Other Theologians' Beliefs (# 6 in a series)

In today's post, you won't have to take my word for it!  That is because today I am writing about other people, mostly theologians, who have expressed a belief that, yes, our pets will be in heaven. So who are these people and what are their backgrounds?

I have tried to get a variety of thoughts spanning the Christian spectrum, both contemporaries and dipping back a few centuries, as well as from other locations and cultures where the Bible has gone. You will not find the counter-arguments in this post; they will be covered later.  

Billy Graham
I am starting with him because this is the one name that most people recognize. He has been in ministry since 1943. The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association was founded in 1950 to organize his crusades, publishing, radio and television, and film projects. It is estimated that he has preached to 300 million in person and millions more have heard him via other media. He has preached throughout the free world, and behind what was once known as the Iron Curtain and Bamboo Curtain. Reading his autobiography can give the impression that he is a name-dropping celebrity, except that his influence actually did extend that far, and he met practically every world leader of his time. He is still alive and celebrated his 99th birthday last month.
Despite his prominence on the world stage, his comments on pets in heaven come from a very personal story. A little girl, probably about seven years old, asked him if her recently deceased pet would be in heaven. His response was that yes, if that is what it takes to make you happy, God will make sure your pet will be there.

John Wesley
   Wesley was an Anglican (Church of England) cleric who is credited (sometimes co-credited along with his brother Charles) for founding the Methodist Church. His biography, however, is a bit more ecumenical. He was influenced greatly (a) by his mother, Susanna, who, although she married an Anglican preacher, was the daughter of  Dr. Samuel Annesley, a dissenter of the established church;  (b) by Moravian settlers that he encountered on a voyage to America; (c) by the evangelist George Whitfield, although he disagreed with Whitfield's Calvinist slant, and (d) by Quaker writings on the evils of the slave trade.  It is not an understatement to say that John Wesley liked to think for himself. 
   I may be stretching it a bit here. I did not find any place where Wesley came right out and said, "Your pets can go to Heaven."  But in his sermon on "The General Deliverance," we can read his personal beliefs on deliverance; and wiping out our pets with permanent death is not deliverance!
   I am doing a separate post on his sermon later, but to summarize, Wesley believed scripture indicates that when mankind is restored, all that mankind was originally given jurisdiction and authority over will also "be delivered."  He specifically says that this deliverance is "not by annihilation; annihilation is not deliverance." He also said, "They (animals) '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 link to Wesley's full sermon is in the footnotes.¹


Randy Alcorn
   Alcorn is a best-selling Christian author and speaker who began Eternal Perspective Ministries which, as the name indicates, focuses primarily on what lasts for eternity.
   Acorn's argument was a bit disappointing for me.  I guess that because of his popularity as a Christian author, I'd expected that he would have found a stronger support in scripture than I had been able to find.  Mostly, he reaffirmed things I have already posted or that are in my notes to cover later.  His conclusion is pretty much that we have a Creator who loves animals and he hasn't found any reason that pets should not be in Heaven.  Still, it is satisfying to discover that a respected researcher and author came to many of the same conclusions that I did.

Peter Kreeft
   I wasn't familiar with this name. He is a Catholic philosopher and Christianity Today charges to read their archive, so…  anyway if you have a few extra bucks and want to search their web-only archive for June 2003, go ahead and have at here: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/juneweb-only/6-2-51.0.html
   In researching what others have said about him, his argument seems to be "Why not?"

James Herriot
   Herriot is the late Scottish author of All Creatures Great and Small, originally published in 1972. It is sort of a "feel good" book and does not have much biblical backing, but rather observations from a long life spent around animals. Maybe he does not belong on a list of theologians, but the library classifies his writings as "spiritual," so I have listed him mostly to be inclusive, even though I don't give his opinion much weight.
   He wrote, "If having a soul means being able to feel love and loyalty and gratitude, then animals are better off than a lot of humans." That could be true only in an Ignorance is Bliss kind of way—and it also makes presumptions about the quality and depth of love, loyalty, and gratitude. 

Hank Hanegraaff
   Hanegraaff is known on Christian radio as The Bible Answer Man. Earlier this year he converted from evangelical Protestant to Eastern Orthodox.
   Most of my personal disagreements with his positions come from when he is answering questions about the antediluvian period; then again, I haven't really listened to him extensively.  He does believe that our pets have souls, and he leans strongly toward the idea that even if they are not in the current Heaven, that they will be restored in the resurrection.

