#previouslyaskedquestions

[veganchristian]

I'm new to veganism, becomng one after discovering the many scriptures against animal sacrifice and eating flesh. But there are still scriptures that seem to say its alright. If God does not require animal sacrifice, why did Jesus tell the leper to give the offering (pigeons) under the law after he was cleansed? Your thoughts?

Hi there! I have written about sacrifice a few times and I completely understand where your confusion stems from. You can read my previous comments on the issue here, here, here, here, and I think a few other places. If after reading those you still have questions feel free to ask! 

God be with you always, 

-Christopher 

[veganchristian]

Hello! I'm having troubles with veganism and Christianity at the moment as some verses that I have read contradicts the vegan beliefs. Especially Romans 14:14 which says 'I know that there is no food that is wrong to eat...' Is making me question my vegan diet. (I decided to try veganism for health reasons) I was wondering if you could help me with this!

Hi there!

I have discussed that particular passage a couple times, you can find my responses here and here. Please let me know if there are other passages that you have trouble with or if you come across other issues of any kind! 

God’s Love be with you, 

Christopher 

[veganchristian]

Sorry, I have another question. I have trouble with the story of Jesus sending demons from a possessed person into a herd of pigs and the pigs running into a lake and drowning as a result.

Hello!

This is a very interesting topic to discuss. This is interesting because it is one of the very few examples in the second testament where Christ has a direct interaction with non-human animals. It is also a prominent passage referenced by critics of Christianity as it show’s Christ’s indifference to non-human animals. Prominent Christian theologians have been for the most part dismissive or silent on the topic. Saint Augustine of Hippo went so far as to say that this event is evidence that Christ simply did not care about animals in his work The Catholic and Manichaean Ways of Life [1]. Saint Thomas Aquinas has been noted as a prominent figure to continue that line of reasoning but with the specific stipulation that God will do whatever is in man’s best interest regardless of what harm it brings to lesser creation, thus leading to the general concurrence, and silence, in much of Western Christian theology. This in no way means that this interpretation is ubiquitous, but it has been influential. To get a better appreciation of what we are talking about I will go over the basics of the story and then try to pick apart some of the finer details and alternate interpretations in order to shed some light on what this means for modern-day Christians and animal rights activists alike.

The event is recorded three times in the second testament: Matthew 8:28-34, Mark 5:1-20, and Luke 8:26-39. Each of the accounts has more or less the same content but with several notable differences. Matthew is the least descriptive of the three describing the region differently, saying there are two demon-possessed men instead of one, and the demon(s) is not given a name. Mark and Luke are more similar to one another describing the single man more specifically and being more ambiguous about the actual location of the event, though they mention the tombs in the are “Gerasenes” is a more broad term than “Gadarenes” which is used by Matthew only.

Matthew and Luke both state that the herd of pigs is “large” but Mark actually provides a head count to give us an idea of how many pigs there actually are: about 2,000 pigs. Now, this should raise a few questions before we can get any further. Irrespective of the rearing methodology 2,000 pigs constitutes a very large swine operation by modern standards and when we consider that these pigs are apparently “free-range” this is almost an inconceivable occurrence. The likelihood of any pig owner in this region of the world at this time having 2,000 pigs in the same place is highly skeptical. The resources required to maintain such a herd and to monitor them as free-range would necessitate that the owner is fantastically wealthy. To put it in perspective, there are around 73,000 pig farms in the USA and we process approx 120,000,000 pigs through market annually, if the number of pigs per farm was equal there would still only be about 1,600 pigs per operation [2]. Obviously nowadays the pig herds are nor equal in size, rather there are few very large “factory” operations and many much smaller pig farms around the country with far fewer than 2,000 pigs. Surmise it to say that this pig herd is the equivalent of a modern-day factory farm operation. As an animal scientist myself, I seriously doubt that we can take Mark literally and assume that there were actually 2,000 pigs. Furthermore, swine farms in that time period would typically have had around 150 pigs at best [3], a far cry from 2,000. This leaves me contemplating two possible alternatives: Mark was exaggerating the number of pigs, or the pigs did not exist and possibly represent something else.

