© 2015 The Wired Word
www.thewiredword.com
If we've got this straight, we're now in the fourth phase of the story about
the killing of Cecil the lion.The first phase was the actual killing on July 1 of Zimbabwe's famous black-maned lion by Walter Palmer, a dentist from Minnesota, who had paid $50,000 to a professional hunter-guide to put him in a position to kill a lion. The 13-year-old lion lived with the pride he'd established in Hwange National Park in Matabeleland North, Zimbabwe, where he was a major attraction for tourists and, thus, a cog in Africa's growing tourism industry. (Similarly, the highly regulated lion-hunting industry is a major economic benefit for local people and the government.) Cecil had been fitted with a GPS device and was being tracked and studied by the University of Oxford.
Allegedly, someone lured the animal out of the sanctuary that was his home base. He was wounded with an arrow from a crossbow and, after being tracked for 40 hours, was killed with a shot from a rifle. The lion was then skinned and his head was removed. When park investigators later found his remains, the tracking collar was missing.
The second phase began after news of the killing was broadcast, drawing international media attention. It sparked outrage among animal conservationists, politicians and celebrities, as well as a strong negative Internet response against Palmer from some five million angry Cecil fans who had never heard of the lion before the news broke. Palmer was subject to doxing (public release of personal address information) and death threats by extremists.
The rage against Palmer, who had returned to the United States after the kill, caused him to go into hiding, but on July 28, he released the following statement:
In early July, I was in Zimbabwe on a bow hunting trip for big game. I hired several professional guides and they secured all proper permits. To my knowledge, everything about this trip was legal and properly handled and conducted.
I had no idea that the lion I took was a known, local favorite, was collared and part of a study until the end of the hunt. I relied on the expertise of my local professional guides to ensure a legal hunt.
I have not been contacted by authorities in Zimbabwe or in the U.S. about this situation, but will assist them in any inquiries they may have.
Again, I deeply regret that my pursuit of an activity I love and practice responsibly and legally resulted in the taking of this lion.
The third phase had more than one aspect. The first was when other critics criticized the outraged for getting worked up over the death of one lion while so many human beings -- including hungry children in many places around the world and oppressed people in Zimbabwe -- are suffering and dying. There's a defect in our moral compass, these voices implied. Writer Heather Wilhelm called this our "broken outrage meter." She also observed that the digital age has brought us "the thrill of discovering a new World's Most Despicable Person," a game that leads mobs to judge and shame someone -- in this case, the dentist from Minnesota.
A second aspect of the pushback focused on the disregard for both the local people of Zimbabwe and the conservation of wildlife. The critics of the outrage pointed out that, where managed hunting occurred, both the people in an area and the wildlife thrived. Making wild animals a benefit to local people -- rather than merely a burden -- encourages them to protect and provide for them. The signature example compares Kenya -- which banned elephant hunting in the 1970s -- to Zimbabwe, which encouraged controlled elephant hunting. Kenya's elephant population declined over the next 20 years to less than 10 percent of the original numbers -- while the elephant population in Zimbabwe doubled. This, the critics say, is in addition to the economic benefit the hunters bring to the local and national economies.
While there may be others, a third aspect of the pushback accused those outraged of misunderstanding the "natural" order of things. Those promoting this view said that the killing of one apex predator -- a lion -- by another apex predator -- a member of Homo sapiens -- is part of that natural order. This they considered especially true since lions are known to kill -- and not eat -- other predators. Facebook memes popped up bemoaning Cecil the lion's killing of the "beloved" Gary the gazelle, leaving Gary's mate widowed and his offspring fatherless.
That brings us to the fourth phase: commentators, bloggers and others responding to one part of the criticism of the outrage by pointing out that it's quite possible to care about more than one thing at a time, and that just because someone is motivated to speak up about the killing of the lion doesn't mean he or she doesn't also care about human sufferers.
As TWW team member Joanna Loucky-Ramsey put it in a team discussion, "While there is no doubt a disconnect for some who may feel horror at the killing of Cecil and no similar emotion at ____ (fill in the blank with your choice of the death of young black men, the killing of unborn children, etc.), I would take exception to the straw man this can be. Humans have the capacity of great empathy across categories. Love is not like a pie with only so many slices to be distributed, after which there will be none left for anyone else. Of course, some can be callous and hypocritical, but we should be careful not to characterize everyone who cares about lions in those terms."
More on this story can be found at these links:
How Outrage Over Cecil the Lion Killing Misses the Point. CNN
D----t! I Care More (About the Right Things) Than You Do. Word of a Woman
Cecil the Lion: We're Capable of Caring About More Than One Thing at Once. Christian Today
Statement From Walter Palmer on Killing of Cecil the Lion. StarTribune
What Is Trophy Hunting? Save the Rhino
More Information on Lions. Lions.org
In Zimbabwe, We Don’t Cry for Lions. New York Times
The Big Questions
1. Given the multiplicity of problems affecting millions of people around the world, many of which are difficult to address in any meaningful way, how do you decide which one(s) should have your attention as a Christian called to love your neighbor as yourself?
