July-August 2019
A Glimpse of the Peaceable Kingdom
Under His Wings
A one-legged male dove named Noah took over the mothering of a litter of bunnies orphaned at only six days. (First featured in the June 2010 PT.) --Photo by Bob Lenham
Editor’s Corner Essay: Killing Animals for Entertainment
The number of people (mostly men) in our culture who engage in hunting for “sport” is diminishing. But for those who still hunt and actively champion it, it continues to have great appeal. The reasons for this appeal are likely to be opaque to animal activists and supporters because of our abhorrence of the violent act against an innocent animal at its center. But it is important for us to understand hunters as best we can, if we are ever to speak on the subject.
Why People Hunt
Several of these reasons are illustrated in the series of short essays by hunters embedded in the anthology God, Nimrod, and the World: Exploring Christian Perspectives on Sport Hunting, edited by Bracy V. Hill II and John B. White (reviewed below). One of the advantages of hunting that many mention is enjoyment of the natural world; several of the writers, emphasizing their Christian commitment, delight in the beauty of the world, woods and meadows and streams and the refreshment that world provides them.
Animal activists would protest that one could still enjoy nature without killing, which is certainly true; but hunters might say that the keen edge of their enjoyment would be much dulled without the lying in wait and the successful kill. There is probably truth to this claim. Hunting and war have in common that, in the suspense of a life-and-death issue, most people feel more intensely alive than in an ordinary lifetime of easy circumstances. (Nature mystics may feel this intense aliveness even in peaceful natural scenes; and hunt saboteurs may, like hunters, feel intensely alive during the hunt: they are as deeply eager to save the animals as hunters are to kill. As a kind of “war saboteur” with Witness for Peace in Nicaragua in the 1980s, I experienced this high myself.)
Some essay writers see their hunting as following naturally from their love of God’s creation, the natural world just as it is. They claim that nature is marked everywhere by predation; every being lives at the expense of others. We humans and other natural predators kill to eat; all beings cause the death of others, whether violently or through taking scarce resources such as land space to grow our plant food. One hunter gives the example that after her death her body will be eaten by worms; thus she is both predator and prey. In sum, since her hunting is only doing as she will be done by, it is all fair. If predation is curbed or stops, the prey animals will multiply and slowly starve; the quick violent death the hunter administers is actually more merciful (birth control is not considered). Loving nature means loving the predation system and willingly participating in it. Hunters seldom emphasize the cooperation and bonding in nature; they see it essentially in light of Tennyson’s “red in tooth and claw.”
Another reason hunters cherish their “sport” is that they experience it as promoting human bonding and emotional discipline. They describe fond memories of being taken on hunts at an early age by their fathers, or taking their own young sons, and/or of the camaraderie they enjoyed with other relatives and friends. One writer said that it was in the context of the hunt that his father was able, for the first time, to tell his son he loved him. One of the rules they learn is that hunters must put up with cold and other discomfort without serious complaint. Another is that they must play fair and look after each other. If one of their company has been first to spot a particular animal, such as a deer with a magnificent rack of horns, and has been lying in wait for him, another hunter who gets a chance to kill him must pass it by. Thus hunting promotes self-discipline and toughness, usually linked to masculinity. Some regard this process as promoting spiritual maturation.
Although by definition sport hunting is not necessary to provide food, eating the bodies of their kills is important to many hunters; one writer mentions his pride in providing his family with good food for a considerable time from the body of a single deer. He sees himself as thus fulfilling an important part of a husband and father’s duty, his wife’s duty being to cook it competently, something she enjoys. Feminists, whether Christian or not, may feel less than enthusiastic about such a view.
The hunters see predatory violence as continuous between humans and (non-human) animals. One writer sees the universe as made up of a kind of three-linked Great Chain of Being: God on top, then human beings, and then animals below us. We humans have a right to kill animals; God has given them to us as our food, and thus to do so is not a sin. The passage in Genesis 9 in which after the Great Flood God gives “every moving thing that lives” as food to the surviving humans provides a handy proof-text for some who hold this position.
However, there are at least three important issues which call any religious, especially Christian, justification for sport hunting into question. The first has the most concrete evidence.
The Challenge of Nutrition
Many readers of PT are aware of increasing numbers of nutritional studies showing that the characteristic Western diet, centered in animal flesh (and also dependent on cows’ milk products and chickens’ eggs), fosters chronic diseases such as major cancers, coronary heart disease, and Type 2 diabetes. I will sketch out one study dealing with coronary heart disease, and cite two others with diabetes.
