A Canine Requiem

Image

A major chapter of my life closed last Tuesday. After nine years (the last of which she battled an aggressive tumor), we put our family dog, Nala, down. I didn’t think that this would be so difficult. In fact, when we first got Nala at 6 weeks (5 months into marriage), Sarah and I both agreed that should any health issue come up, we would not spend more than a reasonable amount for surgery. I know that sounds cruel, but we live under the conviction that there is some pretty serious suffering going on in the world, and we are stewards of resources and money. Seeing what we’ve seen in terms of human need around the globe, we just couldn’t justify spending a lot of money on a pet.

That said, I was totally ready to cave on my conviction. A few months ago, I took Nala in to the vet and said from the very beginning that we weren’t ready to shell out lots of money on her treatment (though I probably would have). The vet assured me that it was totally acceptable to let Nala live out her days, and then let her go when her pain and discomfort was unbearable. Besides, the cost of treatment would be in the thousands without any guarantee that she would even survive.

After two months of seeing her degenerate by losing body weight and conversely increasing tumor mass, Sarah and I doubtingly decided that we would put her down after her birthday, Dec 7. On Dec. 17, Sarah and I sat on the floor in the vet’s exam room – me holding Nala’s head and Sarah hugging her side – and we let our “first baby” go. I can still hear her exhaling for the last time. I can still see her eyes, and feel as her body went limp and her head sagged.

We sat for what seemed an eternity on that floor and balled. So many emotions flooded me simultaneously. I was grateful to God for the opportunity to steward this creature (as poorly as I did). I was regretful that I did not do more. I was sad to see her go. I was doubting if we had chosen to end her life too soon. I was mourningly appreciative of the past 9 years: the “Chicago” years. I was convicted that a new chapter was opening up, and I was at the same time challenged to make the next 9 years count. I was shocked that a dog could have this kind of emotional impact on me. It was a powerful experience to share with the wife of my youth, letting go of symbol of our youth while recognizing that now that neither of us were all that youthful.

ImageSarah and I grabbed some coffee at a local place where we grieved together, sharing memories and reflections of our life with Nala. She was with us in our newlywed years, and she witnessed the birth of all our kids. She moved to MD before we did, and our reunion as a family was too short. She was a dog with many tricks, and she was as loyal and as faithful as they come. The kids handled it well though their grieving continues. My oldest continues to say, “I miss Nala,” while my youngest spent the next two days looking for her.

The question immediately posed by my boys was the one you probably have asked or thought about, “Do dogs go to heaven?” In my earlier, more “theological” years, I would have tersely responded “NO – they don’t have souls. They return to the dust. Give thanks to God for the time we have had with them and be careful not to make them an idol.” (This is why seminarians need to be deconstructed a bit before being given shepherding oversight over God’s people!)

I think my perspective has become a bit more nuanced since. I’d like to share that with you here. I’m not claiming any sort of infallibility, and I pray that I don’t enter into any kind of heresy. I certainly wouldn’t die for this position. Let me start with some background principles that frame my thinking, things I am sure about.

1. Creation care is a theological matter. As image bearers, our relationship to the creatures God has made matters. Our connection to pets is not ipso facto, idolatrous. We are mandated to fill the earth, as well as to rule and subdue it (Gen 1:26-28) – as in, domesticate it or bring it to flourishing. I think that part of this subduing is found in caring for, and even loving, the creatures that God has intended for us to steward.

2. With the Fall of humanity, we know that there is always the tendency to worship the created thing rather than the Creator (Rom 1:21-25). In our care for creation and love for our pets, we have the potential to worship them, ascribing to them the same place of priority (or even higher) that is due only to other image-bearers and furthermore only God himself. We must be on guard that we don’t worship our pets as idols.

3. All of creation is longing for restoration alongside the human stewards who messed it up in the first place. Sin affects the whole system so that, as Cornelius Plantinga puts it, “things are not as they should be.” This expresses itself as hurricanes, violence, abuse, exploitation, cancer, etc. It affects animals as it does humans though maybe not with the same degree of moral implications.

4. I believe that through the Incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, that a new creation has broken into this age. Resurrection especially promises a new heavens and earth with Jesus as the firstfruits of things to come. Physical resurrection – as in everything made new and functioning the way it was supposed to with new bodies and new ways of interaction. Because of the presence of the indwelling Spirit of God, we can experience glimpses of the kind of future life that awaits all of creation, and we can grieve with hope as we experience the pain of the present one. We can also participate in the mission of God to brings all things under Christ in reconciliation with him.

With these truths in place, let me talk briefly about animal pain and what I believe to be the future of animals. I am indebted to C.S. Lewis’ brief chapter on this in “The Problem of Pain.” I also realize that his discussion is out of reach for most who are curious about this subject. So my discussion will be part synopsis and part elaboration of his perspective (which he appropriately prefaces by saying that he is no theologian so his perspective is open to push back and correction).

1. Animal pain/suffering can never become the center of the problem of pain in the universe. Too much lies outside our range of knowledge. We can only understand our own suffering, and any conclusions about animal suffering as it helps explain ours or vice versa, is conjecture at best.

