Message from Vancouver

EarthAbbey’s Gerry and Merry Carol have recently returned to live in Vancouver. Gerry brings us news of a leading New Testament scholar who is saying that we should watch our meat consumption.

Gerry is keen for us to know about a lecture given by John Barclay, who pointed out that

- livestock production contributes as much as 18% of the world’s greenhouse emissions
- much of this is due to deforestation of large tracts of land to provide space for grazing and for animal food crops, which results in a loss of carbon storage; and
- carbon dioxide and methane emissions implicated in the raising and feeding of livestock, particularly beef cattle.

Using an argument similar to that of Paul’s in his teaching about meat offered to idols, Barclay asks:

- Can we continue to consume meat in a spirit of thanksgiving to God given the knowledge of the damage that livestock production is doing to the world which God created and for which he   gave himself in Christ?

- What are the effects of our meat consumption on others, even if those effects are unintentional?

Gerry prefers that faith perspectives are identified with positive aspects of our lives rather than things we don’t do, but, even so, this is important.

You can listen to the original lecture by Barclay entitled Food, culture and christian identity  – though it costs $5CND!

Gerry’s full review is pasted below. Thanks for this Gerry.

In this lecture, John Barclay, Lightfoot Professor of Divinity at Durham University, makes a case for Christians to accept a food taboo—namely, restricting one’s consumption of meat—based on Paul’s ethical teaching in the New Testament and on the likely causes and effects of global warming. While most Christians try to base their lives on the Bible, and while a growing number are expressing concern over issues such as global warming, the connection between the two seldom moves beyond the general injunction to be faithful caretakers of God’s good creation. Barclay, however, argues quite specifically, first, that Paul’s teaching about food stems from the heart of the Christian gospel, and second, that in light of current concerns over global warming, a contemporary application of Paul’s teaching would lead us to lower our meat consumption—a provocative argument to say the least.

He argues that while the Christian tradition has never universally practiced food taboos (in fact, very early on it broke free of Jewish food taboos), meals—and one meal in particular, the Lord’s Supper—were invested with special significance. Following Jesus’ example of eating with sinners, Christians found their identity in sharing together a meal which focused their attention on God’s love for them in Jesus Christ and which enjoined them to display hospitality to others.

Barclay furthermore argues that although Paul at times displays a nonchalance about food, in 1 Corinthians 8-10 he states that food used in the worship of idols should not be eaten by Christians, not because there is something wrong with the food itself, but because: (i) food oriented towards an idol cannot at the same time be oriented towards God, and hence cannot be eaten with thanksgiving. This is problematic since, for the Christian, all things must be done with thanksgiving. And (ii) in contexts where the issues are not clear-cut, there may be some Christians who are able to eat the food present with clear consciences, but others who for various reasons—cultural, social, educational, psychological—cannot eat it themselves, and who would be offended by seeing other Christians eat it, because from their perspective the food is oriented towards idols and not towards God. In such a situation Paul insists on not causing another’s harm: “If food is the cause of my brother’s falling, I will never eat meat.” Barclay finds these two principles also at work in the situation of Romans 14-15 that had in view meals involving both Gentile and Jewish Christians, and more generally in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper which was for Christians their paradigmatic meal in which they were to express “uncompromising orientation to the Lord, and unwavering attention to others, especially the weak, the vulnerable and the hungry.”

Barclay then reviews the cataclysmic dangers facing billions of people—in many cases the poorest people of the world—in light of global warming. And in particular, he describes the role that livestock production currently has in this geo-climactic system. He notes that globally, livestock production contributes as much as 18% of the world’s greenhouse emissions, compared to only 13% for all forms of transport. This is due to two factors in particular: (i) the deforestation of large tracks of land to provide space for grazing and for animal food crops, which results in a loss of carbon storage; and (ii) the carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane emissions from the animals themselves which contribute directly to global warming. In terms of one’s carbon footprint, the consumption of 1 kg of beef would then be equivalent to a 250 km car journey. Furthermore, Barclay notes, with the rising levels of wealth in some areas of the developing world, there is such an increasing demand for meat and dairy products that some estimate that livestock production could double by the year 2050. But by that same year, the world needs to have reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 80% in order to avoid the calamitous effects of global warming. The only solution to this problem, he concludes, is to reduce livestock production by reducing demand.

But here Barclay draws together Paul’s teaching about food with the growing concern about global warming. He articulates two questions: (i) Can we continue to consume meat in a spirit of thanksgiving to God given the knowledge of the damage that livestock production is doing to the world which God created and for which he gave himself in Christ? And (ii) What are the effects of our meat consumption on others, even if those effects are unintentional? “The more we know about the effects of livestock production on climate change,” Barclay suggests, “and the more we know about the devastating effects of climate change on the world population, especially on the poorest and most vulnerable, the more this question should haunt our meal tables.” Hence the call for a taboo, or at least a partial taboo, on the eating of meat.

I find Barclay’s argument intriguing—not to mention a little disconcerting, as I enjoy roast beef as much as anyone. It would be interesting to see the issue debated at church synods and conventions as well as in local Christian communities. I wonder too whether this theological basis would not serve to support other practices not necessarily related to food but which also arise out of the same two principles of giving thanks to God and taking care how our actions affect others—for example, Fair Trade, ethical investments, etc. The only concern I would raise, and I suspect one with which Barclay would concur, is that in the spirit of thanksgiving, Christians should be identified by what they do as much as by what they don’t do. We have seen the problems created when Christians are viewed as people who don’t do this and don’t to that, be it smoking or drinking or dancing or whatever, even if taboos on some of these may be appropriate in some contexts; the impression is that Christians are pleasure denying ‘party-poopers’. And yet, if the Lord’s Supper is truly paradigmatic for the Christian faith, then
thanksgiving and celebration ought to be fundamental to the Christian ethos. And this should remain the case even if we adopt certain taboos like restrictions on meat.

Gerry Schoberg
Vancouver
August 2009

Your comments.