Monday, April 30, 2007

Stealing and Feeding

PETA is asking the AP to stop referring to animals as “it” and “which.” Instead, the suggestion is to amend the style and refer to animals with respect due persons. Animals, says PETA, should be known as “he,” “she,” and “who.”

Does it matter? Of course it does. Animals aren’t people, they are animals. But try arguing that with the folks from PETA—or any other wigged out feminist-influenced cause.

Sure, I’ll lump this in with feminism. Why? Because it’s a part of the package that begins first with denying God’s Word as his word. That’s why feminism is actually rehashed liberalism in the first place. The fact that feminism has a widespread appeal in the secular arena only intensifies its venom as it seers its way throughout the church, turning that which is sacred into the profane.

Feminist theology rejects the veracity of the Mosaic text. Rosemary Radford Ruether contended:

Any principle of religion or society that marginalizes one group of persons as less than fully human diminishes us all. In rejecting androcentrism (males as norms of humanity), women must also criticize all other forms of chauvinism:... making Christians the norm of humanity... They must also criticize humanocentrism: making humans the norm and ‘crown’ of creation in a way that diminishes other beings in the community of creation. This is not a question of ‘sameness’, but a recognition of value which, at the same time, affirms genuine variety and particularity.

How interesting… humans must not be held above animals, lest animals be diminished in any way. Yet did not God tell the man he created that he was to “subdue” and have “dominion” over the earth and all the living creatures upon it (Ge 1:28)?

Feminism has already demanded the Scriptures be feminized to accommodate a gender-neutral reading to suit their own agenda. Suppose now PETA requires the same. How would that go down? Will the Judeo-Christian world eventually be accused of practicing person sacrifices to a blood-thirsty God who demanded the same sort of offerings the pagans practiced? Kill a lamb for God… kill a child for Moloch… what’s the difference? If the language doesn’t sort it all out, and zeitgeist insists that animals are people, too, then Christianity is a barbaric religion.

And thank God it is according to some. God did demand a sacrifice of a Child. Certainly PETA has it all wrong, as do the feminists. And surely if ever there is a move to PETA-ize the Scriptures (I’ve only been imagining that there might be one), Christians ought to fight against it. Animals are not people, and we ought to keep the distinction clear for many reasons. Still, God did require that his own Son sacrifice his life so that the whole world might live eternally and not die. It is not animal, but human flesh Christ assumed in his incarnation. It is not animal, but human flesh Christ resurrected to the glory of the Father, and is now ascended to the right hand of the Father. It is not animal, but human flesh Christ feeds to us in, with and under the Bread along with his human Blood in, with and under the wine. From the Father’s right hand, the Son’s mouth feeds and sustains the whole church on earth. Apart from him nothing is done.

No comments: