I. THE FAR PAST
The Challenge to Thought
When died Cheddar Partee, our beautiful and beloved goldfish, my three young granddaughters were inconsolable. The big adults were stiff-lipped with empathy; the little girls were teary-eyed with grief. So far as they knew, the appropriate response to bereavement was a memorial service to say “Good Bye” and “Farewell.” But when they questioned trusted pastors about pets in heaven, the confident answer was that goldfish do not have souls, and should be consigned to the flush of the toilet. Still distraught, my granddaughters asked me. What follows is an account of the Actions of one family based on the Beliefs that we hold – starting with a humble glance askance at the grounds for such negative certainty Aristotle (384-322 BCE), often declared to be the smartest person who ever lived, claimed that “To attain any assured knowledge of the soul is one of the most difficult things in the world” (On The Soul 402a 10). This reflection takes place in a Christian context moving from thinking to imagining and noting the pervasive impact of Greek classical philosophy on Christian theology, especially in defining “soul” and “reason.”1
The three mighty dowagers of philosophy are Truth, Goodness, and Beauty. The three cardinal virtues of Christianity are Faith, Hope, and Love. Applied to the proper development of each of these immensely complicated subjects, including the amazing concepts of Perception, Objectivity, and Memory to reify, seldom is heard a discouraging word. Nevertheless, while cognizing complexities, most people live by simplicities. For example, Christians study the entire New Testament, but some–myself included–believe it can be accurately summarized by Colossians 3: 3-4: “For you have died, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ our life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.” Those who accept these verses are promised a life beyond this life. To this promise a vast, learned, and contentious literature has been devoted. At least our culture provides a category for discussion of “life after death” which indicates some interest in the subject.
However, although human life is the immediate context for all human reflection, human life after physical death is not my present concern. Some children, until taught otherwise, ask, “Will I see my pet in heaven?” In the first year of my first parish I received a frantic phone call informing me that Jack-dog, the long-time companion of my chief elder, had disappeared! I recognized this was an urgent plea for a pastoral call, and I rushed across town to a shades-drawn office to offer what comfort I could.2 All pets can be loved very dearly. Human love is essential for survival; non-human love can also be.
These thoughts launch from a Christian and Hebrew background, but as with most American thinking they are heavily influenced by “the dream of reason” fostered by classical Greek philosophy. That all philosophy is a footnote to Plato3 was once claimed, but his idealism has been transmogrified toward naturalism, materialism, and pragmatism. These two competing intellectual traditions should require a re-thinking of such huge topics as revelation and reason, soul and body, immortality and resurrection. Curiously, Christians, according to the Apostles’ Creed, believe in “the resurrection of the body.” (And since Cheddar had a body presumably this obvious fact obviates her exclusion from heaven based on soul.)
II. THE DISTANT FUTURE
The Challenge to Imagination
Among the thought-patterns inherited in the Western Intellectual Tradition is the view of soul or life advanced by classical Greek philosophers. Their rich discussions include the Orphics, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Among the most influential views is that of Aristotle who taught three forms of soul (On the Soul;), followed by Augustine (354-430) and Aquinas (1225-1274).The nutritive soul, possessed by plants, animals, and humans requires nourishment. The sensitive soul, possessed by animals and humans, is endowed with feelings. The rational soul, unique to human beings, is the ability to think. This doctrine clearly enhances the human and denigrates animals and plants. Modern culture has dismissed the concepts of nutritive and sensitive souls, but remembered the rational soul because it serves the conviction of human uniqueness. Moreover, the doctrine of rationality has often been accepted, conflated, and repeated as the defining characteristic of “the image of God” (Genesis 1:26). In possessing rationality humans have assumed they most resemble God. Two thousand years later, the father of modern philosophy, René Descartes (1596-1650) still agreed with Aristotle that animals not possessed of “thinking substance” were unworthy of being saved. In contrast, more recent animal studies have demonstrated that non-human creatures show “human” characteristics like intelligence, trust, loyalty, problem-solving, tool-using, communication, gregariousness, memory and so on. In fact for a long time, the dynamic Darwinian emphasis on human-animal similarities has replaced the static Aristotelian emphasis on their differences.4
The wide-spread and still popular conviction of an impassible gulf between human rational life and all other life forms led to the conclusion that only the human soul does not die. This idea was vigorously taught by Plato (428-348 BCE) in his dialogue, Phaedo, but the notion that Plato’s view of the immortality of the soul correlates comfortably with the Biblical view of resurrection of the body is incorrect. The Greek classical view of the soul is wrongly used to interpret the Biblical concept of the glorified or spiritual body (I Corinthians 15:44) Additionally, Christians believe in Immortality only for God (I Timothy 6:16) and Resurrection for the creatures. Death was a Friend for Socrates (Apology and Crito). For Christians Death is the last Enemy (I Corinthians 15:26).
