Thursday, March 24, 2016

A Father's Advice to His Son at College

When my oldest son first went to Houghton College, I shared my wisdom of surviving college with him. Your actual mileage may vary

A Father's Advice to His Son at College #1:

It is not unusual to sit through the first day or two of class and think to yourself, "I don't have a clue as to what they're talking about." Rest assured, nobody else in the class does either (and that may include the teacher), but everything does ultimately make sense after the first week.

A Father's Advice to His Son at College #2:

Treat college like a job. Spend 8 hours a day on class, homework, study, writing, reading, reading ahead, etc., spend the other 8 hours doing whatever you like to do, and spend 8 hours sleeping. Now there are times when you'll have to dedicate more than 8 hours a day to the college aspect of life (tests, finals, etc.), but on the whole, this is a good plan for success.

A Father's Advice to His Son at College #3:

There are three types of people to avoid at college: The student who is there to please his/her parents, the student who is there because s/he had nothing better to do, the young lady there looking solely for her MRS. degree.

A Father's Advice to His Son at College #4:

  1. An active social life.
  2. Good grades
  3. Sleep

Choose two. Welcome to college.

A Father's Advice to His Son at College #5:

When you are as old as me with a metabolism that flows as fast as molasses on a freezing January morning, you can skip meals. Heck, I could probably skip weeks without ill effect. However, skipping breakfast at your age is a no-no. When I was at college I lived on quick meals and lots of Almond Crush soda. The result was some intriguing vitamin deficiencies. No fun at all.

Eat your Wheaties.

A Father's Advice to His Son at College #6:

True story. I went to a STRICT Bible College and ended up having to take a linguistics class as I needed an elective and it was the only one available. Hated the class and there was some minimal friction between the teacher and myself over some disputed grades.

At the final, he walked into the class, took a huge rock, slammed it on the desk and said, "This is how hard this test is going to be."

I turned to the guy sitting next to me and said, "Hey, look. His heart fell out."

The teacher heard me and failed me on the spot.

Draw your own moral.

A Father's Advice to His Son at College #7:

It is not unusual for college students to switch their majors and there is nothing wrong with that. It is sad to climb the ladder of life only to discover you have leaned it against the wrong wall. However, unless you can show me a detailed plan of effectiveness with a future, if you choose English, Communications, or Art, I will spend the rest of my life crying myself to sleep.

A Father's Advice to His Son at College #8:

You will look back at your college years as the years you had the greatest freedom. Many people use that freedom to make friendships, travel, and learn. Others shipwreck themselves on self-defeating and self-destructive behaviors mistakenly thinking that liberty means license.

"Go for the gusto" is good theology for Christians as long as we understand what moral boundaries are.

A Father's Advice to His Son at College #9:

Your deadliest enemy at college: Procrastination.

GET 'ER DONE!

A Father's Advice to His Son at College #10:

Remember when doing laundry that you should not combine a white load with a dark load or with a colored load. This seems very mundane until you realize how many freshmen are going through their first year with their tighty whities a pastel pink.

A Father's Advice to His Son at College #11a:

Here is the only bad news about college: At college you are making new friends, learning new ideas, and seeing life in a new way. You are stretching your wings and you are learning what independence is. When you come home, you will have subtly changed which will cause a shock to friends and family who remember you as you were when you left. Psychologists call this "Reverse Culture Shock." Poets say, "You can never come home again."

A Father's Advice to His Son at College #11b:

Ignore the psychologists and the poets. Where your family is, there will always be home.

A Father's Advice to His Son at College #12:

Remember also your Creator in the days of your youth. (Ecclesiastes 12:1a)

A Father's Advice to His Son at College #13:

It is easy at college to develop a lifestyle that can function out of balance in the unique atmosphere of university life. However, remember you have a long life after your four to six years and must balance all aspects of your life: spiritual, physical, relational, financial, emotional, mental, vocational, and there is probably one or two more I have forgotten.

A Father's Advice to His Son at College #14:

Caffeine can be an asset if it is used responsibly. However, do remember that those whom the gods destroy, they first addict to caffeine.

