IS DOMINION A DIRTY WORD?

“To him who loves us and freed us from our sins by his blood, and made us to be a kingdom, priests serving his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.”

                                                                 ~ Revelation 1:5-6

            With the rise of the Creation Care movement, about which I will be writing in coming posts, there has been a move to use the word “stewardship” instead of “dominion” as a way of re-envisioning our relationship with the rest of creation.  It serves as helpful corrective to the way that “dominion” has been distorted in the popular understanding to be synonymous with “domination,” or unchecked power.  “Dominion” is the accepted translation of the word we find in Genesis 1, however, and I think it is more useful to reclaim that word, to put it in its scriptural context, and to own up to obligations it imposes.  “Dominion,” while it has been trampled to the dust by those who believe human interests are the only interests that matter, is not a dirty word and I think we lose something when we distance ourselves from it.   

I have just started reading A Faith Embracing All Creatures, a collection of essays edited by Tripp York and Andy Alexis-Baker with contributions by scholars, scientists, students, and others seeking to address the questions that often arise in the context of animals and religion.  The first such essay is by Carol J. Adams and is entitled, What About Dominion In Genesis?  This essay includes some very helpful explanations and insights about what scripture says about our relationships with other animals and appropriate interpretations of the word dominion.  Although I would tweak her conclusions, I think it is an essay well worth considering in understanding dominion.  As usual, in a blog post, I can only touch briefly on her arguments, and I urge you to read the full essay to gain the benefit of her analysis.[1]  

            Adams opens her essay lamenting the misunderstanding of Genesis 1, which has led to such devastating consequences for animals: “It is unfortunate that Christians often choose Genesis 1, a chapter that so poetically describes relationship and goodness, to justify human abuse and exploitation of other animals.”[2]  She argues that Christians take the word “dominion” out of both its context in Genesis and its Christological context. 

            Looking at the context of Genesis 1, Adams describes the creation story as one filled with movement, the poetic movement of repetition of certain words, the creative movement from chaos to order, and “a movement of intent and relationship.  God creates a habitat for inhabitants.  The commonality of humans and nonhumans as the inhabitants is emphasized through God’s instruction concerning a shared diet that is, how they will use the habitat.”[3]  She continues, “A vegan diet for all inhabitants culminates all of God’s creative activity.”[4]  She also points out that after each element of creation, God blesses that element, and calls it “good” - except for humans:

Unlike God’s acts of blessing other parts of creation, God does not say that humans are good apart from the other inhabitants and habitats.  Instead ‘everything’ is ‘very good.’  That humans get no statement of goodness apart from all other creation highlights the fact that this texts means to intimately connect us to all other created beings and everything on earth.[5]

Indeed, as I have also observed, “it is only when all of creation is viewed together, each aspect in its proper place performing its proper function, that creation is pronounced ‘very good.’” Adams wonders how so many Christians have missed this “crucial point” so evident in the creation story, that humanity is intimately bound up with the rest of creation.  “Humans and nonhumans are not devourers of each other, but of plants.”[6]  Gensis 1 is a story of harmony among all the creatures.

Hicks, The Peaceable Kingdom

             Adams then turns to interpretations of the word “dominion,” “radah” in the Hebrew. Discussing the work of various scholars, she addresses several understandings, including:

·         suggesting a connection with how kings relate to their subjects

·         “to rule or shepherd in a neutral sense”

·         “to lead about”

·         to govern

·         to tame

·         to master

·         to tread or trample (suggested by Gerhard von Rad)

·         care-giving or nurturing

·         similar to the relationship between the sun and moon with day and night in Genesis 1:16-17.[7]

She concludes that regardless of which definition we choose, we cannot justify our modern treatment of animals, in particular the animals we raise for food.[8]  In Genesis, she argues, we know God by what He has created. “What kind of God do we as God’s representatives on earth make known through our treatment and killing of animals?  If dominion is a good thing and granted by God, why don’t we own up to what the dominion we assert for ourselves actually involves?”[9]

Finally, Adams puts dominion in a christological context:

If we see Jesus as the ultimate ‘image’ of God, then how Jesus operates in his earthly ministry, through a kind of ‘non-power’ and attentive care of others, has bearing on how we interpret what it means for us as images of Christ to exercise dominion.  Dominion would come to basically mean serving others in such a way as to help them flourish as the creatures they have been created to be.  Understood christologically, therefore, dominion cannot be attached to a will-to-power, but is intimately bound up with God’s love and God’s creation.

The Good Shepherd

She concludes by saying that “[d]ominion is not our identity, our end, or our way of life,” and suggesting that we should consider, instead, taking the other animals under our wing, as a hen gathers her chicks. 

It is this conclusion that I part ways with.  I believe that the gift of dominion is indeed part of our very identity- part of who we are created to be – and that our misinterpretation of dominion has been a misinterpretation of what it means to be human.  Dominion calls us to exercise our power over the animals with mercy and compassion – as God exercises His dominion over us.

Adams does, I think, a very good job in helping us come to a right understanding of both what dominion is not (domination, tyranny, unchecked power) and what it is (christological, a reflection of the character of God).  Because it is christological, it is a call to service.  Because it tied up with governance and kingship, it must be read in the context of everything scripture has to say about good governance, which is always exercised for the benefit of the governed.  Because it has to do with the exercise of power, it must be read in light of what scripture has to say about the abuse of power to exploit the powerless, which is always condemned.  

King David

 Whether you name our relationship with animals one of stewardship or dominion or something else, the question is not whether God has given us nearly limitless power over the animals (one has only to see how we treat them to know that we have such power).  The question is how we use the power we have been given.  Stewardship is a useful word for a number of reasons, not least because it reminds us that our power is delegated, and we will answer for how we use it.   But I like dominion not only because it is right there in the scriptures and we need to come to terms with it, but because, rightly understood, it points us to the ultimate source of power and to our model for how to exercise it, because scripture also tells us that God has “dominion” over us, and the rest of creation.  If we attempt to distance ourselves from “dominion” because of its misuse, I fear we fail to recognize that we, in fact, have – and exercise – significant power, and thus give ourselves give ourselves an excuse to distance ourselves from the responsibilities that come with power and with being charged with reflecting the character of God to creation.    

We exercise our dominion every time we choose what to eat, what to wear, what personal and cleaning products to use, what entertainment to engage in or support, how to deal with wildlife in our yards, where to get our pets, and how to treat them once we bring them home, to name just a few  common means of exercising power.  Let us, as Adams says, “own up to” it.  Let us acknowledge the power we have, open our eyes to the ways we use it, and look at it through the lens of scripture.  It is part and parcel of who we are and how we move in the world.  It requires our attention so that we may learn that power comes with responsibility, not rights, and we have God-given obligation to exercise our dominion with concern, compassion, and love. 

-------------------
I do not know the origin of the wonderful photo of the lion lying down with the fawn.  I first saw it via a tweet from Rose Smith, @hahnsmith.

---

[1] Indeed, if her essay is any indication of the essays to follow, I very much look forward to working through the entire book. 

[2] Adams, Carol.  “What About Dominion In Genesis.”  In A Faith Embracing All Creatures: Addressing Commonly Asked Questions about Christian Care for Animals, York and Alexis-Baker, eds. Oregon: Cascade Books, 2012, p. 1.

[3] Adams, p. 3.

[4] Adams, p. 3.

[5] Adams, p. 5.

[6] Adams, p. 6. 

[7] Adams, pp. 7-9.

[8] It seems to me that von Rad’s interpretation might be used to justify this interpretation, but I don’t know the context in which he offers this definition, so perhaps not.

[9] Adams, p. 10.