In 1985, Caldwell Esselstyn (pronounced ESS-ul-stun), a surgeon at the Cleveland Clinic, began a twenty-year pilot study of people with advanced coronary heart disease to whom conventional medicine had essentially given death sentences--after all the regular treatments had been gone through, nothing more could be done for them. (Esselstyn [pictured] wanted to have a control group as well, but funds weren’t adequate for that.) Twenty-four people were enrolled. Esselstyn put them on a diet with the following features: No animal-origin foods (“nothing that had a mother or a face”), no added oils, and (generally), no nuts or avocados. The only medication in the plan was a cholesterol-lowering drug. He gave his subjects a great deal of support, meeting with each one every other week, checking blood pressure and blood cholesterol, and phoning them with their results; the entire group convened every three or four months, sharing recipes and comparing progress. This was during the first year; later, after the new regime was well established, the contacts were less frequent, but they continued.
For the sixteen who stayed strictly on the regimen, the results were dramatic. Within weeks, angina eased or disappeared, and blood cholesterol went down; eventually, it averaged out to the low of 137 milligrams per deciliter. This is below the intended goal of 150 milligrams, and almost half of what the average had been at the beginning. One person, although two of his coronary arteries had in fact widened, died after nearly six years because the long-time scarring in his heart was so bad that it essentially “electrocuted itself.” The others had no cardiac events over twelve years. There were no cases of progression of symptoms, and in many cases, arteries that had been narrowed widened measurably, some more, some less. In contrast, among the six persons who had dropped out of the plant-food diet, all had progression of symptoms, and there were thirteen cardiac events. After twenty years, those who followed the diet strictly remained free of symptoms.
The take-away from this study, confirmed by other studies, is that consuming animal flesh (and other animal products) clearly fosters our culture’s Number One killer, coronary heart disease; consuming a whole plant-based diet tends to heal. (Sixteen and six don’t add up to twenty-four; I wasn’t clear about the situation of the two remaining persons.)
Type 2 diabetes offers further examples of the dangers to human health of consuming meat and other animal foods. There are several studies done with Seventh-Day Adventists, a Christian denomination in which about half are omnivores and half vegetarians. In the Adventist Health Study of about 34,000 persons (published in 1999), after adjustments for possible confounding factors, men who ate meat had a 97% greater risk of diabetes, and meat-eating women a 93% greater risk, than the vegetarians did. The second Adventist Health Study, including nearly 61,000 persons (published in 2009) yielded similar results: after adjustments, the odds ratio of a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes among regular meat-eaters “remained approximately twice that of individuals avoiding meat.” See the essay by Neal Barnard et. al, Meat Consumption Risk
The problem these and many similar scientific studies pose for Christian (and other Western religious) hunters is clear. A God who loves human beings could not have assigned us to kill animals and eat their flesh, seeing that it seriously increases our risk of major diseases and earlier death. In contrast, the healing effects of the vegan diet of Eden are consistent with Divine love that seeks the well-being of humans, but the post-Flood diet of “every moving thing that lives” is not. The plant-based Eden diet is indeed “God’s best dream for the world,” to quote Stephen Kaufman.
The Challenge of the Empathic Life Review
The empathic life review is a very uncomfortable concept from Near-Death Studies, which I have dealt with before in the October 2008 PT (see Whatever One Sows ). In brief, a certain number of Near-Death Experiencers (NDErs) report that their experience included a life-review in which they not only saw many or all of their past actions and words, and not only relived them, but found that their consciousness had expanded so that they shared the feelings of all with whom with they had interacted, both human and animal. In other words, it was a kind of individual Great Judgment, but, as Near-Death Experiencer P.M.H. Atwater reported, “There wasn’t any heavenly St. Peter in charge. It was me judging me, and my judgment was most severe.” This element of self-judgment is what makes the Empathic Life Review quite different from nearly all religious conceptions of a Great Judgment, whether in ancient Judaism, or in the Egyption Book of the Dead (being weighed on the Scale of Maat), Christianity, or Islam, or some strands of folk Buddhism. In these, the Judge is God or a powerful spiritual being, who is usually depicted in a state of wrath. In the Empathic Life Review, by contrast, some experience God as present as they judged themselves, present not in wrath but in compassion, sharing their suffering as they endured the harmful things they had said and done to others. The experiencers also relived and shared the blessings and joys they had given out.
