What do you think?
Rate this book
Teologia zwierząt
Andrew Linzey kwestionuje rozpowszechniony w dzisiejszym świecie pogląd, jakoby nauka Chrystusa o miłości i szacunku odnosiła się wyłącznie do ludzi. Jego książka jest ważnym głosem w dyskusji o miejscu zwierząt w świecie i o tym, jak chrześcijańska teologia może przyczynić się do właściwego ich traktowania. W pierwszej części pracy autor przedstawia szereg argumentów i zasad teologii zwierząt. W drugiej omawia obszary wykorzystywania zwierząt: eksperymenty, polowanie dla rozrywki, zabijanie dla pożywienia czy inżynierię genetyczną. Linzey jest przekonany, że wiara we wcielonego, miłosiernego Boga może pomóc chrześcijanom dostrzec cierpienia istot stworzonych.
308 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 1994
4 people are currently reading
208 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
May 8, 2015
“Animal Theology” by Andrew Linzey does a great job of arguing for animal rights from a Christian perspective. The author admits that historically Christians have defined dominion as the right to use and destroy nature and have had little respect for animal lives or any other part of creation.
Animals had rights in Christian doctrine only as they could be defined as possessions.
But Linzey reinterprets the gospels and puts considerable research into the study, so Biblical teachings come more in line with the modern thinking on ecology.
Linzey writes that in Genesis 9 when God gives permission to eat flesh and blood, it is a temporary right to meet an emergency as there was little protein to be had then in the Mediterranean. This is the time of the flood and it reminds me of the American Indian belief that mankind was vegetarian until the Ice Age when we were given permission to temporarily eat meat, but just until the food emergency of that time passed.
In one chapter Linzey compares meat eating to vampirism, and writes about the dilemma faced by a vampire in one of Anne Rice’s books. Louis, the vampire sees the evil in killing, but knows he must do it to survive. Is meat eating still necessary for survival among humans? Probably not.
In other chapters Linzey discusses hunting and medical experimentation on animals. His examples are easy for the layman to follow.
As a vegetarian and antivivisectionist, I have heard these arguments before. I am also a student of pagan religions. Christianity usually compares badly to the gentler nature religions.
We can’t undo the vast destruction of rain forests, or the extinction of entire species. We can’t undo the damages done by coal, oil and factory farming, We can, however, take a closer look at our ethics, and understand how and why we went wrong. Ignorance of God’s law is no excuse. But instead of bemoaning our history, we must take steps to correct it.
It is about time a Christian theologian discussed protecting instead of owning creation and using it for profit.
Animals had rights in Christian doctrine only as they could be defined as possessions.
But Linzey reinterprets the gospels and puts considerable research into the study, so Biblical teachings come more in line with the modern thinking on ecology.
Linzey writes that in Genesis 9 when God gives permission to eat flesh and blood, it is a temporary right to meet an emergency as there was little protein to be had then in the Mediterranean. This is the time of the flood and it reminds me of the American Indian belief that mankind was vegetarian until the Ice Age when we were given permission to temporarily eat meat, but just until the food emergency of that time passed.
In one chapter Linzey compares meat eating to vampirism, and writes about the dilemma faced by a vampire in one of Anne Rice’s books. Louis, the vampire sees the evil in killing, but knows he must do it to survive. Is meat eating still necessary for survival among humans? Probably not.
In other chapters Linzey discusses hunting and medical experimentation on animals. His examples are easy for the layman to follow.
As a vegetarian and antivivisectionist, I have heard these arguments before. I am also a student of pagan religions. Christianity usually compares badly to the gentler nature religions.
We can’t undo the vast destruction of rain forests, or the extinction of entire species. We can’t undo the damages done by coal, oil and factory farming, We can, however, take a closer look at our ethics, and understand how and why we went wrong. Ignorance of God’s law is no excuse. But instead of bemoaning our history, we must take steps to correct it.
It is about time a Christian theologian discussed protecting instead of owning creation and using it for profit.
February 21, 2023
[Follow me on StoryGraph! Username: stephe]
There is so much theology that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. And then, every so often, there’s Theology like this, theology that gets me jazzed and leaves me with hope and a more expansive, life-affirming view of the cosmos.
Linzey does an astounding job of not only bringing in solid, well-wrought arguments for why non-human animals deserve special considerations and protections, but also of affirming their interiority and full, creaturely being without being pedantic or overly anthropocentric. I think almost anyone who’s ever had a pet feels this on a deep level, but it’s often hammered out of us in the name of human superiority: “*it’s just* a dog,” “animals don’t really feel pain,” “*it* doesn’t have a soul,” “animals aren’t rational,” etc. More and more, science seems to be catching up with older ways of knowing on this: animals are sentient beings with interior lives that, while we may never fully understand or be able to inhabit, are certainly deserving of life and protection.
Linzey powerfully lays down a theological framework that I found to be more compelling than many non-theological frames for animal rights (which has not been my experience for many other issues). There are a few things I wish he would have addressed, and, as with much of published theology in the 80s and 90s, the book would’ve greatly benefited from indigenous and non-Western theological perspectives and insights, but on the whole, this book does an amazing job. Already one of the best books I’ll read all year.
There is so much theology that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. And then, every so often, there’s Theology like this, theology that gets me jazzed and leaves me with hope and a more expansive, life-affirming view of the cosmos.
Linzey does an astounding job of not only bringing in solid, well-wrought arguments for why non-human animals deserve special considerations and protections, but also of affirming their interiority and full, creaturely being without being pedantic or overly anthropocentric. I think almost anyone who’s ever had a pet feels this on a deep level, but it’s often hammered out of us in the name of human superiority: “*it’s just* a dog,” “animals don’t really feel pain,” “*it* doesn’t have a soul,” “animals aren’t rational,” etc. More and more, science seems to be catching up with older ways of knowing on this: animals are sentient beings with interior lives that, while we may never fully understand or be able to inhabit, are certainly deserving of life and protection.
Linzey powerfully lays down a theological framework that I found to be more compelling than many non-theological frames for animal rights (which has not been my experience for many other issues). There are a few things I wish he would have addressed, and, as with much of published theology in the 80s and 90s, the book would’ve greatly benefited from indigenous and non-Western theological perspectives and insights, but on the whole, this book does an amazing job. Already one of the best books I’ll read all year.
January 18, 2015
I wouldn't say I'm capable of a proper review of Andrew Linzey's Animal Theology but I am inclined to share a little on the scope of this book and my own reason for reading it. As a vegetarian one oftens hears various "arguments" (I use that term loosely) for meat eating, the primary one of which from Christians will be that "God gave us dominion over the animals." The implicit conclusion might be rightly seen to be that mankind has God given license to do whatever it wants to anything on this planet that is "lower" than man, i.e. everything. This understanding of these Christians, apparently in the majority, seems to me to be lacking in understanding of the Bible to which they so tenaciously cling, the natural world in particular our fellow mammals, and the relation between the two. Linzey has done nothing in this book to dispel this perception. However, he does make an extremely strong case for a different point of view for the Christian, one that is based first on a respect and even reverence for life (to borrow a phrase from Albert Schweitzer who is quoted at length in the early going here) and secondly on an unbiased, non-humanocentric view of the world, indeed a reading of Christianity that places God, not man, at the center - more radical than it sounds!