Christian Fantasy: A Biblical and Rational Defense

Christian Fantasy As Art Form and Educational Tool - A Biblical and Rational Defense

"When literature like The Lord of the Rings is criticized, it is often attacked for being `escapist.' This means we should ask a question. What is being escaped from? As Tolkien once put it, the people who are so concerned about escapism do have a name—we call them jailers." -- Douglas Wilson
As a Christian, as a writer of fantasy, and as a Christian who sees his writing as an extension of his ministry, I was puzzled and eventually appalled by the attacks against the Christian use of fantasy as an art form as well as a method of evangelism and an educational tool. Directed to an essay by Biblical Discernment Ministries attacking Christian fantasy as an unbiblical and godless oxymoron, I will here attempt to answer the points of the attack from a Biblical standpoint. It is assumed the author of the essay is BDM's editor, Rick Miesel. It is recommended you read the essay in its entirety here before you read my analysis.

It is my hypothesis that the writer of the essay:
  1. Misrepresents the literary genre known as Christian fantasy by misdefining it as well as unfairly lumping it with secular fantasy.
  2. Misrepresents what Christian authors communicate without reading their works.
  3. Misrepresents what Christian readers are able to discern.
  4. Sets up straw man arguments using definitions and Biblical verses out of context.
  5. Makes statements that have, most importantly, no Biblical foundations and secondly, no rational foundation.
Miesel writes (from here on, sections taken from Miesel's essay will be highlighted in red):

-  The dictionary defines fable as:
"fantasy/fiction/falsehood dependent for effect on strangeness of setting (as other worlds or times) and of characters (as supernatural or unnatural beings); the setting is usually in a non-existent or unreal world, the characters are fanciful or unreal, or the conflict focuses on physical or scientific principles not yet discovered or contrary to present experience."
And already we find ourselves with a problem. What dictionary did the writer find this definition in? I own several dictionaries with access to online dictionaries and failed to find one that used this definition.

We need a better and unbiased definition. In Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary we read:
Fable applied in the New Testament to the traditions and speculations, "cunningly devised fables", of the Jews on religious questions (1 Tim. 1:4; 4:7; 2 Tim. 4:4; Titus 1:14; 2 Pet. 1:16). In such passages the word means anything false and unreal. But the word is used as almost equivalent to parable. Thus we have (1) the fable of Jotham, in which the trees are spoken of as choosing a king (Judg. 9:8-15); and (2) that of the cedars of Lebanon and the thistle as Jehoash's answer to Amaziah (2 Kings 14:9).
I'll grant a point to Miesel in that fable is a synonym with the word "falsehood," but points to me that "the word is used as almost equivalent to parable." A lie is "a false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression." A literary fable is meant to make "an edifying or cautionary point." Therefore, a lie is a fable, but not all fables are lies.

Case in point, in the reference to Jotham's fable, the prophet did not attempt to communicate that trees actually talk. Rational men know that they do not and communicating such as truth would be a lie. The prophet was using this "Jewish fantasy" of talking trees to communicate the destruction that was to come upon their hearers for embracing an evil man as their king.

-  Fantasy is especially dangerous for children. While most children in the 1970s knew enough truth to place divination in the forbidden realm of the occult, today's children -- who often feel more comfortable with occult games than Biblical truth -- see nothing wrong with pagan practices. Fantasy movies, like Disney's The Lion King, are good matches for the new earth-centered paradigm or world view that is transforming childrens' views of reality. While God told us to continually communicate truth to our children (Deut. 6:5-7), today's culture trains children to see reality through a global, earth-centered filter. This "new" mental framework distorts truth, stretches the meaning of familiar words, and promotes mystical "insights" that are incompatible with Christianity. Packaged with entertainment, this message usually bypasses rational resistance, desensitizes opened minds, and fuels general acceptance of pagan spirituality (Berit Kjos, "The Spirit Behind The Lion King," 1/95, The Christian Conscience, pp. 32-34).


This paragraph is a good example of how the author of this essay puts up straw men to knock them down. Defining "fable," he immediately jumps to the word "fantasy" makes a statement that it is "especially dangerous for children" without any supporting evidence and then lumps Disney's The Lion King into the hopper with all Christian fantasy.

