans by and large are attending churches at about the same rate they have for most of the last 70 years. About one third of Americans are now evangelical. Fewer and fewer attend, or even have a cultural memory of, oldline Episcopal or Presbyterian churches. Many stately old urban sanctuaries sit empty, while nearby thriving congregations meet in school gymnasiums or hotel ballrooms, if they haven't already built a mega-church campus.

A Gallup poll in 2010 showed the percentage of Americans reporting to attend church regularly (at least monthly) was 43 percent. In 1937 it was 37 percent, was slightly lower in the early 1940s, reached 49 percent during the 1950s, and settled at 42 percent in 1969, where it has remained steady for the last 40 years. Current church membership is about 61 percent of Americans, lower than the 73 percent reported 70 years ago, but also reflecting the increased fluidity of Americans religious affiliation and not a reduction in religious belief or practice. Many evangelical churches especially deemphasize membership and instead focus on attendance at worship and in small groups. A Pew survey found that about 44 percent of Americans have switched religious affiliations since childhood. Mostly they are switching away from Mainline Protestantism. Forty-five years ago, about 30 million Americans belonged to the top 7 Mainline denominations, accounting for about one sixth of Americans. Today, it's about 20 million, accounting for about one fifteenth.

One standout from the Mainline implosion is the United Methodist Church. It has lost over 3 million U.S. members since the 1960s, more than any other U.S. church. But, almost uniquely among U.S. denominations, its membership is international, and it now has more than 4.4 million members overseas, mostly in Africa. The church's global membership just surpassed 12 million for the first time in its history. Just released data shows the U.S. church lost more than 300,000 members just across four recent years, while the African churches gained almost 1 million. The denomination's most liberal U.S. regions, on the West Coast and in the Northeast, were the fastest declining, while the relatively more moderate Southeast remained almost steady. The United Methodist News Service quoted a U.S. academic faulting U.S. church decline on a U.S. population shift from the country to urban areas. This is nonsense of course. Like all Mainline denominations, United Methodism's many once potent urban downtown churches are largely shells of their former glory. Its growing, mostly conservative U.S. congregations are in Sun Belt suburbs. The nearly century old Mainline Protestant liberal project, so preoccupied by secular fads rather than the historic faith, is collapsing from its own irrelevance.

At current rates, the Africans might achieve a majority of United Methodism within 12 years or so in what used to be an almost entirely U.S. denomination. The Africanization of America's third largest religious body is underreported but its impact may be significant. Almost all the U.S. Mainline denominations have liberalized their views on homosexuality, as on so many other theological and ethical issues. But the United Methodists are edging in the opposite direction thanks mostly to the dramatic growth of conservative African churches. At its next governing convention in 2012, about 40 percent of the delegates will come from outside the U.S., virtually guaranteeing United Methodists will not follow the Episcopalians, Evangelical Lutherans, United Church of Christ and others whose membership declines accelerated after accommodating liberal sexual standards. Those denominations also have suffered schisms, with conservatives forming new communions. Many traditional Episcopalians are now aligned with autonomous, and thriving, Anglican churches in Africa.

Church liberals, so proud of their historic liberationist solidarity with the Global South, are befuddled by conservative African churches. The American United Methodist bishops even contrived to contain the African influence by proposing a new U.S. only church convention that would omit the Africans and other internationals. That plan failed in 2009 when local United Methodist annual conferences voted overwhelmingly against it. The Africans will remain full partners in United Methodist governance, with increasing repercussions for U.S. church members. African church growth will dramatically affect global Christianity. The International Bulletin of Missionary Research reports that Africa had fewer than 9 million Christians in 1900, compared to 475 million today, and 670 million expected by 2025.

More somberly, the missions report also cites 270 new Christian martyrs every day in the world over the last 10 years, reaching 1 million during 2000-2010, and compared to 34,000 Christian martyrs in 1900. Presumably, radical Islam can be faulted for most current-day Christian victims. But overall, despite the distortions of secular, U.S. elite culture, people of faith in America and around the world can be hopeful that faith, and not Western secularism, represents the future for the vast majority of the world.

About the Author

Mark Tooley is president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C. and author of Taking Back the United Methodist Church.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (100) | Leave a comment

Appleby| 2.28.11 @ 7:10AM

I have been a member of several mainstream denominations since I left home in the mid 1960s, and with only the exception of the Anglican (Epicopal) church and the Mormons, I left because I disagreed with the political stance of the denomination. When the Episcopal church decided to worship sex instead of God, I realized that it was time to become a Catholic, and here I remain. Unlike the Protestant denominations, the Catholic church still believes No means No.

Internationally it does not surprise me that Christianity is taking hold in countries where it is a life-threatening decision. *Choose ye this day...* is a powerful admonition. Its time to ask yourself, as they said in the last real Indiana Jones movie, what you believe...and what that really means.

And of course the African countries see firsthand the devastation wreaked by the promiscuous sex advocated in the mainstream denominations and they know that fidelity and monagamy are the only answers (see Uganda).

Alan Brooks| 2.28.11 @ 10:58PM

There are a substantial number of Christians in Japan, in 1976 I met a Christian activist who fled to America for some reason related to his activism-- he didn't go into detail and the language barrier made it worse.

KyMouse| 3.1.11 @ 3:46PM

One reason I will never join the Catholic Church is because it teaches that salvation comes through it and its sacraments -- not through Jesus alone, and by faith alone. The Catholic catechism says (para. 1992, if memory serves) that "justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith..." In paragraph 2027, it says that "we can merit for ourselves and others all the graces needed to attain eternal life..."

But the Bible is clear that no one can merit God's favor. The Bible states that justification (salvation) comes from God through personal faith (obedient trust) in Jesus -- for example, "Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Romans 5:1) and "...his faith is counted for righteousness" (Romans 4:5).

I believe the Bible, which says in Romans 3:26-28 that He "is the justifier of him who believes in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? No, but by the law of faith. Therefore, we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law..."

Jacob| 3.2.11 @ 9:08AM

You're silly! (You sound like some of the people who used to fill these dying churches.)

How come we can't receive salvation by God's decision through our sacraments? Is it beyond reason that God imparted to us a structure for worshiping him and that it is him, not the structure he designed, which grants us salvation, even if he requires that we receive his grace through that structure?

All the "Marian heresy" "you worship idols" Protestants always just seem to have that kind of personality where they want to take a small difference and turn it into undeniable proof that the pope is the antichrist.
Speak to an enlightened Evangelical or Protestant and you wont get this naive attitude.

(I believe the bible as well! That there were and are heresies to come and that many would try to break up the One True Church for their own personal or communal glory, by which they would glorify not God but the other one. However I also believe that God brings unthinkable goodness from all kinds of evil.)

Seriously find a more noble cause! I'm thinking something ecumenical!

KyMouse| 3.2.11 @ 1:18PM

Jacob, when the Bible and Catholic teaching disagree, I follow the Bible. As 2 Timothy 3:14-17 says, all that we need to know about salvation is found in Scripture. Not in the Magisterium, not in Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church.

Catholic teaching denies the doctrine that is most crucial to Christian faith -- the doctrine of justification only by faith in Jesus. Your Church denies that Messiah's work of redemption was finished on Calvary and that His atonement on the cross was sufficient to pay for all of the believer's sins -- the Bible, however, says that "by one offering He has forever perfected those who are being sanctified" (Hebrews 10:14), and that "unlike the other high priests, He does not need to offer daily sacrifices" (Hebrews 7:27-28).

I have, and need, no intercessor other than Jesus (Hebrews 7:25). Any believer receives God's grace directly from Him, not through the Church (Ephesians 2:18). And there is nothing -- not praying the Rosary, not going to Confession ever day, not participating in Eucharistic Devotion -- that will earn me any more salvation than I already have through Jesus (Ephesians 2:8-9). Every bit of my salvation is a gift from Him.

"He saved us, not because of any righteous deeds we had done, but because of His mercy" (Titus 3:5).

KyMouse| 3.2.11 @ 1:29PM

Jacob, since it was you, not I, who brought up the "Marian heresy," I'll add these thoughts:

More and more Catholics are reading the Bible for themselves and discovering (among other truths) how little is actually said about Mary in its pages. They are realizing that all forms and degrees of devotion and worship must be given directly to God, not to or through Mary or anyone else.

Remember the story of the Magi who followed the star to the manger? Notice that "they saw the young Child with Mary, His mother, and fell down and worshipped Him" (Matthew 2:11). They worshipped Jesus, but gave no veneration to Mary at all.

In the Acts of the Apostles and in the Epistles, Mary is all but absent. The final verse that mentions her, Acts 1:14, says that she was a member of a group that gathered to pray in the upper room. She is described ONLY as "the mother of Jesus" --- not as Queen of Heaven and Earth, Co-Redeemer of Mankind, Mother of Grace, or any other royal or divine title that would have embarrassed such a devout Jewish woman.

The idea that one can worship God by giving some degree or form of veneration to someone else is flatly denied in Revelation 22:8-9. John writes, "And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which showed me these things. Then he said to me, 'See that you do not do that, for I am your fellow-servant...Worship God."

The angel was insisting that all forms and degrees of worship must be given DIRECTLY to God, not through anyone else. John was rebuked for bowing low at the feet of an angel -- however, in 709 A.D., the Catholic Church began insisting that people bow down and kiss the pope's feet. In contrast to that, Acts 10:26 tells us that Peter wouldn't let a man fall at his feet to worship God through him -- "Stand up," he said. "I myself also am a man."

John says in Revelation 5:12-14 that everyone in heaven was singing, "Worthy is the Lamb who was slain [not Mary] to receive...honor and glory and blessing...And [they] fell down and worshipped Him who lives forever and ever."

Amen to that.

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.28.11 @ 7:34AM

Mr. Tooley,
thank you for that article. I am an alumnus of Baylor and was aware of the study.
Please don't forget the Baptist missionaries' work.

Ryan| 2.28.11 @ 8:22AM

Matt 24: 1-14
1Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him.
2And He said to them, "Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down."
3As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?"
4And Jesus answered and said to them, "See to it that no one misleads you.
5"For many will come in My name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and will mislead many.
6"You will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end.
7"For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes.
8"But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs.
9"Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name.
10"At that time many will fall away and will betray one another and hate one another.
11"Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many.
12"Because lawlessness is increased, most people's love will grow cold.
13"But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved.
14"This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.

logmank| 2.28.11 @ 8:31AM

Hmmm. Interesting essay. My question is: is it Christianity that is thriving, or is it religiosity? According to Jesus in the Gospel of John, chapter 3, there is a big difference between the two.
Then, in Matthew 7: 13-27, He goes on to state that the way that leads to life is narrow, and there will be "few" who find it. The broad way that is being traveled by many, He says, leads to destruction.
Attending church and calling myself a "Christian" doesn't make me one, any more than standing in a garage makes me a car.

Ryan| 2.28.11 @ 9:05AM

Here's the other side, though - God promises Abraham a multitude of children, fulfilled in the Church.

I suspect there are going to be a lot of surprises in Heaven as to who winds up there.

Jesus loves you| 2.28.11 @ 9:36AM

Yes, the way is narrow and few are they that find it, during each generation, but over time, say, the billion or so years until Jesus returns even the few add up to a lot. (We've still got to explore and enjoy his universe.)

simon templar| 2.28.11 @ 12:43PM

Religiosity may be indeed thriving in the US and western countries but I have no doubt the real thing is happening in China and Africa. How do I know this? Because I have read hundreds of articles desccribing the testimonies and experiences of these new christians in these parts of the world and the fierce persecution and trials they are going through. They are walking the talk.

Impeach Don't Wait| 2.28.11 @ 9:00PM

And conversions abound in muslim countries despite persecution... which understandably doesn't exactly hit the newspapers.

KyMouse| 3.1.11 @ 10:45AM

Millions of people who call themselves Christian do not believe Jesus' warning that personal faith in Him is necessary for salvation. There is a preacher in my family who says, as many others do, that no one is saved except through Jesus, but that the salvation He gives is not limited to those who have faith in Him.

Jesus' own words deny that. John 3:14-18 is among the passages in which Jesus says that personal faith (obedient trust) in Him is necessary for the forgiveness of sins. His words, which reminded His Jewish listeners of Numbers 21:5-9, apply to Jews and non-Jews alike.

"As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life...He who believes in Him is not condemned, but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God...."

Jay| 3.5.11 @ 8:00PM

I agree, but we have too many people today who do not think that way. To them just showing up in church is enough, or even in not going to church. Christianity is thriving in parts of the world, but not in the USA. The Bible says there will be a great falling away, but also teaches us that there will be a great revival toward the end. However, it does not say that they will take place in the same location. Europe is gone, America and Britain are going, but there is a great revival going on in Africa, So. America, places like China, Vietnam, Korea, and other parts of southwest Asia.

Comparatively speaking, many in our country are religious, but few are Christian, although many claim to be. It is apparent that such is not the case. Don't forget that Christ said that there would be many Anti-christs coming and would deceive many.

john dubose| 2.28.11 @ 8:35AM

In many parts of the world, athiests ( on the rare occasions when they are recognised ) are treated badly. But if a person does not believe in GOD, there is little reason to campaign to gain favor with that god. There will be NO personal upside.
The athiest number here is likely way low.

