Stretching the Imago Dei

Here I sit eating corn chowder while a storm rages outside (Strongest October storm since 1962 pounds Bay Area). The electricity keeps going off and this is the second third time I've tried to get through writing this post, so so I hope I can finish it before I lose the computer again.

I saw an interesting post today about the Imago Dei. Wikipedia describes the term thusly ... The Image of God (Hebrew: צֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים‎; tzelem elohim, lit. "image of God", often appearing in Latin as Imago Dei) is a concept and theological doctrine that asserts that human beings are created in God's image and therefore have inherent value independent of their utility or function.

The post was at A Thinking Reed - The cosmic prodigal son - and here's a bit of it ......

*******************************

I’ve been reading a book called Created from Animals: the Moral Implications of Darwinism by the late philosopher James Rachels .... What Rachels is trying to show is that Darwinism pulls the lynchpin of “human dignity” out of our existing moral framework by undermining crucial beliefs that support it .... For the purposes of this post, let’s focus on the imago dei doctrine. According to Rachels, the traditional view that human beings are created in the divine image means that “the world [was] intended to be [humanity's] habitation, and everything else in it given for [our] enjoyment and use” (p. 86). The evolutionary picture of the world, Rachels contends, undermines this .... one of the great idols of the Christian tradition has been precisely the view that creation was made just for us and all other creatures were given for our enjoyment and use. While there are certainly parts of the Bible that support such a view, modern biblical scholars have pointed out that a “humano-centric” interpretation of the Bible (as distinguished from a theo-centric one) is profoundly distorting.

The Bible is clear in many passages that creation exists not for our sake, but for the creator’s sake. God creates all that is and calls it “good” (not “good for us”). After the flood in Genesis, God makes a covenant with all flesh, not just with humanity. The Psalms tell us repeatedly that creatures of land, air, and sea praise their creator in their own language, without the mediation of human beings. God’s admonition to Job is that the creator’s purposes encompass far more than parochial human interests. The apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon praises the mercy and love of the Lord: “you love all things that are and loathe nothing that you have made; for what you hated, you would not have fashioned.” Jesus insists that our heavenly Father cares for the lillies of the field and the sparrows of the air. St. Paul contends that “all things” are reconciled in Christ and that the entire creation is groaning for liberation from bondage.

Rachels isn’t wrong to see the anthropocentric interpretation as the dominant one in Christian history. This may have been encouraged by a secular philosophy that defined the imago primarily as reason and free will, thus emphasizing the distinction between human beings and other creatures. A more “functionalist” understanding of humanity’s role as caretakers or gardeners of the earth, by contrast, emphasizes our embededness in and responsibility to the rest of creation .....

*************************