Hello, my name's Mrs. Rawbone and I'd like to welcome you to this RE lesson today on Christian responses to issues in the natural world.

In today's lesson, you will be able to explain Christian views on stewardship and the treatment of animals, including key teachings and differing perspectives.

Some words we'll be using today are animal experimentation, creation, pollution, stewardship, and vegetarian.

Animal experimentation is the use of animals in scientific research to study biological processes, test medical treatments, or assess product safety.

Creation is the act of bringing everything in the world into existence.

Pollution is the contamination of an environment with harmful substances.

Stewardship is the duty given by God to humankind to look after the created world and all life within it.

And vegetarian is someone who does not eat meat, but may consume other animal products like dairy or eggs.

Today's lesson will form two parts.

We'll be looking at issues facing the natural world and we'll be looking at animal rights issues.

So let's get started on issues facing the natural world.

One issue facing the natural world is the use of natural resources, and here we can see a photograph of some deforestation.

What is happening? Well, non-renewable resources like water, fossil fuels, and forests are being used faster than they can be replaced.

And why is this a problem? Well, it harms biodiversity, it depletes resources, it creates unfairness between countries, and it contributes to climate change.

Another issue facing the natural world is pollution.

What is happening? Well, harmful substances are released into the environment, and these include chemicals, waste, or even noise.

Why is it a problem? Well, it harms human health, it disrupts ecosystems, and it contributes to global warming.

A further issue facing the natural world is global warming itself.

What's happening? Well, greenhouse gases are being released into the atmosphere at a faster rate than they can be absorbed, causing the Earth's temperature to rise.

And it's a problem because it leads to extreme weather events, rising sea levels, habitat loss, threats to food and water supplies, and it worsens inequalities between countries.

Let's check your understanding.

I'd like you to state three examples of threats to the natural world.

So pause the video, take your time to think of three examples, jot them down, and come back when you're ready to check.

So you may have put the overuse of natural resources, pollution, and global warming, which were the three examples we use today, but it could be that you've come up with some others as well.

Well done if you managed to get three different examples.

Genesis 1:28 gives humanity authority over creation.

It says, "God blessed them and then said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.

Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.

'" Most Christians understand this as meaning that humanity has a duty of stewardship, which is a call to care for and protect creation.

Now, there are some Christians who understand this as meaning more that humanity has dominion, which is a word for power, and that would suggest permission to use the Earth's resources as a commodity for our own benefit.

The Christian Declaration on Nature, Assisi, 1986, was part of an interfaith initiative led by the World Wide Fund for Nature to highlight religious responsibility for environmental care.

And there were a few things that it said that are useful for Christians when working out what to think about environmental issues.

Nature is God's creation, and so humans must care for it.

Stewardship means responsible care.

Greed and consumerism are what damage creation.

And environmental damage affects the most vulnerable.

To test your understanding, I would like you to finish off this question that's been started for you.

The question is, outline three teachings from the Christian Declaration on Nature, Assisi, 1986.

So the two parts that have been outlined for you are, it affirms that the natural world is God's creation, and it emphasises that stewardship should be understood as responsible care.

So take some time to think about the rest of the answer, pause the video, and come back when you're ready to check and see what you might have written.

So you could have included either of the two following points.

It acknowledges that sin, greed, and consumerism have contributed to environmental destruction, and it states that the destruction of nature disproportionately affects the poor and the vulnerable.

So, well done if you managed to get an extra point as part of your answer to outlining those three teachings.

Now, most Christian denominations agree on the value of creation and the importance of stewardship or caring for creation.

Evangelical Christianity teaches that stewardship is key to Christianity in the Evangelical Declaration on the Care of Creation.

Roman Catholic Christianity teaches that stewardship is caring for God's gift of creation in "Laudato si'." Orthodox Christianity teaches stewardship is a sacred responsibility in Environment and the Orthodox Church.

And the Anglican Church teaches in the Anglican Communion the Five Marks of Mission.

Tia attends a Methodist church.

She's been asked about her views on global citizenship and sustainability.

Tia says, "Global citizenship and stewardship go hand in hand, as the teaching "fill the earth and subdue it" from Genesis 1:28 shows that we have a duty to protect the Earth.

I reduce, reuse, and recycle as much as possible, and I also support eco-friendly companies.

My church is working with the Christian charity A Rocha and, as an eco church, we are cutting our energy use and supporting biodiversity.