Nevertheless, the Cartesian struggle to understand the relation between mind and body, (abstract thought and the physical brain, events in the world and memory in the mind) is still mysterious. That there are both public and private realities seems clear and distinct. Some things, like the love of food, we can share with others; some things, like the special love of a particular person, we reserve to ourselves. In general, the dimensions of Truth, Goodness, and Beauty are more publicly accessible than Faith, Hope, and Love. Christians have faith that their Lord was raised from the dead (I Corinthians 15:12). Otherwise, they admit their faith is futile (15:17). Moreover, they hope to appear with him in glory (Colossians 3:4). This faith and hope is based in God’s love which the Apostle Paul declares to be a “mystery” (I Corinthians 15:51). Since humans are very proud of their ability to reason, they naturally apply reason to the exploration of mysteries. However, imagination, too, is a wonderful faculty, which should never be ignored, especially in connection with mysteries. Immanuel Kant grounds life after death on a moral or ethical postulate (the concept of Goodness). He thinks there “ought” to be a great God and an undying Soul in order that Goodness may be victorious in another life since evil is often triumphant in this one. For Christians a better place to begin this topic is with the mystery5 of Love, moving to Hope and finally to Faith and then to Action.
It should be evident that these sweeping references across the History of Western Philosophy do not provide compelling evidence of non-material life after death in terms of ordinary rational science. On these grounds the answer to the question of pets in heaven is simply “No.” However, there are other grounds from which to answer “Yes” as I do for my dogs Spotty, and Laddie, and Xanthippe, and Playful and Cheddar, the goldfish. With some faith and a conviction of God’s great love and goodness one may hope for the everlasting presence in some form of every beloved person and thing.
The broader investigation of life after this life and the narrower consideration of pets in heaven remain possibilities for individual and private hope but not for realities of scientific and public demonstration. All human reflection employs reason, but many mysteries are impervious to everything except the imagination. Roman Catholics possess a brilliant imaginative example of after life in Dante’s Divine Comedy, including a behavioral, and therefore conditional Roman component, based on the theology of Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) but, so far as I am aware, Protestant Christians have no equivalent.
Few of us have the temerity to conclude that human reason or even imagination is capable of grasping the divine mind and purpose of God. Surely, what God has in store for those who are loved is beyond our deepest reason and wildest imagination. Therefore, looking through a glass darkly (I Corinthians 13:12), we see humility as our position and modesty as our proposal for imagining ourselves and hoping for our dearest companions a permanent presence in heaven.6
What follows is a brief, developmental sequence of hopefully reasonable and imaginative convictions which allows one to affirm the presence of pets in heaven. First, the beginning and presiding basis for Faith, Hope, and Love is directed to the God revealed in Jesus Christ and extending to all creation. Second, for the human creature, parts of the creation are designed for use–other parts for delight.7 That is, some animals serve for food; others for companionship. Third, humans have the capacity to think of, hope for, have faith in, a gracious God who is able to preserve life beyond the present confines of space and time. The great God who put it all together in the first place should have no trouble putting it back together. Fourth, since humans know how to give good gifts to their children, how much more will the Heavenly Father (Matthew 7:11)? Therefore, it is certainly possible, and, to my mind, more than likely that God the Creator who loves all creation and loves us especially, can and will preserve for each of us in the next life those persons and things we have loved so passionately in this one. Fifth, Herewith an appeal to the imagination of a well-known authority. Martin Luther could not believe that his faithful dog, Tölpel, would be excluded from heaven. When asked whether he expected to find dogs in heaven Dr. Luther answered, “Yes, of course (Ja freilich), for there the earth will not be without form and void. Peter said that the last day would be the restitution of all things. God will create a new heaven and a new earth and new Tölpels with hide of gold and fur of silver. God will be all in all, and snakes, now poisonous because of original sin, will then be so harmless that we shall be able to play with them.”8 Surely the redemptive hope for a beautiful and beloved fish in heaven can take precedence before poisonous and dangerous snakes.9
III. THE NEAR PRESENT
The Challenge to Action
Beyond the challenge to the limits of past reason (section one) and uses of future imagination (section two) what remains is an account of present behavior (section three). The death of a deeply loved and cherished fellow creature (Mitgeschöpf) is an agonizing event for both young and old. Of course, all kinds of serious questions continue to swirl around this subject. But love leading to grief, grief leading to hope, high hope leading to compassionate action found our family gathered about a small hole in the backyard.