Clearly, whether or not the Empathic Life Review really happens to us all at some point beyond death, the evidence for it is not on the level as that for the nutritional issue. Most people, including myself, don’t like to anticipate going through it; they would probably rather forget the whole idea. We know that whether we think about it or forget it doesn’t affect the question of whether or not it is real. But if real, it provides a deep foundation for the sense of oneness with others reflected in all major religions by their high valuing of love and kindness, and their condemnation of cruelty and selfishness. “Saving one life is saving the world entire,” “Love your neighbor as yourself,” “ Allah is compassionate,” “Whatever you have done to the least of these my brothers, you have done to me,” “What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others,”and the like. Jesus’ teaching “Love your enemies . . . and do good to them,” in the light of the Empathic Life Review, goes from being a virtually impossible counsel of perfection to being common sense: good things done to our enemies are good things done to ourselves. And such actions just might make them into friends.
If the Empathic Life Review does await each of us, where does that leave hunters? How many of them, whether religious or not, would be willing to undergo what they put the target animals through? “Bambi-Lovers” is a term of derision for hunters, but what if the hunter’s target animal is bonded to a mate, to a mother, to young ones--is the hunter willing to experience the anguished bereavement of Bambi as well as his mother’s violent death?
The Challenge of Spiritual Evolution
The idea that humans are intended to lead the spiritual evolution of the world’s animals can be seen as having an even weaker foundation than the prospect of an Empathic Life Review. It is outlined in “The Animals Are Waiting”, in the June 2010 PT. To summarize: the origin of the idea of a coming Peaceable Kingdom, a renewal of Eden, is found in at least two biblical passages. One is Isaiah’s famous “The wolf shall lie down with the lamb . . . and a little child shall lead them” scene, and in Paul’s line in Romans 8: "the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.” The Eastern Orthodox churches put a great deal of emphasis on this coming transformation of the whole cosmos, which they see as having originated from Christ’s Incarnation, his Transfiguration, and especially the Easter event.
The idea that humans are to lead this process by engaging in meditation [and contemplative prayer] originates from a line by the sage G. I. Gurdjieff: "The animals are waiting for us to move up so they can follow . . . . “ In Look a Lion in the Eye, Katherine Hulme reflects on this line, and concludes that “This was the answer I had been unconsciously groping for ever since my first confrontation with Africa's wildlife. This surely was why the animals' long, slow stares took us in, unaware that they were waiting for us to ‘move up’ that ladder that Jacob saw in his dream, thronged with angels moving up and down . . . ."
Hulme thought of this spiritual evolution as brought about by inevitable natural forces. But “a little child shall lead them” may mean leadership by a powerful core of humanity being renewed (reborn), who are more and more living in harmony with the Center and Source of the universe, with our human siblings and our animal cousins. They will be increasingly at peace with all beings, listening to and learning from others; they will influence both other people and other animals toward peace and love. Animal predation may begin to diminish, beginning perhaps with omnivores increasingly becoming herbivores.
So far as I know, there is no evidence that human meditation or contemplative prayer, in connection with a nonviolent lifestyle, diminishes violence among animals; but there is some evidence that it actually diminishes violence among humans. A nonviolent diet may have an important part. The Maharishi Effect by Aron & Aron tells of a long series of experiments by Transcendental Meditators (many of whom were vegetarians) who gathered in this or that city, and carried out their daily meditation together. During these periods, the rates of violence, including crime, suicide, and accidents, declined measurably from the rates in the same months during previous years. Regrettably, after the meditators returned to their homes, the rates of violence returned to “normal.”
These phenomena don’t prove anything, but they are suggestive. From the perspective of spiritual evolution, eating the flesh of animals killed for entertainment, as well as paying for cellophane- wrapped chunks of flesh from mammoth killing hells, would serve to retard rather than promote an “Age of Gold / when peace shall over all the earth / Her ancient splendors fling . . .” Those who justify hunting as part of the predation system see the world as pervaded with violence; they appear to take animal predators as their models for diet. Would it not make more sense to choose as our models spiritual giants of peace such as Mohandas Gandhi, Cesar Chavez, Coretta Scott King, and Mildred Norman (Peace Pilgrim)? --Editor
Sources: Coming Back to Life by P.M.H. Atwater; War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning by Chris Hedges, Look a Lion in the Eye by Katherine Hulmes, Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease by Caldwell B. Esselstyn, The Uttermost Deep: The Challenge of Near-Death Experiences by Gracia Fay Ellwood. The painting of Jacob’s Ladder is by William Blake; the Peaceable Kingdom painting on p. 13 is by Bill Bell.
