humans, animals and imago dei
25 Aug 2009
The following is from my good friend Nancy Janisch, a former veterinarian of twenty years and currently ministry coordinator for True North Campus Ministry in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Nancy blogs at Conversation in Faith, often on matters of creation, science and faith (image courtesy Cheryl DeVries):
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.
We have defined ourselves as humans, both theologically and biologically, by emphasizing the distinctions between ourselves and animals. We have assumed ourselves to be the only beings who are self-aware, the only beings with the ability to reason, the only beings who could modify their environment, with a conscience and moral awareness, and with culture and language. But as our knowledge about animals has increased, the distinctions between humans and animals have decreased. The literature is vast, but here are just a few examples to illustrate the point:
Chimps, elephants and dolphins have been shown to have self-awareness. That is, they know themselves as individuals who are distinct from other individuals. Some animals like rats and ravens have, if not the ability to count, at least an awareness of numbers. Tool using, making and modification are well-known phenomena not only among chimps, but also wasps and birds.
Animal groups develop distinctive ways of communication. They learn from each other, they form complex social bonds and they work cooperatively. Animal groups have standards regarding what constitutes acceptable social behavior. They have methods of deaing with unacceptable behavior, and they also have ways of resolving conflict when group norms have been violated.
Chimps in different regions of Africa demonstrate different behaviors, distinctive methods of tool use, and different styles of vocalization. They have developed different cultures. Elephants live in matriarchal groups and form lifelong relationships. They appear to grieve the death of group members. You may recall reading about elephants in zoos who, after being separated for many years, not only recognized each other but appeared happy to see each other when they are reunited. Whales develop complex songs to communicate, form alliances, act cooperatively in hunting, and pass along those skills to younger whales. And they have social networks similar to primates and humans.
In captivity, dolphins and chimps can learn artificial languages and sign language, becoming in a sense bilingual. Some chimps who know American Sign Language teach it to their offspring, and have also been found to use ASL to communicate with other chimps even when humans are not present. Animals can even be deceptive. Wolves will store food and then retrieve it when other wolves are not looking. Baboons who are being harassed by other baboons will signal that a predator is near, and when the harassing baboons check to find the fictional predator, they slip away.
The more we study animals, the more qualities we thought made us different from animals are slipping away. Animal communication is much more complex than we previously imagined. The family and communal life of animals is more rich and emotionally meaningful than we believed possible. Some animals even seek particular plants to consume apparently as treatment for parasites or certain diseases. So what differences remain between us?
Some may claim that our own sense of awe and wonder, a recognition of the divine, separates us from other animals. But there are a growing number of scientists who believe that certain animals, particularly primates, have a sense of awe and wonder. There are recorded episodes of gorillas stopping to watch the sun set or gazing at a waterfall.
What if the differences between us may be more of degree than of kind? What does that mean for us as humans? What does it mean to be created in the image of God if it does not mean we are quite distinct from animals? To answer that question we must first consider the role of images in the ancient near east, following which we must consider what the Genesis story meant to the original audience. And then we will be able to read the story in a new way.
to be continued tomorrow …
Tagged: animal welfare, imago dei, Nancy Janisch
4 comments
Trackback
Comment by Ben DeVries
4.37 am on 28 Aug 2009
Nancy, this is a provocative part one with a very diverse and compelling sampling of anecdotal evidence. Well written.
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 …
Comment by Nancy Janisch
8.42 pm on 28 Aug 2009
I think the distinction or calling of humans is about function or task rather than distinction or separation. To use an example from my Presbyterian tradition. We would say that all Christians are called by God and some are called to particular types of service. So some are called to the Ministry of Word and Sacrament, some are called to be elders or deacons. Some are called to other things, works of hopsitality, or accounting or any of the things the church needs to fulfill its mission. A call to a particular form of service doesn’t mean one is better, or more important or more holy or more anything else. The call is to an action, doing rather than being. And so with people, I think what makes us different in God’s eyes than other animals is not our biology. We are called to do- to particular actions and ways of living.Not better, not worse, simple different.
One note I did want to make about the science I mention. There are lots of good resources that are not overly scholarly. Some general news outlets do a nice job of summarizing scientific reports, the New York Times and the BBC both have good science sections available on line. Science News and Scientific American and Science all have on line and print resources that are acessable to the non specialist. I’m sure Deep Church readers would be able to add to this list- please add your favorites.
Comment by Ben DeVries
4.50 am on 29 Aug 2009
Certainly the Trinity itself models intimate relationship, and desires to bring everything it has created into intimate and prejudiceless relationship with itself, both human and nonhuman. But just as within this context at its most ideal (across the Jordan, so to speak), the Trinity and its members remain in a different category to ourselves, I can’t escape the persistent language and even entire narrative trajectory of Scripture which describes humanity as in a different category to animals. It is, in a very real sense, a better category to be in, in that we have access to a much more intimate and special understanding of and relationship to our Creator; isn’t it? Scripture itself is addressed to us, not to animals; just as Christ addressed humanity most directly. That said, both forms of special revelation were made available to us on behalf of animals just as well.
I guess I really do see your heart in matter, which I echo, in terms of desiring a human relationship to animals which in no way takes advantage of its calling or (as I’ve suggested, at least) our unique nature and position. Ultimately, God desires for every last component of His creation to be affirmed and related to without reservation. But I just don’t know that even such a holistic theology allows for quite the leveling of nature, raison d’etre or even teleogy. Even our differences of biology, while slimmer than thought, still point to humanity as the pinnacle of biological development. We remain capable of the most advanced reasoning, emotion, communication, tool-making and environment-forming, don’t we? Please let me know if I’m pushing back too hard, or if there is a component to the discussion I am missing …
By the way, thank you for the additional resources mentioned. I would add the Animal Sentience Blog is a very accessible and enjoyable resource.
Comment by Nancy Janisch
7.20 pm on 30 Aug 2009
The older I get, the less important it becomes for me to think about humanity being the be all and end all of creation. I know this is a minority opinion but here’s my 2 cents worth.
First about your comment that Scripture is directed to us. You’re right, but then again we’re the only ones who have (as far as we know) a writen and oral story telling tradition. If Calvin is right, and God comes to us in ways that we can understand, then the Incarnation and Scripture are both carefully directed to us. But that doesn’t mean, I don’t think, that we can then say since God has revealed God’s self to us that God didn’t reveal God’s self to any other creatures in ways that make sense for them. We don’t know all that God has done and is doing. We don’t know one way or the other if God has relationships with other creatures and what that relationship might be like, although I think Scripture gives us some hints on the topic.
As for us being the most advanced in various areas, well yes that seems undeniable. On the other hand, we certainly aren’t essential to things. The world would get along just fine without us, while a world without bacteria would collapse very quickly. So value may be in the eye of the beholder.
Theologically, at least for me, more humility about our importance in the world seems appropriate. I can’t look at the universe and think that the whole point of this vast cosmos is us. I think God delights in the whole thing and all of it matters to God. I’m not sure that our being more advance than other animals matters all that much to God. I’m suspicious that that’s our fallen human ego talking.
In the Bible we see that God’s ideas about power, and value, and worth are markedly different than ours. Personally I’m trying, not always suceeding, but trying to set fewer limits on my perception of God’s love. My hunch is that God’s love is much more all encompassing that we can begin to imagine.
You’re not pushing back too hard Ben, and I hope I’m not either in this response. These are big complex things to think about and we need to talk with each other, challenging and pushing each other to more faithful living. Thanks for the opportunity to participate in this week here at Deep Church.
Comments are now closed.