In this second volume, Torrance and McCall have collected 16 articles exploring the implications for science and theology regarding Christ’s incarnation and role as creator and sustainer of the universe (Col 1:15-17). As in the first volume, the text lacks a unified theology. However, for scientists, theologians, philosophers, and researchers interested in tackling ideas of science and faith as they intersect in the person and work of Jesus, this text would be a worthy place to begin. For if you are not interested in the focus of one article, simply turn a few pages and an entirely different focus will be explicated in the next.

The book opens with a splendid, and dare I say, must-read introduction by the editors, where they set the table for the articles that follow. The articles are organized into four sections, theological perspectives, biblical and historical perspectives, philosophical perspectives and scientific perspectives. This organization is helpful in relating to the reader what the writer’s point of view is. Nevertheless, in each case, authors bring, to varying degrees and intensities, their Christian faith into the discussion. In other words, the authors are not disinterested and objective writers but are those writing from a faith position. I have spotlighted a handful of publications to help readers in getting a sense of the diversity of topics and will end with some summary observations.

Murray Rae’s article, “Jesus Christ, the Order of Creation”, opens the Theological Perspectives section by arguing that science’s understanding of reality and the explanation given by Scripture (Col 1:15-17; 1 Cor 8:6, etc.) can be reconciled by recognizing that explanation for phenomena can occur at differing levels. He uses the music of Chopin to illustrate how science can explain a song by looking at the notes, and theology explains by looking at the score. As valuable as this heuristic is, Rae recognizes that we must also consider the impact that sin has fractured our world so that the score is in a sense broken. Nevertheless, God has left enough of the score intact to let us see the beauty and a glimmer of the ultimate purpose.

Brian Brock’s “Jesus Christ the Divine Animal?: The Human Distinctive Reconsidered” responds to Darwin’s denial that humans are qualitatively different from animals by reframing the issue. Brock contends that looking for something intrinsically different in humans when compared to animals, is a dead end. Rather, we should look extrinsically, namely to our relationship with God. From this perspective, Brock believes that evolution and a high view of scripture (i.e. Genesis story) may be reconciled while avoiding ensnarement with other problems such as the presence of evil. Brock’s idea here is an interesting rephrasing of the functional view of human identity (Gen 1:28).

The problem of evil is addressed in Brian Curry’s “Christ, Creation and the Powers: Elements in a Christian Doctrine of Creation.” Curry contends that the typical binary discussion of God and creation fails to account for the biblical testimony, which includes a third element, the evil powers. The presence of evil powers is necessary because scripture says that God is not satisfied with creation. God continues to work towards redemption and fights the powers to achieve those ends. Curry provocatively says that science can be a power that both enslaves and benefits its users. Readers will be stimulated by Curry’s forceful discussion, but some may be put off by the apparent leaning toward open theism.

In recent decades, the long struggle between science and theology has intensified, forcing Christian theologians to increase their attention on the doctrine of creation. The challenge facing theologians was is how to correlate and contextualize biblical teaching concerning creation with the findings of contemporary science. The effort is difficult because of the diversity and complexity of the issues which include how we got here, the relationship between revelation and reason, free-will and providence, and biblical teaching about nature. Knowing Creation (vol 1.) addresses these subjects through 16 articles by scholars from prestigious schools who self-identify as Christian. The editors explicitly sought to make the book interdisciplinary, arguing that too often academics become siloed in their field (p.18).

The book is organized into four sections each containing four articles: Theological Perspectives, Biblical and Historical Perspectives, Philosophical Perspectives and Scientific Perspectives. While the editors wisely decided to organize the articles by theme or emphasis, readers should understand that some of the categorizations were arbitrary. For example, Mark Harris’ article, “’The Trees of the Field Shall Clap Their Hands’ (Isaiah 55:12): What Does It Mean to Say That a Tree Praises God?” is placed in the Scientific Perspectives section but could have easily been placed in the Biblical and Historical Perspectives.

Given the diversity of topics covered in this text, an integrated review is impossible. So rather than write on all 16 articles, attention will be placed on a few select papers taken from each of the sections.

