Good morning I think that your blog is really nice!

Great article! I love purebred dogs and I love watching dog shows. However, I think it is imperative that we never allow the value of dogs as conscious beings to be eclipsed by their physical shapes and colors. As much as I love celebrating the beautiful, specialized dogs in the show ring, I think that ensuring every dog has a chance for life, love, and happiness is far more important. Surely we don't suppose that God intended us to preen and dote over a treasured few of His creations, while quietly discarding the others because they weren't "fancy" enough for our tastes. To Pilar: although I have no desire to eliminate pet ownership, I would support restrictions and perhaps even a *temporary* moratorium on deliberate pet breeding. I don't think we should be making more dogs when there are literally millions of them dying in shelters for lack of homes. (The majority of these animals are "adoptable" -- no severe health or behavior problems. They just need someone to choose them, instead of a puppy/kitten from a pet store or breeder.) The current situation, in which unlimited breeding and unlimited euthanasia are allowed, makes animals into disposable objects. This isn't responsible dominion; it is an expression of our selfish, careless consumer culture. Finally, I'm sure that you are very concerned about the welfare of your animals, but that doesn't mean that every breeder is, not by a long shot. There are absolutely breeders out there that only care about making a buck, and don't test their stock for hip displasia and other inheritable health problems.

Melissa, as an adoptive mother myself - and a Christian - I agree that to say one has adopted a dog bares too much similarity to the way we use it to refer to the adoption of a child. It is not like saying "I have adopted a habit," where clearly the object is inanimate and the word is being used rather figuratively. A hundred years ago if someone said "we're adopting" no one would ask "a dog, or a child?" You never could adopt a dog. Yo rescued a dog, or bought a dog. Dr. Russell Moore in his book "Adopted for Life" makes this same point. Many people are blurring the lines between their "animal children" and their children, and as Christians I think we should stand up for adoption as the special privilege of being the children of God, bought for us by the blood of Christ. It is that eternal adoption that we image when we adopt a child who is not of our own bloodline and make them equal heirs with our biological children, as we have become heirs with Christ. I think it is far more respectable to say that you have "rescued" a dog, but "adopted" a child. I encourage my entire family not to refer to acquiring a new pet as an "adoption" because think about the message that sends to my adopted son. That aside, I loved this article. A very interesting parallel!

KSP, you got the balance just right, as did this article. We have a friend who breeds purebreds who are internationally recognized. She also runs a large rescue operation and places dogs for adoption constantly. The two pursuits are extremely compatible. Tim

Pilar, methinks you protest too much. As an owner (and previous shower) of three purebred, AKC registered dogs myself, I love the purebreds for the very reasons you describe. But this, much like the law and grace, judgment and grace, is not an either/or situation, but both/and. We can celebrate the breeds and adoption. The point is to love and care for ALL of God's creatures humanely and compassionately (which is, by the way, the EXACT mission of the HSUS, conspiracy theories aside). And let's keep things in perspective: God created the species; man made the breeds. His design is perfect; ours are imperfect--but worth celebrating, nevertheless. I know many good purebred dog owners, breeders, and exhibitors. I have never seen any of them begrudge adoption or the humane societies that want to end cruelty in any form. Celebrating and protecting ALL dogs should be our common goal. That is the point of the post and a point I would think any dog lover would agree with.