Jack Van Impe
   Van Impe is a televangelist who mixes endtime prophecy with current events. This at-the-edge of politics approach coupled with his pre-Trib rapture belief causes him to be called a "false prophet" more than anyone else that I have included on this list, however, his core doctrine is biblically solid even if the edges are a bit flaky.    
   Van Impe is one of the few theologians who will come right out and state, "your pets will definitely be waiting for you in Heaven," without couching it by saying, "the Bible is silent on this subject, but in my opinion..." (Instead, he begins his video stating that the most important thing about Heaven is that we will see the face of Jesus. Apparently a Christian-identity audience gets touchy without some initial concessions when discussing this topic!)  He builds his argument on verses like Romans 8:21, that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God, pointing out that "creation" is inclusive of animals. He supports this with scripture from the Gospels, Luke 3:6, And all flesh will see the salvation of God, (the NIV uses all people, but the literal translation is all flesh, and animals have flesh); from the Old Testament, Isaiah 40:5, And the glory of the LORD will be revealed, and all flesh will see the salvation of God together; from the Epistles, 1 Corinthians 15:39, For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish, which he couples with several other verses to show that "all flesh" being saved includes animals; and Revelation 5:11, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders, claiming that the animal/beast voices are there in heaven singing praises.
   Personally, I think that last one from Revelation is a bit shaky; these "beasts" are four supernatural living creatures who are attendants at the Throne, not animals from Earth. Also, as I worked through his evidence, Van Impe seemed to switch from "pets waiting for you" to "they will be raised at the resurrection and/or rapture," so that point was not always clear. Meeting human friends and family in Heaven is usually meant as meeting them in their spiritual bodies, and new resurrected bodies will be provided for the return to Earth with Christ.   

C S Lewis
   Lewis was a professor of medieval and Renaissance literature at Oxford and Cambridge universities, but he is perhaps best known for his children's books, the Chronicles of Narnia series, which is anchored by The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. His best known theological writing is Mere Christianity, which is a classic of apologetics that has its origins in a radio series, the broadcast topics later being edited into a book.
   Lewis wrote more than thirty books, and his views on animals in heaven are found in The Problem of Pain. I was really surprised to find that his writing on the topic so closely paralleled the conclusions that I have come to.  For example, I think the best chance of a specific animal on earth making it into Heaven is if that animal is sentient, meaning that it has a self-awareness and can respond to stimuli, particularly if it can respond to its name. (I will be covering the importance of Naming in a future post.) Along this line, Lewis wrote: 

The real difficulty about supposing most animals to be immortal is that immortality has almost no meaning for a creature which is not 'conscious' in the sense explained above. If the life of a newt is merely a succession of sensations, what should we mean by saying that God may recall to life the newt that died today? It would not recognise itself as the same newt; the pleasant sensations of any other newt that lived after its death would be just as much, or just as little, a recompense for its earthly sufferings (if any) as those of it's resurrected - I was going to say 'self', but the whole point is that the newt probably has no self.

He fleshes this out further leading to his conclusion that tame animals may enter heaven through their relationship with humans, similar to the way humans enter heaven through Christ.

If, nevertheless, the strong conviction which we have of a real, though doubtless rudimentary, selfhood in the higher animals, and specially in those we tame, is not an illusion, their destiny demands a somewhat deeper consideration … Man was appointed by God to have dominion over the beasts, and everything a man does to an animal is either a lawful exercise, or a sacrilegious abuse, of an authority by Divine right. The tame animal is therefore, in the deepest sense, the only 'natural' animal - the only one we see occupying the place it was made to occupy, and it is on the tame animal that we must base all our doctrine of beasts. Now it will be seen that, in so far as the tame animal has a real self or personality, it owes this almost entirely to its master. And in this way it seems to me possible that certain animals may have an immortality, not in themselves, but in the immortality of their masters.

   Why does Lewis limit this belief to tame or domesticated animals? I am not entirely sure, but certainly part of it relates to the original charge to Adam to "have dominion" and the domesticated ones are submitted to that position in God's purpose. Also, there is Isaiah 35:9, speaking of the glorious Highway of Holiness that leads to Zion says, "No lion shall be there, nor shall any ravenous beast come up on it; they shall not be found there, but the redeemed shall walk there." ² This verse also excludes animals that are not in compliance with God's purpose.
   I haven't found much else where Lewis addressed the question straight on, but his allegories and fictional writings often incorporate the idea of "tame" animals being "saved" or making it to heaven. Remember Reepicheep from the Chronicles of Narnia or Merlin's liberation of the animals at NICE (the National Institute for Coordinated Experiments) in the final volume of his Space Trilogy? In the allegory of The Great Divorce, the observer is seeing people arrive in Heaven and has this discussion with his angelic guide: 

"And how... but hullo! What are all these animals? A cat — two cats — dozens of cats. And all those dogs... why, I can't count them. And the birds. And the horses."
"They are her beasts."
"Did she keep a sort of zoo? I mean, this is a bit too much."
"Every beast and bird that came near her had its place in her love. In her they became themselves. And now the abundance of life she has in Christ from the Father flows over into them."

My Summary
  Each of these men—and I did find a woman, but she was a New Age psychic, so, not on the list—have come to the conclusion that there is at least a strong probability that animals known on Earth will exist as themselves in the age to come. Opinions vary as to whether the animals are raised at the resurrection and restoration of all things, whether they are raised and go at the rapture, or whether their animal souls go straight to heaven now and await new bodies at some future point in time when mortal will put on immortality.
   The two points that I looked for were (1) a belief that the animals have souls, meaning that they keep a distinct personality and are not generic cats and dogs, etc., and (2) that they will at some point, although beliefs on the exact timing vary, be restored to their Edenic state of immortality.   




Footnotes
¹ Wesley's sermon on The General Deliverance

² Bible scholars are all over the place with this verse! I checked out several commentaries.  Some say the animals are no longer vicious because they have been tamed by the time this prophecy is fulfilled. Some take the position that ferocious animals are simply excluded. Still others say this is an allegorical reading that refers to no wicked persons, and that "no lions" denotes no tyrannical kings of the earth.