An argument for Christian meatatarians to consider
Every couple months a church I know puts on a social event called “Men and Meat” where all the chaps in the church get together, consume copious amounts of meat and, er, beat their chests? The event reflects a troubling notion that masculinity is tantamount to a machismo that, among other things, is expressed in an absence of compassion toward other sentient life forms.
Contrary to such events, I think that Christians actually have a serious reason to consider not only limiting their meat intake but even abstaining for periods from meat altogether (just like in the good old days when Lenten fasts actually meant something). Here’s an argument to that end:
(1) A Christian eschatology (as opposed to a platonic eschatology) is committed to the view that the material world will be redeemed at which point God’s peaceable kingdom will be established.
Paul is actually quite explicit on this point in Romans 8:17-21. Many other texts support it as well including the strict parallelism between the concept of “new resurrection body” and “new heavens and new earth”. Just as the resurrection body will in fact be the old body renewed and perfected, so will the new heavens and new earth be the old heavens and earth perfected.
(2) Since the creation includes both flora and fauna, it is reasonable to believe that the peaceable kingdom in the restored heavens and earth will include flora and fauna.
(3) This coming peaceable kingdom will witness to a cessation of predation, death and carnivory.
See for instance Isa. 11:6, the familiar prophetic picture of harmony being restored within creation.
(4) Therefore, creatures in this new kingdom will either (a) be vegetarian or vegan or (b) will only eat meat to the extent to which it was not derived from a sentient lifeform (e.g. it could be meat grown in a petri-dish, although meat-flavored tofu might be just as good).
Note that I didn’t say all creatures will be vegan, but only that no creatures will die to serve as food for others. So if we eat meat it will not be as a result of killing anything.
(5) Christians ought to live as prophetic witnesses for God’s coming peaceable kingdom in which there will be no eating of meat from sentient organisms.
(6) Therefore, as prophetic witnesses for God’s coming peaceable kingdom Christians ought not to eat meat from sentient organisms now.
This doesn’t necessarily oblige Christians to go vegetarian or vegan, but it does suggest that they ought to contemplate seriously at the very least a limitation of their consumption of meat products as a prophetic anticipation of that coming peaceable kingdom.
Tags: animal rights, eschatology, meatatarian, veganism, vegetarianism
13 Comments
2 Trackbacks
-
[...] Rauser presents this argument for a Christian’s moral duty to go meatless (i.e., vegetarian, or even vegan): [...]
-
[...] Rauser suggested that in heaven we won’t eat meat; but, if we do, it will be genetically engineered in a [...]
Post a Comment
Subscription Options:
Alexander says:
Saturday, November 27, 2010 at 9:31pm
You could learn a few practices from the Buddhists. There are plenty of other religions out there to explore besides the limited and often-biased view of Christianity.
randal says:
Sunday, November 28, 2010 at 1:18am
No doubt, there is much to learn from Buddhists, Sihks, Muslims and even the occasional atheist.
Brad Haggard says:
Sunday, November 28, 2010 at 3:47am
I also agree that we can learn a lot from a lot of different systems (Buddhist “detachment” sounds a lot like Paul’s “citizens of heaven”, for instance). But one minor pushback would be to remind that the Christian tradition outside of Evangelicalism is very robust, perhaps the widest (emphasis on perhaps).
Alexander says:
Sunday, November 28, 2010 at 5:22am
Yes, but Buddhism is one of the least exclusive religions out there (i.e. anyone can become a Buddhist, regardless of whether one professes it).
Brad Haggard says:
Sunday, November 28, 2010 at 3:03am
Randal,
I think your conclusion is appropriate, though it doesn’t follow quickly for me. I also think that (3) is a little speculative, and Is. 11:6 doesn’t say what (3) needs it to say.
I think the strongest argument, for me, is Francione’s appeal to human rights in food distribution, actually. (and thanks for the discussion, I thought it wouldn’t go very far but it’s got me thinking)
randal says:
Sunday, November 28, 2010 at 3:38am
Brad,
The argument is not simply dependent on “proof-texts”. The fact is that the “new heavens and new earth” is the old heavens and earth restored and redeemed just like the new resurrection body is the old body restored and redeemed (The evidence for the latter? The resurrection body of Jesus which was the old body restored and redeemed). So then we ask ourselves: is it possible that (a) the restored heavens and earth will be swept clean of fauna or (b) that it will have carnivorous and predatory fauna? Nix on both accounts. The only reasonable conclusion for a peaceable kingdom is that there will be no more predation and carnivory. And that leads us to the really difficult question: how should that affect our culinary choices today?
