All Comments for: Keeping Pets in Their Place | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2008 > April

Christianity Today, April, 2008 |

Keeping Pets in Their Place

Why we can't afford to treat animals like they're humans.

Charles Colson with Anne Morse | posted 4/29/2008 08:27AM

Five years ago I warned in this space about an aggressive animal-rights movement that seeks to blur the distinction between animals and humans. Since then it has gained steam, even unwittingly drawing ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 25 of 68 comments.

Page: 1 2 3

Show All

ontop

Posted: May 08, 2008 8:42 AM

Ill add my agreement that I would like to see some actual scripture references for statements like humans are "the only part of creation that bears the image of God. Humans alone have eternal souls, which confers unique moral status." Ge 9:4 for example says "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. Ecc 3:18 "I also thought, "As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. 19 Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath [b] ; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. 21 Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal [c] goes down into the earth"

Jason S.

Posted: May 06, 2008 9:11 PM

Mr. Colson need not fear that a naturalistic worldview and a utilitarian system of ethics will lead his audience to "allocate scarce resources" among animals and humans and thereby diminish human rights. In this time of food crisis many of America's animals live far better than many of the world's poor. This has been the case for some time. Rather the issue, it seems to me, is that we value ourselves more than others and therefore the animals that bring us pleasure are valued above other humans.

TrutoJC

Posted: May 06, 2008 1:22 PM

Yes, I agree mostly. I am about to publish my novel which takes place in Heaven. I chose to include certain animals there, especially dogs. Certainly they do not have redeamable souls. But God greatly wants to please His loved citizens. Notice many horses are mentioned there(Rev.19:11,14). Why not our pet dogs? It is interesting that it was suggested God could create new animals there. I never thought of that. In general I am in strong agreement with the abticle.

John	Posted: May 06, 2008 8:39 AM


This article is a joke right .... something to give us a laugh? I've tried writing more but gives this article credence it does not warrent. It does not even "rate a rating". Thanks for the laugh, and tears that this somehow makes all us look as goofy as the label we have. Of course, if we continue to print and devote time to pets in heaven, we are indeed "crazy Christians"

An embarrassed evangelical

Posted: May 05, 2008 8:59 PM

I’m disappointed that Mr. Colson has decided to use his status as an evangelical statesman to make fun of people who pray for their pets. He gives lip service to creation care and William Wilberforce’s legacy of animal rights activism only to declare several paragraphs later that our love for animals will be our “moral undoing.” Surely there are greater threats to Christian orthodoxy than passionate pet lovers who have the gift of recognizing abuse and neglect! The real threat to the integrity of the church is not that we care too much for God’s creation, but that we care too little. Did Colson actually suggest that if we don’t stop the animal rights activists, they could cause your doctor to take a beloved relative off life support in an effort save an animal? As an evangelical, I'm embarrassed by this. Wilberforce would never stand for these cheap shots taken at animal lovers. If his name weren’t Colson, CT would never publish this type of incoherent fear mongering.

RobJ	Posted: May 05, 2008 2:59 PM

No one wants to think that their beloved pets will never be seen again, but we cannot ignore the Scriptures' obvious absence of mention of the eternal nature of animal souls. We love our dogs and cats almost (sometimes more!) than people in our lives. We love them because they unconditionally love us and teach us forgiveness like very few people can. They do not worry about death because they know that it is a natural part of their life. Their heaven is in their owners' homes, nothing more or nothing less.

Concerned Activist

Posted: May 05, 2008 12:14 PM

The article comes from a most narrow minded view, but of course we will be reunited with all of our pets. So many christians are so limited in their knowledge and are elitist in thinking human beings are so above,,,,the creatures,,, Our God made so many more animals and creatures than humans,,,, he is smart,,,,, and knows that they emit the most love and reason, unlike humans who have commited so much chaos and genocide and animal torture and death. Go figure we needed a saviour Jesus to rescue humans from their ways.

George T.

Posted: May 04, 2008 8:45 PM

Your article omits the mention of all those Saints who believed,proved and lived by, that animals were something more than a mere creation of God. This is a very long and deep argument that would not fit in this reply form. However,Mr. Singer should observe Nature more closely to find out how the spirituality of animals really shapes this planet and mainly ourselves in a very Christian or other way.And ,just for starters,animals do not sin.

