Imago Dei, imagination, and ecological responsibility

Any adequate understanding of the imago Dei for our time must take account of its influence on our treatment of the environment.

Some serious charges have been advanced against traditional Christian views of humanity's role in nature, a view rooted in Christianity's claim that humans are made in God's image. The charges center on the claim that traditional Christian views of the imago have encouraged people in the West to abuse the environment, by leading people to suppose that they are the center of God's creative purpose and that the rest of creation is simply there for their use, which inevitably becomes abuse. There is no denying that the Christian view of the imago has been used to support abusive exploitation of the environment. However, it is not so clear that authentically Christian perspectives in themselves support ecological irresponsibility. Christianity does indeed have some ambiguous attitudes toward nature, at least in relation to modern environmental concerns, so that those who charge it with a negative impact on the environment have highlighted one possible implication of this ambiguity. But there is also another implication: Namely, there are aspects of Christianity that are, or could be, the basis of a genuine concern for the environment.

This essay explores how a relatively adequate understanding of the imago Dei for our time can shape our understanding of our relationship to and responsibility toward the environment. By seeking to discern some of the meanings of the imago in the tradition of Christian thought, attending especially to the ways in which the Bible uses it, I emphasize some positive possibilities for a healthy attitude toward the environment. At the heart of this discussion of the imago will be a focus on imagination, for imagination is central to the imago and plays a fundamental role in our interactions with our environment.

THE IMAGO DEI IN GENESIS

The amago has a relational sense in the biblical narrative. The term comes from the ancient Near Eastern practice of setting up statues of rulers to indicate hegemony over a realm.1 Its use in the Genesis creation story, then, suggests not only a relationship between God and humans, but a relationship between humans and the rest of the created order. Walter Brueggemann notes:

The human creature attests to the Godness of God by exercising freedom with and authority over all the other creatures entrusted to its care. The image of God in the human person is a mandate of power and responsibility. But it is power exercised as God exercises power. The image images the creative use of power which invites, evokes and permits. There is nothing here of coercive or tyrannical power, either for God or for humankind.2

The imago Dei means, then, that humans have a representative function vis-a-vis the rest of creation, which gives them the responsibility to care for creation on behalf of the one who has placed them in this situation. They are given dominion, therefore, but not an unlimited power to do as they wish with the rest of creation.

Since the dominion of God defines the nature of human dominion, much depends on how we understand God's power and authority. Both creation accounts in Genesis depict a power that brings other powers into being in order that they may flourish. Descriptions of God's power as a power shaped by love are not explicitly present here, but God's desire for others to flourish and the divine pronouncements that created beings are good show that, at these points in the texts, God supports the well-being of created beings. It is thus consistent with these passages in Genesis to understand human dominion in terms of love and service. Moreover, the New Testament presents Jesus's life of love and service as the ultimate realization of the image of God.

On the other hand, efforts to define God's power as exclusively the power of love are not consistent with what we find in Genesis, for we cannot understand God's creative power in the Genesis narratives simply in terms of love. For example, the limits God sets to human life are enforced by a coercive power that cannot be reduced to the power of love. More problematic, some narratives in Genesis, such as the Noah story, display a divine use of power that appears inconsistent with love. These depictions of divine power raise some critical issues for our appropriation of these texts, which we will examine later.

It is also important to note what the representative role for human life suggests about our relationship with God and one another. We can serve this function in creation because we can be aware of and freely respond to God's call to this position in the world. That is, unlike lifeless statues, humans are to serve as God's image through an actual exercise of dominion that is to be a reflection of the divine dominion. This requires a high level of self-awareness and ability to make informed and independent decisions. It is, in other words, a responsibility requiring a certain measure of freedom and creativity. Furthermore, we exercise our responsibility together, not simply as lone individuals. This means that we must bear a mutual responsibility if we are to fulfill our role as God's image in the world.