Hearing from God takes many forms: visions, audible voice, prophetic exhortations, words of knowledge, enlightenment from reading scripture, an inward witness, etc. In Luke 1:3,¹ Luke tells how he "heard" that he should write what came to be known as the Gospel of Luke. He said, "it seemed good to me," or "it seemed fitting," depending on which translation you use. When I was researching for my last post on how other theologians answer the pets-in-heaven question, I came across an archive of John Wesley's sermons, and "it seemed good to me" to explore the one titled "The General Deliverance" further.
A bit of deduction is involved since Wesley was not directly talking about pets being in heaven, but below are some of the more pertinent quotes about animals and afterlife from his sermon on the eventual general deliverance of all creation. I have heavily edited it, removing everything that does not push my point, but you can read it in its entirety here:
Wesley's The General Deliverance
John Wesley lived during the 1700s, so a lot of his verbs end with "-eth" instead of "-ed." I think you can handle the slightly outdated language and British vowel spelling, however. So while I have deleted many paragraphs, the language remains "as is" on the portions that I have kept. His sermon is in this color. My own comments are added in italic and any underlining in the sermon text was added by me to help find what my comments refer to. The numbering system may seem erratic because it would restart with each subheading, which I have not included. I left the numbering system in place just in case you wanted to compare it with the full text, so if you don't, just ignore them.
His scripture text for this sermon was:
"The earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him that subjected it: Yet in hope that the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the sons of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth, and travaileth in pain together until now." Rom. 8:19-22.
1. Nothing is more sure, than that as "the Lord is loving to every man," so "his mercy is over all his works;" all that have sense, all that are capable of pleasure or pain, of happiness or misery. In consequence of this, "He openeth his hand, and filleth all things living with plenteousness. He prepareth food for cattle," as well as "herbs for the children of men." He provideth for the fowls of the air, "feeding the young ravens when they cry unto him." "He sendeth the springs into the rivers, that run among the hills, to give drink to every beast of the field," and that even "the wild asses may quench their thirst." And, suitably to this, he directs us to be tender of even the meaner creatures; to show mercy to these also. "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn:" — A custom which is observed in the eastern countries even to this day. And this is by no means contradicted by St. Paul's question: "Doth God take care for oxen" Without doubt he does. (...)
Wesley establishes that deliverance is for the whole of creation, animals as well as man.
We may inquire, in the First place, What was the original state of the brute creation And may we not learn this, even from the place which (Adam) was assigned them; namely, the garden of God All the beasts of the field, and all the fowls of the air, were with Adam in paradise. ... He was endued with a will, exerting itself in various affections and passions: And, lastly, with liberty, or freedom of choice; without which all the rest would have been in vain, and he would have been no more capable of serving his Creator than a piece of earth or marble; he would have been as incapable of vice or virtue, as any part of the inanimate creation. In these, in the power of self-motion, understanding, will, and liberty, the natural image of God consisted.
He describes the importance of free choice... at which point I've deleted a passage where Wesley preaches on the perfection of the man Adam, including his harmony with of all the creatures in the animal kingdom.
To this creature (Adam the Human) endued with all these excellent faculties, thus qualified for his high charge, God said, "Have thou dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." (Gen. 1:28.) And so the Psalmist: "Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands: Thou hast put all things under his feet: All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field, the fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas." (Psalm 8:6, &c.) So that man was God's vicegerent (like a deputy administrator) upon earth, the prince and governor of this lower world; and all the blessings of God flowed through him to the inferior creatures. Man was the channel of conveyance between his Creator and the whole brute creation.
The concept of our dominion and authority is important if we are going to make the argument that Pugsley, a specific pet, will be in heaven, as opposed to generic bulldogs existing in heaven. God has animals in heaven because He likes animals, but for "our" pets to be there in the role of belonging as "ours," our authority and free will have to be a part of the picture. Now, we do know that although ultimately all things "belong" to God, Jesus was very specific that He was going to prepare a place just for us, a heavenly mansion that would be "our place." And what is a mansion without a house pet? Incomplete.
4. But what blessings were those that were then conveyed through man to the lower creatures What was the original state of the brute creatures, when they were first created This deserves a more attentive consideration than has been usually given it. It is certain these, as well as man, had an innate principle of self-motion; and that, at least, in as high a degree as they enjoy it at this day. Again: They were endued with a degree of understanding; not less than that they are possessed of now. They had also a will, including various passions, which, likewise, they still enjoy: And they had liberty, a power of choice; a degree of which is still found in every living creature. Nor can we doubt but their understanding too was, in the beginning, perfect in its kind. Their passions and affections were regular, and their choice always guided by their understanding.
Wesley takes the conveyance-through-man concept full circle: Not only does mankind have authority over animals, animals receive blessings from mankind.
5. What then is the barrier between men and brutes the line which they cannot pass It was not reason. Set aside that ambiguous term: Exchange it for the plain word, understanding: and who can deny that brutes have this We may as well deny that they have sight or hearing. But it is this: Man is capable of God; the inferior creatures are not. We have no ground to believe that they are, in any degree, capable of knowing, loving, or obeying God. This is the specific difference between man and brute; the great gulf which they cannot pass over. And as a loving obedience to God was the perfection of man, so a loving obedience to man was the perfection of brutes.
Wesley did not find any biblical grounds for thinking that animals can know, love, or obey God; yet we know that animals can know, love, and obey humans.
This 'God : man :: man : animal' analogy is also found in the writing of C S Lewis. This is foundational to the argument of some scholars that animal souls which are developed enough to be self-aware and capable of choosing love and obedience are developed enough to exist in the spiritual dimension of heaven, whereas lower forms of animal life are "soulless" and cannot.
I would like to point out, briefly, that the "Earth was created with Heaven's blueprint" concept figures into play here: that we have animals on Earth because they first existed in Heaven. Our question is, "Can they get back?" If the ability to love outside one's self figures into it, then there may be more to Muskrat Love than we first realized! And as long as they (the animals of Eden) continued in this, they were happy after their kind; happy in the right state and the right use of their respective faculties. Yea, and so long they had some shadowy resemblance of even moral goodness. For they had gratitude to man for benefits received, and a reverence for him. They had likewise a kind of benevolence to each other, unmixed with any contrary temper. How beautiful many of them were, we may conjecture from that which still remains; and that not only in the noblest creatures, but in those of the lowest order. And they were all surrounded, not only with plenteous food, but with every thing that could give them pleasure; pleasure unmixed with pain; for pain was not yet; it had not entered into paradise. And they too were immortal: For "God made not death; neither hath he pleasure in the death of any living."
>> A substantial section of the sermon is omitted here where Wesley makes the point that though no fault of their own, animals were affected by Adam's sin and became like... well, animals.
2. Nothing can be more express: Away with vulgar prejudices, and let the plain word of God take place. They (the whole animal creation) "shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into glorious liberty," — even a measure, according as they are capable, — of "the liberty of the children of God."
A general view of this is given us in the twenty-first chapter of the Revelation. When He that "sitteth on the great white throne" hath pronounced, "Behold, I make all things new;" when the word is fulfilled, "The tabernacle of God is with men, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them and be their God;" — then the following blessing shall take place (not only on the children of men; there is no such restriction in the text; but) on every creature according to its capacity: "God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes. And there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying. Neither shall there be any more pain: For the former things are passed away."
The view from Revelation reinforces what was introduced earlier—before, we spoke of the capacity to love, and now the scriptures approach it from the side of capacity to feel sorrow. Our pets feel the sorrow of loss just as they have the capacity to love. I like this quote from Kate Braestrurp, a chaplain to game wardens, "Grief is love squaring up to its oldest enemy."
3. To descend to a few particulars: The whole brute creation will then, undoubtedly, be restored, not only to the vigour, strength, and swiftness which they had at their creation, but to a far higher degree of each than they ever enjoyed. They will be restored, not only to that measure of understanding which they had in paradise, but to a degree of it as much higher than that, as the understanding of an elephant is beyond that of a worm. And whatever affections they had in the garden of God, will be restored with vast increase; being exalted and refined in a manner which we ourselves are not now able to comprehend. The liberty they then had will be completely restored, and they will be free in all their motions. They will be delivered from all irregular appetites, from all unruly passions, from every disposition that is either evil in itself, or has any tendency to evil. No rage will be found in any creature, no fierceness, no cruelty, or thirst for blood. So far from it that "the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the kid; the calf and the young lion together; and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall feed together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain." (Isaiah 11:6, &c.)
4. Thus, in that day, all the vanity to which they are now helplessly subject will be abolished; they will suffer no more, either from within or without; the days of their groaning are ended.
Bible timelines can get confusing fast, but the Great White Throne is at the end of the biblical timeline. I doubt that anyone who is asking the "Will my pet be in Heaven?" question in 2017 would be fully satisfied with the answer that, "Yes, your pet will be restored when God makes all things new, but you'll have to wait out the Millennial Reign of Christ first." We will have to save the "when" mortal puts on immortality issues for later. The takeaway point is that God's character is that of Restorer.
5.(...) God regards his meanest (lowliest) creatures much; but he regards man much more. He does not equally regard a hero and a sparrow; the best of men and the lowest of brutes. "How much more does your heavenly Father care for you!" says He "who is in the bosom of his Father." Those who thus strain the point, are clearly confuted by his question, "Are not ye much better than they" Let it suffice, that God regards everything that he hath made, in its own order, and in proportion to that measure of his own image which he has stamped upon it.
Wesley speculates about promotion and utility for another couple of paragraphs at this point, but in the end he summarizes that God makes decisions for His glory even though we may not understand.
... To consider so much as we do understand, so much as God has been pleased to reveal to us, may answer that excellent end — to illustrate that mercy of God which "is over all his works." ... If "the Lord will save," as the inspired writer affirms, "both man and beast," in their several degrees, surely "the children of men may put their trust under the shadow of his wings!"
Wesley encourages his audience that the saving mercy of God's character includes all His works.
9. May it not answer another end; namely, furnish us with a full answer to a plausible objection against the justice of God, in suffering numberless creatures that never had sinned to be so severely punished They could not sin, for they were not moral agents. Yet how severely do they suffer! — yea, many of them, beasts of burden in particular, almost the whole time of their abode on earth; So that they can have no retribution here below. But the objection vanishes away, if we consider that something better remains after death for these poor creatures also; that these, likewise, shall one day be delivered from this bondage of corruption, and shall then receive an ample amends for all their present sufferings.
Wesley clearly believed that "something better remains after death" for animals. I suppose you could try and argue that he meant as a species, not as individual animals. He is not around to ask for clarification on this, but that puts the suffering on generations that have no recourse to change their situation and puts the reward on distant offspring—so we must judge that idea by asking if that truly reflects God's character. In Exodus 34:7² God limits this to three or four generations, within living memory, not until the end of days.
For me, taking Wesley's statement at face value means that at whatever level of soul an animal has, the degree to which it submitted or complied with God's ordinance that Man have authority over it will determine its future state. True, many animals in the wild live their entire life without ever coming in contact with humans, but there are also humans who live their whole lives without ever hearing the Gospel. For both, we have to trust that God's justice is big enough to cover that; and we are responsible only for what we have been given.
10. One more excellent end may undoubtedly be answered by the preceding considerations. They may encourage us to imitate Him whose mercy is over all his works. They may soften our hearts towards the meaner creatures, knowing that the Lord careth for them. It may enlarge our hearts towards those poor creatures, to reflect that, as vile as they appear in our eyes, not one of them is forgotten in the sight of our Father which is in heaven. Through all the vanity to which they are now subjected, let us look to what God hath prepared for them. Yea, let us habituate ourselves to look forward, beyond this present scene of bondage, to the happy time when they will be delivered therefrom into the liberty of the children of God.
When Wesley "gives advice" such as this in his sermon, it helps our understand to remember the cultural climate that he was speaking in. Born an Englishman, living from 1703 to 1791, Wesley was in his prime of life a century and a half before gasoline powered automobiles were invented. He would have been very familiar with horses used for transportation and donkeys and oxen used for plows. He visited America in 1736 with the intent of preaching to Native American Indians, and although that did not work out,² it did expand his world view. His life spanned many major changes in British politics including the the loss of the American colonies as they won their war for independence from British rule. With this in mind, it is easy to see why he was motivated to say, "let us habituate ourselves to look forward."
11. From what has been said, I cannot but draw one inference, which no man of reason can deny. If it is this which distinguishes men from beasts, — that they are creatures capable of God, capable of knowing and loving and enjoying him; then whoever is "without God in the world," whoever does not know or love or enjoy God, and is not careful about the matter, does, in effect, disclaim the nature of man, and degrade himself into a beast. Let such vouchsafe (concede, grant in a condescending manner) a little attention to those remarkable words of Solomon: "I said in my heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, — They might see that they themselves are beasts." (Eccles. 3:18.) These sons of men are undoubtedly beasts; and that by their own act and deed; for they deliberately and wilfully disclaim the sole characteristic of human nature. It is true, they may have a share of reason; they have speech, and they walk erect; but they have not the mark, the only mark, which totally separates man from the brute creation. "That which befalleth beasts, the same thing befalleth them." They are equally without God in the world; "so that a man" of this kind "hath no pre-eminence above a beast."
I think I left this section in only because it used the word, "vouchsafe." 🤔 It does not contribute directly to our exploration of pets in heaven. However, I plan to eventually address the contrast between man and beasts in Ecclesiastes 3, so there may be some "perspective" benefit in it.
12. So much more let all those who are of a nobler turn of mind assert the distinguishing dignity of their nature. Let all who are of a more generous spirit know and maintain their rank in the scale of beings. Rest not till you enjoy the privilege of humanity — the knowledge and love of God. Lift up your heads, ye creatures capable of God! Lift up your hearts to the Source of your being!
Know God, and teach your souls to know The joys that from religion flow.
Give your hearts to Him who, together with ten thousand blessings, has given you his Son, his only Son! Let your continual "fellowship be with the Father, and with his Son, Jesus Christ!" Let God be in all your thoughts, and ye will be men indeed. Let him be your God and your All, — the desire of your eyes, the joy of your heart, and your portion for ever.
Wesley's conclusion also has little that directly applies to our main topic of pets being in heaven, but I had two reasons for keeping in this post. (1) You've read this far, you might as well see how he closed his sermon with a call to give God your heart, and (2) I was stunned by the line, "and ye will be men indeed." Granted, I have not attended any all-male conferences to hear what they talk about, but the idea that "letting God be in all your thoughts makes you a real man" is not one that I have heard preached from today's pulpits. Not only would that make you a real man, but you'd be a better pet owner, the good women would love it!
Footnotes
¹ Luke 1:3, It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
² Exodus 34:7 He graciously loves thousands, and forgives iniquity, transgression, and sin. But he does not leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of the ancestors on their children, and on their children's children to the third and fourth generation.
³ Wesley's trip to America had been a sponsored "assignment" from the Church of England. He had signed up hoping to preach to the Indians, but the church kept him ministering primarily to the British colonists in Savannah, Georgia. His personal life did not go so well there. He fell in love with a woman, but when he stuck to church rules and refused to serve her communion because she did not meet the requirements, she made accusations against him with the intent to seek revenge. (Roy Moore wasn't the first, and unfortunately, he won't be the last.) Regardless of the questionable degree of veracity in her accusation, the end result was that Wesley cut short his trip and returned to England.
No comments:
Post a Comment