So often Christians like to wield pet bible verses to prove their points. Never mind cherry picking some verse in Leviticus to prove that they should treat LGBT folk as subhuman. Obviously that is not the scope of this book and I only mention it as a common example of this cherry picking that goes on. In the animal rights, vegetarian vs. omnivore, debate Christians like to cite the 9th chapter of Genesis where God says, "Okay, now you can eat the animals, too." Interesting to me was Linzey's look at the end of Genesis chapter 1 wherein God says (to paraphrase, as I'm prone to doing!), "I give all the green plants for you and all the animals to eat." Here's the thing about these two passages: in chapter 1 the world was still an unblemished paradise basically. By chapter 9 things had started going wrong, to say the least. God's proclamation of chapter 9 seems to be a concession to a world that has show it just can't handle the higher existence for which it was created and that state that it existed in for a while. Interesting because it seems if you consider all the context, as Linzey does so well, the conclusion is that vegetarianism was the ideal of the proverbial "Garden of Eden" and, it would seem, something that Christians should aim for. In fact, in the later, more practical section that closes the book, Linzey has a chapter entitled "Vegetarianism As A Biblical Ideal."
I'd especially recommend this book to any thougtful, open-minded Christian who wants insight into how one might think about animals in relation to mankind in a Theistic world view, particularly those who aren't afraid to be faced with ideas that are rationally and logically sound and backed by a loving yet reasonable exegesis of scripture. Alas, I'm afraid this audience is very limited in number. But we can only hope, for a better world for all living beings on this planet...
So often Christians like to wield pet bible verses to prove their points. Never mind cherry picking some verse in Leviticus to prove that they should treat LGBT folk as subhuman. Obviously that is not the scope of this book and I only mention it as a common example of this cherry picking that goes on. In the animal rights, vegetarian vs. omnivore, debate Christians like to cite the 9th chapter of Genesis where God says, "Okay, now you can eat the animals, too." Interesting to me was Linzey's look at the end of Genesis chapter 1 wherein God says (to paraphrase, as I'm prone to doing!), "I give all the green plants for you and all the animals to eat." Here's the thing about these two passages: in chapter 1 the world was still an unblemished paradise basically. By chapter 9 things had started going wrong, to say the least. God's proclamation of chapter 9 seems to be a concession to a world that has show it just can't handle the higher existence for which it was created and that state that it existed in for a while. Interesting because it seems if you consider all the context, as Linzey does so well, the conclusion is that vegetarianism was the ideal of the proverbial "Garden of Eden" and, it would seem, something that Christians should aim for. In fact, in the later, more practical section that closes the book, Linzey has a chapter entitled "Vegetarianism As A Biblical Ideal."
I'd especially recommend this book to any thougtful, open-minded Christian who wants insight into how one might think about animals in relation to mankind in a Theistic world view, particularly those who aren't afraid to be faced with ideas that are rationally and logically sound and backed by a loving yet reasonable exegesis of scripture. Alas, I'm afraid this audience is very limited in number. But we can only hope, for a better world for all living beings on this planet...
August 17, 2023
Recently I read Animal Liberation Now by Peter Singer. He refers to Andrew Linzey and I followed up and found in Animal Theology a new author to appreciate. I appreciated Singer’s book, but personally found its Utiliitarian ethic to be lacking. It opens the door to eugenics and the horrible things done in that cause, and among animals it leaves the way open to patenting oncomouse, for example, and allowing factory farming for the good of humans, to massive harm for animals.
Linzey takes humans away from assuming we are the centre of creation, as Copernicus took us from being the centre of the physical universe.
For a Christian the world is God’s. And further, God’s son showed a serving and suffering, not dominant and violent way of living. There is in the Biblical and Christian tradition a strong thread of creation awareness and awe, seeing other animals as also created marvels, with their own selves, awareness and lives.
Linzey both explains and quotes these sources, including Bible stories, saints long ago, Churches declarations in recent times, all in a framework of a theology of creation that doesn’t just reflect Aristotle’s view that man is the pinnacle and goal of all that is. (And Aristotle specifically meant man, not woman.)
He then has chapters specifically on current issues- hunting, vegetarianism, and genetic engineering. I would love to see an updated version including more on the climate crisis. (Its from 1994, which is about when I became a vegetarian from moral awareness of how we humans are treating living sentient creatures as things in most modern farming.)