NewsNotes
Emily Atkins of The New Republic has written a hard-hitting essay summarizing the animal concern and analyzing the ridicule and other expressions of resistance to the message. See
--Contributed by Karen Borch
Gift Objets d’art From Crows?
Stuart Dahlquist, a musician who has been feeding a family of crows in his yard, has found objects they apparently created and left for him as gifts. See Crow Art
--Contributed by Robert Ellwood
Beyond Meat Arrives!
The Initial Public Offering (IPO) on the stock market of the firm Beyond Meat was the biggest seen since 2000--it rose 163% on its first day. Is this encouraging, or is it encouraging?
See Popping IPO
--Contributed by Robert Ellwood
Be Kind to Animals Week
The week of May 6-12 was set aside as kindness week in 1915 by William O. Stillman, and promoted by the American Humane organization. Originally, children and adults were advised not only to adopt animals from shelters, but to eat only “humane” meat and visit only certified zoos and aquariums. Since then the suggestions have been updated, including “Be kind 365 days a year.”. Kindness is good, but justice is better.
See American Humane .
--Contributed by Judith McCoy Carman
Marine Mammals in Canada to be Freed
The Canadian Parliament has passed a bill ending the confinement of marine mammals for public entertainment! See Freedom
--Contributed by Judith McCoy Carman and Will Tuttle
Unset Gems
“It wills our redemption, longs for us to turn to it. It does not create heaven and hell for us, but allows us to do that for ourselves. Such is the terrible vulnerability of love.”--Harvey Gillman
“There were these two young fish who met an older fish swimming the other way. The older fish said “Morning, boys, how’s the water?” After the young fish had swum on a bit, one turned to the other and said “What the [heck] is water?”--David Foster Wallace
Many people think of God as like an invisible Supreme Fish who spawned us all. Others doubt that there is such a Supreme Fish. But what if God[dess] is the Water? Are we individual minds swimming in Mind-at-Large?
Pioneer: James N. Brune, 1934 -
Jim Brune has long been a Quaker, pacifist, vegetarian, and generous supporter of Quaker Animal Kinship (QUAK), the sponsor of The Peaceable Table. He attends QUAK meetings when he can, though his home is in Reno, Nevada, where he was Professor of Geology at the University of Nevada from 1987 until his retirement in 2011. Count on him as a person with the most diverse interests of any you know: a distinguished and well-published scientist specializing in seismology, particularly the relationship of precariously-balanced rocks to earthquakes; a Quaker conscientious objector, long-time vegetarian, and "a bit of a mystic"--all in times and settings where such concerns were not widely shared. He is also an artist, presenting a fine painting of one of his childhood homes, an austere cabin, on the cover of his book of memoirs, Simple Balance (together with other artistic works reproduced within).
Jim was born in 1934 at Modesto Hospital, but grew up in Alpine County, California, though he thinks he was perhaps--not
insignificantly--conceived in India on a round-the-world wedding trip his parents, who had come into some money, took in 1933. Scantily-populated Alpine County is in mountainous central California north of Yosemite and up against the Nevada border. Although his mother came from old and sometimes prominent California families, his father came from poor farmers in Missouri. The family was not well-off when Jim was growing up. His father worked at mining and other jobs as they were available during the Great Depression; his mother died in early 1940 when he was only five. She had suffered a serious injury in an auto accident a few years before, and the consequences were a life-threatening illness. Jim’s father had gone through all his savings in a failed attempt to save her life, and the double loss left his dad and the motherless children very poor. They lived for a decade in a rather primitive cabin without electricity or indoor plumbing.
After elementary school, Jim and his younger brother Dick went to Douglas County High School in Nevada, at the end of an hour-long bus trip which crossed the state line. It was in 1950, while in high school, that Jim became a vegetarian--on his own, without a model among his acquaintances.
