Thanksgiving Thought..Meat Isn't Murder When Cooked To Perfection

Bear with me here...The first part of this post is "top heavy", but perhaps you will find this interesting..On occasion I've read books by Alan Watts. I'm an evangelical Reformed Christian, so I obviously don't agree with his eastern philosophy/religion. However, he was one of the most skilled Western teachers of Eastern religion, and I've found familiarizing myself with his material very helpful in understanding Eastern religion. I've felt a great deal of ignorance regarding eastern religion and philosophy, and reading Watts has helped in a small measure. The clarity of Watts' presentation is very condusive to the sort of understanding that a Christian apologist would need to have. Part of this is due to his sharp wit and and clear communication skills that he utilizes to explain Eastern philosophy to people brought up in a Western world.

Alan parts ways with many many Eastern religionists over the acceptability of killing animals. I found this particular gem in a book of his entitled "Does It Matter?" It is a response to the predicament of humans killing animals. Certainly I'm opposed to the underlining world view he is continuing to develop through this book, but it is sure interesting to see Watts take the "don't hurt a fly" advocates to task from an Eastern philosophy perspective. And Watts is actually thinking more consistently than the other Eastern religionists who claim we shouldn't hurt a fly. That is because from a consistent Eastern perspective, there is no category to describe what taking life really is. From an Eastern perspective it is just part of the game, the "grand play", the great facade of the Universal.

Here is the quote where he discusses his comfort with killing animals for food in a humane sense:

"The first is we admit that deciding to live is deciding to kill, and make no bones about it. For if I have really made up my mind to kill I can do it expertly. Consider the agony of being halfway decapitated by a reluctant executioner. Death must be a swift as possible, and the hand that holds the rifle or wields the knife must be sure...

The second is that every form of life killed for food must be husbanded and cherished on the principle of 'I love you so much I could eat you,' from which it should follow that 'I eat you so much that I love you.'...Whatever is unloveable on the plate was unloved in the kitchen or on the farm...

The third has been expressed by Lin Yutang as follows: 'If a chicken has been killed, and it is not cooked properly, that chicken has died in vain.' The very least I can do for a creature that died for me is to honor it, not with an empty ritual, but by cooking it to perfection and relishing it to the full."


To the Eastern religionist who deals consistently with his own ideas, eating meat isn't murder, but rather the absorption of one part of the facade into another. This is why Watts can say of his eating meat, "Any animal that becomes me should enjoy itself as me". Kudos to Watts for dealing consistently with his own philosophy. Too bad his worldview isn't true, though!

Watts' justification for eating meat comes both from three basic sources: 1. the inevitability of causing animal death (even if we were vegetarians), 2. The fact that from an Eastern philosophy, one can't strictly deliniate between plant and animal life, and 3. If all is part of the Universal, as the Eastern religionist holds, you can't hold "IT" culpable for swallowing up itself.

I, on the other hand, justify eating meat in a different way, but come to a similar conclusion..that it is OK to kill animals for food if it is done with a sense of good stewardship and not excessively torturous. Part of this arises from my belief in the distinction between humans and animals. Another part of it arises from my belief in a dominion mandate. But, in the New Testament, I have additional guidance when the Apostle Paul says:

"every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving" (I Timothy 4:4)

So, now, on this thanksgiving weekend, I can enjoy turkey and thank God for such a creature. Lo, is its body shape not particularly suited to being edible? The provision of it for food is not murder, and if cooked well, it isn't even a waste. I can eat it with a good conscience toward God, knowing that if I am a good steward and do it all to the honor and glory of God, I am honoring the turkey's proper purpose, and more importantly the wonderful triune God who created the turkey.

An Extreme Form of Play?

You may wonder about the title here, but read on and it will become apparent why I chose it.

It can be genuinely difficult to account for human suffering within the Christian worldview. I definately believe that the Christian worldview has the only truly satisfactory answer to the problem of suffering and pain, but we can't evade
the fact that it still remains a struggle to accept. Sometimes we give pat answers, but they tend to shrivel away when the first real hardship comes along. When we look at it Biblically, we find that the solution is ultimately personal. There are theological and philosophical answers that we should consider, but we need to experientially work through our doubts in the way that Job did. Otherwise, it seems we are just looking for a "silver bullet" to end suffering and pain.

It is interesting to look at esoteric "eastern" religions and the way they deal with suffering. When we analyize them, we have to be careful to view their individual statements in light of their overarching worldview, since their worldview is so substantially different. It is easy for us (Western Christians) to largely misunderstand what they are saying, because we have some fundamental assumptions that are so radically different than theirs.

In "The Joyous Cosmology", lecturer Alan Watts says "Pain and suffering are simply extreme forms of play, and there isn't anything in the whole world to be afraid of because it doesn't happen to anyone! There isn't any substantial ego at all." To him, there isn't even enough of an distinguishable concept of "ego" or "I" to categorize suffering as wrong or protestable. And, to him, this makes the question of personal suffering as irrelevant. He supposes that this "self" is just a comedy of sorts, or a "double-take" as Watts puts it. In this view, pain is the necessary counterpart of non-pain and can't be understood in a very personal way.

What Alan Watts says may be seem very estoteric, but it isn't that far off from the prevailing mindset is of our culture, albiet non-directly. They still don't "jive" with Alan's direct and non-comprimising terminology (and may even deny such a connection). Very few would outright accept his total rejection of the idea of "ego". First of all, they still hold (to some degree of consistensy) to Judeo-Christian notions of "personality". Secondly, if anything modern society is more egotistic than every before. But ultimately the worldview of perhaps the majority of people in the west rest on premises similar to those of Watts. The thought of Alan Watts is essentially consistent relativism applied to being as a whole, not just fractured segments of reality (which would probably be what most relativists do).

