Over the last 2000 years, numerous church leaders and theologians have (ab)used the term “dominion” in Genesis 1:26,28) to justify the enslavement, torture, abuse, rape, and murder of innocent creatures of God; and their interpretations of “dominion” can be classified as either hardcore or soft. IMO, these two models have problems in terms of accuracy and security, as a result of which I am proposing a third one below.
Full Text link: https://www.hkbnews.net/post/three-models-of-dominion-genesis-1-26-hard-soft-and-servantly-by-dr-chapman-chen
1. Despotism as Hard Dominion
The first one is a hard one, namely, “dominion” as absolute despotic authority and power over animals, as purported by St. Augustine (354-430), St. Thomas Aquinas (1224/1225-1274), Martin Luther (1483-1546), John Calvin (1509-1564), etc. They believe that “man made in God’s image” and “dominion” mean that only the human species possesses reason, and all the other creatures were irrational, dumb things created by God for humans to use and exploit in whatever way they see fit (Note 1).
2. Stewardship as Soft Dominion
The second one is a soft one, namely, “dominion” as stewardship or benevolent lordship, which had existed since at least the 17th century, before it was formally established by Rev. Prof. Andrew Linzey (1995). Linzey argues that we are commissioned by God to exercise a self-costly guardianship over creation and serve them in the manner of Christ's lordship (Linzey 1995:44), the inner logic of which is “the sacrifice of the higher for the lower; not the reverse” (Linzey 1995: 71). Linzey (1995:57) is adamant that humanity is the only species that possesses the unique potential to co-operate with God in liberating the other species. Linzey is even progressive enough to assert that “the involuntary, unsought death of any sentient creature” amounts to muder (Linzey 1995:121).
3. Hypocritical Theologians
Between these two categories, there are a number of theologians who pretend to be advocating soft dominion while in fact abiding by hard dominion, notably, Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), John Wesley (1703-1791), Karl Barth (1886-1968), Billy Graham(1918-2018), Stephen Webb (1961-2016), Michael Rennie Stead (1969- ), etc. This is because stewardship or Christ-like lordship still carries some power, which people tend to abuse. These theologians concede that God loves all creatures, that they suffer terribly, and that we treat them kindly. However, on the ground that humans are God’s surrogate on earth, they also maintain that the concept of “stewardship” includes the right to domesticate and raise innocent creatures of God in order to kill or use them for food, for clothing, for labour and for entertainment, etc., provided that they are treated with dignity before being given a “merciful death.” Now, how could there possibly be any merciful about killing someone who doesn’t want to die?!
4. Dominion as Authorityless Servanthood
I would like, therefore, to propose a third model of “dominion” in the compassionate spirit of Jesus Christ, namely, “dominion” as servanthood with no authority whatsoever on the part of humans over animals. For the ancient, pre-Masoretic Hebrew word in consonantal form for “dominion” is yirdu ( ירדו), which could refer to either radah (רָדָה /subjugate) or yarad (יָרַד /lower oneself) (cf. Ehrenfeld and Bentley 1985:301). Since Jesus stressed, “I came to serve, NOT to be served!” (Matthew 20:28), and humans are assigned to take good care of the Garden (Gen. 2:15), only yarad could be the right interpretation.
5. Conclusion
In a word, to interpret human “dominion” over animals as authorityless servanthood, or to humbly wait on other creatures as a powerless servant, is far more accurate as well as safer than despotism and even stewardship, because servanthood fits in with Jesus' compassionate spirit, and “power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely” (Lord Acton 1887).
Notes
1. St. Tertullian (145-), St. Clement of Alexandria (150-211/215), and St. John Chrysostom (347-407) are adamant that carnivorous gluttony is detrimental to our body and soul. Their reasons for abstaining from animal flesh, however, are not primarily rooted in compassion for animals, but rather in spiritual, health and ascetic motivations. Even they believe that man being made in God’s image and given dominion over other animals mean that God has subjected all things on earth to humanity, that all other creatures are irrational and they exist primarily for our sake (though Chrysostom does admit that God made His covenant with not only humans but animals, to a certain extent).
Comentarios