Doctor Right| 2.28.11 @ 10:40AM

In a sense, you're right:

There is NO upside to being an Atheist.

Jay| 3.5.11 @ 7:50PM

As soon as they die, the one thing that both Christian and Atheist agree on, is that there is a God.

Pat Carr| 7.25.11 @ 5:05PM

LOL Dream On. Silly christians think they know it all. When we die, we're all going to sleep permanently.

Henry| 2.28.11 @ 10:30PM

For an atheist, this is as good as it gets. But for a Believer, this is as bad as it gets...the best is yet to come! Great essay, and so encouraging. Thanks for posting!

Edwin Kagin's atheism| 3.1.11 @ 10:59AM

Edwin Kagin's web site is an eye-opener for anyone who wants to see inside the mind of a militant atheist. He and his late wife founded Camp Quest for children of atheists, and he has long been the legal advisor for American Atheists.

Kagin's wife died in February 2010 after a long battle with cancer, and he sent a letter to the hospital in which she spent her final days, warning the hospital that he would take legal action if anyone enaged in any sort of "god talk" with his wife.

Ironically, she was a patient in Christ Hospital.

Look around in Kagin's web site if you dare, but put on "the whole armor of God" before you do so.

You can read his letter to the hospital at various places on the Web, such as the Facebook page of American Atheists. Google "Notice not to use religious talk with Helen Kagin" and you'll find it.

David T| 2.28.11 @ 9:53AM

logmank--The more people who attend church and call themselves Christian, the better. God, who knows the heart, will sort the wheat from the chaff on the Last Day.

Doctor Right| 2.28.11 @ 9:59AM

May people, when polled, will say that they're "Christian". These same people never lift a finger to go to Church, or read a Bible.

Saying one is "Christian" in our society is not much different than saying one is a member of the Rotary Club, or a Packer's fan...it's just another descriptor. In addition, simply "attending Church" can be a meaningless act if attendance is intended to get one's ticket punched, metaphorically speaking.

I'd say that the actual number of truly faithful, believing Christians is far, far lower than 2.3 billion.

PastorJack| 2.28.11 @ 12:58PM

Mat 7:21-23 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. (22) Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? (23) And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

This is the same word for "know" that is used in Mat 1:24-25 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: (25) And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

It means to have intimate knowledge of someone. Adam knew Eve and she bore Cain, etc. We obviously aren't having physical intimacy like this with Jesus but in Paul's teachings of husband and wife relationships he draws the strong conclusion that we are like the bride and Christ is the bridegroom. Those who are espoused to one another know things about each other, lots of things: favorite colors, favorite fragrances, etc. This knowledge comes from spending time together; not just quality time but QUANTITY time.

Those calling Jesus Lord, Lord in the above verses claim, by their words to be Christian but the Bridegroom knows who is and is not his bride.

Consider the parable of the 10 virgins: 5 wise and 5 foolish. All were betrothed and expecting to meet the Bridegr0om but only 5 went to be with Him. 50% ! Besides the rapture references here it is important to notice that this is in agreement with Jesus' words in Matthew 7. Not everyone who calls Him Lord shall enter the kingdom of heaven. In the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established. 2 Cor 13:1, Mat 18:16

He is coming soon and forever is a LONG time to be wrong......

Doctor Right| 2.28.11 @ 1:58PM

Work out your salvation with fear and trembling.

Pelligrino| 3.1.11 @ 1:19AM

Thank you, Pastor Jack.

There is a shallowness to what I see. Many places.

For example, very vague understandings on key passages and Old Testament stories.

Do people memorize scripture anymore? I mean whole passages. There are lots of reasons to do this.

That's but one tiny example. But it reflects our 'quality and quantity' time as PJ mentions.

I would add that Jesus talks about (admonishes) those who are 'lukewarm.' What does He do to them?

Appleby| 3.1.11 @ 7:04AM

People dont memorize anything much anymore. When Daddy went to school they had declamation day every Friday and everyone had to recite; these were prairie farm boys and girls, mind you, whose lives otherwise were made up of hard work -- yet Daddy could not only recite the entire United States Constitution, he had quite a fund of poetry at his command, including The Wreck of the Hesperus, The Ride of Paul Revere and the Village Blacksmith. And all my sisters can not only quote Bible verses, but find them -- *Sword Drill* at Bible School taught us well!

Jacob| 3.2.11 @ 9:21AM

Romancing the past.

Your father was very smart no doubt but I would outscore him on a test of intellect.

There's this myth from boomers that all our parents are smarter than us but if you actually look at it scientifically you will find that overall we are a more intelligent generation. The world isn't completely going to hell in a hand basket because our grumpy boomer parents are losing control and have a conspiracy theory a day for how their evil parents screwed the blameless generation of boomers who in turn, like heroes in Greek mythology, conquered their folks but were then inexplicably cursed with an evil generation of children.
(Boomers have a very active imagination.)

Boomers are like a superhero generation in their own mind..they're like leftists, they can spin any situation into how they saved the world and then their greedy kids screwed it all up. Nothing but their own demon spawn could defeat the international angel boomers who achieved mighty feats such as having sex in a field to avoid militaristic squares (the people who did silly things like win World War II and create the greatest country the worlds ever seen).

Seriously boomers, no need for honest self reflection, you've got a hell of a story already!

DontTazeMeBro| 2.28.11 @ 2:22PM

That may have been true at one time, but I don't think we should slander American Christians too much. Except for a few areas in the South, I think the days that going to church for social reasons are past in America. In fact, in Portland, Oregon, where I live, only about 5% of the people are Christians - and the gourmet coffee bars are the new churchs. I know that a lot of people in churches may not really be Christians in some places, but not in Portland.

Big Leo| 2.28.11 @ 6:42PM

A lot of atheists don't live up to their high moral and ethical standards, if any, either. It's human nature.

Number8| 2.28.11 @ 10:09PM

Doctor Right is correct. There are multitudes who are identified as Christians who likely are not. For example, simple observation will indicate that the percentage of Christians in Europe is very low. My conclusion is that there are hundreds of millions of atheists in Europe.

Dan Hirsch| 2.28.11 @ 10:05AM

"john"

You show the atheist's hopeless position in your few words:

"But if a person does not believe in GOD, there is little reason to campaign to gain favor with that god."

What in the world does an atheist hope to gain from his promoting his stance?

If you don't believe in God, be still! If you break somebody else's faith, what have you gained? Nothing, remember there's Nobody watching! You are just gratifying and justifying yourself, possibly at other's expense!

Leave us poor, confused, misguided, faithful mopes alone. It is the polite thing to do.

Unfortunately, the Faithful will not let you alone, because for us, there is a reason, there is a Judge, and He is keeping score. He's watching you, too...

Doctor Right| 2.28.11 @ 10:40AM

Dan:

Don't waste your time arguing with Atheists. They live in a world devoid of logic, yet they've convinced themselves that they are the epitome of logical thought.

Only the fool believes in his heart that there is no God.

Walkthetalk| 2.28.11 @ 11:03AM

A disconcerting statistic not mentioned in the article is that the liberal seminaries outnumber conservative seminaries by more than 20 to 1. This means that polluted theology is spreading because of the large number of liberal preachers available for call by churches worldwide. What’s more, TBN is broadcast internationally, but most of the theology on that outlet is foolishness. People in developing countries may be attracted to those disingenuous messages being preached, but few are actually saved. Pity the people who watch it thinking they will easily find the truth there. In Korea and Uganda congregations have large health-wealth representation and these exert great peer pressure to conform. The Philippines is awash in superstition. Life-seeking people all over the world need some help. This being the case it is fully upon the shoulders of God’s people to reach out and do battle with the foolishness that pervades the “Christian” realm (even while fighting the many other battles imposed by the left on free people). This battle will be carried by the spiritually mature, but any one in Christ can participate to some extent. (If you don’t know what “in Christ” or spiritually mature means read the books at www.christforamericans.com) Then with almost seven billion people the few though still “few” will be increased, and that will resonate to the benefit of the entire world (including those who choose to reject the God of life).

CalMark| 2.28.11 @ 3:15PM

Fear not! God works in mysterious ways.

When He has finally had enough, these Christianity-hijacking liberals will find out about it soon enough. Not necessarily lightning bolts raining down and such, but "something will happen." And suddenly, leftie "seminaries" with "lavendar mafias" and "social justice" Marxism, will find themselves bereft.

Pelligrino| 3.1.11 @ 1:28AM

WalktheTalk,
I'm going to agree with you. It is weird that so many theological schools are indeed perversely liberal.

How does one know? Visit different churches when travelling or on business away from home.

What comes from these pulpits is often very confusing, nice-sounding (doesn't offend, you see; doesn't challenge us to get off our derriers and actually live for Christ) gobbledygook.

There might be people coming through the doors.

But why?

And what are they hearing/understanding?

I'll close on just this one perverse false teaching: 'The Prosperity Gospel.' Heard of it? It has many acolytes.

Seapuss| 2.28.11 @ 11:29AM

Mr. Tooley, you need to correct the first sentence in your essay.

The secular media does NOT view the world as a battle of resurgent Islam VS. enlightened secularists, with isolated evangelicals and Catholics left on the sideline. Rather, resurgent Islam AND enlightened secularists are viewed as allies, battling their common enemies: evangelicals and Catholics.

Pelligrino| 3.1.11 @ 1:34AM

Sea, you are correct. Thank you.

They make very odd bedfellows, but bedfellows they are. (At this point in time.)

Seek| 2.28.11 @ 11:58AM

Why is it that anyone who questions the existence of God -- as we all do at some point in our lives -- is instantly branded an "atheist?" And why is "atheism" automatically treated as a threat to the existence of the civilized world?

I will condemn atheism when I read of atheist hijackers crashing commercial jets into tall office buildings and the Pentagon. And as for Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot and cos. -- forget it. As Communists, their war was against private property. Religion was a sidebar issue at best.

Ryan| 2.28.11 @ 12:09PM

Religion WASN'T a sidebar. If it weren't then churches wouldn't have been outlawed and Christians (and others) wouldn't have been openly persecuted (as they still are in China).

Doctor Right| 2.28.11 @ 12:28PM

Sorry, but if you think that Religion was a "side-bar" issue to Communists, then you need to re-read your history of Communism and communist states.

In order to implement a "workers' paradise", Marx, Engels, and Lenin intuitively understood that faith in God was the biggest obstacle to overcome.

Why? Simple. Faith in God over-rides faith in THE STATE. In order to have a compliant, obedient populace of worker-drones, those drones must be purged of the hope that comes with strong religious faith in God. Otherwise, they may eventually stop being compliant and obedient. If they think that all goodness and sustenance flows from THE STATE, then they will give that state their unswerving faith.

In fact, the fervor and love of socialism that Communists seek to inculcate in "the masses" is in itself a form of religion. The "old religion" (the Christian God) is replaced with "the new" religion of socialism.

It's not a coincidence Lenin and Stalin destroyed iconic Church building throughout Russia, or that China still persecutes Christians, Muslims, and followers of Falun-Gong. Nor is it a coincidence that the downfall of the Communist regime in Poland in the late 80's was brought about by devoutly Catholic shipyard workers and their "illegal" union, Solidarity.

You also don't seem to understand much about the inherent (yes, inherent) evils of atheism. When one stops believing in God, there's nothing to prevent one from wanting to play God with the lives of others. Do you also think it's a coincidence that most murderous, brutal regimes in human history (NAZI Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist China, North Korea, Cambodia, etc) were all led by ATHEISTS following atheist philosophies?

Atheism is not a benign lack of faith in a higher power; that's agnosticism. Many people who consider themselves to be atheists are actually agnostics. Atheism is an active and militant non-belief in God that seeks to limit the religious freedom of other individuals and purge God not only from the public square, but from the private mind. It is an insidious philosophy that leads to misery.

Atheistic socialism/communism led directly to the deaths of 100 million people during the 20th century. Please...compared to these butchers, the 9/11 hijackers were inefficient pikers.

Seek| 3.2.11 @ 6:59PM

I despise Communism every bit as much as you do, but it is inescapable: The dominant struggle in the mind of the Marxist-Leninist is between labor and capital, not irrelgion and religion.

Find| 3.2.11 @ 9:39PM

This is true, all you have to do is read Mein Kampf.

http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/

W| 2.28.11 @ 12:30PM

Seek, obsessed with atheism again? The commies and hitler were against religion, it was/is a threat to their ability to control the people. "forget it" is a very poor argument to rebut the overwhelming evidence of the atheism of mao, stalin, hitler, pol pot,castro,etc. who are responsible for over 100 million deaths in the 20th century, as documented in the "black book of communism."
isnt one hundred million murders enough for you to condemn atheism?
have you condemned islam for the 9/11 attack?

Seek| 2.28.11 @ 3:02PM

Communists saw religion as a tool of social control by capitalists. But From Marx onward, capitalists, not clergymen, have been their real enemies. The Commies foremost hate private property, not the pulpit. Their paradigm remains the same: a ceaseless war between capital and labor, with labor coming out on top -- as ordained by History. The refutations to my above post were unconvincing.

As for Nazism, the case against "atheism" (or freethought) is even less tenable. Hitler himself never renounced his Roman Catholic membership; indeed, he openly affirmed it. And Nazism primarily was about racial struggle as National Will. Religious piety was an ephemeral issue. Put it this way: Atheist Jews were no more safe from the labor camps than were religious Jews.

Doctor Right| 2.28.11 @ 3:54PM

Sorry, but if you believe that Hitler EVER "affirmed" his a faith in Catholicism, you are dead wrong.

As author Dinesh D'Souza writes:

" 'Hitler's Table Talk', a revealing collection of the Fuhrer's private opinions, assembled by a close aide during the war years, shows Hitler to be rabidly anti-religious. He called Christianity one of the great 'scourges' of history, and said of the Germans, 'Let's be the only people who are immunized against this disease.' He promised that 'through the peasantry we shall be able to destroy Christianity.' In fact, he blamed the Jews for inventing Christianity. He also condemned Christianity for its opposition to evolution."
NAZI-ism itself was inherently atheistic. To the extent that it had any religious underpinnings, they were the paganistic beliefs of Norse Mythology.

You're also focusing on the END, and not the MEANS. To abolish private property, you need to divest the citizens of their rights. To do that, you need to convince the citizens that they have NO rights other than that which the state benevolently grants. To do that, you need to relieve them of their faith in God, and have that faith re-focused on the state.

"Unconvincing"? Whatever. As previously stated, you need to brush-up on your history.

simon templar| 2.28.11 @ 4:40PM

"To do that, you need to convince the citizens that they have NO rights other than that which the state benevolently grants."
Excellent observation. It is the essentail underpinning of communism and is written about at length by Marx and Engels...there are no inalienable rights given to one by a creator. This is their core belief and the one that they have been trying to promote from the beginning of the socialist movement.

Pelligrino| 3.1.11 @ 1:38AM

Thank you, Doctor Right.

Today, in this thread, you've been making some great posts. Thanks!

Keep them; save them.

Undoubtedly there will be another like-type topic here or at another similar publication. Your posts are instructive (and true), and they need to be used again.

Please don't hesitate to do so.

Seek| 3.2.11 @ 7:10PM

Hitler an atheist? Here's a couple of (non-fabricated) quotes to make you rethink that:

"This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief." (Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 152)

"I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work." (Hitler, speech to the Reichstag, 1936).

By the way, "Table Talk" is generaly considered to be a forgery. The otherwise estimable late English historian, Hugh Trevor-Roper, was the victim of a snowjob. And apparently, so has the less than estimable hack pundit, Dinesh D'Souza.

Yetizod| 3.28.11 @ 10:12AM

You need to only take a look at the stats on pre WW2 Germany to know why Hitler might have been quoted saying things in a positive Christian light. He was preaching too, and playing the politics off a predominately Lutheran Germany ( at the time). No different that Barack Obama today.

Ryan| 2.28.11 @ 4:38PM

The Hitler-RCC connection has always been a bad argument, usually used by anti-religionists as some sort of example. He did NOT worship God - He worshiped Himself and the state.

W| 3.1.11 @ 3:34PM

you do not want to be convinced,seek, otherwise you would be more informed and accurate about history.

Seek| 3.2.11 @ 7:01PM

You exhibit no understanding of what I am saying. I condemn Communism. But Communism was a revolt against capital, not atheism, which Marx saw as a character mask for capital.

Yes, I do condemn Islam for 9/11. I guess I'm no longer guilty by omission.

simon templar| 2.28.11 @ 1:08PM

I will answer your questions honestly if you are willing to honsestly listen.

Why is it that anyone who questions the existence of God -- as we all do at some point in our lives -- is instantly branded an "atheist?"
I am not branding you nor is anyone else. Yes, everyone does at some point. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar. Some of the greatest saints have had doubt and a crisis of faith. Atheism is now treated by some people as a threat because modern atheism has been on a crusade to destroy faith...and has been the cornerstone paradigm underneath one of the most powerful political movements of the last century and half...communism. Communism was the new religion of man and all faith was expected to be placed in the state. I am afraid this is undeniable and not up for debate. Now, the irony to all of this is that atheism has been tolerated by the christain west because of the very nature of christianity itself. It seeks for the most part to persuade rather than kill you into believing or not believing...and for the most part lives and let lives. This is why SE Cupp ,who is an atheist, supports Christainity and people of faith. So, personal atheism in and of itself does not have to be a threat to the civilized world if it learns to be tolerant and understands the value of faith and the historical contribution of these faith philosophies to western ideas of law, government, economics, and liberty.

CalMark| 2.28.11 @ 3:25PM

Seek: Soviet practices totally defeat your argument. Persecution of people aside, look at what happened to church buildings. First, the Kremlin took control of them--every single one, amazing considering the size of the USSR. Then one of three things happened:

1. Kremlin-appointed stooges ran them as propaganda for gullible, eager-to-be-fooled lefties.
2. They were declared off-limits and fell into ruin.
3. Most heinous and telling of all: many ancient churches became a "Museum of Atheism."

Religion, irrelevant? NOT!

Seek| 3.2.11 @ 7:03PM

Communists in power saw religion as a threat to their power. That doesn't make religion Marxism's main theoretical enemy. Property owners, ever and always, were the main target. Deal with it.

CalMark| 2.28.11 @ 3:26PM

Religion, irrelevant? NOT!

CalMark| 2.28.11 @ 3:28PM

Apologies for the double post. Browser glitch.

mjfin| 2.28.11 @ 3:52PM

Seek:

Generally agree with you. Atheists are not real a threat to evangelicals or charismatics, or in general people with a real passion for their faith. They are also demographic losers because they do not have many children.

However they have influence out of proportion to their numbers because their message targets young, intelligent, university educated students with core scientific beliefs. Undoubtedly many of the latter are led astray by atheist arguments.

Atheists generally set up straw-man arguments that begin with the assumption that to be a Christian means you must believe in a God who exists apart from the universe, but perched within it like some alien creature in a distant-future science fiction epic, who sits there diddling with the material world as if he were designing hyper-complex universe-wide Ford F-150 factories.

This kind of belief, that God is an object within the universe, who then acts on it, is a heresy that is accepted by all too many Christians. Insofar as this is true, then honest, intelligent atheists like Christopher Hitchens, while he may overlook deeper understandings of God, are actually doing the world, and Christianity, a favor by pointing this out.

W| 2.28.11 @ 7:16PM

"This kind of belief, that God is an object within the universe, who then acts on it, is a heresy that is accepted by all too many Christians." This is inconsistent with your statement that
" Atheists generally set up straw-man arguments that begin with the assumption that to be a Christian means you must believe in a God who exists apart from the universe, but perched within it like some alien creature in a distant-future science fiction epic, who sits there diddling with the material world as if he were designing hyper-complex universe-wide Ford F-150 factories"
It is also pure psychobabble that does not mean anything comprehensible. What is the basis and authority for saying it is heresy? heretical to what?

mjfin| 3.1.11 @ 3:04PM

Maybe. The point is that God is not a physical object, like a planet, or a machine, or an advanced computer-based automaton, that spends much of His time sitting around inside of the Universe, fixing all of its random inadequacies, one at a time.

A God like this is implicitly what most creationists (for example) believe, whether they know it or not. It is also an impoverished view of both God and the Universe.

W| 3.1.11 @ 3:41PM

who said God is a physical object? you earlier said that the planet and universe are predisposed to evolution and for man to live here. why do you think that, was it an accident ? you are trying to be too clever by describing a God that suits your belief that God did not create the world, and you define creation as a God that sits around fixing all of the problems, one at a time. you know that is not the belief of many people who believe in God.
and can you please answer why man, assuming it occurred, broke off or evolved from the apes and other apes remained apes? was this an accident or was it programmed?

mjfin| 3.1.11 @ 5:26PM

This view of God as one who sits around piddling with matter to fix things is not mine. It is a logically implicit requirement of people who believe, e.g., in creationism. I answered your question about origins of man from apes in a previous post under a different topic. Go look it up.

I will say one more thing: Do not fear atheists. Presently they are doing the world and Christianity a service by exposing the idiot arguments of creationists and others who through ignorance or deliberation, pick and choose what science to accept, not based on evidence but rather on their (incomplete) understanding of whether it appears to be a threat to their beliefs.

Defenders of Christianity like these have labored over a century, and managed only to generate belief in the minds of too many educated people that Christians are a group of stupid, or badly educated, superstitious wingnuts.

This real disservice has undoubtedly prevented many intelligent people from exploring and finding Christianity. It is good that they and their ideas are being discredited, even by atheists.

Atheists in effect are acting as wolves, tearing at the faithful and removing the weak and the infirm. The result will be greater strength of those remaining.

Always good to have a few of them around.

Christian| 3.1.11 @ 10:37PM

Umm I came back and saw your post knocking Christians who believe that God created everything and have changed my mind about what I think of you now.

I still mean what I said about agreeing with you about some of the honest atheists, the ones who are truly seeking the truth and that Christians have nothing to fear from them because our hope is not in this life anyway and they can do us no harm.

But now it seems as though you are knocking God! Just plain weird. Oh well you are entitled to your opinion, but not to your own facts and especially about the fact that God CREATED EVERYTHING.

mjfin| 3.2.11 @ 3:02PM

Christian:

Sorry you feel that way Christian. But I am not knocking God. And I do believe He is the ultimate creator. I simply disagree with the way this creation is portrayed by people who call themselves Christians, and who, I believe, have done real damage to Christianity because of it.

God created all the creatures in the Universe, but He also created the Universe itself, which is our home, where we live, and which nurtures us, providing the material and energy we need to survive. It is not a cold, random, inert, unstructured alien place. It provides the substance and structure for material creation, and places constraints on how and what creation occurs. And these constraints have also been designed into the Universe by God, and are part of his method.

W| 3.2.11 @ 10:32AM

1. i don't know anyone who fears atheists. they are good for some arguments, but in the end their arguments are not convincing. we would need a lot of time and space to debate this, but most of these arguments have been adressed in anthony flew's book about why he is no longer an atheist.
2. you did not anwer the question of why man broke off or evolved from the apes, why did it occur and was if an accident, as most atheist evolutionist believe, or was it programmed or preordained as most christian evolutionist believe. it is not much of an answer to say yes i did, look it up. these are simple questions, the answer may not be simple, but you did not answer it, so try again.
3. you never answered the origin of the first species, you answered about origin of the species by discussing evolution, but you never answered about how the first life started. you tried to conflate the two, but you know better. you mentioned about bacteria being zapped with chemicals, that is not creation of life. experiments like that are numerous, no serious person states they can create life like that which will evolve into human beings.
4. what type of scientist are you? what field

mjfin| 3.2.11 @ 4:38PM

Hello W:

1) Well you should have some fear of atheists, if only because they can lead the innocent astray. That being said, on balance, it is probably useful to have some around, because they discipline and make more rigorous, Christian arguments.
2) Speaking bluntly, here is what I believe: God's preferred method of creating new living things is Darwinian evolution through natural selection. God built that mechanism into the Universe he designed. It is not a random, coin-flip methodology, but is very seriously constrained to generate the kinds of creatures we see around us today. Including us.
3. To say "zapped with chemicals" trivializes and insults my arguments. That is not a fair description. You should be ashamed of yourself.
4) I have a Ph.D. in neurophysiology from a major University, and have done Post Doctoral research in molecular and cellular evolution at an organization that advised NASA on selection of instrumentation to be used in the search for extraterrestrial life. Haven't done that kind of research now for 20+ years, so I am a bit out of date.

W| 3.2.11 @ 5:57PM

thanks for reply. so you are a christian evolutionists who believes God created life and programmed it for evolution. why didn't you just say so clearly, we could have saved time, since we agree. but the discussion was interesting, not trivializing you, just the scientist's conceit that they can create life.

Christian| 3.2.11 @ 6:13PM

You too, W? Too bad. God says that He created the animals, every single one of the from out of the earth right in the book of Genesis. Each according to its kind! Do you really want to try and confound Him?

Read and believe the Bible, Christians!

Christian| 3.2.11 @ 6:06PM

Ha ha, well now I can laugh at you mjfin for now you make yourself like God. You say what YOU believe, but what YOU believe doesn't matter even if you have a degree in the sciences.

True Christians believe what God says and He says He CREATED everything and HOW He did so in the Bible. Apparently this collides with YOUR view of reality but the Christian, if they are truly Christian, believe Him.

He says He created Man from the dust of the earth.. then created Eve from his rib. He says that Adam was the first man and Jesus is the second Adam. "Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit." 1 Cor. 15:45.

No wonder you knock Christians. You belong to the "I Know Better Than God" club, the same one that the rebel Darwin belonged to.

Christian| 3.1.11 @ 1:22PM

mjfin,

You're so right about the atheists, a lot of them are blatantly honest and are like open books. It's a joy to witness to them. When confronted with God's truth and they repent and come to the knowledge of the truth, these individuals go on to become the most zealous for Christ. I can attest to this personally.
Great post.

Pelligrino| 3.1.11 @ 1:50AM

Seek, sorry. That one just cannot stand. Sorry, I'm going to pile on.

Is the desecration of Christian faith by the Castro brothers in Cuba (just 90 short miles from the Sunshine State) a sidebar issue?