So, is there any reason to entertain Mark’s absurd remark? Actually, yes, there is. The answer might be in the name of the demon. “My name is Legion,” the demon says to Jesus, “because we are many.” The name “legion” to our ear might be inconspicuous but to the peoples of that time it meant the Roman army. Now, “the legion” as a phrase is used a lot to refer to the entire Roman military, however, “a legion” was the largest subunit of that military. The exact number of units in a legion varied over time but was often used to refer to 3000-6000 men, though the number appears to decline over time and by the third century may have been around 1000-1500 men. It has been suggested by some theologians that this story is actually a political message of anti-Roman sentiment. This actually makes a lot of sense when we consider that actual wordage of the passages, I will use the Mark verse as my example for the sake of brevity. The Greek word translated as “legion” is  λεγιών the phonetic pronunciation being: leg-eh-ohn’. Now, this word is unique compared to many that I have discussed before because it is actually of Latin origin and means exactly what you might expect: a Roman regiment. This word is the same in the Luke passage but is used once more in the Bible in Matthew 26: 53 where Christ admonishes his disciples for drawing swords during his arrest reminding them that he could call on His Father for 12 legions of angels to defend Him. But it is not just the name, the whole passage is riddled with military verbiage. In his book Discourses of an Empire: The Gospel of Mark from a Postcolonial Perspective New testament scholar Hans Leander suggests that the phrases surrounding the sending of the demons into the pigs is reminiscent of a commander sending forth an army. The Greek word “send” varies between verses, first, the demons beg not to be sent away (5:10), the Greek word apostellō (ἀποστέλλω) meaning to be set apart or sent with a purpose which Leander suggests has a military connotation for dispatching an army. The second “send” (5:12) is the Greek pempō (πέμπω) which according to the Strong’s Biblical dictionary actually does mean “dispatch.” Leander’s writing goes much further to demonstrate how the “legion” demon is an allegory for a Roman occupancy in the Middle East leading to the torment of those occupied. This sentiment is hardly unheard of for ancient Jewish peoples as 20 years before this would have taken place one of the violent rebellions against the Roman occupancy in about 7 CE and others were yet to come. Had Jesus truly sent 2,000 pigs to their death in a rather politically charged context it would be fair of us to expect a little backlash against Him for this. The three versions agree that Christ was asked or forced to leave the region by the peoples there but then we never hear of it again. Does it seem reasonable that Christ could simply drive a super herd to their deaths and then just have it appear that nothing had happened? Might the, presumably many, men watching over those pigs not have made more of a fuss over the unimaginable fortune lost in the death of the pigs? As I said before the term “Gerasenes”  is bit ambiguous because it could be in reference to Gergesene the aboriginal peoples of Palestine, or simply in reference to the city of Gerasa which is in the region of Decapolis. The latter makes sense because Decapolis was a confederation of Greek city-states and the Greeks did not consider swine to be culturally “unclean” as the Jewish did thus explaining why a large group of pigs would be in the area to start with. However, Decapolis is southeast of the sea with Gerasa being nowhere near the water’s edge [see map]. I have read others suggest that the region is more interference to the city of Gadara but the most likely location of this city was 5 miles southeast of the water and both Mark and Luke suggest that he encountered the demon almost immediately after coming onto land. Frankly, the story does not add up to be a depiction of an actual event, rather the argument that it is a political allegory is both more practical, believable, and generally more relevant to scripture.  

Map 

We can choose to believe that Mark’s account is a literal transcription of a real event but to do so we must reject practical and historical agricultural data, the numerous verses and Bible stories depicting God’s love and care for animals, and common sense. Alternatively we could just argue that Mark was exaggerating and that Luke and Matthew are better sources but to that we must ignore that Luke and Matthew don’t agree on where it happened, how many men were possessed, the fact that both accounts still contain the military and political connotations, and that there should have been a stronger response of the people and owners of said pigs in response to their death. I am personally more convinced by the argument that the story is allegorical, and it is an allegory that peoples of that time would have been more receptive to given that the connotations for the word “legion” had not been so obscured. In fact, some etymological sources that I have used suggest that the ambiguity of the word to mean “a large number” resulted from English interpretations of these passages, but I digress. 

I hope this helps you and doesn’t just make things more confusing. If you have any questions just let me know and I will be happy to talk through things with you. 

Christ’s grace be with you, 

-Christopher

[1] Saint Augustine, The Catholic and Manichaean Ways of Life, Trans. D.A. Gallagher and I.J. Gallagher. Boston, The Catholic University Press. 1966. p. 120. 