Section 1 Theological Perspectives

Simon Oliver’s article, “Every Good Gift is from Above” discusses the relationship between culture and nature and how the often-touted dichotomy between nature and culture is problematic (p. 31). In this, Oliver is spot on. The idea that nature is to be understood as non-human assumes an improper understanding of both nature and humanity. In short, it is a false dualism. Oliver contends that viewing creation as a gift from God helps overcome this dualism. He explains this by employing Marcel Mauss’ conception of gifts and giving. Oliver concludes by arguing that food unites culture and nature. He then continues to tease out the implications of the aforementioned premise by drawing on biblical narratives showing how food is strongly associated with reconciliation and communion (i.e. fellowship). In this way, food is both a gift and an offering. Oliver concludes by drawing attention to how food production is tied to much of the environmental problems of our day. Recognizing the interplay between food and culture highlights the importance of creation in our lives and in the biblical narrative.

Oliver’s insights are rather abstract and tend to arrive at theological conclusions that are at times a bit tendentious. Nevertheless, his ideas are stimulating and worthy of engagement.

This volume is an outgrowth of papers presented at the third biennial meeting of the European Forum for the Study of Religion and Environment at the University of Chester in May of 2011. It contains 13 articles by authors ranging from luminaries in the animal ethics field to graduate students.

The introduction, by Deane-Drummond and Clough, is a superb example of what an introduction should accomplish. It situates the text within the discipline of animal-theology, arguing that the book contributes to the discipline but also summarizes each of the articles thereby providing a complete overview of the book’s contents. Readers skip this introduction at their own peril.

The articles are organized under four main headings which will be discussed in turn. Part One, “Animals as Subjects of Religious Thought” contains three articles that seek to reorient us away from our superior attitude towards animals by asking us to reconsider our intellectual authorities, biases, and categories respectively. The first articles draws on pagan practice, poetry, and philosophy (p.25) to convince us to consider the possibility that animals may be more religious than Abrahamic religions have traditionally thought. The second article argues that our contemporary views on animals are biased by the impact of scientific empiricism and Reformational exegesis which separated us from the voices of the earth. The last article contends that we should not allow our thinking to be dominated by the animal-human binary categorization of the animal kingdom.

Part Two, “Animals as Subjects of Religious Symbolism” contains three articles on how animals were viewed by post apostolic Christians, medieval Germany, and Hindus. The fourth article is an interesting discussion on the symbolism of the praying mantis through the ages. This section is primarily of a historical and descriptive nature and can be useful for those interested in those subjects and periods.

Part Three, “Animals as Subjects of Theological Inquiry” contains three articles questioning the notion that the sharp distinction between animals and humans is as real and substantive as presently believed. The first article argues that our sense of place influences our perception of the place animals have in our world. The author asks us to reconsider our perspective in order to have a wider appreciation of the diverse life forms on the planet. The second article appeals to arguments made by Gregory of Nazianzus and Evagrius of Pontus suggesting that humans become like animals when we choose God because we lose our ability to choose. Thus rather than highlighting the distinction between animals and humans, it appears these theologians made an argument that could be used to reduce that gap. The final article in this section argues that our classification schemes reinforce human superiority over animals. The author suggests we should seek to celebrate animals rather than categorize them to reinforce their lower place.

Part Four, “Animals as Subjects of Religious Ethics” contains three articles. The first argues that Deuteronomy’s negative view of animals flows from the urbanized world-view of its author and that we should draw our perspective on animals from that proffered by Jonah instead (cf. Jon 4:11). The second article makes the interesting claim that transgenic research is wrong, not because it violates human dignity but because it can violate the dignity of the animals. The final article attempts to show that Aquinas thought that animals have their own status as being in the image of God, albeit at a different level, thereby overthrowing the historic view that Aquinas believed animals had a very low status.

Since my interests lie in the theological and ethical issues surrounding animals, I will focus my review on those chapters. On the one hand, the book does help readers see the place of animals in a different way. In that regard, the opportunity to reflect on the traditional Christian view that animals are subordinate to humans in status, ontology, and redemption is valuable. Likewise, the authors provide important conceptual schemes that should be considered when discussing animal-theology. On the other hand, articles appealing to scripture fail to properly consider the wealth of data that oppose their position. In addition, I found it ironic that the authors condemn the scientific view of the Enlightenment that humans are superior/different than animals while never considering the possibility that the modern evolutionary-scientific worldview holding that humans are just another animal is also an unjustified assumption.

Ultimately, the authors raise important questions and make thought provoking comments. But their failure to ground the arguments in concrete data make them little more than philosophical musings that require the reader to do a lot more work to arrive at a supportable conclusion. Apparently, it is easier to raise questions than to evaluate the evidence and arrive at a decision based on the preponderance of the data.