Over three generations now have not been able to practice the simple tenets of their personal faith. This is not possible.

I wish you knew their pain; I think you'd understand and change in a heartbeat.

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.28.11 @ 1:17PM

You know,
Most athiests I know simply consider themselves dog-food at death....

But what if...what if?..... They must endure eternity KNOWING that they are cast into outer darkness with no hope for redemption...forever?

Party hearty, athiests. Your party will be over soon enough.

the refudiator| 2.28.11 @ 1:38PM

the threat of damnation is by far the worst reason to become a believer. Only a coward would believe in something just to escape punishment. One must believe in something based on one's reason & one's understanding of the truth.

GENE HAUBER| 2.28.11 @ 5:02PM

WRONG.....
FAITH IN GOD ONLY WILL SAVE YOU.
FAITH IN THE BELIEF THAT GOD SENT JESUS AS THE PERFECT ATONEMENT FOR OUR SINS BECAUSE HE LOVES US.

IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE IS NO HOPE FOR YOU.
THE FEAR OF ETERNAL DAMNATION IS SUPPOSED TO "SCARE" YOU INTO A CONSIDERATION OF GOD'S OFFER TO YOU.

YOU LOVE GOD BECAUSE HE IS ALL MERCIFUL AND ALL LOVING, BUT....YOU FEAR GOD BECAUSE HE IS ALL JUST AND HAS TOLD YOU WHAT HE EXPECTS OF EACH ONE OF US.

TRUST IN YOURSELF AT YOUR PERIL.

The refudiator| 2.28.11 @ 8:44PM

you appear to be missing the point mister caps lock. Using fear to guide one's thoughts usually leads to emotional decisions. Religion is inherently an emotional topic & rational discussion is usually impossible even among believers. But to walk around saying anyone who doesn't believe as you do is sentenced to eternal damnation is not a good way to win hearts & minds. You cannot even be sure of this. The Bible itself is not even clear on this. Jesus has said in the Gospels that the only way to the kingdom is through him. Then we read in Revelations that there are 144000 Jews in Heaven. So the point of this is, your Holy Text is not as cut & dried on this as you make out. Perhaps you guys shouldn't be judging the atheists & agnostics, or anybody else, lest you be judged yourself. It would be more appealing.

Doctor Right| 2.28.11 @ 5:23PM

Reason will lead you to The Truth. Both will lead you to God.

Faith is NOT irrational.

Doctor Right| 2.28.11 @ 1:57PM

There's a reason pride is a sin; some people simply CANNOT admit that they are not in charge of their own destinies.

GENE HAUBER| 2.28.11 @ 5:04PM

EXACTLY

mejamom| 2.28.11 @ 2:34PM

Something I learned from my very devout and educated Catholic father regarding your comment: Yes, there is the, "what if?" But there's also the life now. And a life full of following Christ's teachings is a very wonderful life.
But you already know that.

simon templar| 2.28.11 @ 1:20PM

Seek, to be blunt, christian tradition, has left room for atheism to exist and for men to follow their own minds and hearts. Have you read a bible? You will be really surprised that Christ himself told his followers to question everything. You must come to faith by reason and experience. Free will is the central concept that undergirds judeo-christian philosophy.

Mark| 2.28.11 @ 2:05PM

Simon,
Huh? When did Jesus say to question everything?

simon templar| 2.28.11 @ 4:06PM

What I was trying to say is that he instructed them that they should strive to discern, understand, and make decisions based on righteous critical thinking. Jesus does command us to engage in a critical-thinking type of judgment according to righteousness: Do not judge [krinete] according to appearance, but judge [krisin] with righteous judgment [krinete] (John 7:24). Another quote from the bible:
But he who is spiritual appraises [avakrinei: critically examines] all things, yet he himself is appraised [anakrinetai] by no man (1 Cor. 2:6-7, 12-15).
Christian books on philosophy and logic often refer to the use of the word "reason" in Isaiah 1:18: "Come now, and let us reason together," Says the Lord. his whole life was a testimony to righteous critical thinking as he challenged the prevailing notions of his time as well as those in authority that he questioned. This is what I meant to say. I said this as Seek and others on the left are always claiming that people of faith are blind followers, do not exercise critical thinking, nor the use our minds. That faith is somehow devoid of reason and critical thinking is there usual criticism.

PJ| 2.28.11 @ 3:00PM

If Baylor's numbers are correct, I can only say, "YEEEEAAAAH! It is a new springtime!"

OH has anyone noticed these 2 numbers: 79000 converts to Islam & 80000 to Christianity. It's going to be a slow process but I do believe Christianity will be the "last man standing" as the Lord promised.

ari| 2.28.11 @ 3:10PM

umm, 96% of all russian orthodox religious were killed by communists. that's a pretty spectacular sideshow. the numbers in other communist regimes are disquieting as well. If religion is the opiate of the masses, are the communists going to give out advice on eliminating biological opiate pushers- you know, how to get rid of 96% of all drug dealers? they'd be more effective than we are.

what a spiffy article. how wonderful and how hopeful. one of the joys of going to church is that I know that I am worshipping with people all around the globe, that we are singing holy, holy, holy with each other, and with the angels in heaven, as well.

I don't know that the ELCA's current stand on pastors in committed same-sex partnerships will last. I do know that I am encouraged that the dialogue from all sides is based on a language of love and respect and longing for unity, one way or another. I love that in sunday school classes, the debate is going on, face to face with the class and the pastor.

it's a dialogue that covers all areas: i'm working in an area at church, joyfully in service with people who are completely opposite of me politically. It's wonderful hearing their life story. it's good to be in communion, and vote separately.

the methodist church in america practiced malpractice. they would move pastors from one small congregation to another, every two years. they practiced pastoral divorce on a culture and people already suffering from divorce in all areas. they had tin ears to the cries and lamentations of their flocks.

our church is finally changing pastors after 35 years. it really is a magnificent sailing away. there is such love rainbowing each way. and such care that a good pastor be brought in. I've never seen anything like it. I feel safe, in trusted hands.

oh, and eisenhower- he marched germans through concentration camps, after the war, in procession with crosses. i saw it in a time-life book, a photo with a caption. it was exceeding strange. I've been fascinated with him ever since, convinced that no one has written of his true internal landscape.

Josh 2005| 2.28.11 @ 3:14PM

Mark (and Simon),

Actually, Jesus didn't say that. But Paul did...

"But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil." - 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22

Specifically, Paul was talking about new teachings and prophecies. He told the church to test everything they heard and make sure it aligned with the Gospel and what they knew about God.

However, the book of Pslams says, "The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of His hands." To me, this means that God is evident when we look at science and nature. So in a sense, we can test and question His existance, because nature itself proclaims His glory.

ricky l. cox| 3.4.11 @ 11:50AM

Paul never met Jesus. He was sent by James, brother of Jesus, and other disciples from the movement started by Jesus, to preach to the Gentiles far away. This is because their members wanted to kill him.
Paul's gospel was not the gospel of Jesus or his disciples left behind. They referred to him as the "spouter of lies" (Dead Sea Scrolls). As the original movement of Jesus was mostly destroyed in AD 70, Paul was luckily far away, and his version flourished. It became paganized by the Greco-Roman influence which stressed God's siring of children on earth with humans. Then the gospels of the New Testament were written. The Roman Church and Constantine latched onto it, and took it even farther afield from Jesus. That is the root of every Christian denomination, and one of the main reasons why they are all wrong.
The followers of Jesus had no interest in a new religion, but practiced Jewish tradition with a more spiritual enlightenment. The religion we have today called Christianity has nothing to do with Jesus. The Roman bishops and Constantine selected and re-wrote the books of the New Testament, employing scribes called "correctores" to change scripture to fit their counsel decisions on doctrine.
This alliance of church and political power is what Jesus reserved his most potent denouncements for - someone claiming they have something you don't have, and assigning to themselves the honor of parceling out God on their terms.
The authentic Jesus is found in the story of the Samarian woman at the well. He offered her salvation, the well of everlasting water springing up within her, right there on the dirt where they both stood; no crucifixion, no blood, no atonement for sin.
Our essence was never born and never dies. We do not come with original sin, or any defect or sickness. Jesus offered the woman at the well nothing but awareness; enlightenment. She was already divine, she just needed to know.
As Jesus taught his closest confidants, his kingdom was already with them. He said it was inside them and outside them. He said if you find what is within you, it will save you.
Everything else is a man-made, man-written, man-conceived play for authority and power.
It is an evil concept. Avoid it like the plague is my advice.

Josh| 3.29.11 @ 2:56PM

That was the dumbest bunch of drivel i've ever read. You need to do a little research into the veracity of new testament scripture partner. Almost everything you said is provably false.

GENE HAUBER| 2.28.11 @ 4:47PM

If these figures are any where near true, then Christians should stand with their pastors and some of the treasure, however slight it might be, and declare spiritual war on the abominable ACLU and put them out of business.

I would guess that their major income is derived by suing religious (christian) organizations believing they will win .

LET'S CHANGE THAT PARADIGM NOW.

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.28.11 @ 5:38PM

You know, folks,
I have not seen any comments about the Person of The Holy Spirit, here.
One of Jesus' promises was that The Holy Spirit would be with us to point the way and comfort us.

He has been in my life. He confronts my life. I have watched Him intersect many lives for the first time.
We worship a triune God..."The Trinity", but we often forget the third member of that Trinity evanescent in our lives... The Holy Spirit.

Pelligrino| 3.1.11 @ 1:56AM

Thank you, Ken.

Yes, until Jesus returns, we have the Holy Spirit here.

I am sure this world, sinful and fallen as it is (and as we are/as I am) would be a terribly dark and hideous place in these days were it not for the Holy Spirit.

I am glad that the Holy Spirit is present.

Maranatha| 2.28.11 @ 8:06PM

"The LORD our God is one LORD." Duet. 6:4.

Dee See| 3.1.11 @ 4:43AM

----Now, are we speaking of genuine, scriptural
Christianity, or ARMINIAN HERESY promoting, Rockefeller 'Council of Churches'
collectivizing, Oprah 'friendly' ---Christ Lite?

ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES-----------!

Holier than thou| 3.2.11 @ 5:57PM

with all those pervert Mormons and their young brides, and those pedophile priest the catholics have, and the many Southern Hard shell Baaa-ptist, it is no wonder.
All the perverts have figured out that for whoringJesus for a living and the sexual kinks they get, life is good for the scammers.
All in my most humble opinion of course.

Healthier Than Thou| 3.2.11 @ 9:46PM

Let them be. it doesn't change the Holiness of God nor does it affect the faithful.

Vasu Murti| 3.4.11 @ 2:39AM

Christians for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

One widespread rationalization in Christian circles, often used to justify humanity's mistreatment of animals, is the erroneous belief that humans alone possess immortal souls, and only humans, therefore, are worthy of moral consideration.

The 19th century German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer, condemned such a philosophy in his On the Basis of Morality.

"Because Christian morality leaves animals out of account," wrote Schopenhauer, "they are at once outlawed in philosophical morals; they are mere 'things,' mere means to any ends whatsoever. They can therefore be used for vivisection, hunting, coursing, bullfights, and horse racing, and can be whipped to death as they struggle along with heavy carts of stone. Shame on such a morality that is worthy of pariahs, and that fails to recognize the eternal essence that exists in every living thing, and shines forth with inscrutable significance from all eyes that see the sun!"

***

According to the Bible, animals have souls. Texts such as Genesis 1:21,24 are often mistranslated to read "living creatures." The exact Hebrew used in reference to animals throughout the Bible is "nephesh chayah," or "living soul." This is how the phrase has been translated in Genesis 2:7 and in four hundred other places in the Old Testament.

God breathed the "breath of life" into man, and caused him to become a living soul. (Genesis 2:7) Animals have the same "breath of life" as do humans. (Genesis 7:15, 22) Numbers 16:22 refers to the Lord as "the God of spirits of all flesh." In Numbers 31:28, God commands Moses to divide up among the people the cattle, sheep, asses and human prisoners captured in battle and to give to the Lord "one soul of five hundred" of both humans and animals alike. Psalm 104 says God provides for animals and their ensoulment:

"O Lord, how innumerable are Thy works; in wisdom Thou hast made them all! The earth is full of Thy well-made creations. All these look to Thee to furnish their timely feed. When Thou providest for them, they gather it. Thou openest Thy hand, and they are satisfied with good things.

"When Thou hidest Thy face, they are struck with despair. When Thou cuttest off their breath, in death they return to their dust. Thou sendest Thy Spirit and more are created, and Thou dost replenish the surface of the earth."

Similarly, the apocryphal Book of Judith praises God, saying, "Let every creature serve You, for You spoke and they were made. You sent forth Your Spirit and they were created."

Job 12:10 teaches that in God's hand "is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind."

Ecclesiastes 3:19-20 says humans have no advantage over animals: "They all draw the same breath...all came from the dust, and to dust all return."

The verse that immediately follows asks, "Who knows if the spirit of man goes upward, and the spirit of the beast goes down to the earth?"

The exact Hebrew word for "spirit," "ruach," is used in connection with animals as well as humans.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 concludes that "the spirit shall return unto God who gave it."

