Could start by saying something about yourself? Who you are, what you do and where you have come from?
I am married to Miriam with three adult children, and have been a Christian since my conversion as an undergraduate through the ministry of Francis Schaeffer. I initially trained as a mathematical physicist, and I keep in touch with some areas of the field. But my interests moved towards the social sciences, partly as a result of my conversion. I found that the U.K. evangelical community at that time envisaged ‘faith’ very narrowly, and I drew heavily on the work of L’Abri Fellowship, subsequently discovering the ‘reformational approach’ associated with Dooyeweerd and Vollenhoven. I completed a PhD in ‘discourse and institutional change’, and have since applied the techniques of discourse analysis in facilitating psychotherapeutic and family change in a number of settings, as well as in my more academic published work. Over the past 20 years, I have applied this approach increasingly in animal ethics and animal theology. I was formerly a Research Fellow at the University of Southampton, and am currently a Fellow of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics.
Who or what are your key influences?
Miriam and I were active members of the ‘Ilkley Group’ of Christians in Sociology for many years. I was influenced by members of that group, notably Miriam herself, Tony Garrood, Tony Walter, Richard and Janice Russell, Alan and Elaine Storkey, and David Lyon. Richard and Jan introduced me to the work of Dooyeweerd, which has shaped my thinking ever since. I should say, however, that some reformational writing seems to me to be at one remove from the revelation of God in the Bible, and to that extent disengaged from how we really live. A key influence upon me has been the biblical text itself, and I have attempted to constantly ground my thinking in scripture; to this end, I have often drawn inspiration from the writings of pre-twentieth century ‘nonconformists’. Whilst I am by no means averse to theory, I share the Edinburgh theologian Duncan Forrester’s orientation towards ‘practical theology’, ‘truth in relation to action’, rather than abstractions which appear to have little existential impact on life.
Your most recent book Animal Ethics and the Nonconformist Conscience has just been published. Could you briefly say what it’s about?
I explore the religious language of ‘Nonconformity’ (including Puritans, Methodists and Evangelical Anglicans) which was often used in ethical debate about animals before the twentieth century. As is widely recognised, this discourse deeply influenced law reform and the foundation of organisations such as the RSPCA. I argue that it has a unity and coherence which has been neglected in earlier studies. I analyse it within a Creation-Fall-Redemption framework, and show that it continues to shape animal advocacy to this day. My focus is upon the linguistic rather than historical or theological aspect, and the way that biblically rooted language enabled new things to be said about animals. Providentially, as it seems to me, 'nonconformist' discourse about animals not only expressed new truths from the canonical biblical texts, but had a profound influence upon social practices towards God’s creatures (law reform, the foundation of animal welfare societies etc). The historian Rod Preece has noted that it was fortunate for animals that there was an evangelical discourse in the England of the later nineteenth century to counteract the influence of Darwinism. I argue that biblically informed ways of speaking about animals continue to have relevance today. For a short account of my approach using a Creation-Fall-Redemption framework, see my essay Evangelical Christianity: Lord of Creation or animal among animals? (in The Routledge Handbook of Religion and Animal Ethics. Linzey A. and Linzey C. (eds). Routledge 2018. pp 63-72).
What prompted you to write the book?
I have long been horrified at the routine cruelties towards animals in the contemporary developed world, especially in the meat industry, and I found that I was unable to divorce this from my faith. I could understand that a humanist, believing that man is the measure of all things, could justify the cruel exploitation of animals (although, interestingly, few do); or that a Darwinist, for whom nature is red in tooth and claw, could condone meat eating as ‘natural’. But I could not reconcile being implicated in appalling animal cruelty with the biblical teaching that creation’s chief end is to glorify God. How could a chicken or pig being scalded to death, or a cow being skinned alive simply so that I could enjoy the taste of its flesh, how could this things glorify God? Surely it was the devil who enjoyed their screams, not God? I wanted to be able to join in with the chorus ‘With all creation I sing, praise to the King of kings’, and could not understand how to do so while continuing to eat animal flesh. I found myself unable to leave the praise of God with the hymn sheet in the pew when I left church. The comfortable platitudes offered by many Christians as justifications for neglecting animal cruelty seemed to me profoundly unsatisfactory, not least because Jesus was known for his compassion for animals rather than for cruelty towards them. I wanted to be more like Jesus.
The complicity of so many modern Christians in animal cruelty now seems to me to be more significant than individual sanctification, important though that is. Over the years, Miriam and I have met many people who have been repelled by a Christianity which they perceived as a cruel religion, or have lost their faith as a result of Christian complicity in animal cruelty. A recent public example is the criticism of the Christian gospel by people such as Chris Packham (the BBC wildlife presenter), and Bill Oddie (a vice-president of the RSPCA) following the decision of the current Archbishop of Canterbury to withdraw from the long tradition that Archbishops serve as vice-patrons of the RSPCA. This alienation of compassionate people from the gospel of Christ is little short of tragic, especially as the RSPCA was originally founded by people such as William Wilberforce who read in the Bible that animal cruelty is wickedness (eg Prov. 12.10). The meteoric growth in ethical veganism in recent years suggests that animal cruelty will become a major issue for evangelism in the future.
For many years, I thought that my view of animals was out of step with the evangelical tradition, and that my ethical scruples about cruelty were a personal quirk. As my church friends told me, Paul says that my avoidance of cruelty was due to my ‘weak’ faith (Rom 14.2). Whilst I was researching an earlier book (6 Modern Myths) about 20 years ago, I was therefore surprised to discover a rich seam of animal advocacy among pre-twentieth century nonconformists or evangelicals. They had historically pioneered animal welfare, and their views were far more radical than my own. At the centre of their concerns was the worship and glory of God. Moreover, their discourse had a disproportionate impact on legislation and social attitudes. I have since written on this from time to time, and the Animal Ethics book is my most thorough discussion so far. My hope is that it will inspire debate among both Christian and secular readers.
Who is the target audience and why should they read it?
The book has been published in the Palgrave Macmillan Animal Ethics Series which is intended to provide texts for the growing number of university animal studies courses, and to support the many students and researchers in this field. As such, it has been written within the conventions of academic textbooks, but I have tried to avoid technical or abstract language. By its very nature, the biblical subject-matter of Creation, Fall and Redemption is accessible to all, and will be of especial interest to Christians who share my dislike of cruelty and seek biblical guidance on what Solomon in Proverbs calls the ‘righteous’ life. The book not only explores the central role of biblical themes in historic animal advocacy, but also points to the continued relevance of those same themes today. Anyone concerned about the way we treat God’s creatures will find it valuable to read about the 'nonconformist' pioneers of the past.
To be continued ....
No comments:
Post a Comment