2. We should not generalize all animal suffering into one category. There is a difference in the suffering of an ape versus an earthworm. There are varying degrees of sentience, Lewis says, and in classifying animals as such we order them according to their relation to humans (apes would be closer to humans than an oyster in terms of sentience, and thus their suffering should be viewed differently).

3. We must not confuse sentience with consciousness. Sentience is the perception of an event or stimulus. Consciousness is the perception and understanding that you are experiencing some sort of event or stimulus. Consciousness has to do with having a soul. For example, animals feel hunger, look for something to eat, and then attempt to satisfy that hunger. An animal would not look back on that experience and remark that I had hunger. With regards to pain, animals, although sentient to experience pain, are not conscious to be able to say, “I am in pain.” The correct description of such an animal would be to say, “Pain is taking place in this animal,” rather than, “This animal feels pain,” because the latter is an assumption that the animal has a “self” that is standing above the sensations and organizing them into experience like we do. We just don’t have proof of that. I like this explanation because it does not deny the fact that animals experience pain, but it also guards us from assigning human qualities to animals experiencing pain.

4. The question of animal immortality. Lewis treats this question by means of hypothesis. His observation is that although the Scriptures speak nothing of animal immortality, Christian revelation was never meant to be an end-all explanation for everything about how the universe is designed and operates. Rather, the Scriptures reveal to us our practical necessities in how we as humans are to live in the world God has created, what is wrong with it, and how it is/will be fixed. So the silence of Scriptures is not completely convincing. However, Lewis is quick to point out that immortality has almost no meaning for animals that do not possess consciousness (or souls) as I discussed prior. Nala, if she was raised, would have no understanding that she is the same dog that belonged to Mitchel and Sarah (and Sylvia for a short portion). She will simply experience the pleasures and sensations of any other yellow lab that had been raised. The idea of physical resurrection matters for conscious souls because they will know that they have been raised. Thus, if animals are not conscious, then there can be no real discussion of their immortality that lends any real significance. But don’t gnash your teeth just yet.

5. Here is where Lewis’ imagination gets absolutely mind-blowing. He makes the observation that our experience with our pets seems to suggest that there is some sort of real, although rudimentary, self-hood in animals. They seem to possess personality and characteristics so we must give it some deeper consideration. This is where our understanding of the creation mandate in Gen 1 makes all the difference. For the atheist, our relationship to animals (as with all of our relationships) is the mere result of biological and evolutionary forces. As applied to pets, our taming of them is just the interference of one evolutionarily superior species with another. The “real” or “natural” animal is the one in the wild while the tame animal is an unnatural or artificial thing. (For a great example of this, read his Narnia books. The Telmarines (humans who inhabit Narnia) mistakenly assume that the natural state for all Narnian beasts is to be dumb and person-less while the very opposite is in fact true.)

This is where it gets really interesting. Lewis suggests that if we believe in, and know, the Creator of the Universe as a person, we must see it the other way around. Because we are given the mandate to rule and subdue the earth, we are to bring order to it – from its “formless and void” state to a state of order and functioning. All of this order and function comes from right relationship, what many social justice workers call ‘shalom’. Shalom exists when people and things are in their right relationship towards God, but there’s a hierarchy here. Lewis wonders if just as man is to be understood only in his relation to God, so beasts are to be understood in their relation to man and, through man, to God. That’s to say as animals are subdued and some become “pets”, they become truly “natural” in the deepest sense. Our pets possess a personal identity as they rightly relate to humans and more specifically homes/families. Their personalities are largely the gift of man – their sentience is given personhood as they relate to us, just as our souls are reborn in our right relationship to God through Christ. Animals “become” pets (quasi-personhood) in relationship to their masters kind of like we “become” saints in relationship to our Master.  Lewis sums it up, “In other words, the man will know his dog: the dog will know its master and, in knowing him, will be itself.”

The brilliance of this imaginative suggestion is that it makes God the center of the universe and man the subordinate center of the terrestrial sphere. While preserving the fact that God owes no sort of justice or mercy to animals, at the same time animals are not elevated such that they are simply coordinated with man, on the same level as the image-bearer. Rather, animals are subordinate to humans, yet their destinies are through and through related to theirs. Thus, their immortality is not just wishful thinking. It is an implication and part of the true expression of the new heavens and new earth.

ImageThere’s so much more that could be said, but I’ll leave that for your own journey and reflections. The punchline for me is this: when my sons ask if Nala is in heaven, I respond, “Not yet, son, but in the new heavens and new earth when God remakes all things, we may meet her with new bodies ourselves, and our family dog will know us and she will be known.” It may be wishful thinking, but I think it makes sense of physical resurrection and new creation. As I long to hear my Master say it to me, so I think I will be able to say to Nala, “Well done, good and faithful dog. You brought much joy to our family and were loyal through and through (thus fulfilling your purpose on the earth), so enter into our continued joy.” I think that’s a lot different than believing that all dogs go to heaven, and I hope you can see why.