I’ll say this: I had a vegetarian burger at Red Robin’s today. Satisfying? Not half as much as a good ole’ fashioned beef burger. But an anticipation of the peaceable kingdom? In its own modest way, yes.
Brad Haggard says:
Sunday, November 28, 2010 at 3:45am
Well, I guess I still think that it is speculative. But you make it a matter of scruples, and I think that is the correct path to go.
I think that in really promoting this within American evangelicalism you need to push the angle of combating materialism and consumerism. Those seem to me to be more pressing moral problems, that we have given into a sensual culture. Perhaps some good ole monastic fasting disciplines would be good to revive.
Brad Haggard says:
Monday, November 29, 2010 at 3:44pm
Randal, you’ve really made me reflect over these past two posts.
I think the reason I don’t resonate with the idea of a veggie burger is that I don’t think it is the best way to enjoy vegetables. Is it too much to begin to talk about “best function” in regard to culinary tastes? At any rate, I would much rather enjoy a vegetable plate well-prepared (or especially a good fruit plate).
In the end, though, I just can’t bring myself to place this high on my moral priorities. I think it’s because of 1) I’m not convinced that sentience isn’t an arbitrary moral marker, 2), I’m also not convinced that human pleasure isn’t a good in itself, 3) I’ve seen video of large farms and I wasn’t struck with moral outrage for some reason and 4) most importantly, I place human rights issues above animal rights, and there is so much to be done there. That is where I think the Kingdom is first ushered in.
But…
You’ll probably get me to think more clearly about my consumption habits. A couple of donuts instead of a sausage biscuit for breakfast this morning, for instance.
randal says:
Monday, November 29, 2010 at 8:01pm
Brad,
Thanks for your candor. I’m no paragon of virtue on this issue, that’s for sure. But I would caution you to be suspicious of your intuitions given that (1) you (and the rest of us) have very strong reasons not to be moved by the suffering of animals (e.g. the taste of bacon), (2) we have been conditioned to objectify and depersonal animals. I don’t know about donuts for breakfast though. How about an apple?
Brap Gronk says:
Monday, November 29, 2010 at 10:45pm
“But I would caution you to be suspicious of your intuitions given that . . . we have been conditioned to objectify and depersonal animals.”
Randal, Are you suggesting our intuitions are shaped by our culture and/or environment and/or experiences, and therefore they might be subjective or relative? Should we be suspicious of the intuitions that some people use when arguing for the existence of objectivity morality? How can we tell which intuitions to be suspicious of?
randal says:
Monday, November 29, 2010 at 10:53pm
BG,
I ain’t saying they’re relative. I’m saying they’re fallible. The mere fact that our moral faculties (like everything else) is fallible is not in itself a reason to doubt the specific deliverances of those faculties. But if we have vested interests to believe not-p then we should be open to the possibility that those vested interests might be influencing what would otherwise be a clear moral perception.
Brap Gronk says:
Tuesday, November 30, 2010 at 11:07pm
So if our potentially fallible intuitions should be used as an argument for the existence of objective morality, how do we know when we have vested interests that might be influencing them?
The pedophile who believes he is doing nothing inherently wrong has a vested interest in continuing his actions with minors (I’m assuming for sexual gratification in addition to some other psychological thrills the psychologists can discuss), and therefore has very strong reasons not to be moved by the long-term effects of his actions on his victims. Why should he be open to the possibility that those vested interests might be influencing his moral perception that there is nothing wrong with pedophilia other than: a) Potential legal consequences of his actions, and b) He’s in the minority?
Many people have an intuition that sex between heterosexual married partners, after they know for certain that one or both of them is sterile and they are therefore unable to conceive a child, is OK. Should they be suspicious of those intuitions given the physical and emotional pleasures of sex and the attitude of society toward sex between married heterosexual partners with no possibility of procreation?
randal says:
Wednesday, December 1, 2010 at 4:38am
BG, I’m glad you asked. I wrote a book, the new one coming out in Februrary, precisely on how we overcome our own intrinsic biases and weakness in the pursuit of truth.