Aligned with Dr. Luther’s view; and moving from head to heart to hand, tiny hands crafted a diminutive wooden coffin into which our family slipped notes telling the lifeless orange occupant how much she had meant to them. The lid was screwed shut and borne to secluded ground whereby mother, father, sisters, grandmother, and a pastor in full liturgical robes (aka grandfather) waited in front of a handmade tombstone. It was a moving service, punctuated by heart-wracked sobs from the children (because of their so painful loss of their beloved fish) and words of comfort from the choked-up pastor (because their loss of their beloved fish was so painful).
The Scripture Readings:
The Peaceable Kingdom Promise: “A shoot shall come out from the stump of Jesse/ The spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him/ The wolf shall live with the lamb/ The leopard shall lie down with the kid/, The calf and the lion will feed together. They will not hurt or destroy/ On all my holy mountain/ For the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord/ As the waters cover the sea.” (Isaiah 11)
The Great Restitution Promise: “The whole creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God; for the creation was subject to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in Hope; because the creation itself shall be set free from its bondage to decay. We wait for the redemption of our bodies. In this hope we are saved (Romans 8).
A Prayer for
Apricot Partee
2 January 2023
O Lord, we are grateful for all those who teach us about goodness, truth, and beauty. For family, and friends, we thank you. We are grateful for all those things in this world designed for our use and enjoyment. Most especially we thank you for things we can love. In your providence and blessing keep us and them and all things secure in everlasting memory. And grant us peace for the living of these days. Amen.
By now that shady area of the backyard has a number of small tombstones for “Cheddar,” “Bubbles,” “Poseidon (I and II),” “Electra”, “Violet”, “Tiger (I to IV),” “Bluefin,”and most recently “Apricot.” In this last memorial, the now 17 year old piscine custodian crafted and decorated the sarcophagus. His main caretaker arranged and led the service for her deceased African cichlid with this eulogium:
Apricot Partee
January 8, 2022–December 22, 2023
Dear Buddy: I really hope you know how much you meant to me. When I had that dream about getting a fish, I had no idea what I was getting into. I found myself with the most dramatic, cutest, little orange boy ever. You struggled when I first got you, and I apologize for that. I had no idea how to take care of a fish, especially one that was high-maintenance. I like to believe that I figured it out, and you were happy in your new home. However, it is a bit difficult to take care of a crack-head fish who zooms around his tank and pops his eye open. Despite your mild-blindness, I always knew you were happy when you’d stare at me through the judgment hole in your underwater castle, swim around the tank with happy fins, or drench me with your tank water whenever I tried to feed you.
Rest In Peace, My Dear Apricot
ENDNOTES
1.See Oscar Cullmann, Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead, 1958. When I read this book in 1960 I was so excited that I preached a sermon on the topic in the first month of my first pastorate. Apparently, the organist was listening because she quit on the spot–thus improving our musical program. The Routledge Handbook of Religion and Animal Rights., ed. By Andrew Linzey and Clair Linzey, 2019 has interesting chapters on animals and Anglican Christianity, Evangelical Christianity, Orthodox Christianity and Roman Catholicism. The chapter on Catholicism discusses their approval of blood sports like bull-fighting. This 1989 assertion by Archbishop Alfredo Battista stands out, “To beat up a dog or leave it to die of starvation is not a sin. For a dog is not a person and therefore has no soul” (p.142). The final chapter focuses on bodily resurrection and caring for animals while hoping for heaven claiming, “What is Christian life after death about? Bodily resurrection” (p. 372). Andrew Linzey, Animal Theology, 1995 laments that Christian, Trinitarian theology “should have advanced its world-affirming doctrine without much more than a passing thought for the billions of non-human inhabitants within creation itself” (viii).
2. The next day (Non Christians will call it “Chance” and Christians will call it “Providence,”) a dog of the same breed and age as Jack came to live with my elder.
3. Many shelves of books are devoted to Plato. One of the best on his immense, intellectual impact is Eric A. Havelock, Preface to Plato, 1963. On the synthesis of Greek philosophy and Christian theology, see Charles N. Cochrane, Christianity and Classical Culture: A Study of Thought and Action from Augustus to Augustine, 1949. The classical dream of reason was restated by Georg Hegel (1770-1831) in the sweeping claim that what is rational is real and what is real is rational. However this idea led to the absolute idealism of “the spiritual universe is the natural” (Preface to the Philosophy of Right). For Christians God is not only the creator, but the establisher of covenants. Two covenants include creatures : Genesis 9:8-10 and Hosea 2:18.
4. On our current “rationality wars” see Hugh Mercier and Dan Sperber, The Enigma of Reason, 2017, 1: Animals and humans are both animals. “With Darwin came the realization that whatever traits humans share as a species are not gifts of the gods but outcomes of biological evolution. Reason [is] such a trait.” Examples of recent studies on animal and plant intelligence are Cameron Buckner, “Rational Inference: The Lower Bounds,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. XCVIII, No. 3 May 2019 and Bernard Schmid, “Decision-Making: Are Plants More Rational Than Animals,” Current Biology, 26, July 25, 2016, 675-7.