This position was taken by Paul, who called himself an apostle to the gentiles. Paul spoke of God as the "giver of life and breath and all things to everyone." (Acts 17:25) In his epistle to the Romans 8:18-25, Paul wrote that the entire creation, and not just mankind, is awaiting redemption.

Revelations 16:3 also refers to the souls of animals: "The second angel poured out his bowl upon the sea, so that it turned to blood as of a corpse, and every living soul that was in the sea died." The exact Greek word for soul, "psyche," was used in the original texts.

***

Jesus repeatedly spoke of God's tender care for the nonhuman creation (Matthew 6:26-30, 10:29-31; Luke 12:6-7, 24-28). Jesus taught that God desires "mercy and not sacrifice." (Matthew 9:10-13, 12:6-7; Mark 2:15-17; Luke 5:29-32) The epistle to the Hebrews 10:5-10 suggests that Jesus did not come to abolish the Law and the prophets (which Paul, and not Jesus, regarded as "so much garbage"), but only the institution of animal sacrifice, as does Jesus' cleansing the Temple of those who were buying and selling animals for sacrifice and his overturning the tables of the moneychangers in the Temple. (Matthew 21:12-14; Mark 11:15-17; Luke 19:45-46; John 2:14-17)

Jesus not only repeatedly upheld Mosaic Law (Matthew 5:17-19; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 16:17), he justified his healing on the Sabbath by referring to commandments calling for the humane treatment of animals!

When teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath, Jesus healed a woman who had been ill for eighteen years. He justified his healing work on the Sabbath by referring to biblical passages calling for the humane treatment of animals as well as their rest on the Sabbath.

"So ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham...be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath?" Jesus asked. (Luke 13:10-16)

On another occasion, Jesus again referred to Torah teaching on "tsa'ar ba'alei chayim" or compassion for animals to justify healing on the Sabbath. "Which of you, having a donkey or an ox that has fallen into a pit, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?" (Luke 14:1-5)

Jesus compared saving sinners who had gone astray from God's kingdom to rescuing lost sheep. He recalled a Jewish legend about Moses' compassion as a shepherd for his flock.

"For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost. What do you think? Who among you, having a hundred sheep, if he loses one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost until he finds it?

"And when he has found it," Jesus continued, "he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and neighbors saying to them, 'Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!'

"I say to you, likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance ...there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents." (Matthew 18:11-13; Luke 15:3-7,10)

***

"The compassionate, sensitive heart for animals is inseparable from the proclamation of the Christian gospel," writes the Reverend Andrew Linzey in Love the Animals.

"We have lived so long with the gospel stories of Jesus that we frequently fail to see how his life and ministry identified with animals at almost every point.

"His birth, if tradition is to be believed, takes place in the home of sheep and oxen. His ministry begins, according to St. Mark, in the wilderness 'with the wild beasts' (1:13). His triumphal entry into Jerusalem involves riding on a 'humble' ass (Matthew 21).

"According to Jesus, it is lawful to 'do good' on the Sabbath, which includes the rescuing of an animal fallen into a pit (Matthew 12). Even the sparrows, literally sold for a few pennies in his day, are not 'forgotten before God.' God's providence extends to the entire created order, and the glory of Solomon and all his works cannot be compared to that of the lilies of the field (Luke 12:27).

"God so cares for His creation that even 'foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.' (Luke 9:58) It is 'the merciful' who are 'blessed' in God's sight and what we do to 'the least' of all we do to him. (Matthew 5:7, 25:45-46)

"Jesus literally overturns the already questionable practice of animal sacrifice. Those who sell pigeons have their tables overturned and are put out of the Temple (Mark 11:15-16).

"It is the scribe who sees the spiritual bankruptcy of animal sacrifice and the supremacy of sacrificial love that Jesus commends as being 'not far from the Kingdom of God.' (Mark 12:32-34)

"It is a loving heart which is required by God, and not the needless bloodletting of God's creatures," concludes Reverend Linzey.

"We can see the same prophetic and radical challenge to tradition in Jesus' remarks about the 'good shepherd' who, unlike many in his day, 'lays down his life for the sheep.' (John 10:11)"

***

English theologian Joseph Butler (1692-1752), a contemporary of John Wesley's, was born in a Presbyterian family, joined the Church of England, and eventually became a bishop and dean of St. Paul's.

In his 1736 work, The Analogy of Religion, Bishop Butler became one of the first clergymen to teach the immortality of animal souls. "Neither can we find anything in the whole analogy of Nature to afford even the slightest presumption that animals ever lose their living powers, much less that they lose them by death," he wrote.

The Reverend John George Wood (1827-89) was an eloquent and prolific writer on the subject of animals. A popular lecturer on the subject of natural history, he wrote several books as well, such as My Feathered Friends and Man and Beast--Here and Hereafter.

Wood believed most people were cruel to animals because they were unaware that the creatures possessed immortal souls and would enjoy eternal life.

One of the most scholarly studies on the issue of animal souls was undertaken by Elijah D. Buckner in his 1903 book The Immortality of Animals. He concluded:

"...The Bible, without the shadow of a doubt, recognizes that animals have living souls the same as man. Most of the quotations given are represented as having been spoken by the Creator Himself, and he certainly knows whether or not He gave to man and lower animals alike a living soul, which of course means an immortal soul."

Influenced by Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas, the Church of Rome maintained for centuries that animals lack souls or divinity, even though such a doctrine contradicts many biblical passages.

Previously, during the Synod of Macon (585 AD), the Church had debated whether or not *women* have souls! Women in the Western world (in the East, the situation is worse!) are finally being recognized as persons in every sense of the word--social, political and spiritual. Animals have yet to be given the same kind of moral consideration.

***

Jewish writer Mark Matthew Braunstein writes in his 1981 book, Radical Vegetarianism:

"Pope Innocent VIII of the Renaissance required that when witches were burned, their cats be burned with them; Pope Pius IX of the 19th century forbade the formation of an SPCA in Rome, declaring humans had no duty to animals; Pope Pius XII of World War II stated that when animals are killed in slaughterhouses or laboratories, '...their cries should not arouse unreasonable compassion any more than do red-hot metals undergoing the blows of the hammer;' and Pope Paul VI in 1972, by blessing a battalion of Spanish bullfighters, became the first Pope to bestow his benediction upon one cruelty even the Church had condemned.'

In Christianity and the Rights of Animals, the Reverend Andrew Linzey, an Anglican priest, responds to the widespread Christian misconception that animals have no souls by taking it to its logical conclusion:

"But let us suppose for a moment that it could be shown that animals lack immortal souls, does it follow that their moral status is correspondingly weakened? It is difficult to see in what sense it could be. If animals are not to be recompensated with an eternal life, how much more difficult must it be to justify their temporal sufferings?

"If, for an animal, this life is all that he can have, the moral gravity of any premature termination is thereby increased rather than lessened...In short, if we invoke the traditional argument against animals based on soullessness, we are not exonerated from the need for proper moral justification.

"Indeed, if the traditional view is upheld, the question has to be: How far can any proposed aim justify to the animal concerned what would seem to be a greater deprivation or injury than if the same were inflicted on a human being?"

***

"Mark Twain remarked long ago that human beings have a lot to learn from the Higher Animals," writes Unitarian minister Gary Kowalski, in his 1991 book, The Souls of Animals. "Just because they haven't invented static cling, ICBM's, or television evangelists doesn't mean they aren't spiritually evolved."

Kowalski's definition of "spiritually evolved" includes "the development of a moral sense, the appreciation of beauty, the capacity for creativity, and the awareness of one's self within a larger universe as well as a sense of mystery and wonder about it all. These are the most precious gifts we possess...

"I am a parish minister by vocation," Kowalski explains. "My work involves the intangible and perhaps undefinable realm of spirit. I pray with the dying and counsel the bereaved. I take part in the joy of parents christening their newborns and welcoming fresh life into the world.

"I occasionally help people think through moral quandaries and make ethical decisions, and I also share a responsibility for educating the young, helping them realize their inborn potential for reverence and compassion. Week after week I stand before my congregation and try to talk about the greatest riddles of human existence.

"In recent years, however, I have become aware that human beings are not the only animals on this planet that participate in affairs of the spirit."

Kowalski notes that animals are aware of death. They have a sense of their own mortality, and grieve at the loss of companions. Animals possess language, musical abilities, a sense of the mysterious, creativity and playfulness. Animals possess a sense of right and wrong; they are capable of fidelity, altruism, and even self-sacrifice.

"Animals, like us, are microcosms," says Kowalski. "They too care and have feelings; they too dream and create; they too are adventuresome and curious about their world. They too reflect the glory of the whole.

"Can we open our hearts to the animals? Can we greet them as our soul mates, beings like ourselves who possess dignity and depth? To do so, we must learn to revere and respect the creatures, who, like us, are a part of God's beloved creation, and to cherish the amazing planet that sustains our mutual existence.

"Animals," Kowalski concludes, "are living souls. They are not things. They are not objects. Neither are they human. Yet they mourn. They love. They dance. They suffer. They know the peaks and chasms of being."

Vasu Murti| 3.4.11 @ 2:48AM

Christians for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (cont'd)

"There is no religion without love, and people may talk as much as they like about their religion, but if it does not teach them to be kind to beasts as well as man, it is all a sham."

---Anna Sewell
author, Black Beauty

"I care not for a man's religion whose dog or cat are not the better for it...I am in favor of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of a whole human being."

---Abraham Lincoln

French philosopher and mathematician Rene Descartes (1596-1650) taught that animals are simply machines, without souls, reason or feeling. The cry of a dog in pain, according to Descartes, is merely a mechanical noise, like the creak of a wheel. His beliefs found acceptance in ecclesiastical and scientific circles. Science was progressing quite rapidly in the 17th century; Descartes effectively removed all moral objections to animal experimentation.

One voice of objection was that of Henry More (1614-1687), a Cambridge Platonist. In a series of letters with Descartes, More wrote that no one can prove animals lack souls or experience an afterlife. He regarded animal souls and immortality as consistent with the inherent goodness of God. He wrote that people deny the animals souls and an afterlife out of "narrowness of spirit, out of overmuch self-love, and contempt of other creatures."

More wrote further that this world was not made for man alone, but for other living creatures as well. He taught that God loves the animals and is concerned about their welfare and happiness. More believed that humans were meant to rule over the animals with compassionate stewardship. He quoted Proverbs 12:10 from the Old Testament: "The good man is merciful to his beasts."

A distinguished philosopher and an eloquent writer, More believed unrestrained human violence and abuse towards animals would cause humans to likewise deal with one another. "I think that he that slights the life or welfare of a brute Creature," wrote More, "is naturally so unjust, that if outward laws did not restrain him, he would be as cruel to Man."

In 1776, Dr. Humphrey Primatt, an Anglican priest, published A Dissertation on the Duty of Mercy and the Sin of Cruelty to Brute Animals. This may have been the first book devoted to kindness to animals. Dr. Primatt believed that cruelty towards animals leads inevitably to human violence: "if all the barbarous customs and practices still subsisting amongst us were decreed to be as illegal as they are sinful, we should not hear of so many shocking murders and acts as we now do."

According to Primatt, "Love is the great Hinge upon which universal Nature turns. The Creation is a transcript of the divine Goodness; and every leaf in the book of Nature reads us a lecture on the wisdom and benevolence of its great Author...upon this principle, every creature of God is good in its kind; that is, it is such as it ought to be."

Primatt drew no distinction between the sufferings of animals and those of men: "Pain is pain, whether it is inflicted on man or on beast; and the creature that suffers it, whether man or beast, being sensible of the misery of it whilst it lasts, suffers Evil..."

Primatt wrote with a vision of universal emancipation:

"It has pleased God the Father of all men, to cover some men with white skins, and others with black skins; but as there is neither merit nor demerit in complexion, the white man, nonwithstanding the barbarity of custom and prejudice, can have no right, by virtue of his colour, to enslave and tyrannize over a black man.

"Now, if amongst men, the differences of their powers of the mind, and of their complexion, stature, and accidents of fortune, do not give any one man a right to abuse or insult any other man on account of these differences; for the same reason, a man can have no natural right to abuse and torment a beast, merely because a beast has not the mental powers of a man.

"For, such as the man is, he is but as God made him; and the very same is true of the beast. Neither of them can lay claim to any intrinsic Merit, for being such as they are; for, before they were created, it was impossible that either of them could deserve; and at their creation, their shapes, perfections or defects were invariably fixed, and their bounds set which they cannot pass.

"And being such, neither more nor less than God made them, there is no more demerit in a beast being a beast, than there is merit in a man being a man; that is, there is neither merit nor demerit in either of them.

"We may pretend to what religion we please," Primatt concluded, "but cruelty is atheism. We may boast of Christianity; but cruelty is infidelity. We may trust to our orthodoxy; but cruelty is the worst of heresies.

"The religion of Jesus Christ originated in the mercy of God; and it was the gracious design of it to promote peace to every creature on earth, and to create a spirit of universal benevolence or goodwill in men.

"And it has pleased God therein to display the riches of His own goodness and mercy towards us; and the revealer of His blessed will, the author and finisher of our faith, hath commanded us to be merciful, as our Father is also merciful, the obligation upon Christians becomes the stronger; and it is our bounded duty, in an especial manner, and above all other people, to extend the precept of mercy to every object of it.

"For, indeed, a cruel Christian is a monster of ingratitude, a scandal to his profession and beareth the name of Christ in vain..."

Christian writer C. S. Lewis noted that animals were included in the first Passover. The application of the "blood of the lamb" on the doorposts, not only saved a man and his family from death that night in Egypt, it saved his animals as well. Lewis put forth a rational argument concerning the resurrection of animals in The Problem of Pain. His 1947 essay, "A Case for Abolition," attacked vivisection (animal experimentation) and reads as follows:

"Once the old Christian idea of a total difference in kind between man and beast has been abandoned, then no argument for experiments on animals can be found which is not also an argument for experiments on inferior men.

"If we cut up beasts simply because they cannot prevent us and because we re backing up our own side in the struggle for existence, it is only logical to cut up imbeciles, criminals, enemies, or capitalists for the same reason.

"Indeed, experiments on men have already begun. We all hear that Nazi scientists have done them. We all suspect that our own scientists may begin to do so, in secret, at any moment.

"The victory of vivisection marks a great advance in the triumph of ruthless, non-moral utilitarianism over the old world of ethical law; a triumph in which we, as well as animals, are already the victims, and of which Dachau and Hiroshima mark the more recent achievements. In justifying cruelty to animals we put ourselves also on the animal level. We choose the jungle and must abide by our choice."

"I am not a Christian," wrote one animal rights activist in Animals, Men and Morals (1971), "but I find it incomprehensible that those who preach a doctrine of love and compassion can believe that the material pleasures of meat-eating justify the slaughter it requires."

In 1977, at an annual meeting in London of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), Dr. Donald Coggan, the Archbishop of Canterbury, said, "Animals, as part of God's creation, have rights which must be respected. It behooves us always to be sensitive to their needs and to the reality of their pain."

Dr. L. Charles Birch, an Australian "eco-philosopher," has long urged the churches to preach conservation of nature and respect for other living creatures. In July 1979 he argued at a conference of the World Council of Churches in Cambridge, Massachussetts, that all living creatures should be valued because of their "capacity for feeling." Dr. Birch has also condemned "factory farming" -- the overcrowded, confinement methods of raising and killing animals for food as "unethical," and declared that "the animal rights movement should be supported by all Christians.

If animals have rights, then the widespread misconception amongst Christians, that compassion for animals and vegetarianism are solely "Jewish" concerns, becomes as absurd as saying, "it's only wrong to own slaves if you're a Quaker."

Suffering and injustice concern us all. Christian clergy have begun to seriously address the issue of animal rights.

The Reverend Dr. S. Parkes Cadman has been quoted as saying:

"Life in any form is our perpetual responsibility. Its abuse degrades those who practice it; its rightful usage is a signal token of genuine manhood. If there be a superintending Justice, surely It takes account of the injuries and sufferings of helpless yet animate creation.

"Let us be perfectly clear about the spirituality of the issue before us. We have abolished human bondage because it cursed those who imposed it almost more than those who endured it. It is now our bounded duty to abolish the brutal and ferocious oppression of those creatures of our common Father which share with man the mystery of life...this theme is nothing if not spiritual: an acid test of our relation to the Deity of love and compassion."

I would like to see organized religion take up the struggle for animal rights. Religion has been wrong before. It has been said that on issues such as women's rights and human slavery, religion has impeded social and moral progress.

It was a Spanish Catholic priest, Bartolome de las Casas, who first proposed enslaving black Africans in place of the Native Americans who were dying off in great numbers.

The church of the past never considered human slavery to be a moral evil. The Protestant churches of Virginia, South Carolina, and other southern states actually passed resolutions in favor of the human slave traffic.

Human slavery was called "by Divine Appointment," "a Divine institution," "a moral relation," "God's institution," "not immoral," but "founded in right." The slave trade was called "legal," "licit," "in accordance with humane principles" and "the laws of revealed religion."

New Testament verses calling for obedience and subservience on the part of slaves (Titus 2:9-10; Ephesians 6:5-9; Colossians 3:22-25; I Peter 2:18-25) and respect for the master (I Timothy 6:1-2; Ephesians 6:5-9) were often cited in order to justify human slavery. Some of Jesus' parables refer to human slaves. Paul's epistle toPhilemon concerns a runaway slave returned to his master.

The Quakers were one of the earliest religious denominations to condemn human slavery.

"Paul's outright endorsement of slavery should be an undying embarrassment to Christianity as long as they hold the entire New Testament to be the word of God," writes Quaker physician Dr. Charles P. Vaclavik in his 1986 book, The Vegetarianism of Jesus Christ.

"Without a doubt, the American slaveholders quoted Paul again and again to substantiate their right to hold slaves.

"The moralist movement to abolish slavery had to go to non-Biblical sources to demonstrate the immoral nature of slavery. The abolitionists could not turn to Christian sources to condemn slavery, for Christianity had become the bastion of the evil practice through its endorsement by the Apostle Paul. Only the Old Testament gave the abolitionist any Biblical support in his efforts to free the slaves. 'You shall not surrender to his master a slave who has taken refuge with you.' (Deuteronomy 23:15) What a pittance of material opposing slavery from a book supposedly representing the word of God."

In 1852, Josiah Priest wrote Bible Defense of Slavery. Others claimed blacks were subhuman. Buckner H. Payne, calling himself "Ariel," wrote in 1867: "the tempter in the Garden of Eden...was a beast, a talking beast...the negro." Ariel argued that since the negro was not part of Noah's family, he must have been a beast. Eight souls were saved on the ark, therefore, the negro must be a beast, and "consequently, he has no soul to be saved."

The status of animals in contemporary human society is like that of human slaves in centuries past. Quoting Luke 4:18, Colossians 3:11, Galatians 3:28 or any other biblical passages in favor of liberty, equality and an end to human slavery in the 18th or 19th century would have been met with the same kind of response animal rights activists receive today if they quote Bible verses in favor of ethical vegetarianism and compassion towards animals.

Some of the worst crimes in history have also been committed in the name of religion. There's a great song along these lines from 1992 by Rage Against the Machine, entitled "Killing in the Name Of".

Someone once pointed out that while Hitler may have claimed to be a Christian, he imprisoned Christian clergy who opposed the Nazi regime, and even Christian churches were subject to the terror of the Nazis.

Thinking along these lines, I realize that while I would like to see organized religion support animal liberation (e.g., as was the case with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the American civil rights movement) rather than simply remain an obstacle to social and moral progress (e.g., 19th century southern churches in the U.S. upheld human slavery on biblical grounds), this support must come freely and voluntarily (e.g., "The Liberation of All Life" resolution issued by the World Council of Churches in 1988).

Religious institutions can't be coerced into rewriting their holy books or teaching a convoluted doctrine to suit the whims or the secular political ideology of a particular demagogue.

American liberals argue that principle of the separation of church and state gives us freedom FROM religious tyranny and theocracy.

Conservatives argue (the other side of the coin!) that one of the reasons America's founding fathers established the separation of church and state was to prevent intrusion into religious affairs.

I agree with Reverend Marc Wessels, Executive Director of the International Network for Religion and Animals (INRA), who said on Earth Day 1990:

"It is a fact that no significant social reform has yet taken place in this country without the voice of the religious community being heard. The endeavors of the abolition of slavery; the women's suffrage movement; the emergence of the pacifist tradition during World War I; the struggles to support civil rights, labor unions, and migrant farm workers; and the anti-nuclear and peace movements have all succeeded in part because of the power and support of organized religion. Such authority and energy is required by individual Christians and the institutional church today if the liberation of animals is to become a reality."

In SojoMail, "a weekly e-mail-zine of spirituality, politics, and culture" in cooperation with Sojourners magazine Sara VanScoy writes:

"I have both an MD (psychiatrist) and master’s degree in divinity; I grew up in a Southern Baptist church in Jonesboro, Arkansas. My congregation likes to think of itself as moderate — and I guess that we are, in Baptist circles. But we don’t ordain women, we don’t have women deacons, and we will never call a woman 'pastor.'

"What we do have is women who do most of the grunt work, and women who teach and lead children and youth and a few adult Sunday school classes.

"The prophet Joel said that when the Spirit comes, sons and daughters would prophesy (that is, preach). Peter proclaimed the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost, once and for all abolishing any ordering with regard to gender. But I really think it starts much earlier — Genesis records that God created men and women equally in God’s trinitarian image.

"Any sort of gender ordering is the result of fallen humanity. When churches regard women as second-class citizens, they are espousing an ideology that is less than God’s ideal!"

A 1980 United Nations report states that women constitute half the world’s population, perform nearly two-thirds of its work hours, yet receive one-tenth of the world’s income and own less than one-hundredth of the world’s property.
The impact of the women’s movement upon the church is being heralded as a Second Reformation. Women are now being ordained as priests, pastors and ministers, while patriarchal references to the Almighty as "Father" are replaced with the gender-neutral "Parent." Jesus Christ is designated the "Child of God."

The words of Scripture—perhaps, more accurately, the words of the apostle Paul—on this subject are seen today not as a divine revelation, but rather as an embarrassment from centuries past:

"Let the women keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak. Instead, they must, as the Law says, be in subordination. If they wish to learn something, let them inquire of their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church...let a woman learn quietly with complete submission. I do not allow a woman to teach, neither to domineer over a man; instead she is to keep still. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, since she was deceived, experienced the transgression. She will, however, be kept safe through the child-bearing, if with self-control she continues in faith and love and consecration."

(I Corinthians 14:34-35; I Timothy 2:11-15)

Many churches now claim these instructions were merely temporary frameworks used to build churches in the first century pagan world—they are not to be taken as universal absolutes for all eternity.

If churches, Scripture and Christianity can adapt and be redefined or reinterpreted in a changing world to end injustices towards women, they can certainly do likewise towards animals.

Professor Henry Bigelow observed: "There will come a time when the world will look back to modern vivisection in the name of science as they do now to burning at the stake in the name of religion."

Animal rights, as a secular, moral philosophy, may appear to be at odds with traditional religious thinking (e.g., human "dominion" over other animals), but this is equally true of democracy and representative government in place of the divine right of kings, the separation of church and state, the abolition of human slavery, the emancipation of women, birth control, the sexual revolution, LGBT rights, and all social progress since the end of the Dark Ages and the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment.

Some of the greatest figures in human history have been in favor of ethical vegetarianism and animal rights. These include: Albert Einstein, Leonardo da Vinci, Leo Tolstoy, Mohandas Gandhi, Alice Walker, George Bernard Shaw, Robert Browning, Percy Shelley, Voltaire, Thomas Hardy, Rachel Carson, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Victor Hugo, John Stuart Mill, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Pythagoras, Susan B. Anthony, Albert Schweitzer, Isaac Bashevis Singer, Gertrude Stein, Frederick Douglass, Francis Bacon, William Wordsworth, the Buddha, Mark Twain, and Henry David Thoreau.

Abraham Lincoln once said: "I care not for a man’s religion whose dog or cat are not the better for it."

Some of the most distinguished figures in the history of Christianity were vegetarian as well.

A partial list includes:

St. James, St. Matthew, Clemens Prudentius, Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, St. Jerome, Aegidius, St. Benedict, Boniface, St. Richard of Wyche, St. Filippo Neri, St. Columba, John Wray, Thomas Tryon, John Wesley, Joshua Evans, William Metcalfe, General William Booth, Ellen White, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, and Reverend V.A. Holmes-Gore.

The International Network for Religion and Animals (INRA) was founded in 1985 by Virginia Bouraquardez. Its educational and religious programs are meant to "bring religious principles to bear upon humanity’s attitude towards the treatment of our animal kin...and, through leadership, materials, and programs, to successfully interact with clergy and laity from many religious traditions."

According to INRA:

"Religion counsels the powerful to be merciful and kind to those weaker than themselves, and most of humankind is at least nominally religious. But there is a ghastly paradox. Far from showing mercy, humanity uses its dominion over other animal species to pen them in cruel close confinement; to trap, club, and harpoon them; to poison, mutilate, and shock them in the name of science; to kill them by the billions; and even to blind them in excruciating pain to test cosmetics.

"Some of these abuses are due to mistaken understandings of religious principles; others, to a failure to apply those principles. Scriptures need to be fully researched concerning the relationship of humans to nonhuman animals, and to the entire ecological structure of Nature. Misinterpretations of scripture taken out of context, or based upon questionable theological assumptions need to be re-examined."

In the winter of 1990, INRA’s Executive Director, the Reverend Dr. Marc A. Wessels wrote: "As a Christian clergyman who speaks of having compassion for other creatures and who actively declares the need for humans to develop an ethic that gives reverence for all of life, I hope that others will open their eyes, hearts and minds to the responsibility of loving care for God’s creatures."

In a pamphlet entitled The Spiritual Link Between Humans and Animals, Reverend Wessels writes:

"We recognize that many animal rights activists and ecologists are highly critical of Christians because of our relative failure thus far adequately to defend animals and to preserve the natural environment. Yet there are positive signs of a growing movement of Christian activists and theologians who are committed to the process of ecological stewardship and animal liberation.

