Does the scope of the incarnation include non-human animals? Essay

Does the Scope of Incarnation Include Non-Human Animals
Author's Name
The Institutional Affiliation
Course Number and Name
Instructor Name
Assignment Due Date
Does the Scope of Incarnation Include Non-Human Animals
Introduction
When the whole cosmos (according to many doctrines) or human beings (according to a few theologians) needed redemption, Jesus came as a Saviour. God found him an appropriate medium to manifest and freed the whole population from misery (Torrance, 2015). The Gospel shows us that Jesus is the second God in trinity, and he was a human. It raised a sensitive topic related to human incarnation. Many theologians and anthropologists activated a series of discussions on this matter. The focus on non-humans incarnation is a point of interest among many scholarly works of literature (Torrance, 2015). This interest raised two different schools of thought. One of them approves human incarnation as a deliberate choice by God because man is unique and elevated. The other class of scholars is against this idealism. According to those anthropologists, God's Incarnation was unintentional. He could manifest in animals as both humans and non-humans are equal (Edwards, 2019). This essay is to analyse two schools of thought about God's incarnation in human and not in non-human.
A Critical View of Animal Theology by Andrew Linzey
Andrew Linzey encounters the doctrinal question of Incarnation in Christianity with a comprehensive perspective. He discusses the idea of the relationship between God, human and non-human animals, along with identifying animal rights. His references to theological anthropology also emphasize the notable events of animal sacrifice (Linzey, 2016). The doctrine of creation describes God's Incarnation in His Son, whose affirmation of human nature is different in different schools of thought (Linzey, 2016). However, Linzey outlines three significant points about the objective reality of the personification of God in a human being.
"This objective reality, presupposed by the incarnation, must be such that the divine presence can incarnate itself within it". (Linzey, 2016).
This third point of objectivity of reality relates that incarnation is presupposed for the ambiguous God. He created the world, not as a finite but a fusion of infinite personalities to reveal his questionable existence (Sollereder, 2018). Rejecting the human of morality and personality in creation, Linzey underlines the idea of the material constituent. In other words, flesh and blood were the most suitable medium for God to incarnate in a human being. Meanwhile, flesh and blood are the qualities that human beings share with non-human animals (Sollereder, 2018). Hence, the restriction of morality between the two species terminates, leaving the whole humanity and animals into the category of the animal kingdom when God designated a medium for his disclosure. Behind this flesh and blood, the divine qualities of Jesus overshadow his human characteristics of ethics, morals, and politics. Fundamentally, humankind is dissimilar to animals based on these approaches (Linzey, 2016). On a meta-level, this concept removes all kinds of variations between the two classes as an avenue for presupposed incarnation.
Linze...