Does the truth not matter?
A friend of mine recently lost a beloved pet, a dog who had been a family member for many years. These sad occasions often result in grief that can be quite profound. The oft-quoted phrase “a dog is a man’s best friend” has a definite reality when one considers the unconditional love and devotion such a loyal animal can afford its master, and one’s heart goes out to another of God’s creatures who can provide such sure acceptance, companionship and more, creating a very special relationship. When one loses a friend of such measure, that is a great loss indeed.
How do we handle such losses? Well, I guess we grieve… just as we do should that be a close human who died. But what about all those Big Questions concerning an afterlife, if we will meet again, if animals have souls, if and if and if and if…?
My friend was given a copy of the poem called Rainbow Bridge which is a sweet story of what is said to happen to animals when they die. Click on the link in the previous sentence to read the story for yourself. The author is said to be unknown, and the story clearly brings comfort to many bereaved pet owners who naturally want to think of their pet healed and cared for and happy, and that they themselves will meet up again one day. When the Rainbow Bridge story was mentioned in a group of other friends, a number of them were familiar with it too. Some had also lost beloved pets and found the story a comfort. Many spoke of it as though it was true… what was that? True? Did they mean that it really is true? That is, really is for real?
I am sure that had I questioned the truth of this story, I would have been seen as something worse than a spoil-sport. It would be a hateful thing to do, as though trying to deprive someone of the comfort they should be given in such painful circumstances. And because of the need for comfort, maybe others joined in for the same reason - not that they believed the story to be true in reality, but because they were kind folk who did not want to upset the other unnecessarily.
I don’t know if this story is true or not. I have no way of knowing for certain. It is a kind sentiment, and it presents an image not unlike one that is commonly held of Heaven - a place where all is well. There is an assumption that such a place exists for animals, and an assumption that the animals we love will indeed go there. But I am not so sure of the level of comfort I would personally derive from a story that came from “author unknown” and must be regarded as fantasy unless we can find some truth to support its claim to be otherwise.
Before I am turned upon and torn to pieces by all bereaved pet-owners, I suspect that there may be something in the eternal future to take care of this matter. Our heavenly Father who created all things, the God of love, must surely have something in mind to deal with this situation. Just right now I don’t know what that is, but I believe He is trustworthy and it is safe to leave the matter in His hands. There is also the experience I have had of deep truths being embodied in fantasy, and we can respond to such at different levels of appreciation… such as that which exists in George MacDonald’s Phantastes. If there is truth in Rainbow Bridge, then I suspect it is far more likely to be metaphoric than literal.
However, there is something else that interests me right here. Why is it that so many folk are so willing to believe a fantasy as truth? I noted how readily it was accepted in that group without question. Does the truth not matter? Does it not matter if it isn’t the truth? Is it not important if it is the truth or not?
On a slightly different note, but still to do with truth, it was suggested to me today that I should respect the beliefs of another with whom I disagreed. I find that an odd thing to require of anyone. With regard to the belief, not to the person, I do not see that respect must be given all beliefs equally and that we should be compliant with such an expectation. Not all beliefs are equal in matter of worthiness, and respect based on worth must vary accordingly. Say for example, someone went about claiming that he believed that gravity is a figment of people’s imagination and that he could walk off the top of the Eiffel Tower and fly like a bird without wings. I’m afraid my respect for such a belief would have to falter. That belief is not as worthy as one that acknowledges gravity as a fact. That belief would surely lead to some massive injuries for the one who held it if he was to act on it. One’s “respect” for such a belief could lead one into serious trouble. So in that regard it is important not to have respect for all beliefs just because somebody happens to hold them.
Does the truth not matter at all? Personally I think it does. If we allow ourselves to be convinced by a fantasy we are at risk of endangering ourselves. In some things there is little personal risk - such as the Rainbow Bridge story perhaps. In other things there are many risks, and some with huge consequences. There is also the insight factor, that I am aware what I am doing when I accept something without regard to it’s veracity, and the extent to which I may do this. I personally respect the truth, but do not respect in the same measure those things that do not correspond with my knowledge of reality. Some beliefs are indeed more worthy than others in accordance with their correspondence to reality.