As a boy growing up in a rural area he had been exposed to a great deal of hunting; he had done some hunting and trapping himself, but had been increasingly disaffected. He was profoundly influenced by books he read written by and about the likes of Mohandas “Mahatma” Gandhi, Leo Tolstoy, Albert Schweitzer, and Albert Einstein, plus the Rosicrucian Digest, all of which his father had collected in the cabin’s attic. His dad was remarkably well-read and interested in ideas, as reflected in his varied career. (After his father’s death in 1954, Jim learned that he had been in fact highly-placed in the Rosicrucian order, but had never mentioned that affiliation.) As for vegetarianism, it was Jim’s reading that convinced him. At his father's insistence he talked with the local doctor about it. The physician, like Jim’s father, was exceptionally open-minded for the times, pointing out that, although he had never met a vegetarian, vegetarianism must not be bad since the Seventh-Day Adventists were such and lived about ten years longer on average than meat-eaters. Jim interested his neighbor and childhood friend, Susan Whitney, in conscientious vegetarianism not long after he himself was convinced. She also became a pioneer vegetarian in the 1950s. They became sweethearts, and married in 1957; they are still married and still veg.
Another book in his father's treasure trove was William Comfort's Just Among Friends: The Quaker Way of Life, which also made an impact on Jim’s searching young mind. He kept thinking about it as he went to the nearby University of Nevada in Reno, but there was no Quaker meeting in that city at the time. (There is now, with Jim Brune as one of its pillars.) But after graduation, at his first job in geology, with Chevron Oil in Bakersfield, CA, one First-Day [Sunday] in 1956 he took the bus down to Pasadena to attend Orange Grove Friends Meeting, and still does so when in the area.
Jim's career included professorial and research positions at such prestigious institutions as the California Institute of Technology, the University of California in San Diego, and finally back at the University of Nevada. In all these years he not only grew in recognition in his field of science, but also continued his vegetarian and Quaker commitment. He was a peace activist in the Vietnam years of the 1960s. Behind all of this is one of his favorite quotes, slightly paraphrased from William James, with which he ends his memoirs: "The basis of all religions is the intuition of an unseen, intentional order in the cosmos or universe, and . . . our highest duty is to try to attune ourselves so we are in harmony with that, as much as possible." From an early age, Jim Brune has seen clearly that harmony with the universe includes harmony with all its animal life.
--Robert Ellwood
Source: James N. Brune, Simple Balance: An Oral History. Markleeville, CA: Clairitage Press, 2018.
Review: God, Nimrod, and the World
God, Nimrod, and the World: Exploring Christian Perspectives on Sport Hunting. Bracy V. Hill II and John B. White, Eds. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2017. 431 pages. $40.00 softcover.
I'm sure it is safe to say that few readers of The Peaceable Table are sport hunters. So far as is humanly possible, we do not kill animals, and many of us strive to live without consuming them or their products. Living free of their flesh and their milk and eggs, we feel healthier and happier, and the science is more and more on our side. Some of us are passionate about the ethical treatment of animals, which for us includes respect for their right to life without fear of humans with a big gun. We would prefer that animals see us as guardians and friends rather than as predators.
Nonetheless, we are aware of another side out there, and it may well be part of our own lives too. Some of us love our companion cats even though they are hunters, probably both for sport and vittles. If they live both in- and outdoors, we grieve for the mangled birds or mice they proudly offer us. Many of us have hunter friends or relatives who are otherwise good, kindly persons, whom we care about even though we do not share that particular avocation with them, and indeed find it repellent. So in all fairness let's hear what they, and world-class spokespersons both for and against hunting, have to say.
God, Nimrod, and the World may be seen by hunters, if not by those who reject hunting, as a comfortable room, perhaps with a blazing fire, for that discussion after a day outdoors in clear frosty air enjoying both nature and the hunt. Here the two sides are given voices, and let me emphasize how valuable this book is as a collection of diverse statements by qualified writers. No one can truly say they have an honest, responsible position on some issue unless they have familiarized themselves with all sides, and this room is where to do it. A couple of caveats about God, Nimrod, and the World, however.
The editors are both professors affiliated with traditionally Baptist Baylor University: Hill in History, and White in the Truett Theological Seminary. The book is explicitly Christian, with no reference to the views of other religions except to some extent Judaism. Most of the writers seem to be more or less evangelical Protestant, and some articles are characteristically packed with biblical quotes, though a few are Roman Catholic, and one by Bracy Hill extensively cites William Channing, founder of American Unitarianism. But readers should be aware that, as the title states, this book is really just about Christian views for and against hunting, nothing else. At the same time, I want to say that the editors' major introductory and concluding essays are impressive: balanced, well-informed, and respectful to all.