[veganchristian]

Hello! I am SO GLAD to have found this resource! You have not only answered my questions, but pointed me to chapters in the Bible I have not yet considered "pro-vegan" passages. I work a job that does not allow me to attend church. I would like to watch sermons online or listen to them. What pastors do you recommend? Are there any vegan pastors I should look into?

I have to admit that I am not one to listen to many online sermons or podcasts, rather I tend to focus more on reading. However, in my circle of friends pastors such as a Tim Keller and Mark Driscoll are names that come up often who have online podcasts and such. If you are looking for vegan pastors I am sorry to say that the options are more limited. Andrew Linzey has been known to do some online interviews and podcasts however, here is one such talk: http://www.podcastchart.com/podcasts/open-house-interviews-with-dwayne-jeffries/episodes/andrew-linzey-animal-theologian/pop

Let me know if you find yourself liking any particular talk and I would love to listen also! Of course you are always welcome here with questions and concerns! 

God Bless!

-Christopher

[veganchristian]

Wow! I thought I was the only christian vegan on earth! I have a question I've been struggling with for awhile. My current boyfriend is an amazing man of God, but he's not vegan. And he has no intention of ever becoming vegan. He doesn't even seem to care when I talk about WHY I'm vegan. Any suggestions? I feel like this could cause a huge rift in our relationship when things start to get more serious. HELP??

Hi there!

You are certainly not the only one! There might not be lots of us but we are growing! You are welcome here anytime!

This is a tough question. I think it depends a lot on how you view your ministry as a child of God.   2 Corinthians 6:14 warns the dangers of being intimately involved with non-believers. At first, this seems like a harsh and unnecessary parameter, but let's consider why Paul suggests this. He asks us to consider:

…what fellowship does light have with darkness?r What agreement does Christ have with Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? -2 Corinthians 6:14-15

Now, anyone with non-christian friends knows that they probably have plenty in common with them. I have many loving and wonderful atheistic friends. But Paul goes on to remind us that we are sanctuaries of the living God, while we might have much in common with non-believers we are different because we hold a unique purpose. This passage is prefaced with an elaboration of Paul’s ministry. Out ministry, as children of God, as sanctuaries of His spirit we are called to serve a purpose that Paul describes as being:

by great endurance, by  afflictions,

by hardship, by  difficulties,

by beatings, by  imprisonments,

by riots, by labors,

by sleepless nights, by times of hunger,

by purity,f by  knowledge,

by patience, by  kindness,

by the Holy Spirit, by  sincere  love,

by the message of truth,

by the power of God;

through weapons of righteousness

on the right hand and  the left,

through glory and  dishonor,

through slander and  good report;

as deceivers yet true;

as unknown yet  recognized;

as dying and  look —we live;

as being disciplined yet  not  killed;

as grieving yet always  rejoicing;

as poor yet  enriching  many;

as having nothing yet possessing  everything.

-2 Corinthians 6:4-10

I see this as a relevant passage for your question because I view animal advocacy as a crucial aspect of my ministry. N.T. Write describes the vocation of humanity as that of a mirror. It is our job, as it were, as those holding the image of God and dominion of creation to demonstrate God’s character toward creation. If you imagine that God is a light then we are a mirror positioned just so that His light reflects off of us at an angle to shine on creation. Thus, the reason creation fell alongside us is because we stopped serving our purpose of showing creation God’s character. By this interpretation of scripture, I see it as an essential aspect of the Church’s ministry to re-establish this vocation. To show creation God’s character is to act as Christ towards it, to be both steward and servant. I cannot see myself being married or dating a non-christian because they hold a different purpose for their life, I cannot see myself married or dating a non-vegan because they hold a different ministry. That is not to say that each persons’ ministry must be identical, we all have different spiritual gifts. But one Christian cannot feed the poor and another Christian take from the poor. As such, my significant other would not have to be on the front lines of animal advocacy, but to assist the powers and principalities that feed into the oppression of animals is not just holding a different ministry but fighting my ministry outright.

Sadly, I am not sure what you should do about your relationship. You know your heart and his better than I do and with prayer and the love of God, I believe that you will do the right thing. I have given you a glimpse of my perspective on the issue as food for thought. If anyone else has suggestions I would love submissions on the topic! If you want to talk more about it feel free to message me anytime, I am always here to listen.