"Individual Christians and groups on a variety of levels, including denominational, ecumenical, national and international, have begun the delayed process of seriously considering and practically addressing the question of Christian responsibility for animals. Because of the debate surrounding the ‘rights’ of animals, some Christians are considering the tenets of their faith in search for an appropriate ethical response."

According to Reverend Wessels:

"The most important teaching which Jesus shared was the need for people to love God with their whole self and to love their neighbor as they loved themselves.

"Jesus expanded the concept of neighbor to include those who were normally excluded, and it is therefore not too farfetched for us to consider the animals as our neighbors.

"To think about animals as our brothers and sisters is not a new or radical idea. By extending the idea of neighbor, the love of neighbor includes love of, compassion for, and advocacy of animals. There are many historical examples of Christians who thought along those lines, besides the familiar illustration of St. Francis. An abbreviated listing of some of those individuals worthy of study and emulation includes Saint Blaise, Saint Comgall, Saint Cuthbert, Saint Gerasimus, Saint Giles, and Saint Jerome, to name but a few."

Reverend Wessels notes: "In the Bible, which we understand as the divine revelation of God, there is ample evidence of the vastness and goodness of God toward animals. The Scriptures announce God as the creator of all life, the One responsible for calling life into being and placing it in an ordered fashion which reflects God’s glory. Humans and animals are a part of this arrangement. Humanity has a special relationship with particular duties to God’s created order, a connection to the animals by which they are morally bound by God’s covenant with them.

"According to the Scriptures, Christians are called to respect the life of animals and to be ethically engaged in protecting the life and liberty of all sentient creatures. As that is the case, human needs and rights do not usurp an animal’s intrinsic rights, nor should they deny the basic liberty of either individual animals or specific species.

"If the Christian call can be understood as being a command to be righteous, then Christians must have a higher regard for the lives of animals.

"Jesus’ life was one of compassion and liberation;" concludes Reverend Wessels, "his ministry was one which understood and expressed the needs of the oppressed.

"Especially in the past decade, Christians have been reminded that their faith requires them to take seriously the cries of the oppressed.

"Theologians such as Gutierrez, Miranda, and Hinkelammert have defined the Christian message as one which liberates lives and transforms social patterns of oppression. That concept of Christianity which sees God as the creator of the universe and the One who seeks justice is not exclusive; immunity from cruelty and injustice is not only a human desire or need—the animal kingdom also needs liberation."

A growing number of Christian theologians, clergy and activists are beginning to take a stand in favor of animal rights. In a pamphlet entitled Christian Considerations on Laboratory Animals, Reverend Marc Wessels notes that in laboratories animals cease to be persons and become "tools of research." He cites William French of Loyala University as having made an identical observation at a gathering of Christian ethicists at Duke University—a conference entitled "Good News for Animals?"

In a speech delivered on Earth Day, 1990, Reverend Wessels acknowledged:

"It is a fact that no significant social reform has yet taken place in this country without the voice of the religious community being heard. The endeavors of the abolition of slavery; the women’s suffrage movement; the emergence of the pacifist tradition during World War I; the struggles to support civil rights, labor unions, and migrant farm workers; and the anti-nuclear and peace movements have all succeeded in part because of the power and support of organized religion. Such authority and energy is required by individual Christians and the institutional church today if the liberation of animals is to become a reality.

“The day is surely dawning,” wrote the Reverend V.A. Holmes-Gore, M.A., “when it will become clear that the idea of the Blessed Master giving His sanction to the barbaric habit of flesh-eating, is a tragic delusion, foisted upon the Church by those who never knew Him.”

Reverend Holmes-Gore called vegetarianism “absolutely necessary for the redemption of the planet. Indeed we cannot hope to rid the world of war, disease and a hundred other evils until we learn to show compassion to the creatures and refrain from taking their lives for food, clothing or pleasure.

“The Church is powerless to free mankind from such evils as war, oppression and disease,” insisted the Reverend Holmes-Gore, perhaps alluding to karma and reincarnation, “because it does nothing to stop man’s oppression of victimizing living creatures...

"Every evil action, whether it be done to a man, a woman, a child, or an animal will one day have its effect upon the transgressor. The rule that we reap what we sow is a Divine Law from which there is no escape.

“God is ever merciful,” Reverend Holmes-Gore explained, “but he is also righteous, and if cruel men and women will learn compassion in no other way, then they will have to learn through suffering, even if it means suffering the same tortures that they have themselves inflicted.

"God is perfect Love, and He is never vengeful or vindictive, but the Divine Law of mercy and compassion cannot be broken without bringing tremendous repercussions upon the transgressor.”

Reverend Holmes-Gore acknowledged that a great deal of social progress has been made, but injustices continue to flourish:

“...we have made many great reforms, but there remains much to be done. We have improved the lot of children, of prisoners, and of the poor beyond all recognition in the last hundred years.

"We have done something to mitigate the cruelties inflicted upon the creatures. But though some of the worst forms of torture have been made illegal, the welter of animal blood is greater than ever, and their sufferings are still appalling.

“What we need is not a reform of existing evils,” concluded Reverend Holmes-Gore, “but a revolution in thought that will move Christians to show real compassion to all God’s creatures. Many people claim to be lovers of animals who are very far from being so. For a flesh-eater to claim to love animals is as if a cannibal expressed his devotion to the missionaries he consigns to the seething cauldron.”

“Dear God,” began the childhood prayers of Dr. Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965), “please protect and bless all living things. Keep them from evil and let them sleep in peace.”

This noted Protestant French theologian, music scholar, philosopher and missionary doctor in Africa won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1952.

Schweitzer preached an ethic of reverence for life: “Not until we extend the circle of compassion to include all living things shall we ourselves know peace.”

When a man questioned his philosophy, saying God created animals for man to eat, Schweitzer replied, “Not at all.”

Schweitzer reflected, “How much effort it will take for us to get men to understand the words of Jesus, ‘Blessed are the merciful,’ and to bring them to the realization that their responsibility includes all creatures. But we must struggle with courage.”

According to Schweitzer, “We need a boundless ethics which will include the animals also.”

Schweitzer founded the Lambarene Hospital in French Equatorial Africa in 1913, managing it for many years.

“I never go to a menagerie,” he once wrote, “because I cannot endure the sight of the misery of the captive animals. The exhibiting of trained animals I abhor. What an amount of suffering and cruel punishment the poor creatures have to endure to give a few minutes of pleasure to men devoid of all thought and feeling for them.”

Schweitzer taught compassionate stewardship towards the animal kingdom:

“We...are compelled by the commandment of love contained in our hearts and thoughts, and proclaimed by Jesus, to give rein to our natural sympathy to animals,” he explained. “We are also compelled to help them and spare suffering as far as it is in our power.”

On June 5, 1958, the Reverend Norman Vincent Peale stated, “I do not believe a person can be a true Christian, and at the same time engage in cruel or inconsiderate treatment of animals.”

One of the leading Protestant thinkers of the 20th century, Karl Barth (1886-1968), wrote in The Doctrine of Creation (1961):

“If there is a freedom of man to kill animals, this signifies in any case the adoption of a qualified and in some sense enhanced responsibility. If that of his lordship over the living beast is serious enough, it takes on a new gravity when he sees himself compelled to suppress his lordship by depriving it of its life. He obviously cannot do this except under the pressure of necessity.

“Far less than all the other things which he dares to do in relation to animals, may this be ventured unthinkingly and as though it were self-evident. He must never treat this need for defensive and offensive action against the animal world as a natural one, nor include it as a normal element in his thinking or conduct. He must always shrink from this possibility even when he makes use of it.

“It always contains the sharp counter-question: who are you, man, to claim that you must venture this to maintain, support, enrich and beautify your own life? What is there in your life that you feel compelled to take this aggressive step in its favor? We cannot but be reminded of the perversion from which the whole historical existence of the creature suffers and the guilt which does not really reside in the beast but ultimately in man himself.”

Responding to a question about the Kingdom of Peace, Donald Soper of the Church of England was of the opinion that Jesus, unlike his brother James, was neither a teetotaler nor a vegetarian, but, “I think probably, if He were here today, He would be both.”

In a 1963 article on “The Question of Vivisection,” Soper concluded: “...let me suggest that Dr. Schweitzer’s great claim that all life should be based on respect for personality has been too narrowly interpreted as being confined entirely to the personality of human beings. I believe that this creed ‘respect for personality’ must be applied to the whole of creation. I shouldn’t be surprised if the Buddhists are nearer to an understanding of it than we are.

“When we apply this principle, we shall be facing innumerable problems, but I believe we shall be on the right track which leads finally to the end of violence and the achievement of a just social order which will leave none of God’s creatures out of that Kingdom which it is our Father’s good pleasure to give us.”

In 1977, at an annual meeting in London of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), Dr. Donald Coggan, the Archbishop of Canterbury, said:

“Animals, as part of God’s creation, have rights which must be respected. It behooves us always to be sensitive to their needs and to the reality of their pain.”

“Honourable men may honourably disagree about some details of human treatment of the non-human,” wrote Stephen Clark in his 1977 book, The Moral Status of Animals, “but vegetarianism is now as necessary a pledge of moral devotion as was the refusal of emperor-worship in the early church.”

According to Clark, eating animal flesh is “gluttony,” and “Those who still eat flesh when they could do otherwise have no claim to be serious moralists.”

“Clark’s conclusion has real force and its power has yet to be sufficiently appreciated by fellow Christians,” says the Reverend Andrew Linzey.

“Far from seeing the possibility of widespread vegetarianism as a threat to Old Testament norms, Christians should rather welcome the fact that the Spirit is enabling us to make decisions so that we may more properly conform to the original Genesis picture of living in peace with creation.”

In 1986, Dale and Judith Ostrander, ministers in the United Church of Christ issued a biblical call for stewardship, in which they concluded:

“For Christians the Scriptures contain the Word of God. And there is a particular conviction about Jesus Christ being the normative Word through whom all scriptural words are interpreted—the central meaning of Love and reconciliation of all creation.

"Therefore, all other biblical themes and all specific pieces of Scripture become authoritative for the Christian insofar as they affirm or are consistent with God’s reconciling purpose.

“The role of Christians is to help God’s reconciling purpose become a reality. This means, among other things, living out our calling to care for God’s creation. It means taking seriously the interconnectedness of all life and our kinship with all living things.

"If Christians accept God’s loving dominion, then, created in God’s likeness, we are called to exercise our given ‘dominion’ over creation with the same kind of love. And if the great commandment is to love God, we must love God also through the complex ecological relationship of all living things.

“To misuse our delegated authority over the creation in exploitative, abusive, cruel or wasteful ways is to live as if we did not love God. We are led, therefore, as Christians to raise questions about our attitudes toward and treatment of animals. A growing number of ‘voices crying in the wilderness’ are calling us to take more seriously the ways in which we are despoiling the Earth and threatening its ability to sustain and support life. These voices are calling us to rethink our attitudes and our treatment of animals as we consider anew what it means to be faithful stewards of creation.”

In 1987, the Reverend Carolyn J. Michael Riley declared Unity Church in Huntington, N.Y. a fur-free zone. Reverend Riley, a vegetarian since 1982, remains committed to her position.

“I really do believe,” she says, “that everyone is able that much more to feel the Spirit, because there are no longer vibrations of death.”

Reverend Riley says she wants to “help raise the consciousness of the suffering going on in the animal kingdom.”

According to the Reverend James Caroll, an Episcopal priest in Van Nuys, California, “A committed Christian, who knows what his religion is about, will never kill an animal needlessly. Above all, he will do his utmost to put a stop to any kind of cruelty to any animal. A Christian who participates in or gives consent to cruelty to animals had better reexamine his religion or else drop the name 'Christian'.”

In 1992, members of Los Angeles’ First Unitarian Church agreed to serve vegetarian meals at the church’s weekly Sunday lunch. This decision was made as a protest against animal cruelty and the environmental damage caused by the livestock industry.

In a 1985 paper entitled "The Status of Animals in the Christian Tradition" (based on a September 1984 talk at a Quaker study center entitled "Non-violence: Extending the Concept to Animals"), the Reverend Andrew Linzey redefined the traditional understanding of human "dominion" over the animal kingdom:

"...scholarly research in the modern period interprets the notion of dominion in terms of early kingship theology in which man is to act as God's vice-regent in creation, that is with authority, but under divine moral rule. We are therefore not given absolute or arbitrary power over animals but entrusted with God-like power which must be exercised with responsibility and restraint.

"...for centuries Christians have misinterpreted their own scripture and have read into it implications that were simply not there. The idea that human beings have absolute rights over creation is therefore eclipsed. The vital issue that now confronts moral theologians is how far and to what extent we may use animal life and for what purposes."

After citing Scripture and many positive instances of concern for animals in the Christian tradition, Reverend Linzey concludes that the Christian basis for animal rights includes the following points:

1. Animals are fellow creatures with us and belong to God.

2. Animals have value to God independently of their value or use to us.

3. Animals exist in a covenant relationship with God and mankind and therefore there is a moral bond between us.

4. Human beings are set in a position of responsibility to animals.

5. Jesus Christ is our moral exemplar in his sacrifice of love for creation.

6. God's redeeming love extends to all creation.

7. We have duties to animals derived from our relationship of responsibility to them.

The Glauberg Confession is a theological statement of faith made before a God whose love extends to all His creatures. It reads as follows:

"We confess before God, the Creator of the Animals, and before our fellow Men; We have failed as Christians, because we forgot the animals in our faith.