Steven Kanehl

Posted: May 04, 2008 8:25 PM

I certainly agree with the basic tenets of Mr. Colson and with those comments already posted. It is clear that animals are part of the thousand year reign of Christ on earth (Isaiah 11 and 65:25). However, here is a new thought. God does not have to resurrect animals for us to see pets in heaven. He just has to create them again along with in a new heaven and a new earth. He created them once, He can create them again if he so chooses. Therefore it does not matter that pets do not have eternal souls.

George Tabbert, Jr.

Posted: May 04, 2008 12:21 AM

I found this article very disturbing and not in the spirit of this newletter. Please make a better effort weeding out unnecessary and opionated writings like this that have little if any true biblical basis, do nothing to draw men to Christ, and reinforce the public's oftentimes negative attitude towards any movement (especially a religious one) geared towards men. This article does not even come close to the very upbeat, helpful articles usually found here. No, Mr. Colson, the male readers of this newsletter do not wholeheartedly accept your views on this matter. In fact, there are those among us who openly reject your opinion.

Wow.	Posted: May 03, 2008 2:25 PM

Well, Leroy and Steve, I'd just like to say thanks for that astounding insight. "Christians" like you are the reason people have such a strong dislike of Christians in general. I shudder to think someone might put me in the same category as you. Oh, and Doug? There's no reason animals can't have souls. It's humane to put a suffering animal to sleep. It's cruel to keep them alive in pain. It's not like you can just write a dog a script for narcotics and prop him up on some pillows for the rest of his life. I'd like to think God figured we'd be able to grasp this fact and help ease suffering when we could. With your argument you're getting to a dangerous area where we might as well just take away any medications for a terminal cancer patient because apparently it's God's will and all. And Pr.bill borch LtCol? "I have far less confidence in the ability to reason of CT readers."? Really? Then please, wow me with YOUR brilliant reasoning. If you're surrounded by idiots here...leave.

Jules

Posted: May 03, 2008 1:58 PM


Agree with Jeff. Not impressed CT, not impressed.

Pr.bill borch LtCol

Posted: May 02, 2008 9:57 PM

I agree with Chuck. On the other hand he is wasting his breath. I have far less confidence in the ability to reason of CT readers. Not all, mind you. But I've read enough comments to see the level to which we've fallen as a people. Most of the articles and comments are all about how you feel about this or that. What's your opinion....? We've clearly degenerated to pure sentimentalism. It might be helpful to watch the "Dog Whisperer". All the "cottonpick'n" dog wants is some food and a firm "pack" leader. You may need the animal as a surrogate "baby" but the poor beast doesn't have a clue what you're about. No wonder its confused and neurotic. Now, that's cruelty to animals. I love animals too, but I have enough self-respect- and respect for the animal- to treat it like one. Or can't you tell the difference? The poor animal doesn't- but you should know bettter. And as far as heaven is concerned, God will do what needs to be done. You should concern yourself about the children.

Garry Weese

Posted: May 02, 2008 12:14 PM

This is an excellent article and a fair warning for us to be vigilant in misinterpreting the Bible. Colson does not condone mistreating animals nor failing to look after them ("God . . . entrusts to Adam the task of ruling over them in a responsible way) What he does reveal is the gradual corrosion of the faith of many Christians who fail to realize that equating animals with man degrades the position of man, elevates animals to that of man, and - drawing on the love God gave us for His creation - seduce us into integrating an evolutionist point of view into our theology. Mankind, through Adam and Eve, was created in God's image mankind in whom the "breath of life" was breathed. It is not for us to know what God has in store for us in Heaven and on the new earth but, as Colson mentions, we may have a new (and ageless?) Fido there. Thank you, God!

Clarence Cossey

Posted: May 02, 2008 11:42 AM


Maybe no more, but in the past on the 700 Club, Pat had prayers for sick and injured animals.

Jason

Posted: May 01, 2008 2:39 PM

Colson's argument is incoherent and rambling, and he offers literally no support for his main contention: "Instead of elevating human rights, this cause diminishes them by insisting we eliminate the distinction between humans and animals. It would be our moral undoing." Indeed, the cause of animal rights simply seeks to _elevate_ the status of animals, not degrade human rights. And, it's entirely unclear how respecting animals as the sentient creatures they are would constitute our "moral undoing." If anything, actually practicing moral consistency would show that we take justice seriously.