So with that in mind, let's first do what the writer refused to do and define the word "fantasy:"

fan·ta·sy
n. pl. fan·ta·sies
  1. The creative imagination; unrestrained fancy.
  2. Something, such as an invention, that is a creation of the fancy.
  3. A capricious or fantastic idea; a conceit.
  4. Fiction characterized by highly fanciful or supernatural elements. An example of such fiction.
  5. An imagined event or sequence of mental images, such as a daydream, usually fulfilling a wish or psychological need.
  6. An unrealistic or improbable supposition.
If fantasy is especially dangerous for children, it is amazing that the majority of children survive childhood! Children are certainly blessed with a creative imagination (#1) and in their play with toys, they definitely indulge in #2. And even in some of the most conservative Sunday School literature, I've seen Biblical truths illustrated with animal characters, so #4 is present. Children daydream. There's #5. Yet, the author against all reason only accepts #3 as his definition which means he himself is practicing definition #6. I will refer back to this later. Now let's really walk on the side of illogic.

-  Most true Christians would recognize fantasy, such as the movie Star Wars, as being extremely wicked (in this case, sorcery -- "The Force" being equivalent to black magic and white witchcraft). Yet, apparently, when we call it "Christian," this somehow sanctifies what we do with our minds (imaginations), or what we allow our minds to entertain. For example, one can look in any issue of the Christian Book Distributors Fiction Catalog and find the most outrageous fantasy literature, yet it is all dubbed "Christian." The following is taken from the CBD Fiction Catalog, 9/94 premier edition:
 

(Note here the charge that all Christian fiction is based on the same premise of Star Wars and other secular fiction.)
" ... now there's no more compromising for those who love Christian fiction, because you are holding the key to your next escape-from-it-all right in the palm of your hand ... CBD's brand new Fiction Catalog? It's filled with the latest and the best refreshing, thrilling, inspiring, wholesome fiction for you and your family" (p. 2).
Christian Book Distributors does not define Christian fantasy. They are in the business of selling books. What then follows is an unintentionally hilarious description of Christian fantasy by judging each work from its promotion blurb. The author has not read these works. He knows them only by their advertising! Is this rational, Biblical scholarship?

Wholesome? The following is a sample of that which CBD considers "wholesome." [Much of this type of writing comes from medieval mysticism, which God hates (cf. Deut. 18: 10-12).]:
(a) Millennium's Dawn, by Ed Stewart (p. 25):

"June 2001. The future never seemed brighter for Dr. Evan Rider and his new bride, Shelby, as they prepare to embark on the honeymoon of their dreams. But the dream quickly becomes a nightmare as a long-buried secret shared by three college friends erupts, engulfing the couple in a sinister plot of blackmail, terror, and betrayal."
(Millennium's Dawn is neither a Christian fantasy nor medieval mysticism. It is an example of another type of fictional genre, but the writer doesn't care. He tars everything within reach with a broad black brush in gleeful abandon.)

(b) Till We Have Faces, by
C. S. Lewis (p. 34):

"The unlovely Orual, eldest daughter of the King of Glome, becomes so consumed by her mingled love and jealousy of her beautiful half-sister that she makes a complaint to the gods -- and receives an answer she did not expect. This novel, possibly Lewis' best work and the one he considered his own favorite, is his compelling rework of the myth of Cupid and Psyche." [Sound like something you could want your children to read -- about "the gods"?]
(Yes, it does. If Miesel had actually taken time to read Till We Have Faces he would have learned that C. S. Lewis was using an ingenious literary device called allegory to make several important points about man's relationship with God and the subtlety of sin, especially pride. I do not know of any instance where somebody was lead into occultism by reading the works of C. S. Lewis unless they were already immersed in it or were mentally ill.)