2. Should trophy hunting (defined by the Save the Rhino organization as "a specific and selective legal form of wildlife use that involves payment for a hunting experience and the acquisition of a trophy by the hunter") be an acceptable activity in this day and age? Why or why not?
3. If we become deeply involved in helping people who are struggling against a particular oppressive or deadly thing, does that excuse us from responsibility to help others facing other oppressive or deadly things? Why or why not?
4. Someone has defined evil as "the absence of empathy." Do you agree? Why or why not?
5. What's your reaction to this comment from Loucky-Ramsey: "Humans have the capacity of great empathy across categories. Love is not like a pie with only so many slices to be distributed, after which there will be none left for anyone else"?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
1 Chronicles 11:22
Benaiah ... was a valiant man of Kabzeel, a doer of great deeds; he ... went down and killed a lion in a pit on a day when snow had fallen. (For context, read 11:22-25.)
Benaiah belonged to King David's elite force called the "Mighty Men." Among other notable deeds, he "went down and killed a lion in a pit on a day when snow had fallen."
In that time and place, many people made their living tending sheep. A marauding lion, therefore, was a matter of real concern. And because it was winter, the small game that lions usually ate was not abundant. Thus sheep, and especially lambs, were a natural target for hungry lions, which, due to their hunger, were at their fiercest. Sheepherders had their hands full protecting their flocks. Benaiah, determined to do something, tracked the animal. Eventually he cornered it in a pit, went down into the pit and slayed it.
For that, Benaiah was a hero. And, we suspect, so too might be Palmer had he killed a lion who was threatening livestock or people. But that was not the case.
Questions: What, if anything, about the killing of Cecil differentiates it from other slayings of animals (such as the steer to make the hamburger you had for dinner last night)? Do you think God views the killing of animals for food or for protection or because the animal is suffering differently from the killing of Cecil? Why or why not?
Can you make any comparison between a "trophy" form of evangelism, where one keeps score of how many were "saved" at a particular event, versus evangelism built around creating relationships?
Jonah 4:9-11
But God said to Jonah, "Is it right for you to be angry about the bush?" And he said, "Yes, angry enough to die." Then the LORD said, "You are concerned about the bush, for which you did not labor and which you did not grow; it came into being in a night and perished in a night. And should I not be concerned about Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also many animals?" (For context, read 4:1-11.)
Jonah was the prophet who tried to run away from his calling when God told him to call the people of Nineveh to repent. (Nineveh was the capital city of the Assyrian Empire, an archenemy of Israel.) But after the Lord made a whale of an effort to stop him, Jonah finally did as the Lord told him to, and -- surprise! -- the people of Nineveh repented!
But Jonah wasn't happy that Israel's enemy was spared God's punishment, and he sat down outside the city to sulk. The only thing he was happy about was the bush that provided him a shady place to sit out of the hot sun. But the next morning, the Lord sent a worm to attack the bush so that it withered and died, which made Jonah angry.
Read the verses above to see what happened next. Note that God used the withered bush as an object lesson for Jonah, comparing Jonah's concern for the bush with God's concern for the 120,000 people of Nineveh (and their animals!). God doesn't tell Jonah he shouldn't be concerned for the bush, but God was certainly implying that Jonah's concern shouldn't be limited to the bush.
Question: What do you think God might say to those who are angry about the killing of Cecil?
Genesis 1:26
Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." (For context, read 1:26-31.)
Proverbs 31:8 (CEB)
Speak out on behalf of the voiceless, and for the rights of all who are vulnerable. (For context, read 31:6-9.)
The Genesis verse tells us that God gave humankind power over the lives of his other creatures -- something the Bible calls "dominion" -- so we should understand that we have some responsibility for animals. Like God's other good gifts to us, animals are for our wise use, not for our abuse. In other words, we're talking about stewardship. The animals don't belong to us. They belong to God, and he gives us use of them.
The Proverbs verse, though no doubt initially stated with people in mind, can be a good principle on which to base our treatment of animals.
Questions: What does having "dominion" mean to you in terms of trophy hunting? Why? What is the difference, in your opinion, between dominion and domination?
Genesis 21:17
And God heard the voice of the boy; and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven, and said to her, "What troubles you, Hagar? Do not be afraid; for God has heard the voice of the boy where he is." (For context, read 21:8-21.)
Because of family rivalry, Hagar and her son Ishmael had been turned out from Abraham's encampment. The mother and son were soon out of water and alone in the wilderness, and Ishmael was near death. At that point, God intervened, saving them. An angel told Hagar that God had "heard the voice of the boy where he is."
The word "empathy" does not appear in the Bible, but the ability to "hear" someone "where he/she is" is a good definition of empathy, especially since in scripture, "hearing" often implies having compassion for someone because of their circumstances.
The verse above suggests that empathy is a godly reaction to someone.
The Bible does use the words "compassion" and "pity," both of which imply empathy.
Questions: When have you been aware of empathy as a force motivating you to do some good thing? What does it mean to have empathy for someone? What does it mean to have empathy for an animal? Is it possible to be involved in caring or service ministries without some measure of empathy? Is a sense of duty enough? Can there be too much empathy?