The second caveat is that the book is clearly biased toward hunting as an acceptable Christian activity; there are many voices praising hunting, and few opposed to it. The structure of the book goes like this. The first section discusses hunting past and present, including instances in the Bible. A piece follows on Naucratius (pictured below), a lesser-known brother of two of the Cappadocian Church Fathers, siblings Basil and Gregory of Nyssa. This little known brother was and is considered to be a holy man whose hunting provided food for hermit monks. Then we come across a study of changing attitudes in Britain on hunting between 1800-2000. After that the reader may peruse an interesting discourse on C.S. Lewis arguing that, despite implied praise of the “kingly sport” in the Narnian books, Lewis was dubious of hunting and subtly opposed it, at least for our world, in his Out of the Silent Planet. A race of unfallen talking animals on the planet Malacandra (Mars) engages in a successful community hunt for a violent sea creature, but such a sinless hunt would not be possible on earth because of partially evil intent and practice on earth by fallen human beings. Next the untiring reader faces a series of short conversational-style pieces by "ordinary" (though some are professional) Christians who hunt and see it as in agreement with their religious commitment.
Finally there are the heavy-duty academic arguments. I need to register, up front, my displeasure at the way this final section is introduced. It is called "Academic Musings" and the introductory essay is subtitled "Perspectives from Concerned Citizens in Ivory Towers." Perhaps as a former academic I am overly sensitive, but to me such expressions sound condescending and trivializing at the outset, suggesting that what such persons with their heads in the clouds have to say is not to be taken as seriously as that of the "real people" who hunt and go to church in the preceding part.
In any case, here appear two major anti pieces, "Killing and the Kingdom: A Case Against Sport Hunting," by Shawn Graves, and "Muscular Christianity and Sport Hunting: Missing the Mark," by co-editor John B. White. Then come six pro selections. The first by Nathan Kowalsky takes Andrew Linzey to task, calling his anti-hunting theology a Christian "heresy" and accusing the distinguished British theologian of "animal gnosticism." Others discuss the "Dominion" concept (Stephen M. Vantassel), the meaning of "Killing What You Love" (Theodore R. Vitali), "Sport Hunting as Tragic Play" (James A. Tantillo, and "Bow Hunting as an Act of Worship" (W. E. Nunnally).
The kinds of arguments used by the pro-hunting side may be of more interest to readers of The Peaceable Table who are less familiar with them. Although the distinction is not always made as clearly as one would like, the writers often do recognize that "sport" hunting is not to be justified simply on the basis of a need for food or maintaining a sound ecology, but bespeaks something more in the relation of humans to animals.
The case typically begins with an evocation of nature, so little known in its true character to modern urbanites, who increasingly are most people in our culture. In this nature--at once sublimely beautiful and horrible, becoming scarcer with every sunrise--the hunter is not just being present, but with his gun is part of its cycles of predation. This even has to do, we are told, with the Christian doctrine of divine incarnation as an affirmation of God's presence in nature in all its facets, including killing, eating, being killed, being eaten. In short, if you don't kill and eat along with nature, and enjoy it, you're not really living in God's world, made by God rather than some lesser being as allegedly was Linzey's anti-hunting gnostic world.
I am unconvinced, to say the least. Despite all the Bible talk by these writers, there is no place I am aware of in which the Sacred Text endorses sport hunting, though it may reluctantly acknowledge animal flesh as a source of food in its time and place. This is a result of the Fall, and of the Noachic flood; before the forbidden fruit was eaten, Eden was vegan. Judaism, the major custodian of the majority of these Scriptures, has never endorsed sport hunting, and condemns Nimrod as a negative character.
Some of the writers invoke the "dominion" argument from Genesis 1:28, in which God gave Adam and Eve dominion over animals. We should first note that this "dominion" was given when Eden was still vegan, so could not have originally meant the right to kill. Moreover, dominion is from Latin dominus, lord of a household, and the chief responsibility of any lord or pater is not to kill his/her subjects, but to maintain the peace, and to befriend and protect them. When Canada was termed a dominion under the Queen of England, that did not mean the Queen had the right to kill and eat any Canadian she got in her gunsights, but to guard them and keep them content to the extent of her ability.
I might bring up another important note. Only a couple of the writers are women, and though there are women who hunt, hunting is a predominantly male activity. Part of its positive function is said to be male bonding, including father and son, something much needed in today's world. However, as the father of a son myself, I can say the hunting field is not the only field where this bonding can take place; how about when parent and child befriend, especially when they rescue, animals together rather than killing them?
That leads into our final point. Despite the insistence of some writers that one can love beings in nature while killing them, I find this emotionally and intellectually a bridge too far. Some of us know by experience that one can just love animals in nature, or at home, without carrying a gun or bow, but rather in the spirit of ahimsa, harmlessness, and of the Jewish and Christian basic precept, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” One can simply look into the animal's eyes deeply, feeling our shared consciousness, and know as much about nature as you could by killing the animal--indeed, more. One can put out food if needed, delight in the wild friend's young and her care for them--sharing in the female experience again without consuming the creature's eggs or milk--and eat rather according to the diet of Eden, not to mention of the recipes in The Peaceable Table. Biblically, one can look forward to the triumph not of Nimrod but of the renewal of vegan Eden, where the lion lies down with the lamb.
One last thought. There is little indication that the writers in this book recognize that not all who go out to hunt are skilled marksmen. Often prey are hit but not killed, and die over a matter of days in extreme pain.
Again, God, Nimrod, and the World is recommended as a "go to" source for the arguments on all sides of hunting. Since it defends hunting much more than it challenges it, the book is painful to read for any to whom compassion for our animal cousins is important, and especially for Christians who see their compassion as anchored in the God they worship. But if you want to be on top of what the other side says--important to fairness and discipline--pick up a copy.--Robert Ellwood
Recipe: Zucchini Lasagne
2-3 small zucchinis, diced
1 large onion, diced
2 garlic cloves, sliced thinly
1 green pepper, diced
Mushrooms, sliced
Olives, sliced
2-3 T. olive oil
1 pkg lasagne noodles
Vegan ricotta cheeze
Vegan mozzarella cheeze
1-2 tsp. basil
A pinch each of oregano, cumin, sage, thyme, & marjoram
1 can tomato paste
1 large can tomato puree
Sauté vegetables in the oil. Add spices and salt. Add tomato paste and puree (Do not substitute tomato sauce.) Simmer sauce 30-40 minutes. Cook noodles with a little oil added. Drain and rinse. Shred mozzarella and/or Jack cheezes. Oil oblong pan, and starting with noodles, make layers, alternating cheezes: noodles, sauce, ricotta cheeze, noodles, sauce, mozzarella cheeze, etc. Top with sauce and vegan Parmesan cheeze. Bake at 325 for 30-40 minutes.
--Elizabeth Willey
Veganized from Elizabeth Willey’s original recipe in The Peaceable Kitchen, a vegetarian cookbook produced by Sandpoint, Idaho Quakers in 1994. Friends Elizabeth and Steve have been long-time leaders in encouraging their Meeting toward vegetarianism.
Poetry: Thomas Hardy
The Fallow Deer at the Lonely House
One without looks in tonight
Through the curtain-chink
From the sheet of glistening white;
One without looks in tonight
As we sit and think
By the fender-brink.
We do not discern those eyes
Watching in the snow;
Lit by lamps of rosy dyes
We do not discern those eyes
Wandering, aglow
Four-footed, tiptoe.
The Peaceable Table is a project of Quaker Animal Kinship, a non-profit organization also known as the Animal Kinship Committee of Orange Grove Friends Meeting, Pasadena, California. It is intended to resume the witness of that excellent vehicle of the Friends Vegetarian Society of North America, The Friendly Vegetarian, which appeared quarterly between 1982 and 1995.
The journal is intended to be interactive; contributions, including illustrations, are invited for the next issue. Deadline for submissions for the Sept-Oct, 2019 issue will be Sept. 26. Send to graciafay@gmail.com or 14 Krotona Hill, Ojai, CA 93023. Donations to offset the cost of supplies and printing are welcome. Send checks to Robert Ellwood, Treasurer, 14 Krotona Hill, Ojai, CA 93023.
Editor: Gracia Fay Ellwood
Reviewer: Robert S. Ellwood
Technical Architect: Richard Scott Lancelot Ellwood
Issue copyright © 2019 Vegetarian Friends