Are We Special? A Critique of imago Dei

Introduction

The aim of this article is to address the following research question: ‘How are human beings special when considering the doctrine of imago Dei in light of contemporary scientific knowledge?’ This article argues that human distinctiveness is not embedded in an understanding of imago Dei, which elevates humanity above the rest of creation, but gleaning from science, it proposes a theological approach which emphasises the uniqueness in our ability to consciously and deliberately strive towards a more naturally integrated existence.

A recent conference of the European Society for the Study of Science and Theology (ESSSAT) asked the following question pertaining to humankind: ‘Are we special?’ (European Society for the Study of Science and Theology 2016). With this enquiry, perspectives from science and religion considered the notion of human uniqueness. The complexity of this question became apparent as participants offered arguments, ranging from how human beings are peculiar at a molecular level, to the distinctiveness of life (and more specifically human life) in the context of the universe.

Considering this question from a theological perspective, the traditional Christian anthropological doctrine of imago Dei played a prominent role in discussions. It could be argued that this pronouncement, rooted in scripture, is fundamental to Christian self-understanding. Thus, this possibility: in a reductionist reading of Christian doctrine, humanity ‘being special’ is at the heart of humankind’s place in the realm of creation, the reason for God entering into covenants with humanity, and is one of the precursors for the incarnation, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The question of imago Dei’s influence on the major Christian doctrines will not to be considered in this article. Nonetheless, given the above-mentioned possibility, it is permissible to conclude that humanity occupies a central cosmological position in a Christian doctrinal worldview.

Needless to say, to the natural sciences, particularly evolutionary biology, the argument of human cosmological centrality is preposterous. Not only does Christian theology base its definition of human identity (and need for divine action) on the premise of a few verses in the Bible (predominantly Gn 1:26–28), but as Dawkins1 argues ‘… Adam [and Eve]2… never existed in the first place: an awkward fact …’ (Dawkins 2006). He further taunts Christian doctrine by stating:

Oh, but of course, the story of Adam and Eve was only ever symbolic, wasn’t it? Symbolic? So, in order to impress himself, Jesus had himself tortured and executed, in vicarious punishment for a symbolic sin committed by a non-existent individual? (p. 253)

In addition, the following questions could be asked: who told humanity that they were created in God’s image? Did God say that? If so, who was there to hear what God said before humanity was created? Wasn’t the Bible written by human beings (obviously biased in their reflection), locked in particular contexts with the aim of conveying messages which were relevant to their worldview, situation and theology? Is imago Dei nothing more than an inflated, self-appropriated notion, addressing the question of human identity using theological and cosmological understandings of a

particular time, culture and context? Is it responsible for shaping not only modern theology but worldview, ethics, economic sciences, politics, efforts in conservation, and the list goes on?

Imago Dei, vis-à-vis the natural sciences, is problematic on several fronts. The mere suggestion of being specifically and intentionally ‘created’ by an intelligent and causal God, with the purpose of appointing humanity as God’s co-creators and stewards of the ‘created’ realm, seems from the view of evolutionary biology to be rather arrogant and ignorant. The challenge to imago Dei remains that despite this purist perspective of self, humanity is the greatest contributor to the current negative outlook on climate change, the destruction of natural resources and the threat to varied species of life. So much for being in God’s image … or could one argue that the gods of hedonism, self-focussed power and exploitative wealth would demand exactly such destructive behaviour?

What do we make of the Biblical

teaching of imago Dei?

Traditionally, Genesis 1:28–29 has been a pivotal text in defining human uniqueness. As De Smedt and De Cruz correctly assert, ‘Scripture does not provide clear specifications on how the imago Dei should be understood. As a result, theologians have developed a wide variety of interpretations of this concept …’ (De Smedt & De Cruz 2014:136). By and large, imago Dei has been used to refer to the ‘… affirmation of human dignity and pre-eminence over the rest of creation’ (Altmann 1968:235). This is, however, not always the case.

In his publication, Alone in the world: Human uniqueness in science and theology, Van Huyssteen points out that imago Dei should not be exclusively limited to a reading of Genesis 1 (Van Huyssteen 2006:118). The risk of doing so leads to an interpretation that human beings occupy an elevated and rather ‘relationally dislocated’ position in the world. In fact, to only refer to Genesis 1 when speaking about imago Dei is doing a philosophical disservice to this complex notion. Van Huyssteen draws on three Biblical images that together give a more comprehensive human self-understanding. In doing so, imago Dei could be reinterpreted to point to the unfolding of human self-understanding, and not a pronouncement which seemingly places the spotlight on humanity as the pinnacle of God’s creation. Van Huyssteen describes the progression in the Biblical image as follows.

Beings amongst beings: Genesis 1:26–28

As the most commonly used text for expounding the idea of imago Dei, this passage describes humanity, both male and female, as created in God’s image and likeness. A literal reading would of course suggest a human superiority over the rest of creation, but when read in its historical context, it suggests something different. Genesis 1, written as a response to Enuma Elish,3 draws from Egyptian and Mesopotamian understandings

of a king or social leader as being God’s representative (Fergusson 2013:455; Van Huyssteen 2006:118–120) and places humanity as beings amongst beings who represent God in the created order (Van Huyssteen 2006:118–123). In this proclamation of being created in God’s likeness, humanity is given the position of being the point of contact between God and creation. Not only are the first people given this right, but it is a privilege extended to all humans in the Covenant which God made with Noah and his family (Gn 9:1–7) (Van Huyssteen 2006:120). The passage further alludes to humanity’s role in exercising dominion over creation, hence fulfilling its role as God’s representatives by maintaining order and balance in creation. On this point, Van Huyssteen concludes that this passage intends to say little about where humans come from but rather reflects something about our nature as responsible participants and co-habitants in God’s created order (Van Huyssteen 2006:128).

Knowledge of good and evil: Genesis 3:22

Where Genesis 1 points to the positive and affirming description of humankind, this passage points to the other side of the coin. Humanity, created in God’s image, is able to distinguish between good and evil (Van Huyssteen 2006:123). This ability may not seem like a bad thing at first, but we get to know in Genesis 3 that it becomes the precursor for human rebellion against God, replacing divine authority with what humanity itself decides to be good and right. Obviously, from a Biblical perspective, this image carries negative connotations. However, scholars such as Vainio point to this feature of imago Dei as marking the difference between humanity and all other creatures, for humanity exhibits the capacity for rationality – associated with Van Huyssteen’s first point – and the capacity to be morally responsible (Vainio 2014:126).

Agents of restoration: 1 Corinthians 15:45

In this and subsequent images, such as that found in Colossians 1:15, imago Dei is described in Christological terms (Van Huyssteen 2006:124). Jesus is described as the Second Adam, the one in whom the completeness of the imago Dei is fulfilled. Salvation entails being restored into the image of Christ, who himself is the imago Dei, extending God’s image to all who respond to God’s grace in faith.

The Biblical progression of imago Dei, in accordance with Van Huyssteen’s interpretation, can thus be summarised in the following points:

1. Human beings act as beings amongst beings, with the purpose of maintaining life and order in the world (employing rationality and functional awareness).

2. Human beings are able to distinguish between good and evil (moral awareness).

3. Human beings strive for ideal existential identity ([self-] actualisation).4