5. See Dale Allison, Jr., Encountering Mystery: Religious Experience in a Secular Age, 2022 In his second chapter Dale deals with resurrection and bodies. See also his Night Comes; death, imagination, and the last things, 2016.
6. According to some Scripture, in the resurrection man and woman “neither marry, nor are given in marriage” (Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:25; Luke 20:35). Perhaps under the influence of the common wedding vow “till death do us part” many people assume that marriages end at death. However, other conclusions are possible. One Biblical scholar thinks Jesus is dismissing the question rather than providing the answer. Moreover, a different interpretation seems to be made necessary in the light of the “two shall become one” passages (Genesis 3:24; Matthew 19:5; Mark 10:8; Ephesians 5:31). The perfection of a loving unity in the next life would be more hopeful than a complete dissolution of it.
7. The distinction between use and enjoyment is discussed by the great Christian Platonist, Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, I. 3. He conflates Aristotle and Genesis in the assertion that human beings are made in the image of God because their rational souls exalt them above the beasts (22). In a charming assertion Augustine suggests that in the afterlife everyone is about thirty years old. Those who live beyond that age come back to “the bloom of youth,” and those who do not reach age 30 come forward to it. (The City of God, XXII, 15)–presumably with memories increased for the younger and intact for the older. The vexed issue between the original and actual sin of humanity and its relation to “the fall of nature” goes undiscussed here (See Romans 8:20).
8. Tischreden 1150, Weimarer Ausgabe. See Roland H. Bainton, Luther Today, 1957, p. 8-9. In an epitaph for his dog, “Boatswain,” George Gordon, Lord Byron (1788-1824), advises the vain man who “claims himself a sole exclusive heaven” on beholding “this simple urn to; “Pass on–it honors none you would wish to mourn:/To mark a friend’s remains these stones arise;/ I never knew but one,–and here he lies.” Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936) in “A Dog for Jesus” laments that Jesus did not have “a dog/ As loyal and loving as mine [.] And when Jesus rose on Easter morn,/ How happy He would have been,/ As His dog kissed His hand and barked its delight [.]/ Well the Lord has a dog now, I just sent him mine./ The old pal so dear to me.”
9. Theologians Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965) with his concept of “reverence for life” and Karl Barth (1886-1968) wrote interesting things about animals, but we close with this letter. During his vicariate in Barcelona the Christian martyr, Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945), put to death under the Nazi regime, wrote: “[When] a ten-year old boy came into my room … I noticed that something was amiss with the boy, who is usually cheerfulness personified. And soon it came out: he broke down in tears, completely beside himself, and I could hear only the words: ‘Herr Wolf ist tot’ [Mr. Wolf is dead.], and then he cried and cried. ‘But who is Herr Wolf?’ As it turns out, Herr Wolf was a young German shepherd dog that was sick for eight days and had just died a half-hour ago. So the boy, inconsolable, sat down on my knee and could hardly regain his composure; he told me how the dog died and how everything is lost now. He played with the dog, each morning when the dog came to the boy’s bed and awakened him—and now the dog was dead. What could I say? So he talked to me about it for quite a while. Then suddenly his wrenching crying became very quiet and he said: ‘But I know he’s not dead at all.’ ‘What do you mean?’ ‘His spirit is now in heaven, where it is happy. Once in class a boy asked the religion teacher what heaven was like, and she said she had not been there yet; but tell me now, will I see Herr Wolf again? He’s certainly in heaven.’
“So there I stood and was supposed to answer him yes or no. If I said ‘no, we don’t know’ that would have meant ‘no.’ . . . So I quickly made up my mind and said to him: ‘Look, God created human beings and also animals, and I’m sure he also loves animals. And I believe that with God it is such that all who loved each other on earth—genuinely loved each other— will remain together with God, for to love is part of God. Just how that happens, though, we admittedly don’t know.’ You should have seen the happy face on this boy; he had completely stopped crying. ‘So then I’ll see Herr Wolf again when I am dead; then we can play together again’—in a word, he was ecstatic. I repeated to him a couple of times that we don’t really know how this happens. He, however, knew, and knew it quite definitely in thought.
“After a few minutes, he said: ‘Today I really scolded Adam and Eve; if they had not eaten the apple, Herr Wolf would not have died.’ This whole affair was as important to the young boy as things are for one of us when something really bad happens. But I am almost surprised—moved, by the naïveté of the piety that awakens at such a moment in an otherwise completely wild young boy who is thinking of nothing. And there I stood—I who was supposed to ‘know the answer’—feeling quite small next to him; and I cannot forget the confident expression he had on his face when he left.”
charlesbpartee 