Many of us eat without giving a thought to the miserable lives and violent, bloody deaths of the animals on our plates. Christians have a choice. We can add to the level of violence, suffering, and death in the world, or we can attempt to withdraw our support for violence and bloodshed wherever and whenever we find it.

More than eight billion animals are killed every year for food in this country. The vast majority are raised on “factory farms.” Every one has the capacity for pain and suffering, just as our own cats, dogs, and other companion animals do. I have been to slaughterhouses and farms and can tell you that conditions are ruthlessly violent and inhumane—the antithesis of Christian charity. Christians can easily follow the compassionate Christ by adopting a vegetarian diet.

When considering Jesus’ vegetarianism, remember that Jesus spoke in Aramaic, the Gospels were written in Hebrew generations after the Resurrection, and the earliest translations we have are Greek translations from the fourth century (more than 300 years, two translations, and many transcriptions post-Resurrection). When discerning the true nature of the historical Jesus, one must rely on more than strictly biblical accounts.

Those who cite biblical justification for eating the flesh of animals should remember that Paul’s letters and the Hebrew Scriptures have been used since time immemorial to justify many merciless, cruel, and unchristian activities, including child and spousal abuse, slavery, witch burnings, and the persecution of scientists such as Copernicus and Galileo. It is unfortunate that Christians continue to misappropriate the Bible to justify actions and activities so antithetical to Christ’s call to mercy and compassion.

Christians must transcend our bias on the basis of species, in the same way we have transcended earlier biases based on race and gender. Human beings are not the only of God’s creatures who deserve consideration.

For more information on Christian vegetarianism, readers can visit our website at www.jesus-online.com. As we do to the least, we do to Him.

        —Bruce G. Friedrich
Vegetarian Campaign Coordinator
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
Norfolk, VA

Mr. Richert Replies:

I’m not surprised that Mr. Friedrich didn’t respond to any of the points in my article (“Of Steak and Suicide,” August). After all, his is a typical bad faith argument: he knows that Christianity does not require vegetarianism, but he’s willing to invoke the moral authority of the Church in a crusade that would ultimately undermine Christianity itself. PETA’s “Jesus Was a Vegetarian” website quotes extensively from the Bible, but when confronted with biblical references that run counter to his argument, Mr. Friedrich declares that “one must rely on more than strictly biblical accounts.” For Catholics such as Mr. Friedrich and myself, chief among the extra-biblical sources should be Sacred Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church, both of which sanction the humane use of animals for food, clothing, labor, and mutual pleasure. But instead, Mr. Friedrich turns to texts written by Gnostics and Jewish ascetics, which are clearly contradicted by St. Peter’s vision in Acts 10.

Long-time readers of Chronicles will remember Stephen R.L. Clark’s “Conservation and Animal Welfare” (June 1996), an intelligent exposition of our “bargain with domestic creatures” and of the duty that we owe to animals, wild and tame. Alone among conservative publications, Chronicles has consistently upheld the traditional Christian view of stewardship of the land and its creatures. I share Mr. Friedrich’s dislike of factory farms and modern slaughterhouses, and at the conclusion of our interview, we discussed the numerous problems with treating animals as an “industrial product.” But while I would prefer to return to the family farm, the local slaughterhouse, and the animal husbandry practiced by my ancestors, Mr. Friedrich made it clear that he would oppose those institutions as vigorously as he opposes factory farms. His understanding of “Christ’s call to mercy and compassion” is a monumental impiety which substitutes his peculiar view of the equality of species for 2,000 years of Christian doctrine, and condemns all who came before him—including, perhaps, Christ Himself, whom Mr. Friedrich admits may have eaten meat—to the liberal hell of insensitivity.