(c) The Song of Albion, by Stephen Lawhead (p. 33):

"Wolves prowl the streets of Oxford. A Green Man haunts the Highlands. A breach has been opened between our world and the Celtic Otherworld and anything, anyone, may now enter [sounds similar to Poltergeist, one of the most wicked movies ever produced]. But it's Lewis Gillies, an American graduate student at Oxford, who reluctantly stumbles through. In the savagely beautiful Otherworld, Lewis finds himself caught in an epic struggle between light and darkness -- a struggle that will determine the fate of his own world. Memorably penned with vivid and poetic imagery, Lawhead's breathtaking reworking of Celtic myth will keep you reading long into the night" [no doubt, and right into the DARKNESS! -- the Celtic civilization is the culture from which we have received much of our modern day
Halloween practices.]
(Like Miesel, I have not actually read this work, so unlike Miesel, I cannot comment on it with integrity.)
Isaiah 32:6 describes error against the Lord. All lies are against God (1 John 1:21; John 8:44). Satan is the father of lies. Since fantasy is not true, then it is a lie! We have been duped into thinking there is some spiritual gray realm out there in which something can be neither true nor a lie. It's just called fantasy! But fantasy is made up of lies, deceit, and unreality, all wrapped up in a pretty (or sometimes, not so pretty) package.

We've covered this. I know of no example of Christian fantasy that is communicated as a description of reality. C. S. Lewis would have been shocked with the idea that he was communicating that Narnia was a real place (The Chronicles of Narnia). Walter Wangerin, Jr. would have called the men in the white coats if somebody had accused him of telling people that roosters and dogs actually talk (The Book of the Dun Cow).

Miesel then tackles The Lion King condemning Focus on the Family's endorsement of the movie and then makes the outlandish statement: "Besides the spiritism in the film, ask yourself a question -- "Do animals talk?" Just on this fantasy alone (animals talking) it is a lie."

Miesel has now moved from the role of essay writer to a mindset that almost smacks of paranoia. Does he actually believe that Disney was trying to convince people that animals could talk? And if Disney was actually insane enough to make such a statement, does Miesel actually believe that people are gullible enough to strike up a conversation with Fido?

At this point Miesel slips gears and again judges Christian books by their CBD advertising blurb. I cannot comment on The Guardian, by Jane Hamilton or Darien: The Guardian Angel of Jesus, by Roger Elwood as I have not read them and I will not judge a person's works unless I have read or seen them directly, but I can make one comment:
(a) A Skeleton in God's Closet, by Paul L. Maier (p. 25):

"Move over, Indiana Jones! In this novel, Harvard archaeologist Dr. John Weber has just discovered a shocking secret -- Jesus' bones. The evidence [an obvious denial of the resurrection] seems incontestable. When word of the discovery leaks out, pandemonium ensues and millions abandon their Christian faith. But which is the hoax -- the archaeological find or the Resurrection itself?" [How can this be edifying?]
I have read this book. If Miesel had read the book instead of the blurb, he would he learned that 1) the book was not presented as a fantasy and 2) its purpose was to teach the reader how archeology functions as a science and supports the truths of Scripture, affirming the fact of Christ's physical resurrection from the grave.

Remember when Close Encounters of the Third Kind came out? People believed it! Fantasy gets people to fantasize about reality. It is a slippery slide into lies unknowingly.

Close Encounters of the Third Kind was marketed as science fiction and like Poltergeist, another movie Miesel mentions, presents a worldview against Christian teaching. Therefore, they have no bearing on the discussion as they are not Christian fantasy.

How can a lie be used for evangelism, worship, or anything else godly? By its very nature, fantasy removes the person from the Truth (reality) and moves them into a realm away from God. This ungodliness is well depicted in the CBD Fiction Catalog, where it says on page 2:
"It's been said that reading fiction is one of the best ways to 'escape' from the cares of everyday life. Since the beginning of time, great thinkers and writers (even Jesus himself) have been inspired to create allegories, parables and epics, as well as the good, old-fashioned novel itself. What a tragedy to think we have to settle for fiction that merely grabs our attention, but lacks the values and spiritual insight we could carry with us when we return to the 'real world.'" [Again, the move from fantasy to reality.]
Personally, I wish Miesel had quoted a better expert than the CBD catalog. He could have attacked the essays of C. S. Lewis, Madeleine L'Engle, Franky Schaeffer, T. S. Elliott or H. R Rookmaker. I will let the reader deduce as to why he did not.

Again, beating a very dead horse, if fantasy is presented in all its conception as truth, it is therefore a lie, but if used as an art form using allegory, hyperbole and symbolism, it is another form of a sermon and must be judged on the message it conveys. This is why Philip Pullman's atheistic His Dark Materials trilogy is evil and C. S. Lewis' Till We Have Faces is spiritually edifying. It is called, judging a work by its fruit.