Jenni

Posted: May 01, 2008 9:47 AM


I couldn't even finish reading this ridiculous article. Anyone that has gotten to know a loved pet, realizes that they have a soul and will join us in Heaven.

John von dem Beck

Posted: April 30, 2008 10:50 PM

The quality of the article is not greater than its writer&editor--its sub-title proclaims that it is gramatically challenged: s/b "as if they are humans". You may inconsistently expect those of us who do not have a higher I.Q. to believe that the rest is more correct, but I'll go w/comment therein that, at the least, my friend Peter Singer is consistent... not to mention many millions of Christians who know animals who are more human than billions of your so-called "human beings".

Trent

Posted: April 30, 2008 10:02 PM


What references are relied upon in the claim that animals are soulless? I do not know whether or not pets can go to heaven, and I doubt Mr Colson knows either. This is a pointless war to wage. It only makes genuine faith appear trite.

JohnJT

Posted: April 30, 2008 8:36 PM

Colson's arguments are not all bad. 1. The only clear promises of individual resurrection are for human beings. 2. Animals should be treated with kindness. 3. The new heaven and new earth will have animals. All true. However, his claim that other Christians' arguments for resurrection for pets makes more difficult his arguments for human life being uniquely sacred in fact disproves neither the possibility of pet resurrection nor the certainty that human life is sacred. The truth of God often encompasses the difficult, sometimes even the unimaginable. So far as I can see, God is free to do as He wills about raising pets. I think we should leave it there. Mr. Colson, have you read the end of C.S. Lewis' The Last Battle recently? I find it hard to think of Lewis as a sentimental dupe of the animal rights activists.

Rick	Posted: April 30, 2008 6:47 PM

Yes, I'd like to see where the scriptures are that say animals are soulless and perish. It's true that it is getting ridiculous what overbearing activists are pushing on us. I'll let God decide whether we'll see our pets again and I like the idea but I'm not counting on it. And...there are definitely horses in heaven because we'll ALL be riding white horses to do battle in the end times! I'm sure there will be dogs too but probably not cats.... Lol.

Mal	Posted: April 30, 2008 6:18 PM

"our faith teaches" "The Scriptures tell us" "our own doctrines" Those statement are too generic for me, I would like to hear some specifics. Joni Eareckson Tada said something I like in "Holiness in Hidden Places" - "If God brings our pets back to life, it wouldn't surprise me. It would be just like Him. It would be totally in keeping with His generous character.... Exorbitant. Excessive. Extravagant in grace after grace. Of all the dazzling discoveries and ecstatic pleasures heaven will hold for us, the potential of seeing Scrappy would be pure whimsy-utterly, joyfully, surprisingly superfluous.... Heaven is going to be a place that will refract and reflect in as many ways as possible the goodness and joy of our great God, who delights in lavishing love on His children. So will pets be in heaven? Who knows?"

SueJohnsonRN

Posted: April 30, 2008 6:04 PM

I also would love to see the scriptural references regarding animals being soulless. Perhaps they do not have souls like ours, however the fact that many are obviously capable of love, love without restrictions, shows that in many ways many animals appear to be far ahead of us in demonstrating some aspects of Christ-like behavior! I do not try to decide who on this earth, on an individual basis, is Heaven bound. Thankfully, God did not give me that insight--or responsibility.Whether or not a person's beloved animals are able to go to heaven is also not up to us. We may be surprised with who/what we find when, and if, we get there.

Randall

Posted: April 30, 2008 5:34 PM


I don't think it logically necessary that if we accept the view that animals could go to heaven and have some kind of soul (Ecclesiastes 3:21) we are therefore required to believe that the animal activists are right in all they affirm. We can still follow a Biblical viewpoint of the unique nature of humans and the right use of animals to help humans live better lives.

RandyT

Posted: April 30, 2008 3:51 PM


I don't know nor does Colson that animals don't have souls or perhaps a flow of life that will show up with us at some point. Perhaps if he compared the amount of money we Americans willing spend on our pets compared to the amount of money we share with the poor and needy of our country and the world, he could have made a much better column.

Page: 1 2 3

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment