Modern Theology 27:1 January 2011 ISSN 0266-7177 (Print) ISSN 1468-0025 (Online) EVIDENCING THE ESCHATON: PROGRESSIVE-TRANSFORMATIVE ANIMAL WELFARE IN THE CHURCH FATHERSmoth_1658 121..146 RYAN PATRICK McLAUGHLIN Introduction I am not an avid fan of Star Trek. I have never attended a convention. I have not seen all the movies or episodes. I am not well-informed on what Trekkies refer to as the Star Trek canon. Even so, I have every intention of seeing the latest Star Trek movie. Why is that? In a recent interview, a fan asked the director, J. J. Abrams, “When rebooting a franchise, fans of the original tend to be alienated due to the attempt to draw new fans in. How did you address this when making this film?”1 Abrams answered, “The obvious challenge was that we wanted to make our own brand new thing, and at the same time embrace and honor what had come before.” Next a fan asked, “Did the vast Trek canon help or hurt your work to make this film?” Here, Abrams’ answer especially caught my attention. He said, “It was hugely helpful because it gave us parameters. We knew that within that framework we could create, explore, and experiment. It’s actually nice when you’re given a box...when you’re given parameters that you have to honor because it gives you limits and then you know that within those boundaries you can be creatively risky.” My academic aim is to contribute to a constructive theology where non- humans receive more attention and ethical concern. At the same time, I want to be careful not to discard completely the parameters set for orthodoxy in Christian history. These two goals create a problem and an opportunity. On the one hand, the parameters set in Christian history do not always seem to afford the best occasions to expand concern for the nonhuman creation. On Ryan Patrick Mclaughlin 141 Front Street North Huntingdon, PA 15642 USA [email protected] © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 122 Ryan Patrick McLaughlin the other hand, like Abrams, I have a framework within which I can create, explore, and experiment. I can be creatively risky. The aim of this article is to retrieve and creatively develop a strand of Christian thought, stretching from early Christian interpretations of biblical data through the hagiographies of the saints into modern Christian thought, which provides a foundation for concern over the welfare of non- human animals. I am not arguing that the theological foundation for the position developed in this project is the only Christian viewpoint—or even the dominant Christian viewpoint. Rather, I am arguing that it is a theo- logical foundation representing a theological viewpoint, though perhaps overlooked and underdeveloped, within the Christian narrative. As opposed to some other viewpoints, it affords resources to reconsider the place of nonhuman animals in ethics from a perspective grounded in Christian tradition. Given this aim, methodologically I seek to highlight thinkers that represent a particular strand of Christian thought. To provide the framework for this strand, I explore the theology of Irenaeus of Lyons and Ephrem the Syrian. First, I consider their positions regarding the place of nonhuman animals in protology and eschatology. Then, I note their view that the created order is in via toward its eschatological consummation. With this framework in place, I turn to other voices in the Christian tradition, including the hagiographies of the saints, in order to further develop the framework. Ultimately, I will suggest that, within this particular strand of Christian thought, the further a human being progresses along the path of redemption, the more he or she ought to serve as a prolepsis of eschatological hope, which includes peaceful relationships between humans and animals. Preliminary Concerns and Confessions Before developing my argument, I must express two preliminary concerns and make a confession. The first concern is methodological; namely, why I do not take the path of animal rights. The second concern is definitional; namely, what I mean by animal welfare. The debate over animal rights—whether for or against—is usually predi- cated upon the establishment of an essential similarity between humans and animals.2 More often than not, however, the Fathers—and numerous theolo- gians in their wake—sought to maintain sharp lines of distinction between humans and animals.3 Thus, deriving an argument for animal rights from patristic writers proves most difficult.4 Animal welfare, on the other hand, circumvents this difficulty. To argue for animal welfare, one need only estab- lish that humans bear some responsibility for the well-being of animals. One can thus make a case for animal welfare within an anthropocentric worldview, even utilizing terms such as “dominion.” As I believe both © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Evidencing the Eschaton 123 anthropocentrism and dominion—though running the danger of misuse— are paramount to a proper understanding of creation, I opt for the language of animal welfare over animal rights.5 However, I must define what I mean by animal welfare. My use of this phrase is not an evasion of the intensity of rights language. I hold that one must view whatever acceptability exists in the use of animals as food, cloth- ing, and medical research as a concession to a world that is not as God desires it to be.6 As such, I propose the phrase “progressive-transformative animal welfare” (hereafter PTAW).7 By this phrase, I mean that redeemed humans ought to move progressively to greater practices of peace toward animals as they move along the path to perfection.8 In this sense, PTAW does not simply sanction the use of animals for human benefit. Rather, it recognizes this use as a concession that progressively diminishes as much as possible as humans become the prolepsis of that for which they hope. Before continuing, intellectual honesty mandates a confession. I readily admit that I have not found an explicit affirmation of PTAW in any of the Fathers, including Irenaeus and Ephrem. As such, in this article I make an inference, but I do so from a theological framework within the Christian narrative. Thinking creatively within boundaries set by patristic thinkers, I hope to provide an opportunity to augment concern for the well-being of animals without dismissing loyalty to the Christian tradition. The Past and the Future: Pre-lapsarian Views and Eschatological Hopes Having dealt with my preliminary concerns, I now seek to explore the view held by Irenaeus and Ephrem of both a pre-lapsarian state in creation and an eschatological hope of a progression beyond that state. There is evidence that these Fathers held that harmonious relationships existed between humans and animals—as well as among the animals—and that the disobedience of humans frustrated this reality. Furthermore, they held that the future toward which God calls the creation includes a return to those harmonious relationships.9 Irenaeus clearly affirmed a pre-lapsarian state of harmony among animals. For him, this state included a complete absence of predatory actions where all animals ate only vegetation.10 There is no reason to assume that this harmo- nious co-existence excluded humans. Irenaeus makes no explicit claim that humans participated in predation prior to the fall. Furthermore, the claim that humans did not participate in violent activity is consistent with Theophilus of Antioch, whom Irenaeus frequently follows theologically.11 Moreover, harmony between humans and animals is explicit in the passage of Isaiah 11:6-9, in reference to which Irenaeus describes the harmony of the pre- lapsarian creation. The following is an excerpt from Against Heresies, begin- ning with Irenaeus’ citation of the prophet’s passage: © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 124 Ryan Patrick McLaughlin ‘The wolf also shall feed with the lamb, and the leopard shall take his rest with the kid; the calf also, and the bull, and the lion shall eat together; and a little boy shall lead them. The ox and the bear shall feed together, and their young ones shall agree together; and the lion shall eat straw as well as the ox. And the infant boy shall thrust his hand into the asp’s den, into the nest also of the adder’s brood; and they shall do no harm, nor have power to hurt anything in my holy mountain’...Iamquite aware that some persons endeavour to refer these words to the case of savage men, both of different nations and various habits, who come to believe, and when they have believed, act in harmony with the righteous. But although this is [true] now with regard to some men coming from various nations to the harmony of the faith, nevertheless in the resurrec- tion of the just [the words shall also apply] to those animals mentioned. For God is rich in all things. And it is right that when the creation is restored, all the animals should obey and be in subjection to man, and revert to the food originally given by God...thatis,theproductions of the earth.12 It is worth noting a few important aspects of this passage from Irenaeus. First, he uses a text that affirms an eschatological peace among animals. But it also includes humans in that harmonious picture. Hence, not only will the wolf and the lamb feed together, but also a little child shall lead them. There will be no destruction on God’s mountain, neither among the animals nor between humans and the animals. Second, Irenaeus explicitly denies that this eschatological hope is allegorical. On the contrary, for Irenaeus the passage means exactly what it says: that a cosmic harmony will resume in the escha- tological future.