Reviewed by Stephen M. Vantassel

Publisher’s page: http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/animals-as-religious-subjects-9780567015648/

Preview: https://books.google.com/books?id=HZdLAQAAQBAJ

A Faith Encompassing All of Creation is the third book in The Peaceable Kingdom Series. The editors state that the purpose of the series is “…to challenge the pervasive violence assumed necessary in relation to humans, nonhumans, and the larger environment.” The first book addressed human violence (i.e. war) and the second humanity’s relationship with animals (see my review at http://pneumareview.com/a-faith-embracing-all-creatures-reviewed-by-stephen-vantassel/). This volume takes on the larger task of providing a Christian basis for protecting and restoring the environment.

The book includes articles from 18 authors representing, Catholics, Anabaptists, mainline denominations, and even a few that didn’t declare their sectarian position.. While the authorship list suggests diversity, the diversity is not as broad as it may appear at first glance. For, with perhaps one or two exceptions, they are ideologically bent towards the more progressive and socially aware elements of their respective communities

The articles fall into two categories, the philosophical and the issue based. The philosophical papers discussed how Christians should understand their relationship with the environment. Reading the articles as a whole leaves readers with the following points: 1. A metanarrative that God created the world with humans and nature in environmental harmony. Man’s sin destroyed that harmony, which Christ will ultimately repair. 2. The Bible is a mixed document containing good and bad (or irrelevant) teaching on the environment. The key is to find the right passages and ignore the wrong ones or at least reinterpret them to obtain the right conclusion. 3. Humanity has devastated creation. The degradation of the environment is not only an affront to God but also threatens our continued existence. Finally, human greed, capitalism, and arrogance are responsible for our abuse of creation. Only by recognizing that God wants us to care for creation and shed our ethic of domination and consumption can we begin to repair the environmental damage we have caused.

To those familiar with the topic of Christian environmentalism, most of the information is not new. However, the article by Johnson, which calls us to reconsider the traditional stewardship model for understanding humanity’s relationship to creation, was unusual. Though I am not convinced by her argument, I think it deserves thoughtful reflection. I commend the editors for including Pope Benedict XVI’s message for it was the only paper that explicitly (and correctly) emphasized that environmental concerns flow from respect for our fellow humans.

Issue-based articles focused on specific interpretations of scripture (e.g. Jesus cursing the fig tree) or human activities (e.g. morality of zoos). Boers rightly explained that it is too simplistic to think that technology will always resolve environmental situations. Technology can cause new problems as it resolves old ones. The article should be read by all who are overly optimistic about the promise of technology. On the other hand, I was saddened that several articles discussed issues whose answers should have been obvious to any biblically literate Christian. But upon further reflection, given the biblical illiteracy within modern Christianity, it is understandable that authors felt compelled to explain that care for creation does not require worship of creation, that Christ’s curse of a fig tree doesn’t mean we can kill all trees, and that the apocalypse doesn’t justify destroying the earth in the present.

Despite the aforementioned positive elements, the book contains many weaknesses. First, it lacks sufficient practical advice to guide our actions. Too often the authors resort to platitudes like, ‘care for creation’, without helping us distinguish use from abuse of the environment. Second, several authors fail to engage the bible on its own terms. They don’t seem to consider the possibility that environmental degradation may be partly attributable to corrupt governments and cultures not sufficiently infused with a Judeo-Christian worldview. In addition, at least one author travels the blind path of dethroning humanity thinking that if humanity’s status is lowered, we will care for the planet more. Finally, many of the articles would have benefited from reading more broadly. Deeper research would have helped them define terms and more tightly refine their arguments.

The editors clearly wanted this book to help readers work toward achieving the Peaceable Kingdom. Unfortunately, this book fails to provide enough guidance to clearly point readers in the right direction.

Reviewed by Stephen M. Vantassel

Publisher’s page: http://wipfandstock.com/a-faith-encompassing-all-creation.html

This text is a collection of articles on Christian ethics published in the journal Transformation, published by the Oxford Center for Mission Studies. The 18 articles are organized under five different headings.