And what about the claim that Jesus' parables and the allegories in Scripture, or figurative speech, are parallel to the use of fantasy? No! The Bible's parables, allegories, and figurative speech are not about fantasy at all. They are all about Truth!

Just like well-written Christian fantasy. Its parables, allegories and figurative speech always point to the truth of God's Word. No Christian writer would say that his or her story is an end in itself, but like any good sermon, point the way toward the Word of God, both written (the Bible) and living (Jesus Christ).

If a Christian is loving the Lord with all his MIND (imagination), he will be dwelling on truth, reality, His Word, and Him, NOT FAIRY TALES AND FANTASY!

Agreed. I would be concerned about a Christian who does nothing but read Christian fantasy just like I worry about a Christian who spends all his time watching baseball or washing his car or writing diatribes disguised as essays without doing the necessary research.

After a few more paragraphs on how people are too stupid to tell the difference between reality and fantasy, and attacking John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress as a work of godless fantasy and myth (if that has not destroyed his credibility for the reader than Dear Reader is hopeless) he then attempts to make the following points.

  1. Parables are not fables.
  2. Allegory is symbolic, not mythical -- Gal. 4:22-31 (real/real)
  3. Figurative is not mythical -- John 6:53-63 -- Jesus does not fly out of the realm of reality. In fact, He uses such explicitly (real) language that people are having a hard time understanding Him. Yet, He explains that He is speaking in a figurative way (John 6:63).
  4. Dreams and Visions are not untrue stories -- Daniel 7:1ff; 8:17 refers to truth; 8:26 ("is true"); 9:21 (writing of Truth). These are not untrue stories (fables). Ezekiel 1 &10 -- these are real creatures!
Wait a minute here. There's another term here tossed out for the first time that he has failed to define. Let's go back to the dictionary.

myth
n : a traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people.

Again, a myth is the same as a lie. It is a story that is presented as truth, a historical event that happened in time and space. Pilgrim's Progress is not a myth. It is an allegory that symbolizes the need for every person to embrace the salvation of Jesus Christ and his righteousness. Bunyan may not have dotted his theological i's and crossed his creedal t's the way Miesel would have liked, but Miesel cannot deny the important role Bunyan's allegorical sermon has played in the Christian conversions of countless people. Long after this blog and Miesel's misanthropic essay have long faded into time, Bunyan's testimony of the saving grace of Christ's work on the Cross of Calvary will still be used of God to win souls, imperfect as it it may be.

In closing, it requires an abstract mind to understand allegory and symbolism. I could suppose that Miesel has a concrete mindset and is therefore unable to appreciate what Christian fantasy represents and how it is communicated. If so, then Miesel has done Christendom a great disservice, masquerading an emotional preference as spiritual truth.

My advice to the writer of Christian fantasy is to remember that it will not be Rick Miesel sitting on the bema seat of Christ. If God has given you a gift of storytelling to be used for His glory, then remember the words of the author of Psalm 45:1:

"My heart overflows with a good theme; I address my verses to the King; My tongue is the pen of a ready writer."

Tuesday, March 1, 2016

Do Pets Go To Heaven?

There are those who will think that in the light of current events, the subject of this essay is frivolous and trivial and they may be right. Yet there are those who have lost animal companions to whom this question is very important. This essay was written to bring comfort, not division. If you disagree with my thesis, you may be correct, but should you encounter someone who has lost a dearly loved dog or cat, I would respectfully encourage you to keep your opinions to yourself and simply express acknowledgement of their sorrow. Sometimes maintaining theoretical theological purity on a secondary issue is nothing more than arrogant cruelty. Don't go there.

What follows is the full text of my essay from a Smashwords edition that is no longer available to the public. All rights reserved.



SMASHWORDS EDITION

* * * * *

Published by Alan Loewen on Smashwords

Do Pets Go To Heaven?
Copyright © 2012 by Alan Loewen

Smashwords Edition License Notes

Thank you for downloading this free eBook. Although this is a free book, it remains the copyrighted property of the author, and may not be reproduced, copied and distributed for commercial or non-commercial purposes. If you enjoyed this book, please encourage your friends to download their own copy at Smashwords.com, where they can also discover other works by this author. Thank you for your support.

