Does the scope of the incarnation include non-human animals? Essay

Does the Scope of Incarnation Include Non-Human Animals
Author's Name
The Institutional Affiliation
Course Number and Name
Instructor Name
Assignment Due Date
Does the Scope of Incarnation Include Non-Human Animals
Introduction
When the whole cosmos (according to many doctrines) or human beings (according to a few theologians) needed redemption, Jesus came as a Saviour. God found him an appropriate medium to manifest and freed the whole population from misery (Torrance, 2015). The Gospel shows us that Jesus is the second God in trinity, and he was a human. It raised a sensitive topic related to human incarnation. Many theologians and anthropologists activated a series of discussions on this matter. The focus on non-humans incarnation is a point of interest among many scholarly works of literature (Torrance, 2015). This interest raised two different schools of thought. One of them approves human incarnation as a deliberate choice by God because man is unique and elevated. The other class of scholars is against this idealism. According to those anthropologists, God's Incarnation was unintentional. He could manifest in animals as both humans and non-humans are equal (Edwards, 2019). This essay is to analyse two schools of thought about God's incarnation in human and not in non-human.
A Critical View of Animal Theology by Andrew Linzey
Andrew Linzey encounters the doctrinal question of Incarnation in Christianity with a comprehensive perspective. He discusses the idea of the relationship between God, human and non-human animals, along with identifying animal rights. His references to theological anthropology also emphasize the notable events of animal sacrifice (Linzey, 2016). The doctrine of creation describes God's Incarnation in His Son, whose affirmation of human nature is different in different schools of thought (Linzey, 2016). However, Linzey outlines three significant points about the objective reality of the personification of God in a human being.
"This objective reality, presupposed by the incarnation, must be such that the divine presence can incarnate itself within it". (Linzey, 2016).
This third point of objectivity of reality relates that incarnation is presupposed for the ambiguous God. He created the world, not as a finite but a fusion of infinite personalities to reveal his questionable existence (Sollereder, 2018). Rejecting the human of morality and personality in creation, Linzey underlines the idea of the material constituent. In other words, flesh and blood were the most suitable medium for God to incarnate in a human being. Meanwhile, flesh and blood are the qualities that human beings share with non-human animals (Sollereder, 2018). Hence, the restriction of morality between the two species terminates, leaving the whole humanity and animals into the category of the animal kingdom when God designated a medium for his disclosure. Behind this flesh and blood, the divine qualities of Jesus overshadow his human characteristics of ethics, morals, and politics. Fundamentally, humankind is dissimilar to animals based on these approaches (Linzey, 2016). On a meta-level, this concept removes all kinds of variations between the two classes as an avenue for presupposed incarnation.
Linzey goes in support with Brian Horne about analysing the interconnection between God and the cosmos. He accentuates that God sent himself in Jesus, marking him his "Logo" and all the creation in this world belongs to him (Linzey, 2016). The cosmos is spreading tracing back its connection to Christ, and things will come to an end interrelated to him. The idea of salvation and redemption is intersected to Jesus because God existed in him with purely divine nature (Clough, 2018).
It is how Linzey presents the theory that human beings were not superiorly worthy over animals in terms of incarnation. It was the selection of 'flesh and blood' by God that he manifested himself in man.
A Criticism on Animals volume 1. Systematic Theology. Clough, D.L. (2012).
The book draws the systematic approach for a future study on non-human theology by combining the constructive study of religion and Christian doctrine. The context connects ethics to the religious framework as equally important drivers to magnify the relation of human and non-humans. The text encapsulates the evolution of the relationship between man and animal (Clough, 2012). There are many motivations to develop and transform this intersection in every age. The occasioned association is based on multiple factors named as: automation of meat production, new technological developments, and increased human population. Deficient in the doctrinal approach, the followers of Jesus are substantially unresponsive to this evolution. That is why; they cannot specify these modifications as essential as to report them despite witnessing (Beeke & Smalley, 2019). Considering both classical and contemporary particular positions against each other, Clough precepts and hosts the idea of Fall, reconciliation, and salvation (Clough, 2012). His predominant concern lands him on the same grounds of Andrew Linzey. While Linzey displaces human centricity, Clough presents another identity of the idea. He seems to displace anthropocentrism. Both human centricity and anthropocentrism with a singular meaning have been defaulting dogmatic stance. From his two viewpoints under survey, Clough gives priority to the systematic theory of religion at first (Rausch, 2016). It is a deliberate action because he is aware of the imperfections in Christian belief that they blindly follow.
Clough begins with the concept of creation. The author communicates these interpretations, which classify man progress as the objective behind every creature along with primary theocentric reason, which diminishes each created being to a deific contrivance (Clough, 2012). The objective behind all this creation is only to make God happy and created human relations because everyone belongs to the divine. Man is always in connection with God. Likewise, non-human animals are always associated with divine powers (Clough, 2012). Human beings share fellowship based on the creation of an identical Divinity. Non-humans have fellowship with human beings based on the same phenomenon. Both humans and non-humans are fellowmen to delight a superpower being on the same level of status in God's eyes. Clough finds no convincing pragmatic or scriptural motive to think it is ontological, which raises man above all creation (Clough, 2012). Ontologically, man incarnation is God's distinct calling rather than a capacity that specifies approval for human beings divinely. Instead, Clough invites the reader to the subservient aspect of human personality. If God has made man elevated from all other life on the earth, he should not pose that needy existence among the other creation (Laravoire, 2015). He should have an authoritative appeal in discrimination of every living being.
In the second chapter of his book, Clough finally discovers the essential possibility of non-human animal incarnation. His constructive theories in both chapters conclude the fellowship places both species on the same level of elevation (Rausch, 2016). Additi...