More On
Image And Value
Do nothing from selfishness or conceit, but in humility,
regard others as better than yourselves.
Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of
others. Let the same mind be in you that
was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count
equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the
form of a slave, being born in human likeness.
And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to
the point of death – even death on a cross.
Philippians 2:3-8
The article linked here breaks my
heart. It is not the excellent analysis
and questions raised by the author, Bernie Belvedere, that break my heart, but the
actions of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty
Commission in pulling down and apologizing for posting a video regarding our
obligations to care for animals. What a lost opportunity for animals, and for
the church! What a misunderstanding of our
role as creatures in God’s image!
According
to the article, the concerns arose because the message of the video was
interpreted by some as suggesting that humans and non-human animals are of
equal value. Here is the transcript, as
reported in the article:
“Nonhuman animals, though obviously not as
important as human animals, merit our serious attention. They’re also
vulnerable. They’re also voiceless. They also are pushed to the margins because
they’re inconvenient, interestingly just like prenatal children are. And
there’s a growing number of people who are pro-life in that they’re
antiabortion, but also pro-life in that they want to stand up for the dignity
of nonhuman animals.”
The bruhaha arose because some
believed this language, by bringing the issue of abortion into the discussion,
created a false equivalency between humans and animals and obscured the unique
distinction between humans and other animals:
that humans alone are created in the image of God:[1]
James N. Anderson, a professor of theology and
philosophy at Reformed Theological Seminary, explained it this way: “On a
biblical view, there’s a categorical — an essential — distinction between
humans and animals grounded in the idea of the image of God, which speaks to
the uniqueness and sacredness of human life as opposed to any other form of
life.”
With all
due deference, I profoundly disagree. I
do not believe that our creation in the
image of God makes human life more
“sacred” than the lives of other animals.
I’ve written about this before (and here). Scholars tell us that our creation in the image of God goes to our function in creation – we are here to
represent God; to show the rest of creation what God is like. It is a job description, not a status
indicator. If we are more “important,”
it is because we have the most important job.
We are unique indeed, in that we are given unparalleled power over the
creation, and unparalleled responsibility to go with it.
While the idea of human value stemming
from our creation in God’s image runs deep within the Christian tradition,
particularly in the writings of Aquinas and Augustine, other ideas also run
deep within at least the Protestant tradition.
Luther, for example, argued that humans lost the image of God through
sin, and Calvin argued that the image of God was to be understood vocationally,
requiring us to reflect the Creator, which in turn requires us to always turn
toward God.
If we want to know what it means to be
created in the image of God, we need only to look at the true image: Jesus Christ.
Paul expresses it this way in his letter to the Philippians: Christ “did
not count equality with God a thing to be exploited, but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave.” Philippians
2:6-7. If that is true, then how is
possible for humans to tout their purported special status as creatures in the
image of God to justify being less mindful, less merciful, less compassionate
to other creatures? Where in Scripture
does God bestow power and authority for purposes of exploitation of the weak
and powerless? Those who would be first must
be last, and servants of all.
Our fellow creatures may not have been
created in the image of God, but they were created by God. God loves them, covenants with them, and
protects them. Nonhuman animals have
value because they are loved by God
and in relationship with him. If we
claim the image of God, we should love and value what God loves and
values. God gave the animals into our especial
care: “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the
sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures
that move along the ground.” Gen. 1:26
(NIV) (emphasis added). Caring for the
animals as God would care for them is foundational to what it means to be human,
and it is fundamental to what it means to be created in the image of God.
 |
| "As for me, I am establishing my covenant with you, and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the domestic animals, and every animal of the earth with you, as many as came out of the ark." Gen. 9:9-10. |
As Mr. Belvedere notes, animals suffer
when they are treated cruelly. That
suffering matters. It matters to God
because he loves them; and it should matter to us. Does human life matter more? Does human suffering matter more? We don’t need to answer those questions because
caring for humans, caring for God’s other animals, and caring for the rest of
creation is most often the same thing, or at the very least, not inconsistent. So, for example, factory farming is causing
unimaginable suffering for animals, unhealthy conditions for the humans who
work in them and/or live nearby, and extensive environmental damage. By caring for one of these pieces, we care
for them all. If you believe that
opposing abortion is the most
important moral issue of our time, look at the work of Charlie Camosy,
discussed in the article. He is both an outspoken opponent of abortion and
an effective advocate for animals. His body of work
demonstrates that it is possible to do both well. There is no need to choose one over the
other.
 |
| "And should I not be concerned about Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than a hundred twenty thousand persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also many animals?" Jonah 4:11 |
R.C. Sproul has said, “When we sin as
the image bearers of God, we are saying to the whole creation, to all of nature
under our dominion, to the birds of the air and the beasts of the field: ‘This
is how God is. This is how your Creator behaves. Look in the mirror; look at
us, and you will see the character of God Almighty.’” Cardinal John Henry Newman has observed, “Cruelty
to animals is as if man did not love God.” And St. John Chrysostom teaches, “The saints are exceedingly loving and gentle to mankind,
and even to brute beasts ... Surely we ought to show them [animals] great
kindness and gentleness for many reasons, but, above all, because they are of
the same origin as ourselves.”
We do not diminish our unique place as
humans when we recognize our obligations to animals. We do not even diminish that place when we
speak of both human life and the lives of other animals as requiring our urgent
moral attention. Instead, we live into
the calling given us at the creation. By
caring for the animals, we reflect God’s true nature; and by so doing we can only
become more fully human, and perhaps, by the grace of God, also more capable of
recognizing our obligations to our fellow humans.
Mr. Belvedere concludes with these
important questions:
I’m left with numerous questions about how
evangelicals, some of whom see animal rights as a totally unimportant issue,
should approach this subject. For example, if causing needless animal suffering
is a moral wrong, where does that leave hunting for sport? Where does that
leave participation in a system of factory-farm-produced meats operationally
dependent on subjecting animals to intense pain and suffering? These are
uncomfortable questions.
They are
indeed uncomfortable questions. He notes
that, as humans, we have the capacity to think them through carefully. I would
suggest that we when we do so, we should not use the lens of what is profitable,
what we like to do, what our traditions are, or what might have been enjoyable
– or even necessary for survival – for our ancestors. Rather, we should use the
lens of the one who did not count equality with God a thing to be exploited,
but gave up everything to die on a cross for us. This
is the image in which we are created.
This is the model we are to follow.
In light of this, is it really so much to ask that we refrain from
engaging in or supporting manifest cruelty to God’s other creatures?
"We may pretend
to what religion we please, but cruelty is atheism.
We may make our boast of Christianity; but cruelty is infidelity.
We may make our boast of Christianity; but cruelty is infidelity.
We may trust to our
orthodoxy; but cruelty is the worst of heresies."
- Rev. Humphrey Primatt.
A Dissertation on the Duty of Mercy and
Sin of Cruelty to Brute Animals (1776)
- Rev. Humphrey Primatt.
A Dissertation on the Duty of Mercy and
Sin of Cruelty to Brute Animals (1776)
[1] It seems to me that the language used goes
out of its way not to blur that
distinction, expressly stating that animals are not as important as
humans.
2 comments:
Beautifully written, so spot on. Thank you Lois. Good to read an article from you again!
Thank you, Kathy!
Post a Comment