* * * * *

An elderly woman, one of my parishioners, had lost an important member of her family to death. With tears in her eyes, she asked me if she would ever see her loved one again.

However, the loved one she spoke of was not a spouse or child, nor even human at all. She spoke of her beloved little dog who had comforted her for many years in the loneliness of her old age and who had finally fallen victim to a long-term illness. This short essay attempts to answer her question.

I acknowledge that for some, the question, if not the answer in and of itself, will be controversial. For others, responses to even researching the question will range from contempt to even a possible charge of blasphemy.

Because of this reaction and many other reasons, the Christian church appears reluctant to tackle the subject of the eternal destination of animals. However, for those few individuals whose lives have been touched by the faithful, unconditional love of a pet, the question is very important, even if only more for emotional than intellectual reasons.

So the Church Universal should not shy away from hard topics. To do so gives other worldviews an opportunity to fill the vacuum and makes the Church look impotent in the face of real life questions. Jesus Christ commanded his Church to be the salt of the earth, the light that cannot be put under a shade, and to be the city on a hill.  So with that in mind, I ask you, Dear Reader to be Judge, Jury and Executioner. I will be the lawyer and attempt to present my case.

But before we begin, I pause for a moment to challenge you to consider that what appears to be a simple question about the eternal destiny of a beloved pet actually speaks to a much bigger question: Is the redemption of Christ restricted only to the human sphere or does it also include the whole of creation?

I submit to you the question truly transcends the destiny of somebody’s cat or dog. The answer affects our view on all of creation.

I want to be very careful what I say and I do not want to infer anything that is not found in Scripture, but as far as my research goes, when it comes to the question as to whether our pets are redeemed, I lean heavily toward yes and I believe I can safely do so with good reason.

The Parable of the Poor Man’s Lamb


In my opening argument, let's take a look at an incident from the Old Testament where the Prophet Nathan is talking to King David:

And the LORD sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto him, and said unto him, "There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor. The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds: but the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter. 
"And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor man's lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him." 
And David's anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, "As the LORD liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die: and he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity." (2 Samuel 12:1-6)
Clearly, the Old Testament world, even with the reality of its hardscrabble existence, understood the concept of family pets. In the ancient Near East, sheep were nothing more than animals used for their wool, milk, and food. However, it appears David, who knew the life of a shepherd well before he became king, understood the idea that an animal could be so dearly loved it could be treated as a member of the family. Notice that neither Nathan nor David chide, shame, or ridicule the poor man for treating a lamb as a beloved family member. Instead, David’s venom is saved for the rich man who killed the poor man’s pet.

It is important to note the debate is not over the concept of simple property being stolen. King David equated the death of the lamb as equivalent to murder because of the emotional value the poor man put on his beloved lamb. Far more than property, the lamb had been elevated to family status and both Nathan and David accepted this reality with no problem. Evidently God had no problem with it either as it was originally his idea to have Nathan tell David the story.

God’s Attitude Toward Animals


In the poetry of Job 39, God challenges Job if he understands why he made the animals as he did, mentioning wild goats, wild asses, wild cattle (mistranslated as "unicorn" in the King James), peacocks, the ostrich, the horse, the hawk, and the eagle. God makes special note of them reminding Job that he is the creator of them all.

Even the most casual reading of that section reveals the joy of God in his creation.

In the gospels Jesus states that his Father cares for the smallest portions of creation:
"Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father." (Matthew 10:29) 
"Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God?" (Luke 12:6)
If sparrows were truly of no value in God's world, if God considered them temporal, why does he waste his vast energies in remembering them?

And if he considers the small, twittering birds of the world, what more when he considers animals that his own children have deemed to be of great emotional value to them?

ALL of Creation Shall Be Redeemed


My final observation is that God's work of redemption does include all of creation:
For 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 who hath subjected the same in hope, because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. (emphasis mine) For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. (Romans 8:19-23)
I deem it unlikely that Paul is here speaking of creation in merely anthropomorphic terms. He speaks of creation with the implication of sentience, that it has “earnest expectation," and that it "waiteth," it "groaneth" and "travaileth." If creation is merely going to be replaced with something new instead of being made new, then it should be merely waiting for annihilation. Instead it waits for full redemption provided not only to humanity, but all of creation due to the finished, compelted work of Jesus Christ on the Cross of Calvary.

