humans, animals and imago dei

Nancy Janisch's post is up at Deep Church, and be sure to catch both parts.  She makes a compelling case that the imago dei, the image of God in humanity, means something quite different for our relationship to animals than it has often been taken to mean: 

We won’t understand our relationship with animals until we understand who we are as human beings.  And oddly enough, we won’t understand who we are as human beings until we understand our relationship with animals.  

Nancy begins by providing a compelling array of evidence that animals are not so different than us in many capabilities we thought were soley human.  She then asks if animals are not quite so different than us as we may have thought, what does the image of God then mean for humanity?  Here is a preview of her important and challenging response in part two:

The image-of-God texts in Genesis are a theological statement about who humans are: part of creation, but also beings with a particular relationship to their Creator.  The image-of-God language in Genesis tells us that humans are one venue for God making Himself known to the rest of creation.

I believe this means we are called to a relationship with animals that finds its orientation in the ways God relates to us.  We know who God is by what He does.  And that is the clue to thinking about how we ought to be the image-bearers of God.

Nancy's reflection reads provocatively at times, and some of her starting point might potentially be misunderstood.  But ultimately she makes a very theologically-faithful point, which is both human and humane.  Here is the comment I left on her post:

It is apparent that the gap between animal and human capabilities continues to lessen demonstrably, but I do agree that differences of degree remain.  The Bible also speaks categorically differently about humans and animals in key respects, including perhaps most focally the responsibility which God has given to humanity to govern the rest of his creation, as well as the depth with which God desires to relate to us.  Both of these distinctions are key components of what it means to be God’s image-bearers.

But both of these distinctions are no less gifts of grace, and as you so wonderfully point out tomorrow, neither they or any other distinctions which remain entitle us to a careless dominion of animals.  In fact, just the opposite: the more we truly live out the image of God within us as humans, the more we will model God’s all-embracing love and care for all of his creatures.  I strongly encourage everyone to read part two of Nancy’s reflection, where she fleshes out this calling much better than I just did …

(Many thanks to Nancy for her contribution this week, and be sure to catch her other posts here including "Why Don't We Care."  See Wikipedia's article for a helpful introduction to the concept of the 'image of God.'  Image courtesy and copyright Jason Clark.)