I believe treating the Earth as a commodity goes against our role as stewards." So why doesn't Tia treat the Earth as a commodity? Pause the video, take some time to talk to someone nearby if you can or you can pause and talk to me, and then come back when you're ready to move on.

Well, Tia believes that it goes against stewardship.

So let's check your understanding.

What is A Rocha? Is it A, a Christian charity focused on protecting biodiversity and the environment; is it B, a political movement aimed at reducing pollution in urban areas; is it C, a business that promotes eco-friendly products and services; or is it D, a government organisation dedicated to managing national parks? So take a moment to think about the correct answer, pause the video if you need to, and then come back when you're ready to see the right answer.

So, well done if you put A.

A Rocha is a Christian charity that's focused on protecting the environment.

Danielle is a Roman Catholic.

She has been asked about her views on global citizenship and sustainability.

Danielle is a Roman Catholic.

She's been asked about her views on global citizenship and sustainability.

Danielle says, "Creation reflects God's goodness, and we are its stewards.

As global citizens, we should think about the poor and vulnerable who are the most affected by environmental damage.

Caring for the environment is a way of putting Jesus' teaching to 'Love your neighbour,' Mark 12:31, into practise.

I reduce waste, recycle, energy, and support environmental initiatives to protect the Earth.

Doing this is our duty as stewards of creation." So why does Danielle think caring for the Earth means caring for people too? So take some time to think about why Danielle has come to that conclusion.

Pause the video if you need to, turn and talk to someone nearby or you can talk to me, and then come back when you're ready to move on.

So you might have noticed that Danielle said caring for the Earth shows love for the poor 'cause they are most affected by environmental damage.

Rachel is a Plymouth Brethren and she's been asked about her views on global citizenship and sustainability.

Rachel says, "I see the Earth as a gift from God, not a commodity to exploit.

We should be mindful of how we use natural resources and avoid polluting the environment, as this reflects our respect of God's creation.

In my daily life, I try to live sustainably by tending for my vegetable garden, but my faith comes first.

Any efforts to reduce pollution or consumption are done to honour God, balancing respect for creation with my spiritual growth." So you may have noticed that living sustainably isn't Rachel's first priority, although she does try to.

So what is her first priority? Why isn't it living sustainably? Pause the video, turn and talk to someone nearby or you can talk to me, and come back when you're ready to move on.

So you may have noticed that Rachel thinks that spiritual matters are more important, so they are her priority.

Let's check your understanding again.

Which two of the following do Christians agree on regarding the environment? A, be done to honour him; B, sustainability is important to ensure that resources are available for future generations; C, environmental care should only focus on personal choices without regard for global actions; and D, the primary focus should be on living according to faith, with environmental care as a secondary concern.

So take some time to reread those options and choose the two that you think Christians would agree on.

Pause the video if you need to and then come back when you're ready to check.

So, well done if you put A and B.

So they would agree that stewardship is about protecting the Earth and sustainability is important.

For Task A on issues facing the natural world, I would like you to decide whether the arguments in the table below are for or against the statement Christian should prioritise reducing pollution.

Complete the table using examples and evidence to explain.

So this is a really useful GCSE skill, being able to take a point and develop it using an example and an explanation to really show how it argues for or supports a statement or how it argues against or puts forward a different point of view.

So, argument one, Christians are stewards of God's creation.

Argument two, secular organisations focus on stopping pollution, so Christians do not need to.

Number three, those who suffer most from pollution are the vulnerable, and Christians should help them.

And number four, God will restore his creation, so we should focus on our spiritual lives but also live responsibly.

So decide whether they are for or against and then add that explanation, maybe an example to explain how that argument works for or against.

Pause the video, take as long as you need to, and then come back when you're ready to see what you could have written.

So you could have said for argument one that this was for, Christians are stewards of creation, and that Genesis 1:28 calls humans to "fill the Earth and subdue it," which most believe is a call to conserve resources, protect wildlife, and reduce pollution.

For two, secular organisations focus on stopping pollution, so Christians do not need to, you should have said that this was against, because it suggests that government initiatives and environmental charities handle these issues, so some Christians may instead prefer to focus on other priorities like evangelism.

For three, those who suffer most from pollution are the vulnerable, and Christian should help, for, because Jesus said "Love your neighbour" in Mark 12:31.

Pollution harms the poor, so addressing it shows compassion.

And finally, God will restore his creation, so we should focus on our spiritual lives is a point against.