Therefore, looking at the evidence that:

  • The Bible speaks of pets in a supporting fashion, 
  • That God clearly cares for ALL creation, and 
  • ALL of creation waits for future redemption, 

I submit to you: Judge, Jury, and Executioner, the inference is very strong that we will see our beloved pets again. You are welcome to visit my blog (the link is at the end of this essay) to discuss your verdict.

Speaking for myself, I think the question settled.

I leave you with a story I wrote about this many years ago where I indirectly address the issue of the full redemption of creation:

Fallen Angels and Fallen Sparrows


It was another space and time. Satan strode into the Throne Room ignoring the suffocating light of purity and the stares of the angels who refused to join him in rebellion so many millennia ago.

He looked over the panorama before him. These angels--these so-called Sons of God--had gathered to present themselves to Him who sat on the Throne. Satan's pride drove him to present himself along with his brothers.

There was no visible form on the Throne. Being Spirit, only the Shekinah glory of God occupied the megalithic Throne and permeated the room to such an extent, there were no shadows. Satan could barely endure that Light. It made him feel transparent.

A Voice spoke from the Throne; three voices of thunder speaking as One. "Satan, from where do you come?"

Satan flinched at the sound and the echoes, but he displayed no reverence or awe. "From going to and fro in the earth," he said, "and from walking up and down in it."

"And why do you come here?"

Satan clenched his fists in frustrated wrath. How many times had he come here before? How many times had he been humiliated in front of these poor excuses for angels?

"Your creation suffers," he said, spitting out the words in fury. "It suffers still even after you tricked me at Golgotha. Do what you will, but I have the last laugh. They suffer and you can do nothing."

The Voice spoke again and in spite of its thunder, there was a sense of sadness. "You know as well as all that with freedom and choice comes the potential of revolt and loss. All are tested, even Myself."

"They think you don't care."

"Not a sparrow falls without My knowing."

Satan leered into the Light. "But they fall nonetheless."

"And they fall into My Hand."

With that, a gigantic hand--its fingers closed securely--materialized from the Light. It opened and a small sparrow, bright and redeemed flew into the Throne Room.

There was a sigh of a fresh breeze and all the angels turned to see the glowing portal that had opened into Paradise. Satan too looked and for a moment there flashed across his face a look of immeasurable loss and regret, but only for a moment. With a sneer he looked upon the scene forever denied him where countless millions of animals stood on the infinite hills and valleys of Paradise.

Singing as if its throat would burst the sparrow flew through the portal to join the trillions of its feathered brethren.

And to join the children.

With undisguised lust, Satan could do nothing but glare at the children forever beyond his grasp; safe forever where his fury and rage would never touch them again. There they were; these creations of mud and dust bathed in ineffable Light they felt as Love, their memory of life on Earth overshadowed into insignificance by the Light of Glory.

And also there He walked with the animals and the children. Present with the Godhead on the Throne and also present in Paradise, this Creator that had left Eternity to be born of a human woman and clothed in a body of clay walked with the redeemed as if they were intimate friends.

Satan shook his head in disgust. Had God no pride?

The Voice spoke again. "It is finished. As Time unfolds to its end, I will undo all that you have done and those that choose to join you will do so, but for those who choose to be with Me will be in My Love for all Eternity. And with my own Hand, I will wipe every tear from their eyes."

Satan turned and fled from the Room, past the majestic doors, over the golden streets, past the Great White Horse that patiently waited for its first and only Rider.

Screaming his defiance, Satan fell back to Earth like a falling star. Time, he thought to himself. So little time.

* * * * *

NOTE TO THE READER:


Cover graphic is taken from the 1834 version of Edward Hick’s "Peaceable Kingdom."

All scripture quotes are taken from The Holy Bible, King James Version. New York: Oxford Edition: 1769

Alan Loewen is an ordained pastor who lives with his wife and three sons in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania along with a Sheltie, a rabbit, a homicidal parrot lovingly dubbed "The Death Chicken," and far too many cats. You can follow his misadventures in writing by paying him a visit at