The first section, “Words and Works,” contains three articles that engage the difficult question of how to use Scripture for moral guidance. Davies, in his article The Ethics of the Hebrew Bible, surveys the different stances taken to derive moral insight from scripture. Samuel’s article, “The Holy Spirit in Word and Works: A Study in John 14 to 16,” argues that in the debate between truth and action our emphasis should tip towards truth. Tollefson appeals to Nehemiah for a model of how leaders can create social transformation in their communities. The next two sections, “Response to Poverty” and “Economic Justice” engage the thorny question of responding to poverty both personally and at an institutional levels. The editors selected several very good articles that deserve wider readership. In particular, Mason’s article, “Biblical Teaching and Assisting the Poor,” provides an interesting interpretation of the Bible’s social welfare policy and provides some key cautions to those who wish to use Scripture to support a welfare state. Getu’s article, “The Biblical Perspective on Transformational Business,” contends that business and profit can be used for social good provided that the owners keep social goals in mind. Mott and Sider, in their article, “A Biblical Paradigm for Economic Justice,” play a contrasting perspective with Mason’s piece. Readers should read both articles together and note areas where the authors agree, where they disagree, and where they speak to different issues. The last article of note is Hartropp’s discussion of how the Bible understands economic justice. His comments are essential reading to ensure that debates between competing visions of abating poverty are using terms in the same way.

The section on Family was somewhat disappointing in that it neglected many of the common issues facing the modern family. It did, however, focus extensively on children, a subject generally neglected in Christian theology and ethics. Unfortunately, I think the articles were more evocative than substantive.

The final section, “Environment,” presented a good overview of major environmental themes contained in Scripture. Unfortunately, the authors too often employed vague platitudes in their comments, such as scripture does not teach exploitation or domination of nature. While such statements need to be made, they also need to be clearly defined as the debate centers on what behavior constitutes abuse versus use. I was disappointed that the authors didn’t engage Jesus’ treatment of the environment, such as the miracle of the fishes, the drowning of the pigs, and the curse of the fig tree. I am not convinced that researchers have sufficiently pondered the significance of Christ’s behavior in these three situations. Readers should also note that Bauckham’s interpretation of Mark 1:13 is likely wrong in light of Heil’s article in Catholic Biblical Quarterly.

From Pneuma Review Fall 2013.

Tripp York and Andy Alexis-Baker, eds., A Faith Embracing All Creatures: Addressing Commonly Asked Questions about Christian Care for Animals (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2012), 212 pages, ISBN 9781610977012.

This book is another in an ever growing line of texts attempting to convince Christians that the Church’s traditional understanding of human-animal relations is wrong. Put another way, the authors contend that Christianity’s long-standing belief that animals were created for human use and food is fundamentally misguided. These authors argue a different reading of scripture reveals that:

• God’s ideal and original plan was for humans and animals to co-exist in non-violent (i.e. vegetarian) relationship.
• God only allowed humans to eat of meat because of the conditions following the Noahic flood.
• Adoption of a vegetarian lifestyle is part of our call as Christians to extend Christ’s compassion toward all of creation and his work to redeem and restore harmony in the broader creation.

At first glance, these points appear Christian. What Christian doesn’t support the notion of compassion and redemption? However, a closer look at these points reveals that adopting them requires believers to undergo a dramatic paradigm shift in the interpretation of large sections of scripture. Since paradigm shifts are intellectually and emotional difficult for people to make, each of the 15 authors take up a particular concept in scripture or theology to show how it can be harmonized to support a vegetarian or vegan perspective.

As expected, the book focusses on specific scriptural and theological issues that would be troublesome for a vegetarian mandate, such as the dominion mandate, the Noahic Covenant, animal sacrifices, the value of humans in relationship to animals, and Jesus’ diet and treatment of animals. The authors repeatedly suggest that Christians should read scripture differently and through the prism of peace, harmony (i.e. shalom), Christ’s compassion and reconciliation, and the eschatology of Isaiah’s prophecy concerning the wolf and the lamb (Isa 11:6; 65:25).

Christians should pause whenever an individual or group claims to correct the church’s historic understanding of Scriptural teaching and like the Berean’s (Acts 17:10-11), investigate the claims carefully against the testimony of scripture fairly interpreted. Additionally, Christians should inquire whether the new interpreters have engaged proponents of the traditional view in any substantive way as the Reformers did when debating with Catholic teaching and practice.

Regrettably, the authors of this text fail on both points. Though ostensibly offering a new interpretation of scripture, a closer look reveals that their argument requires an arbitrary neglect of vast sections of problematic scriptures. Even the passages selected for discussion are handled in such a cursory and fanciful manner that readers should question the strength of their claims.