God’s love and strength be with you always,

-Christopher

[veganchristian]

Any advice for dealing with people that get upset/offended when I mention I'm vegan? I feel like they automatically assume I'm going to try and push them to be vegan, when I never would (I mean, my ideal world is were no animals are eaten but I never would push my views on someone else) Thank you! :)

Hi! 

This is a tough one because you cannot control how other people will feel or what their presumptions will be. My advice would be to make it harder for people to admonish you by being consistent in living a loving and compassionate lifestyle. Christ tells us to mimic His life by treating those around us with more love and respect than we might be inclined to. He says: 

“Do you know what I have done for you? You call Me Teacher and Lord. This is well said, for I am. So if I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example that you also should do just as I have done for you.” -John 13:12-15

If people assume the worst of you because of your acts of compassion then that is on them. You can still show them love and kindness. People, in my experience, have more trouble causing an argument with someone who is kind to them and might be more willing to hear what you have to say instead of showing animosity. We must also keep in mind, though, that we must be loving not because we seek kindness in return, but because it is what Christ would have of us. I hope that helps some!

May God’s Love and patient spirit guide you always

-Christopher

[veganchristian]

This blog is wonderful! Do you often tell people that you are vegan or do you only mention it if the subject comes up? What responses do you get?

Hello!

Thank you so much, I am very glad that you like it! 

As with most vegans, I assume, I don’t mention being vegan unless it is relevant to the conversation already happening. If someone asks me about my food or anything of that nature I, of course, say that I am vegan. I will at times where clothing that expresses that I am vegan so I suppose in that sense I am just telling people that I am. Otherwise, I guess I only really say it if it “comes up,” though it just so happens that it is frequent for me. I study animal science at university so I am talking about animals in most conversations that I have in an academic context so it comes up in that. The responses vary depending on the person of course. In classes and around my studies a lot of people don’t understand or agree but at often willing to have a civil conversation about it. In the congregation that I attend most people are very kind and loving about it though they themselves are not vegan. I have not had many bad responses recently but I am more than ready to handle them in most cases even if that means that sometimes you just have to walk away from it. I don’t think there is anything wrong with mentioning that you are vegan, it starts conversations that desperately need to occur! 

I am here if you ever wish to talk!

God Bless!

-Christopher 

[veganchristian]

So Jesus DID set the example to eat meat when he ate the fish?

Well, what I meant in that last response what they if he did eat meat then He would be setting that example unless it was specifically implied that He was doing it only because He is the creator and has right to do that whereas we don’t necessarily. I would like to make one thing clear though: we don’t know what Jesus’ diet was like. We can discuss the nature of translations of fish and ponder the Passover feast and how Jesus partook in such ceremony but at the end of the day, the Bible doesn't talk about what Jesus ate so much as with whom he ate with. The only food that scripture consistently depict Jesus eating is bread. And aside from the one example of him actually consuming fish we have no insight as to if He ate meat at any other time in His life. The singular instance of Jesus eating fish is Luke 24:42-43. There are so many questions we can ask about it. Why did He do it? Well, He ate the fish to prove that He was flesh and blood and not a ghost appearing to His disciples so He asked to prove it by eating something and that’s what they gave him, a piece of broiled fish. The word for fish here is ichthys ( ἰχθύς) so perhaps we could apply the acronym interpretation and this is yet another example of communion only in this case it is Christ proving that He is risen and alive and the proof is in the communion of His body that we still hold onto to this day as a way to demonstrate His life in us. Be it this or that Luke does not mention this happening again when he re-tells the story later in Acts, this singular event is not wholly convincing that He ate fish. Then again He may have, but then I think we would be wrong to obsess over one verse steeped in extenuating circumstance and make a claim that Jesus supports eating animals. After all, I think it would be a hard argument to make to say that Jesus eating fish once justifies the slaughter of over 68 billion of God’s creatures every year. But it is more than just numbers. Each animal is an individual, a someone. We don’t know what Jesus ate every day, but we know what He said and the example He explicitly informed us to follow. He said “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.  This is the greatest and most important commandment. The second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.” Faith in Jesus is founded in Love and compassion and it cannot be wrong to expand our love and compassion to include more. It cannot be wrong to love animals and treat them with compassion and consideration. Love and compassion are the example that Christ left us and that is more than any single sentence about fish. To that end, I would suggest that we not let a single sentence keep us from loving God’s creatures as He loves them and us regardless of how we interpret that sentence.  

With love, 

Christopher