- Activist Feedback
- Guest Essay by CVA Member Paul Hansen
- This Week’s Sermon from
Rev. Frank and Mary Hoffman
1. Activist Feedback
John,
who tabled with Akisha at the Richmond Vegetarian Festival on June 23,
writes:
I was impressed with both the venue as well as the size of
their Vegfest. We distributed 87 “Would Jesus Eat Meat Today?”
25 “A Jewish Case for Vegetarianism,” 42 “Vegetarianism and the Major
World Religions,” 25 Fr. John Dear’s “Christianity and Vegetarianism,”
18 Vegan Outreach’s “Even if You Eat Meat,” and we sold several DVDs
and bumper stickers. We made some great contacts and enjoyed talking
with those involved with a vegetarian lifestyle and Christianity as
well as other Christians about vegetarianism. One highlight was a
friendly atheist lady interested in talking with friends of hers about
how a vegan life can be a good choice to adopt as part of their faith.
There was also a young wife who became vegan about 6 months into her
marriage and her husband not only has supported her but began to
explore vegetarianism himself.It was a great day to share two of my
favorite things in a great setting, Jesus and veganism. Thanks for the
opportunity!
Upcoming Outreach Opportunities
7/11-14
MN Willmar
Sonshine Festival
7/11-15 WI Oshkosh
LifeFest 2012
7/12 IN LaPorte
Building 429 @ LaPorte County Fair
7/13
OH Cleveland Joel Olsteen
Ministries
7/14-15 CO Olathe
Night Vision Festival
7/14
WI Oshkosh
Building 429 @ The County Fair
7/21-22 IL Schaumburg
Ignite Music Festival
7/21-22 SD Rapid City
Hills Alive 2012 FREE Christian Music Fest
7/28
OH Loveland TABLE Heaven
Fest
7/28 AZ Phoenix
Girls of Grace Teen Conference
8/1-4
NH Gilford
HUGE - SoulFest
8/2-4
PA Hershey
Joyce Meyers Conference
8/3-4
OH Columbus Women of Faith
Celebrate What Matters
8/4 PA
Phoenixville TABLE
Green Earth Festival
8/10-11 OK Oklahoma City
Women of Faith Celebrate What Matters
8/11
MS Jackson
Girls of Grace Teen Conference
8/17-18 WA Spokane
Women Of Faith Celebrate What Matters
8/20
DE Harrington Casting Crowns @ Delaware
State Fair
9/21-23 NC Hickory
"Momentum" The Conference Newsboys
8/24-9/3 MO Branson
Silver Dollar City - Southern Gospel Picnic
8/24-8/28 UK
Lincolnshire One Event
Christian Conference
11/17
NY Albany
TABLE NY's Capital Region Vegetarian Expo
2. Guest Essay
by CVA Member Paul Hansen
In arguing for “human
exceptionalism” and against abortion, pro-life advocates often assert
that we are created “in the image of God” without clarifying what that
concept means. For instance, in reviewing the 39-year battle against
Row v. Wade, Christian commentator Chuck Colson recently mentioned
belief in “the sanctity of human life, and the Imago Dei being
implanted in every human being.”
However, some relevant
questions need to be asked. Precisely WHAT is it that gets “implanted
in every human being” and WHY does that give “sanctity”
(orgreatersanctity?) to preborn humans, but not to the preborn of
other species? In other words, where does ‘pro-life theology’ draw the
line separating those who have “sanctity” and those who do not (or
those who havelessof it?)? Is ‘sanctity’ a category (either-or)
concept, or does sanctity come in degrees (more and less)?
Defenders of “human dignity” or the “sanctity of human life” seldom
bother to define precisely what it means to be “in the image of God”
or why it should be the sole criterion for a creature’s value and
respect. The suggestion that being made in the image of God somehow
entitles humans to act in selfish, cruel ways toward everyone else on
the planet is what Norm Phelps calls “the aristocracy theory” of
creation, because it portrays humans as a privileged class “whose
position in the divine scheme entitles us to reduce the rest of the
earth’s population to serfdom.”¹ The Apostle Paul says that Christ is
“the image of the invisible God,” for he created all things and “in
him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell” (Col. 1:15–20). But
if “God is spirit,” as the Apostle John tells us (John 4:24), then the
“image of God” after which Adam was created cannot refer literally to
a physical or visual likeness, but must refer metaphorically to
certain qualities and capacities. The Medieval philosophers called
themqualia.
In light of Genesis 1:26–28, various expositors
have suggested that theimago deimay refer to one of three things:
(1) being a plurality (“us”) made for fellowship; (2) being “male and
female” or gendered; and (3) being capable of exercising “dominion”
over nature, as symbolized by Adam’s subsequent act of naming the
animals. Since neither fellowship nor gender are unique to humankind,
the first and second construals are unlikely. Nicholas Wolterstorff
favors the third interpretation—allowing, of course, for the obvious
possibility that some humans are in fact too malformed,
malfunctioning, or immature to exercise dominion.²
I suspect
that the ‘image of god’ entails having heightened (though not
necessarily exclusive) capacities for self-reflection, knowledge,
understanding, rationality, volition, creativity, communion, and
emotion (love or hate, joy or sorrow)—in fact, those very capacities
that allow us to exercise “dominion” within Creation, including the
ability to discern right from wrong, to adjudicate, and to empathize.
Other mammals exhibit both caring and aggressive behavior, but we
appear to be the only species that is free to beresponsiblefor
nature. However, that such agents as ourselves should, in virtue of
those capacities, deserve to be the sole subjects of value or objects
of respect in Creation is both a non-sequitor and a stretch of hubris.
Indeed, if we fail to respect other creatures who are valued by God,
we neglect our stewardship responsibility and our God-like “image”
becomes tarnished.
3. This Week’s Sermon from Rev. Frank and
Mary Hoffman
Lord, Help Us End the Corruption of Your Creation