Romans 1:25
... they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. (For context, read 1:18-32.)
This verse is from Paul's letter to the Romans, where he begins by describing the natural state of sinful humans, standing in judgment before God's righteousness. One aspect of this is the tendency to worship parts of the creation.
Some of the concern over the lion's death appears to be close to animal worship. G.K. Chesterton, in his book The Uses of Diversity (1920), noted:
There is a healthy and an unhealthy love of animals: and the nearest definition of the difference is that the unhealthy love of animals is serious. I am quite prepared to love a rhinoceros, with reasonable precautions: he is, doubtless, a delightful father to the young rhinoceroses. But I will not promise not to laugh at a rhinoceros. ... I will not worship an animal. That is, I will not take an animal quite seriously: and I know why. Wherever there is Animal Worship there is Human Sacrifice. That is, both symbolically and literally, a real truth of historical experience.
This appears to play out when we read about death threats against the hunter who killed the lion. But to a lesser extent, it also may be relevant when people dismiss the economic benefit to the poor in Zimbabwe who benefit from legalized and sustainable hunting, as well as when the killing of an elderly lion is decried while other major life-and-death social issues are ignored.
Questions: What might be examples of "Animal Worship" that you have encountered or seen? How do you guard against "worshiping the creature rather than the Creator" in your thoughts and actions?
Romans 8:22-23
We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labor pains until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies. (For context, read 8:18-25.)
We can get a glimpse, from this writing, that it is not normal for the world and its inhabitants to be in a state of death, decay and destruction. According to Paul, the redemption of humans has a redeeming effect on the rest of creation. Because of all this, Paul calls us to live in hope (see vv. 24-25.)
Question: What role, if any, do you think animals will have in the kingdom of God? In answering, consider the paintings of Edward Hicks, collectively called "The Peaceable Kingdom."
For Further Discussion
1. The great naturalist John Muir, who was born in 1838, was brought up on a farm with domestic animals and later spent a lot of time in the wilderness viewing wild creatures. In his day, some religious leaders insisted that animals had no minds and no souls, and so therefore had no rights. Some people took that to mean that they were essentially machines in fur and feathers. Muir denounced the attitude he found among some people that as so-called "lords of creation," humans have no responsibility for the other, supposedly less intelligent species on earth. He was one of the first to make the case that animals have individualities and uniquenesses that distinguish them one from another. What do you think of Muir's conclusions? Why?
2. Comment on this, from the Save the Rhino article in the list of links above: "Many conservation organizations recognize that the sustainable use of wildlife, including responsible trophy hunting of rhinos, has a valid role in overall rhino conservation strategies. ... At the turn of the century, only around 50-100 white rhino remained in South Africa and urgent conservation action, including the involvement of private landowners, was taken to save this species from the brink of extinction. Since 1968, South Africa has permitted the limited hunting of Southern white rhino, and data from the IUCN African Rhino Specialist Group shows that since hunting began, the numbers of Southern white rhino have increased from 1,800 to over 20,000. By allowing private landowners to conduct limited trophy hunting of rhinos, this helped give white rhinos an economic value and allowed private landowners and communities to benefit from having rhinos on their land. It became an incentive to own rhinos. Currently almost 25 percent of Africa's rhinos are privately owned."
3. Discuss this, from Michelle Krabill in her Word of a Woman blog entry on the killing of Cecil: "Perhaps, just perhaps, courage, empathy, compassion and the rest of our virtues are not a competition at all. ... Perhaps, as we voice our care and concern, our admiration and respect, these things do not diminish but rather multiply. Maybe we could all try to recognize that just because someone says one thing is tragic (for example, the death of a beloved lion) does not mean that they do not also believe that other things are just as and sometimes much more tragic; that just because we believe one person exhibits courage, does not mean others have not and do not exhibit courage and sometimes in greater measure."
4. Respond to this, from TWW team member Frank Ramirez: "Big game hunters make easy targets for derision because unlike an indigenous population which might well eat a giraffe, for instance, most American big game hunters have no intention of eating what they kill."
5. Discuss this, from TWW team member Mary Sells: "One of my clients is from Zimbabwe and his business is making clothing worn by big game hunters. The clothing is made by local people in Zimbabwe, who in addition to getting paid a living wage, are given education and a chance for a better life than if they did not have this employment option. My client is very proud of the good they do for the people who they employ. I have not spoken to him since this incident, yet I can imagine the worry that, if big game hunting in Africa is to be stopped or shunned, all of the good he has made happen for so many families will evaporate. That is collateral damage."
6. Extinction seems to have been a part of the history of life on our planet, with major events in which much of the life on Earth was destroyed in cataclysmic events or climate changes. Are such events from "natural" causes different than extinctions whose root is in human actions or choices?
Responding to the News
While there are more needs in the world than any person could possibly address, it's possible that we use that fact as an excuse to be involved in trying to alleviate none of them. This is a good time to consider that it's better -- and more in line with our calling to follow Jesus -- to be trying to help somewhere than nowhere.
Closing Prayer
No comments:
Post a Comment