“The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof.” A basis for theology -and humanity.
Linzey takes humans away from assuming we are the centre of creation, as Copernicus took us from being the centre of the physical universe.
For a Christian the world is God’s. And further, God’s son showed a serving and suffering, not dominant and violent way of living. There is in the Biblical and Christian tradition a strong thread of creation awareness and awe, seeing other animals as also created marvels, with their own selves, awareness and lives.
Linzey both explains and quotes these sources, including Bible stories, saints long ago, Churches declarations in recent times, all in a framework of a theology of creation that doesn’t just reflect Aristotle’s view that man is the pinnacle and goal of all that is. (And Aristotle specifically meant man, not woman.)
He then has chapters specifically on current issues- hunting, vegetarianism, and genetic engineering. I would love to see an updated version including more on the climate crisis. (Its from 1994, which is about when I became a vegetarian from moral awareness of how we humans are treating living sentient creatures as things in most modern farming.)
“The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof.” A basis for theology -and humanity.
Read
November 26, 2025A decent man's unconvincing attempt at reconciling two of his deeply held beliefs, one obviously right, the other obvious nonsense.
If the christian god really cared a toss about animals, it wouldn't have said things like: "Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake" or "... For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving." or "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things." Etc. Etc. Etc. and then shamelessly rely on the good-heartedness and decency of rare individuals like Andrew to contort themselves to incredible reinterpretations of them: "Well actually, it doesn't mean ...". Etc.
No, a god who really cared about animals would have clearly and unambiguously and repeatedly said things like: "Guys, I'm telling you once again: no meat, OK? N O M E A T! Remember, N O M E A T! I didn't create those poor souls for you to kill and eat them. You're going to hell if you kill or harm a single one of those precious creatures, understood?" Heck, if I were god incarnate descended from heaven, I wouldn't have shut up about this honestly, given the moral weight of the issue. According to the story, however, he instead seems to have chosen to go around eating fish and lamb with no apparent scruples (not to mention basically murdering about 2000 innocent pigs for no obvious reason). This is obviously not the behavior of a god who gives a toss about animals.
Andrew, my friend (if I may), if you're reading this, please know that you are far better than christianity.
If the christian god really cared a toss about animals, it wouldn't have said things like: "Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake" or "... For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving." or "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things." Etc. Etc. Etc. and then shamelessly rely on the good-heartedness and decency of rare individuals like Andrew to contort themselves to incredible reinterpretations of them: "Well actually, it doesn't mean ...". Etc.
No, a god who really cared about animals would have clearly and unambiguously and repeatedly said things like: "Guys, I'm telling you once again: no meat, OK? N O M E A T! Remember, N O M E A T! I didn't create those poor souls for you to kill and eat them. You're going to hell if you kill or harm a single one of those precious creatures, understood?" Heck, if I were god incarnate descended from heaven, I wouldn't have shut up about this honestly, given the moral weight of the issue. According to the story, however, he instead seems to have chosen to go around eating fish and lamb with no apparent scruples (not to mention basically murdering about 2000 innocent pigs for no obvious reason). This is obviously not the behavior of a god who gives a toss about animals.
Andrew, my friend (if I may), if you're reading this, please know that you are far better than christianity.
November 14, 2021
A fairly succinct and convincing case for animal rights, animal protection, and veganism from a Christian theological perspective, particularly from within the traditions of Anglican theology. As I am already sympathetic to the cause I am somewhat biased in favor of its premises, but I remained skeptical of specifically biblical theology's ability to support it. I was particularly impressed with Linzey's development of a theology of "dominion" as loving servanthood and protection modeled on Christ. I was also sympathetic towards his critique of a certain type of liberationist humanism, and towards his development of the often neglected "cosmic" dimensions of liberation and salvation within the context of fallen and damaged parasitic nature. Linzey doesn't shy away from seemingly problematic themes in the Bible: the Noahic covenant, the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament, or even Jesus' own consumption of fish. Maybe not every argument will be equally convincing to all people (although I was persuaded) but what he does manage to do is place these passages within a larger narrative of God's original design (animals and humans given plants for food, Gen 1) and an eschatological orientation of restoration to that ideal (Isaiah 11). While by no means a systematic or complete development of these themes or a complete answer to every objection, it is nonetheless a worthy and recommended starting place.
June 5, 2025
This was very helpful. Linzey is a punchy writer which makes for some entertaining lines. His argument also took some surprising turns for me (not really denying speciesism but saying that humans should embrace our dominion from a servant-hearted Christological lens). My main complaint was that it ended super abruptly and the chapters felt fairly disjointed. Likewise Linzey frequently cast doubt upon the historicity of the gospels ("if we are to believe the gospels...") and similarly mentioned "demythologizing" a passage in a Bultmann-like manner all of which I found unhelpful.
January 28, 2026
This book so expertly addresses the side of veganism that is too often neglected: spiritual ethics. I have been looking for a work like this for a long time and am so glad to have found it. Animal Theology will make a more well-rounded, spiritually enlightened vegan of any who decide to pick it up!
November 3, 2024
As an atheist with an enormous appreciation for the Christian tradition, I find the Christian argument for what we owe animals even more compelling than the secular ones we are more familiar with.
I think the best point made here is that becoming aware of what one owes to animals within the Christian paradigm and following through even at personal cost makes one a better imitator of Christ and holds up under Christianity’s heavy prescriptions upon us for humility and mercy. Not much else can approach the excitement I feel at finding such an eloquent elaboration on the half-baked idea that’s been in my mind for years: The God who humbles himself to the point of death on a cross for the sake of creatures he has ultimate power over is the model we are commanded to imitate—and the creatures we humans have the most power over are *animals*. Linzey writes, “We have to ask again the central christological question: if the omnipotence and power of God is properly expressed in the form of katabasis, humility and self-sacrifice, why should this model not properly extend to our relations with creation as a whole and animals in particular?...If we are to ask how it is that we humans are to exercise our dominion or God-given power over non-human animals, then we need look no further than to Jesus as our moral exemplar: of power expressed in powerlessness and of strength expressed in compassion. If self-costly, generous loving is the hallmark of true discipleship, then we have to ask what grounds we have for excluding animals from this proper exercise of Christian responsibility.”
Animal Theology is required reading for Christians and recommended reading for everyone else, as far as I’m concerned.
I think the best point made here is that becoming aware of what one owes to animals within the Christian paradigm and following through even at personal cost makes one a better imitator of Christ and holds up under Christianity’s heavy prescriptions upon us for humility and mercy. Not much else can approach the excitement I feel at finding such an eloquent elaboration on the half-baked idea that’s been in my mind for years: The God who humbles himself to the point of death on a cross for the sake of creatures he has ultimate power over is the model we are commanded to imitate—and the creatures we humans have the most power over are *animals*. Linzey writes, “We have to ask again the central christological question: if the omnipotence and power of God is properly expressed in the form of katabasis, humility and self-sacrifice, why should this model not properly extend to our relations with creation as a whole and animals in particular?...If we are to ask how it is that we humans are to exercise our dominion or God-given power over non-human animals, then we need look no further than to Jesus as our moral exemplar: of power expressed in powerlessness and of strength expressed in compassion. If self-costly, generous loving is the hallmark of true discipleship, then we have to ask what grounds we have for excluding animals from this proper exercise of Christian responsibility.”
Animal Theology is required reading for Christians and recommended reading for everyone else, as far as I’m concerned.
August 11, 2016
This is the second book I've read of Linzey, and my view is much the same as the first: a stretch. I truly believe in his view as a whole, but when I look at his reasoning piece by piece I find he comes up lacking. That, and the fact he calls God 'she' numerous times; don't know where he's going with that one?
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews