Why Should Christians Care about Cecil the Lion?

The two most prominent responses I’ve seen to the death of Cecil the Lion are outrage at the Minnesota dentist who killed him and some kind of comparison to abortion, usually along the lines of, “Why are we so mad about a lion when we should be mad about all these aborted babies?” The first response is basically an ad hominem, since the criticism is directed at one person instead of the widespread moral system in which this person was operating. The second response is basically a form of deflection: who cares about the lion? Let’s get back to the cause I’m more interested in!

The question, as always, is what a distinctly Christian response to this event would be.

Is this even an issue Christians should spend time on? After all, Cecil was a majestic creature, without a doubt, but he wasn’t made in the image of God. Jesus didn’t die to save Cecil from his sins or to spend eternity with him.

But does that mean animals have no value or worth in and of themselves? Does God value the lives of animals?

The short answer to that question is, “Yes.” Recall the instance when Jesus reassured his listeners that God cares even for the sparrows and thus of course cares for humans all the more. If God did not care for or value animals, then he wouldn’t care for humans either, because zero times a hundred still equals zero. To God, we humans are merely the most special of his creatures. (By a long shot, for sure, but still.)

So God cared about Cecil. But sure, you might say, since God delegated dominion of the earth and animals to mankind, it wasn’t wrong that someone killed him. (For the sake of this post, let’s forget about the fact that Cecil was on a protected animals list.) Nature, in a Fallen world, is dog eat dog and survival of the fittest. Humans, being the top of the food chain, have the right to take our place in the natural order and kill. Besides, if humans don’t hunt and kill these animals, they’ll die by some other means anyway.

This view of nature justifies sport hunting — killing animals not for food or furs but for enjoyment.

I’d like to assert that this is a Social Darwinian view of nature which is completely contrary to the biblical view of nature. The idea that humanity’s role of bearing dominion over nature gives us the privilege of needlessly killing animals is the result of worldly influences.

Here are three reasons why Christians ought to be wary of sport hunting:

(1) God created the animals, and they belong to Him. See, for instance, Psalm 50, where God rebukes His people for sacrificing animals as a matter of ritual rather than heartfelt repentance: “…because every animal of the forest is mine,” God says in verse 10, “the cattle on a thousand hills. I know every bird of the mountains, and every moving creature in the field is mine…. the world and its fullness are mine.”

(2) God cares even for the animals that humans raise and slaughter for food, so how much more does He care about animals in the wild? God cared enough about oxen that He instructed they go unmuzzled while they tread grain so they could stoop and eat a snack every once and a while (Deut. 25:4). He cared about the animals in Nineveh, who played some factor in His decision to spare the city (Jonah 4:11). And in some mysterious sense, God provides for the needs of all His creatures, including lions (Psalm 147:9; 145:9, 15; 104:21). Thus, “A righteous man has regard for the life of his animal” (Prov. 12:9).

(3) God does not take pleasure in the death of animals for the purpose of sacrifice to Him, so why would He take pleasure in humans killing animals for no other reason than enjoyment? In Isaiah 1, for instance, God looks upon His wayward people’s sacrifices with disgust, saying “what are they to me? … I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.” Likewise, the Psalmist laments, “You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings” (Psalm 51:16). Since God does care for these animals, the person who comes to the altar without a humble and contrite heart is harming animals needlessly: “But whoever sacrifices a bull is like one who kills a person, and whoever offers a lamb is like one who breaks a dog’s neck” (Isaiah 66:3).

* * * * *

Okay, you might say, if God doesn’t approve of killing animals for sport, then why didn’t He say so explicitly in Scripture?

Well, first, remember that the Bible is a series of books written to specific audiences, and none of those audiences even had the option of sport hunting as humans do today. Without jeeps and high-powered rifles (or in the case of Cecil, a modern bow), lions are pretty difficult to kill. There was no sport hunting of this sort in the bronze or iron ages.

Second, remember that hunting in those times was done out of necessity, and hunters would use almost every part of the animal they killed. There is a significant moral difference between hunting to provide for a need and hunting for enjoyment and thrill.

* * * * *

To conclude, let’s return to Cecil.

What is a distinctly Christian view of Cecil the Lion’s death? It would not be to demonize one specific hunter, and neither would it be to dismiss the event as unimportant or Cecil’s life not worth a moment of our time. It wouldn’t make much sense for the Christian to mourn Cecil’s death either, because Cecil no longer exists in any sense. His soul is not with Jesus right now.

What does make sense for the Christian to do is contemplate the moral value of Cecil’s life and consider how we might become better caretakers of God’s creation. We are not, after all, the ultimate owners of nature. We are merely the tenants, and we ought to act accordingly.

Why the Bible Has Nothing to Say About Gay Marriage

It is now legal for gay couples to be married in all fifty states of America.

I heard about this Supreme Court decision over the weekend, and unsurprisingly, the speaker in church on Sunday morning had something to say about it. This speaker, who delivered a passionate and articulate message about a few verses in James, briefly sidetracked the sermon to tell the congregation that God is not happy with the direction this country has gone. And that we as the collective body of Christ in America need to do something about it, suggesting we ought to support upholding traditional marriage as the law of the land. This didn’t sit right with me. Neither have most evangelical reactions to the Supreme Court decision that I’ve heard.

Now, I know what you’re thinking. Plenty of digital ink has been spilt by fellow Christians parsing or praising or decrying this court decision. Some praise the decision because, in their view, gay relationships are not necessarily sinful and therefore laws against gay marriage are discriminatory. On the other end, conservatives like Texas congressman Louie Gohmert decry the decision and argue that America’s abandonment of biblical principles signals God’s blessing on America is sure to disappear.