As a purebred dog owner, dog show exhibitor and Christian, your article offends me and I find that your perspective is narrow and does not see the full picture as to why the Westminster Kennel Club chose to drop Pedigree as their sponsor and allowed Purina the opportunity to celebrate the dogs we have in our lives. Did you watch the commercials that played during the broadcast? If you were drowning in a lake or ocean and a Newfoundland jumped out of a helicopter to rescue you, you'd be thanking your lucky stars that dog willingly did his job for what he was bred to do. Pedigree has fallen way to animal rights activists pushing us as a society to only support shelter dogs and making them seem they are the ONLY dogs to "rescue" and own. "Adopt, don't buy a purebred dog. Breeders are evil" is the mantra of animal rights. The true agendas of organizations like PeTA and the Humane Society of the United States are to legislate us all into no longer owning pets, eliminating agriculture and farmers and we would be doing exactly the opposite of what God commanded us to do. He commanded us to have dominion over the animals and to care for them for their purposes in our lives. If laws continue to push through that say we have to spay and neuter every single dog, you will never be able to own another dog again. We won't be able to breed any pets. And the animal rights agenda will have succeeded. You won't even be able to adopt a dog. No dogs will exist. And if you think I'm being over-dramatic, do more research. Dogs are being shipped from shelter to shelter in the U.S. to make them appear as if they have more animals than usual to keep their funding. God doesn't say to eliminate animals and not subject them to man. He clearly states the opposite. Dogs serve a purpose in our lives and the people (like me and my husband) who own and breed a litter every 1-3 years are doing exactly what God commanded us to do. Dog shows are meant to serve the same type of judgement as livestock shows - judging the breeding quality of livestock for their job. Their form and function is judged at a dog show. A few examples: terriers were bred to help keep down vermin; sporting dogs were bred to help hunters; herding dogs were bred to help shepherds. To say purebred dogs can't really function, I have major issues with that statement. We care the most about our dogs health and what kind of a life our dogs have whether they are in the show ring on weekends or never hitting the ring. We spend thousands of dollars on health testing before ever breeding a litter IF we breed a litter. Our dogs spend every day going on walks, playing with their toys, working sheep when driven to a pasture with a herding instructor, sniffing out rodents in our yard or in "earth dog" trials, educating children about responsible behavior around dogs, bringing smiles on elderly faces when visiting nursing homes and, on the weekends, they participate in dog shows. They are the finest examples of the canine companions. The Westminster Kennel Club spoke to Pedigree about their advertising and asked them to consider changing their messaging to support the pure bred dogs. Pedigree didn't want to. Westminster decided that if Pedigree wasn't going to support the efforts of all the breeders and owners and exhibitors that care the most about health and function of the dogs that are shown at Westminster, they needed to change sponsors. To try to say that Westminster's choice to drop Pedigree as a sponsor is about "adoption" and being a Christian and how God loves all of us and we need to be more open is a narrow-minded angle. It should be about recognizing that God made animals for a reason, every animal has a job, every dog has a job and has been bred for that job, and the Westminster Kennel Club supports those of us that love our dogs enough to take the responsibility to keep them around for the love and enjoyment of every owner - breeding/show quality or not. ...

Melissa, the word adoption has more meanings than a human taking a child as his or her own. It is even used ot inanimate objects and amorphous concepts. For example, a person can adopt an idea. So applying it to animals is not linguistically suspect nor ungodly. Blessings, Tim

I realize that my comment is unrelated from your point in this article, but I would ask you to give it consideration. As an adoptive mother, I am disappointed to see you using the terms "adoption" and "pro-adoption" in regard to dogs. I understand that companies like Pedigree and organizations like the Humane Society regularly use such terms, but as Christians, we should understand that the term "adoption" signifies something far greater than what takes place when we rescue an animal.

Gosh, I love dogs, and I love this piece! I have three purebred dogs, but each one falls far short of the breed standard and found their way to our home for being "misfits." I, too, have always loved the way dog show competitions judge each dog against their own breed standard. I never, ever thought of how that can (and should!) apply to our individual gifts and callings in the church. Love this post! Thanks, Caryn.

Great thoughts, Caryn. I had not heard about the WKC/Pedigree split. That's troubling, especially for the reasons you mentioned. We've never bought a "real" dog from a pet store or a breeder. Every single dog we've owned, and will ever own, has been rescued from a shelter. And love has abounded, both ways. Thanks for shedding (pun intended!) light on this.