The ultimate conclusion that this view takes is different than the Christian answer, though it may show some surface similarities. It could be summed up in this: If pain and non-pain are just two sides of the same coin and individuality is really just a "grand delusion", then pain and suffering should be accepted as a mere increase intensity in the way things should be. Or in Watts' words, an "extreme form of play".

While Christianity is sympathetic to the need to contextualize pain/suffering as part of a greater picture, something beyond individuality, at this point we must disagree with "eastern religionists" and rather assert that pain/suffering is an abnormality and something that can be consistently lamented. I say this with caution and reservation. When I say it is "abnormal" I am not diminishing God's sovereignty. He controls all things, including pain and suffering. He has decreed it. It did not escape His attention. But, what I am saying is this: Firstly, it is possible to have well-being without human pain and suffering. This is not a case of "ying and yan". The way things are right now is due to the Fall. Secondly, man does have a distinguishable personality or "ego". Formed in God's image, man is a person, a distinguishable being, and so we can coherently speak of him as "suffering" in a personal way.

Ironically enough, while blaming God for our suffering is not proper, the very concept of blaming God for suffering finds its roots in Christianity! That is not to say that Christianity suggests we should blame God, but rather that Christianity provides sufficient framework for assessing suffering in the area of morality. Christianity provides us with the categories to see suffering and pain as abnormal. "Eastern" religion and philosophical teachings, whether that of Alan Watts or others, don't. It isn't that they say "pain is gain" (which could be said to be true sometimes), but rather that their belief system erases the distinction between pain and gain. The truth is, this system leaves the suffering "high and dry". They rightly say that being an isolated and seperate ego can be alienating. But the alienation they point out pales in consideration to the alienation experienced in their system-when the "ego" is seen as an illusion, one is an undetermined part of an undeliniated "everything".

We can sincerely and rightly lament suffering and sigh under the stress of pain. We are also called to be patient with it even when it is not relieved right away (James 5:7). It is not an "extreme form of play" in the charade of existence. We are not to just passively accept suffering and resign to it. Though that is part of it, it is not the whole picture. There are also things for us to do (James 5:13). We are personal beings, not simply cogs in a a machine. We suffer, and what is inside of our skin is distinguishable from what is outside. Others hear our cries for relief, and ultimately God does. We can consistently dislike pain and suffering; it is not an inseperatable part of reality. There is a distinction between evil and good, between pain and non-pain. Pain is abnormal and hard. For the Christian, accepting it and dealing with it shouldn't mean ambivalence towards it, but rather the acknowledgement that though it is abnormal, its hurt pales in comparison to the healing we will one day experience (Romans 8:18). God's grace gets us through it now (2 Corinthians 1:5), but even that can't be compared with what is to come.

Alan Watts on the Gaze of the Christian God

I'm reading a book by Alan Watts, "The Book". He was famous for doing a lot to bridge the gap between the new mysticism (Western counterculture) and the old mysticism (Eastern philosophy/religion).

As I read this book, I'm acutely aware that as a Christian I do not accept his conclusions and in fact find a number of them quite bizarre and off-the-wall. His view of "god" and our existence can not explain reality as it really is. I'm reading this book mainly because I like to know
something about the things I critique.

As I've been reading through the book, I found a statement of his that really jumped out of the page. While I neither agree with his overarching thesis nor his developing argument, something about this statement made me say "WOW":

"The image of God as a personal Being, somehow 'outside' or other than the world, had the merit of letting us feel that life is based on intelligence, that the laws of nature are everywhere consistent in that they proceed from one ruler, and that we could let our imaginations go to the limit in conceiving the sublime qualities of this supreme and perfect Being. The image also gave everyone a sense of importance and meaning. For this God is directly aware of every tiniest fragment of dust and vibration of energy, since it is just his awareness of it that enables it to be. This awareness is also love and, for angels and men at least, he has planned an everlasting life of the purest bliss which is to begin at the end of mortal time. But of course there are strings attached to this reward, and those who purposely and relentlessly deny or disobey the divine will must spend eternity in agonies as intense as the bliss of good and faithful subjects.

The problem of this image of God was that it became too much of a good thing. Children working on their desks in school are almost always put off when even a kindly and respected teacher watches over their shoulders. How much more disconcerting to realize that each single deed, thought, and feeling is watched by the Teachers of teachers, that nowhere on earth or in heaven is there any
hiding-place from that Eye which sees all and judges all."

For all his faults, there are two things in this excerpt that Alan gets right on the money:

1. He identifies (at least as a concession) that the Christian view of God is the foundation for importance, meaning in life, and consistency in the laws of nature.

2. He identifies why the unbeliever does not like the Christian concept of God, He's far too all-knowing, far too holy and just, etc. Humans who rebel against the "Teachers of teachers" can not hide from the eye of God, so naturally they would much rather want no God, or at least a "god" who can be fooled and avoided.

Indeed there is no "hiding place" for those who continue to defy the God who created them.
Many people innately know that a personal God is the very foundation for the things that they depend upon in their life, and yet they still rebel against Him and deny His existence simply because they come to the conclusion that Alan Watts reached: It is "disconcerting to realize that each single deed, thought, and feeling is watched by the Teachers of teachers". I agree that it is disconcerting to our independent spirit to know that God is omnipresent and omnipotent. Unfortunately, though, denying reality does not evade the necessity of dealing with it.