5 thoughts on “A Canine Requiem

  1. Wonderful post. Something about it reminded me of Reepicheep from The Chronicles of Narnia and when the children meet him again at the very end. Thinking of you and the family. I’m happy I got to meet Nala while she was still here.

  2. Dear Lee Fam 🙂 As a dog owner knowing the love of a dog and to be loved by a dog is a wonderful experience 🙂 Well said as you shared about Nala in your blog ~ So sorry to hear of your Nala passing ~ We just watched Prince Caspian 2 nights ago 🙂

  3. I share Eunice’s applause of this post, with warm gratitude.
    How encouraging to know this feeling is not uncommon (I’ve asked others, they describe the same experience) – shock at the depth and power of grief … over a dog.
    For some time I wondered what it said about me that my grief over loss of the humans dearest to my heart was never so intense and concentrated as it was for Curry or Browser. My consolation was that I grieve the loss of humans longer.
    But because my grief was not nearly as memorably intense when we lost Fang — an amazing friend — it struck me that the quality or type of last contact we have with the pet affects the intensity of grief. Witnessing the last breath, feeling life leave your hands, and knowing your complicity in the “putting down”, for however good and right reason, amplifies the loss.
    I can say this with some sympathy and understanding: Revmlee, I’m sorry for your loss.
    Luckily, I’m neither theologian or seminarian so I can easily answer the question of dog souls: All dogs have them. Most cats do not. If you do not believe dogs have souls, you haven’t met my wife’s German shepherd. If you believe cats have souls, I shall not argue. I appreciate the fragility of the cat fancier’s psyche. If I am wrong, well, what do you expect from an insensitive dog lover who’s neither theologian nor seminarian? I should add, I have known a ferret with a soul. RIP Fatso. We still miss you.
    Anyway, whether dog, cat, ferret or whatever, why would there not be animals in heaven? Weren’t they in the garden before the fall? Why not after, when the Transmogrification (forgive me if that’s technically the wrong term) shall make all things new? And if animals people heaven, why should they not include Nala, Fang, Browser, Fatso, Curry, et al?
    So, there you have it. Easy. Tidy. Let’s see a theologian do that!
    But there’s more. And here comes land I happily cede to the theologian.
    I am astounded by two lines that offer a peek into God’s view of animals. One line occurs at least three times; twice in Exodus, once in Deuteronomy. It’s God’s admonition: “Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk.”
    This is no mere rule. It suggests God is saying something to the effect of “Dude, that’s just wrong.”
    Honor is here, certainly for the mother-child relationship. But it’s a past relationship. The young goat is now, technically, nothing more than meat. Its mother could never be cognizant of the fact that her milk, meant to nourish her babe, is now being used as a sauce for said babe. Not, at any rate, in this life.
    Another arresting line is found in Jonah.
    It ends the last line of the final chapter. God is talking to angry, recalcitrant Jonah: “And should I not have concern for the great city of Nineveh, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left—and also many animals?”
    “And also many animals” – wow. How exceedingly tender this seems after the tumult of Jonah. Excuse me, PETA, come to Jesus, the water is fine. God extracted 120,000 people from the grip of destruction and what else is on his mind? Animals. Animated meat … or not?
    What does this say about how the fate of animals is linked to that of humans, about God’s concern for earthly suffering, about resurrection and angry prophets? Don’t ask me. I have no idea. But I am trying to pay closer attention to our dogs.
    What I take away:
    In the heavenly realms, I do hope the whole mosquito and tick thing is cleared up. The bugs can go, or make them cuter in Paradise, less buzzy. I really hope there are talking duck-billed platypuses in heaven and that God’s reason for creating them is “Ah, you know, just because. Thought it’d be kicks.”
    I hope there are no speed limits for motorcyclists in heaven. But that might mean no deer. But I could do eternity without deer bounding into the road. Amen.
    It is also likely, perhaps even to be anticipated with some ardor, that at the feet of Jesus, basking in heavenly mellowness will be so encompassing and satisfying that we will never give a thought to dogs, ferrets or talking duck-billed platypuses (I really do hope they have those in heaven). Whatever stirs our passions down here may seem no longer worthy of memory in His court, gazing on the beauty of the Lord.
    Still, what in Almighty God’s vision of Eden was not meant to last? How can we see on one hand a concern for goats and Ninevah’s cows but not Nala, Fatso, Curry or, dare I say it — Morris the cat?
    [Postscript submission. Please note, the following is intended for entertainment purposes only.]
    The scene:
    Adam: Eve, baby, look what followed me home!
    Eve (melting): Oooooh, how keyoooooot! What shall we call him?
    Adam: Yeah, well, I was thinking … “dog?”
    Eve (stiffens): Oh, Adam, do you think? I mean, that’s “God” spelled backward. You think He’ll mind?
    Adam: Mind? Baby, look at those eyes.
    Eve (re-melts): Oh look, you’re right. He’s sooooo keeeey-ooooot!
    Dog wags tail.
    The End.

  4. I liked the way you presented Lewis’ thoughts on this. Yes, creation care is a theological matter. Recently I found out, to my pleasant surprise, that William Wilberforce, in addition to his active role in the abolition of the slave trade, was one of the founding members of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) in 1824.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s