"As theologians we were not prepared to stand up against scientific and philosophical trends inimical to life with the Theology of Creation.
We have betrayed the diaconical mission of Jesus, and not served our least brethren, the animals.

"As pastors we were scared to give room to animals in our churches and parishes.

"As the Church, we were deaf to the 'groaning in travail' of our mistreated and exploited fellow-creatures.

"We justify the Glauberg Confession theologically.

"We read the statements in the Bible about Creation and regard for our fellow-creatures with new eyes and new interest. We know how tied up we are with Nature, linked with every living thing--and under the same threat.

"The rediscovery of the theology of Creation has also turned our regard upon the animals, our poorest brothers and sisters. We perceive that as theologically thinking and working Christians we owe them a change of attitude.

"We justify our Confession pastorally.

"For years many people actively engaged in animal welfare have been waiting for us ministers of religion to take up the cause of animal rights.

"Many of them have quit the Church in disappointment because no clear witness was given for the animals in the field of theology, in the Church's social work or in the parishes, either in word or in deed.

"The task of winning back the trust of these people who dedicate their time, money, energy and sometimes their health to reconciliation with the animals, is a pastoral challenge to us."

Reverend Marc Wessels says of The Glauberg Confession:

"It speaks simply but eloquently on behalf of those who have determined that they will no longer support a theology of human dictatorship that is against God's other creatures...

"This brief statement was written during the spring of 1988 and was signed by both Roman Catholic and Protestant clergy who participated in its framing.

"It was signed by men and women of religious orders, as well as by laity. Both academics and average church members have indicated their support for the document by signing it.

"Growing numbers of people around the globe are also adding their own personal declaration of support by forwarding their names to the covenors of the confession."

"Increasingly, during this century Christians have come to understand the gospel, the Good News, in terms of freedom, both freedom from oppression and freedom for life with God and others. Too often, however, this freedom has been limited to human beings, excluding most other creatures, as well as the earth.

"This freedom cannot be so limited because if we destroy other species and the ecosystem, human beings cannot live. This freedom should not be so limited because other creatures, both species and individuals, deserve to live in and for themselves and for God.

"Therefore, we call on Christians as well as other people of good will to work towards the liberation of life, all life."

---World Council of Churches
"The Liberation of Life," 1988

In "The Liberation of Life," the World Council of Churches, a politically left-liberal organization with worldwide influence, has taken the strongest animal protection position of any Christian body.

This document urges parishioners to avoid cosmetics and household items that have been tested on animals; to buy "cruelty-free" products, instead.

This document urges parishioners to boycott animal furs and skins, and purchase "cruelty-free" clothing as a humane alternative.

This document asks that meat, eggs and dairy products be purchased from sources where the animals have not been subject to overcrowding, confinement and abuse, and reminds parishioners they are free to avoid such products altogether.

Parishioners are also asked not to patronize any form of entertainment that treats animals as mere objects of human usage.

In a paper presented before the Conference on Creation Theology and Environmental Ethics at the World Council of Churches in Annecy, France in September, 1988, American philosopher Dr. Tom Regan (the foremost intellectual leader of the animal rights movement), expressed opposition to discrimination based upon genetic differences:

"...biological differences inside the species Homo sapiens do not justify radically different treatment among those individual humans who differ biologically (for example, in terms of sex, or skin color, or chromosome count). Why, then, should biological differences outside our species count morally? If having one eye or deformed limbs do not disqualify a human being from moral consideration equal to that given to those humans who are more fortunate, how can it be rational to disqualify a rat or a wolf from equal moral consideration because, unlike us, they have paws and a tail?"

Dr. Regan concluded:

"...the whole fabric of Christian agape is woven from the threads of sacrificial acts. To abstain, on principle, from eating animals, therefore, although it is not the end-all, can be the begin-all of our conscientious effort to journey back to (or toward) Eden, can be one way (among others) to re-establish or create that relationship to the earth which, if Genesis 1 is to be trusted, was part of God's original hopes for and plans in creation.

"It is the integrity of this creation we seek to understand and aspire to honor. In the choice of our food, I believe, we see, not in a glass darkly, but face to face, a small but not unimportant part of both the challenge and the promise of Christianity and animal rights."

In a 1989 interview with the Animals' Agenda, Reverend Linzey insisted, "...my primary loyalty is to God, and not to the church. You see, I don't think the claims of the church and the claims of God are identical...The church is a very human institution, a frail human institution, and it often gets things wrong. Indeed, it's worse than that. It's often a stumbling block and often a scandal."

Linzey expressed optimism from a study of history: "Let's take your issue of slavery. If you go back in history, say 200 years, you'll find intelligent, conscientious, loving Christians defending slavery, because they hardly gave it two thoughts. If they were pressed, they might have said, 'Slavery is part of progress, part of the Christianization of the dark races.'

"A hundred or perhaps as little as 50 years later, what you suddenly find is that the very same Christian community that provided one of the major ideological defenses of slavery had begun to change its mind...here is a classic example of where the Christian tradition has been a force for slavery and a force for liberation.

"Now, just think of the difficulties that those early Christian abolitionists had to face. Scripture defended slavery. For instance, in Leviticus 25, you're commanded to take the child of a stranger as a slave...St. Paul simply said that those who were Christian slaves should be better Christians. Almost unanimously, apart from St. Gregory, the church fathers defended slavery, and for almost 1800 years, Christians defended and supported slavery. So, in other words, the change that took place within the Christian community on slavery is not just significant, it is historically astounding.

"Now, I give that example because I believe the case of animals is in many ways entirely analogous. We treat animals today precisely as we treated slaves, and the theological arguments are often entirely the same or have the same root.

"I believe the movement for animal rights is the most significant movement in Christianity, morally, since the emancipation of the slaves. And it provides just as many difficulties for the institutional church..."

Christians have found themselves unable to agree upon many pressing moral issues--including abortion. Exodus 21:22-24 says if two men are fighting and one injures a pregnant woman and the child is killed, he shall repay her according to the degree of injury inflicted upon her, and not the fetus.

On the other hand, the Didache (Apostolic Church teaching) forbade abortion.

"There has to be a frank recognition that the Christian church is divided on every moral issue under the sun: nuclear weapons, divorce, homosexuality, capital punishment, animals, etc.," says Reverend Linzey.

"I don't think it's desirable or possible for Christians to agree upon every moral issue. And, therefore, I think within the church we have no alternative but to work within diversity."

Vegetarianism as nonviolence and as progressive spirituality:

Christians (who have no problem using secular arguments on non-Christians when it comes to protecting the unborn), are usually the first to cry "MOVE" when presented with secular arguments against the killing of animals for food, clothing, "sport," etc. -- e.g., the eating of meat.

Any Lutherans (or Christians in general) looking for the spiritual dimension to vegetarianism and animal rights, should read Every Creature a Word of God by Annika Spalde and Pelle Strindlund. (Vegetarian Advocates Press, Cleveland, OH, 2008)

"This book is beautifully written and carefully argued. It would be the perfect book for a Bible study or church study group," writes Stephen Webb, professor of Religion and Philosophy at Wabash College, and author of Good Eating and On God and Dogs: A Christian Theology of Compassion for Animals.

The authors, Annika Spalde and Pelle Strindlund, are married antinuclear and animal activists involved in the Lutheran Church in Sweden. They write:

"This is a book about being Christian in a world shared with other beings. We do not live here alone. We have brothers and sisters. 'The animals,' wrote the American monk Thomas Merton (1915-68), 'are the children of God.'

"What does a spirituality that affirms God's love for all creatures look like? That is the central question of this book.

"The animal rights movement is a recent development, but Christian concern for animals is not. We see it in the stories of medieval monks who helped hares and deer escape from hunters, and of desert hermits who offered water to thirsty donkeys.

"In these pages you will discover the rich history of animal-friendly living and theology within the Christian tradition...

"This book is a result of years of reflection on our relationship to other species...over coffee in church halls, fellow worshippers have challenged us: Haven't we been given animals for our use? Didn't Jesus eat meat? Such questions have forced us to ask if and how compassion for animals can be an embodiment of the Christian faith.

"The book is also an answer to the question we have received from many of our friends in the peace movement: How can you focus on animals when so many humans are suffering?"

"How can you focus on animals when so many humans are suffering?"

This question was once answered by a secular vegetarian.

During the '80s, I was a huge Smiths fan. I've got nearly all their cassettes, but missed the opportunity to see them in concert in 1986.

Their 1985 album, Meat is Murder, was on college radio stations everywhere. In an era when rock and pop seemed swamped in causes, the Smiths added their weight to (lead singer) Morrissey's support for animal rights.

"I think as long as human beings are so violent towards animals, there will be war," he argued. "It might sound absurd, but if you really think about the situation it all makes sense. When there's this absolute lack of sensitivity where life is concerned, there will always be war."

In 1985, Morrissey struggled to articulate a dualistic persona with a classic example of verbal doublethink:

"Personally, I'm an incurably peaceable character. But where does that get you? Nowhere. You *have* to be violent...

"It seems to me now that when you try to change things in a peaceable manner, you're actually wasting your time and you're laughed out of court," he argued.

"...the only way we can get rid of such things as the meat industry, and other things like nuclear weapons, is by giving people a taste of their own medicine."

Ask Morrissey about the terrorist bombing of butcher shops in England, and he still coldly replies: "One dead butcher isn't such a great loss."

Peter Singer warned about this kind of thinking in Animal Liberation:

"We may be convinced that a person who is abusing animals is entirely callous and insensitive; but we lower ourselves to that level if we physically harm or threaten physical harm to that person. Violence can only breed more violence...The strength of the case for Animal Liberation is its ethical commitment. We occupy the high moral ground and to abandon it is to play into the hands of those who would oppose us."

For those of us who are veg for *ethical* reasons, the nutritional debates over soy, etc. aren't even an issue. The health advantages of going veg are just a pleasant side effect of a nonviolent philosophy.

And meat and dairy alternatives provide us with familiar tastes---without the cruelty.

Christian Metal Bands and Animal Rights, from peta2:

Jared Warth, bass for blessthefall: "I think that protecting animals is a big part of Christianity. Animal abuse is a big problem in the world today, especially in animal fighting and animal testing. I feel animals shouldn't be used for these things. God did not intend for it to be this way, and humans should not take advantage of God's gift...get involved with Action for Animals. From what I've heard it's a very informative program and will give anyone any information they need on preserving animal rights."

Patrick Meadows, guitar for Gwen Stacy: "I first became aware of PETA while I was in high school. I remember going to the Warped Tour every summer and seeing their tents, though I never really put much thought into it until I went to college. [T]he idea of factory farming has always disgusted me."

Eric Gregson, guitar for Sleeping Giant: "I have been vegan for about 12 years now. I became aware of PETA in the late '90s as a result of my passion to end animal cruelty. Yes, I would consider Sleeping Giant a Christian band. Along with Sleeping Giant, I also pastor a church in Redlands, California. As I have studied the Bible, the nature and character of God has become more apparent to me.

"In Genesis, we see that God created a perfect world, and in that world animals were not mistreated, abused, or used for human consumption. That being said, I believe that God cares about all of His creation (including animals), and it was never in His heart or will for them to be mistreated. Jesus died to regain what was lost in that perfect world. Christians have much to learn about the heart of God.

"Factory farming is the issue that I feel most strongly about. Out of all the animal rights issues, I believe factory farming causes the most pain and does the most damage to animals and people. Millions of animals are mistreated and destroyed every year for the sake of our comfort. It is appalling."

Joe Lengson, bass for MyChildren MyBride: "I first heard about peta2 at, I think, Warped Tour in Pomona, California. I saw the tents and the people trying to get signatures and I signed up. They gave me the DVD and all the booklets. … Then I started meeting people, and they started sending me stuff. Over the years I became aware of animal rights and turned veg[etarian] and vegan for a while.

"I first heard about peta2 at, I think, Warped Tour in Pomona, California. I saw the tents and the people trying to get signatures and I signed up. They gave me the DVD and all the booklets. … Then I started meeting people, and they started sending me stuff. Over the years I became aware of animal rights and turned veg[etarian] and vegan for a while.

"[A]t least try out being a vegetarian—that even makes a difference…[E]ducate yourself about the topic and learn what to give a crap about... Millions of animals are mistreated and destroyed every year for the sake of our comfort. It is appalling.

"Probably animal testing and the fur issue. Maybe about two years ago, a friend of mine from PETA sent me a bunch of stuff when you guys were doing the "Fur [Is] Dead" campaign. … I looked into it and I was like, "That is so messed up." There are so many other things you can wear that are just the same [as fur]. I ended up wearing [that Fur Is Dead shirt] for a whole tour on stage …."

AthiesmWINS| 7.29.11 @ 3:46AM

Mark Tooley is president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy. An uncharitable person might say it's more like the Minister of propaganda for the Institute for Church and state to be ONE.

Creative Recreation| 8.11.11 @ 2:40AM

is good