One of the only Christian treatments of the “pet afterlife” question of which I am aware is written by C.S. Lewis in his book The Problem Of Pain. The relevant chapter is called “Animal Pain”. His basic assertion is that animal afterlife must be tied up with the redemption of man and that pets may share the blessings under the “headship” of the redeemed man. Lewis was cautioned not to touch the subject by several people. It is a sensitive and personal subject, all the more so because the Bible does not specifically address the issue with clarity. But the Bible was written to tell man what his obligations are to God and fellow men. Man is not necessarily privy to the instructions (or destiny) God has given to other orders of creatures, whether they are earthly or heavenly. There are biblical reasons to believe that God is interested in individual animals. I think it is safe to trust a Loving God with the creatures that He Himself created.
-=DKC=-
Comment by visiblesoul — October 23, 2007 @ 7:16 pmGood article Judah. This brings to mind a person who gets comfort out of talking to dead relatives through a medium, or a person who wants to know if their non-christian friend or relative might make it to heaven another way. While it may be difficult to find the right words to say, and we certainly don’t want to add to a person’s grief unnecessarily, the truth of the gospel cannot be sacrificed to the idol of a superficial comfort.
Comment by Puritan Lad — October 24, 2007 @ 4:12 amI think you make a good point there, DKC, that we do not necessarily know what God intends for the animals but that it is safe to trust Him given who He is, the loving Creator of all creatures in the first place.
When man broke with God to go his own way, back in the very beginning, the whole order of things was disturbed and many aspects of creation became flawed.
Randy Alcorn responds to the question of there being pets in heaven by referring to Romans 8:21-23 which, he writes, “assumes animals as part of a suffering creation eagerly awaiting deliverance through humanity’s resurrection. This seems to require that some animals who lived, suffered, and died on the old Earth must be made whole on the New Earth.” See the rest of his response here.
PL, there are some hard things about Christianity and you have made mention of them here. I have often thought about funerals and what one can say that is both truthful and kind to those bereaved when the deceased was not a Christian. You hear so many sentiments about them “being at peace” and “their suffering is now over” and so forth. How can that be the truth if the person was not a believer? I can see the temptation for adopting some form of universalism, or even annihilation doctrine, but those positions are far from Scripturally sound. They are false. So what does one say? Something about a loving God, rather than a loving and righteous God?
This situation is very personal for me as my parents died, as I understand it, without a saving faith in Christ. How will heaven be a place of joy for me without seeing them there, if they are absent, given what I know about the alternative? This presumes a number of things, and I have reconciled the issue for myself, but it is a very concerning question for many. In fact, I asked Randy Alcorn about this once, and his response can be found here for any who are interested.
Comment by Judah — October 24, 2007 @ 2:05 pmJudah, as always, you present a thought provoking post.
I must agree that the poem, The Rainbow Bridge, is fantasy rather than truth, but for many bereaved pet owners, it may bring some measure of comfort to imagine their furry friends alive and well somewhere, and also to imagine that they will be reunited in Heaven.
I think that perhaps the question here is whether or not we know the difference between real truth and fantasy. Of course, I know that the poem is not based on Biblical truth, but was probably written to comfort someone. (Of course, I don’t know what the truth is regarding the writing of the poem either.) As you said, the poem must be regarded as fantasy, not truth, until we find some facts/truth that may prove otherwise.
I quite agree with DKC’s post about trusting God with the creatures He has created.
Comment by toadusew — October 25, 2007 @ 10:48 amThe interesting thing to me, Toadykins, is that people are comforted by fantasy even when they suspect - or actually know - that it isn’t real. There is a willingness to believe, at least at some level, that it is for real.
Now why don’t we apply the same process to the fantasy of having won the Lotto and go about singing all day?
And why don’t those of us who know that Jesus and our salvation are for real often don’t go about singing all day… instead of being glum or irritable or whatever?
We’re a funny lot, ya know.
Comment by Judah — October 25, 2007 @ 11:43 am