Meanwhile, other Christians afford the issue more nuance. Some celebrate marriage equality as a good thing for society while maintaining a personal, private view of homosexuality as contrary to God’s design. They point out that the “slippery slope” argument which Christians often pose against gay marriage can be turned around: if we can impose our religious beliefs about this issue, why can’t we impose our religious beliefs about other issues as well?

So with all that, what more is there to add?

What is missing from this whole debate is a clear, biblical definition of marriage. That may sound surprising to the conservative Christian who honestly believes that biblical marriage is being violated in this country. But the truth is, it isn’t. No matter how the Supreme Court came down on this issue, biblical marriage would not be harmed whatsoever. In fact, biblical marriage is impervious to the Supreme Court, and to President Obama, and to Congress.

Why?

Because true biblical marriage is far, far more beautiful than any body of politicians or courtroom could possibly legislate. Biblical marriage goes beyond the boxes we put it in for political purposes. Biblical marriage has an overarching purpose throughout history. It is the story of God’s magnanimous and amazing love.

The debate over gay marriage in America, on the other hand, is all about contracts. “Marriage,” since the government usurped the role of issuing licenses from the Church some time during the French Revolution, is defined as a legally binding contract between two individuals. The American Federal government first became involved in marital contract law in 1921 when a case about interracial marriage made it to the Supreme Court. This government takeover of marriage, making it the “official” authority backing marriage and granting marital licenses, led to strange situations like having to prove adultery or abuse in order to obtain a divorce. There’s also the well-known prenuptial agreement, which usually stipulates what will belong to whom in the case of a divorce. Does this sound like biblical marriage?

When marriage was treated with such legal precision in the Bible, the law put people in equally odd situations like having to marry their deceased siblings’ spouses or cutting off women’s hands if they touched the genitals of another man. In the Bible, we see all kinds of things contemporary conservatives would say are outside the bounds of “traditional” marriage. Think of Moses’ allowance of polygamy in Exodus 21:10. Or of King Solomon, who had hundreds of wives and hundreds of mistresses. What about Abraham, who slept with his wife’s servant at his wife’s behest? Or Paul’s encouragement of widows and singles to remain unmarried?

Conservative Christians often worry that allowing gay marriage may lead to other forms of non-traditional marriage like polygamy, but according to the Old Testament, that wouldn’t be such a bad thing. Yet we know in our hearts this is not what God designed marriage to be. Laws cannot capture the essence of biblical marriage. We know this because marriage is a theme laced through the entire Bible, and if we read closely, we realize God’s main concern is not with human marriage. God cares far more about a different sort of marriage. So what is God’s idea of marriage? What is the purpose for it?

Biblical marriage is fundamentally about God’s covenantal relationship with His people, and human marriage is designed to be a reflection of that covenantal relationship.

That point is so important it needed to be in italics and bold. It’s the missing ingredient in almost every conversation and argument I hear Christians carrying on about gay marriage. It’s a truth so fundamental, so primary, that it bores us; we pass it over in favor of more controversial matters. But if we continue to overlook it, we’ll be stuck arguing over marital law just like the ancient Hebrews did over the law of Moses. Meanwhile, the marriage theme we find woven through the Bible contrasts sharply with this “marriage” we try to legislate.

Consider the distinctly marital language God uses in reference to His people in Ezekiel 16. “I pledged myself to you and entered into a covenant with you,” the Lord says in verse 8, “and you became mine.” This relationship that God has ceaselessly pursued throughout Scripture is covenantal — that is, it is built upon the promise of mutual commitment and love for one another. It isn’t enforceable in any court. It can’t be legislated. And it is permanent: “I have loved you with an everlasting love,” God says in Jeremiah 31:3.

Human marriage is meant to reflect this passionate permanence. As Christ said in Matthew 19, “they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no man separate.” Contrast this with contemporary America, where 10% of the total population has had at least one divorce. Such a high divorce rate, including among Christians, doesn’t fit very well with “traditional” marriage.

In the New Testament, the Church is often referred to as the “bride of Christ.” Paul in Ephesians 5 gives this metaphor flesh as he instructs wives to submit to their husbands “as the Church submits to Christ” and husbands to love their wives “as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.”

But if human marriage is designed as a covenantal relationship to mimic that between God and His people, then how do we legislate marital contracts through government in a way that corresponds with Scripture? That’s just it. We don’t.

Biblical marriage is fundamentally different than contractual agreements adjudicated by the government. No piece of paper granted by fiat could ever cause two individuals, gay or straight, to enter into a covenantal relationship with one another. Therefore, biblical marriage is completely unharmed by the recent Supreme Court decision.

Before this decision, 36 states had already enacted laws allowing gay marriage and almost 70 percent of the US population already lived in states in which it was legal. Who knows? Maybe conservatives’ fear of polygamy or group marriages will someday be legal, and if that day comes, traditional marriage, as the conservatives think of it, would be even worse off. But biblical marriage, which sidesteps the conundrum of contract law altogether, will remain.

That is why the Bible has nothing to say about the current gay marriage debate. The covenantal relationship of marriage cannot be altered or taken away by the government. The government cannot add a new clause to it. This relationship is not an “institution” designed for some social or economic good. It is a voluntary, loving, perpetually committed relationship between two unique individuals, a man and a woman, who have pledged themselves to each other for the purpose of manifesting God’s love for humanity.

How could some change in the laws of fiat marriage affect this? The simple truth is: it can’t.

So wherever one falls on the political issue, no believer has reason to fear that some valuable part of our Christian witness has suddenly been lost. It has not. Biblical marriage has existed since Adam and Eve and will continue to exist no matter what laws the government enacts. We have the opportunity and responsibility to display the love of God in our marriages, and that, I submit, is far more important than anything that happens in Washington DC.