And some fundamentalist Christians like the Plymouth Brethren believe Jesus will return and create a new Earth, so they can focus more on spiritual work instead.

For the second part of our lesson, we're going to be looking at animal rights issues.

Andeep and Laura are discussing some ethical questions about the status and value of animals.

Andeep says, "Do you think animals have rights?" And Laura replies, "I think so, and this is why I am not sure about whether we should use them for entertainment.

Keeping them in zoos can be cruel.

What do you think about the value of animals?" Andeep responds, "I think animals are valuable, but I value humans more.

And this is why I think we can use animals in ways that benefit humans, for example, by testing medicines on them." So what might have influenced Andeep and Laura's thinking on this? If you're able to turn and talk to someone nearby, please do, pause the video, you can talk to me if you like, and then come back when you are ready to move on.

There are many ways in which humans use animals: for food, medical research, clothing, work, entertainment, and companionship.

The UK has laws on the use of animals, particularly in respect to food and animal experimentation.

So the use of animals for food is controlled under the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing regulations of 2015, and welfare schemes like Red Tractor and RSPCA Assured certify higher standards.

The Animal Scientific Procedures Act of 1986 requires scientists to follow the three Rs, replace, reduce, and refine.

Medical testing requires two species, one non-rodent, and drugs must pass animal tests before human trials.

Let's check your understanding.

Outline three ways humans use animals.

Part of this question has been completed for you.

Finish the rest.

So we have humans use animals for work, for example, as guide dogs; humans use animals for companionship by keeping them as pets.

So your task is to come up with a third way in which humans use animals.

Take your time, pause the video if you need to, and come back when you're ready to see what you could have written.

So you could have included any one of the following.

Humans use animals for food either by eating meat or animal products such as dairy.

Humans use animals for experimentation, including medical research.

And humans use animals for clothing, for example, to make leather shoes.

So, well done if you managed to include an additional way in which humans use animals.

A 2016 survey asked Americans about their eating habits.

It was based on age categories.

So overall, 9% of US adults were vegetarian or vegan, with 18 to 29-year-olds at 12%, 30 to 49 at 12, 50 to 64 at 5%, and 65+ at 5%.

So what does this data tell us about meat consumption in America? Take a moment, turn and talk to somebody nearby if you can or you can pause and talk to me, have a think about the data on the table, and come back when you're ready to rejoin.

So you may have noticed that most Americans eat meat and it's the younger people who are more likely to be vegetarian or vegan.

So why might this be? So it might be that younger people have a greater awareness because of social media and peer influence about issues like animal welfare or environmental or health concerns and benefits.

Christians try to answer questions such as do animals have rights by consulting sources of authority, such as the Bible and church teachings.

They might also use their conscience and their ability to reason or work things out for themselves, which they would see as gifts given to them by God.

They could also consider non-religious arguments when working out what to do.

In the end, Christians will value and interpret these sources differently, maybe emphasising one more than another, which is why there's always some variety in Christian views on different issues.

Let's have a look at Bible teachings as a source of wisdom and authority.

Genesis 1:28 says, "God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.

Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over every living creature that moves on the ground.

'" This is often understood as a call to stewardship.

Humans have a duty to look after God's creation and this includes animals.

So it's about care and not exploitation.

When God spoke to the first humans, he said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it.

They will be yours for food," Genesis 1:29.

So it suggests that God's original plan for the very first humans was that they should eat plants.

After the flood, God spoke to Noah.

"Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you.

Just as I gave you green plants, I now give you everything," Genesis 9:3.

So this shows a change in how humans relate to animals.

Meat eating is now allowed.

"The righteous care for the needs of their animals, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel," Proverbs 12:10.

So kindness to animals is a sign of righteousness and cruelty to animals is wrong.

"Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father's care.

And even the very hairs on your head are all numbered.

So don't be afraid; you are worth more than sparrows." This is from Matthew 10:29-31, and it's part of Jesus' teaching in the Sermon on the Mount.

So it appears that God cares for even the smallest creatures, suggesting that we should show respect and treat animals with care and kindness, knowing that they are all valuable.

Let's check your understanding.

Is this true or false? The Bible says that Noah and his descendants can eat meat.

Take a moment to think about your answer, pause if you need to, but also have a think about why.

Come back when you're ready to move on.

So, well done if you put true, but why is it true? Well, it's true because of that quotation from Genesis 9:3 that we just looked at where God tells Noah and his descendants, "Everything that lives and moves will be food for you.

Just as I gave you green plants, I now give you everything." And this suggests permission for humans to eat more than just the plant food that they were originally granted by God, expanding their diets further.

Christian teachings on using animals for food and on animal experimentation can vary slightly.

So here we've got a continuum with for at one end and against at the other.

Now, most Christian denominations such as Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglicans accept using animals for food and for experimentation if it contributes to human wellbeing, but they do stress humane treatment of animals.

So for example, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly." So they're more over to the for side in that you can use them, but there is some caution involved in doing that.

Quakers as a denomination stand out a little.

They believe in the Testimony of Compassion, and this encourages kindness and respect for all living beings.

Their commitment to nonviolence in general leads many to choose a vegetarian or plant-based diet.

And Quaker Concern for Animals is an organisation which campaigns on the prevention of animal cruelty, factory farming, and animal experimentation.

So they would be more over to the against side.

So whilst not all Quakers are vegetarian, many of them are, and Quakers are perhaps more likely to be campaigning against things like animal experimentation.

Seventh-Day Adventist Church is a denomination that perhaps falls in the middle in regard to use of animals.

So it doesn't forbid eating animals, but it certainly encourages and recommends a plant-based diet, and this is for many reasons, including health, ethical, and environmental ones.

Many Adventists consider that teaching in Genesis that God gave the first humans plants to eat and they believe that's what God intended for them too.

And whilst Adventists are not categorically against all animal testing, they do support minimising harm and using alternatives and they emphasise respect for God's creation.

So in some ways, their view on animal experimentation is similar to perhaps most Christian denominations, but in terms of eating meat, they're perhaps more similar to Quakers.

Fiona and Fergus are both Anglicans and they're discussing their views on the use of animals as food and for experimentation.

Fiona says, "I believe God has provided us animals to eat, but as stewards, we must treat them humanely.

I accept animal experimentation if there are no alternatives and suffering is minimised." Fergus says, "For me, being a vegetarian aligns with how I understand my duty of stewardship.

Animal experimentation may be necessary, but I agree that it must be conducted ethically." So what is similar and different about Fiona and Fergus' views? Take a moment, pause and turn and talk to somebody nearby if you can or you can talk to me, and then come back when you're ready to move on.

Richard is a Seventh-Day Adventist and John is a Quaker and they are also discussing the use of animals as food and for experimentation.

Richard says, "I am vegetarian because it's healthy and is good stewardship.

I accept animal experimentation when it helps save human lives, but only if there's no alternative and suffering is reduced." John says, "I believe the principle of non-violence applies to animals.

I am a vegetarian and I support Quaker Concern for Animals by campaigning for stricter rules on animal experimentation." So what is similar and different about Richard's and John's views? Take a moment, pause if you need to, and then come back when you're ready to move on.

Let's check your understanding.

What do most Christians agree on when it comes to issues surrounding animal rights? A, animals can be used to benefit human health; B, animal suffering should be reduced; C, using animals is never justified under any circumstances; or D, eating meat is acceptable, but animal experimentation is wrong.

So take a moment to think about your answer, pause if you need to, and then come back when you're ready to check.

Well done if you put B.

They would certainly all agree that animal suffering should be reduced because Christians in general are in support stewardship, which is care of God's creation.

Utilitarianism is a non-religious ethical theory and it was developed by Jeremy Bentham.

It says action should bring the greatest good for the greatest number.

Peter Singer is a modern-day philosopher who applies utilitarianism to animal rights issues.

He argues that as animals are sentient beings, their suffering should be minimised.

He opposes practises like factory farming and animal experimentation.

And by sentient beings, he means beings capable of experiencing pain and suffering.

So applying utilitarianism, we would need to think very carefully about each individual situation.

So here we would think eating meat benefits humans, but on the other hand, it causes animal suffering and it also harms the environment.

We then have to weigh those up, those two outcomes.

Is animal suffering and environmental harm outweighed by the benefits of eating meat? According to Peter Singer, the answer to that is no.

And so this is why he, for example, is vegetarian, because he would argue that a plant-based diet results in less overall suffering.

Diane and Warren are atheists and Diane is also a humanist.

They're discussing the use of animals as food and for experimentation.

Diane says, "As a member of the British Humanist Association, I advocate for alternatives to animal experimentation, and I'm also a vegan.

Utilitarianism shows its wrong to needlessly cause animals harm." Warren says, "As a scientist, I accept animal experimentation and I eat ethically-farmed meat.

Animal research has led to life-saving treatments, and I believe utilitarianism shows the benefits outweigh the harm." So we can see here that he's used utilitarianism in a different way from Diane and from the way that Peter Singer uses it.

So what is similar and different about Diane's and Warren's views? Take a moment, turn and talk to someone nearby if you can or you can pause and talk to me, and come back when you're ready to move on.

For Task B, animal rights issues part one, Sofia has been asked to answer the question, explain two Christian beliefs about the use of animals as food.

She's made some mistakes and I'd like you to rewrite her answer with corrections.

She's written, "Some Christians believe eating animals is permissible as Genesis 1:29 teaches that God told Adam and Eve he had provided food for them.

They emphasise stewardship, believing we can exercise the power to cause suffering to animals in order to benefit humans.

Most Christians, such as Seventh-Day Adventists, are likely to be vegetarian or vegan because their church tells them they must follow a plant-based diet.

This is based on health reasons and Genesis 9:3, where God told Noah he could not eat meat." So take your time, reread carefully what Sofia has written, and then rewrite it more accurately.

Pause the video and come back when you are ready to see what you could have written.

So you could have said, most Christians believe eating animals is permissible, as in Genesis 9:3, God told Noah he had provided them as food.

However, they emphasise stewardship and humane treatment, believing it's wrong to cause unnecessary suffering to animals.

Some Christians, such as Seventh-Day Adventists, are more likely to be vegetarian or vegan because their church encourages a plant-based diet.

This is based on health reasons and Genesis 1:29, where God told the first humans he had provided plants as food.

This suggests God originally intended humans to eat plants.

Well done if you spotted that Sofia had the two teachings the wrong way round.

She said that Noah was told to eat plants and that the first humans were told they could eat meat.

For part two of our task, Andeep has begun to answer the evaluation question below.

He's used ethical arguments to write a paragraph for the statement.

So the statement is, animal experimentation is acceptable if it benefits humans.

Now, in a full question, you will be expected to evaluate the statement considering arguments for and against, and you're very often given some guidance.

So here it says, in your response you should: refer to Christian teachings, refer to relevant ethical arguments, and reach a justified conclusion.

You're going to read Andeep's answer, and then I'd like you to use Christian teachings to write another paragraph in support of the statement.

Let's have a look at what Andeep has written.

"Supporters of animal experimentation argue it is vital for medical progress.

Richard Dawkins points to genetic similarities between humans and animals, meaning animal testing is necessary to prevent harm to humans.

The Medical Research Council highlights breakthroughs in disease treatments.

From a utilitarian perspective, the benefits to human wellbeing outweigh the harm to animals, though effort should still be made to minimise suffering and explore alternatives." So we can see here that Andeep has used some non-religious sources of authority, he's mentioned Richard Dawkins and the Medical Research Council, and he's also used an ethical argument.

So your task, then, is to use Christian teachings to write a paragraph that also supports the statement.

So take your time to think carefully through what we've been learning today, the Bible teaching the different views of different Christians in different denominations, and pause the video.

Come back when you're ready to see what you could have written.

You could have said, many Christians accept animal experimentation if it benefits humans, as long as suffering is minimised and there are no alternatives.

This view is based on stewardship, the belief that humans have a duty to care for animals while using them responsibly.

They believe God gave humans authority over creation, Genesis 1:26, but should treat animals with kindness, Proverbs 12:10.

While unnecessary cruelty is rejected, many argue that improving human health aligns with their moral responsibility to help others.

So, well done if you talked about stewardship and if you were able to talk about some of those teachings from the Bible.

I've put the exact references here, but you may have actually paraphrased what they say.

For example, saying, "I am putting you in charge" for Genesis 1:26, or just generally that Proverbs teaches we should treat animals with kindness.

In today's lesson, you have learned that while most Christian support stewardship, some fundamentalists prioritise spiritual work over environmental issues, that Genesis 1:28 is mainly seen as a call to stewardship, but some do interpret it as granting dominion.

The Christian Declaration on Nature, Assisi, 1986, affirms responsibility for the environment.

Most Christians allow meat consumption and experimentation, but seek to minimise suffering.

Some Quakers oppose animal experimentation and are vegetarian, while Seventh-Day Adventists promote a plant-based diet.

So we've learned a lot today on how Christians respond to issues in the natural world.

Thank you for working through this with me and for all of your efforts.