Zoo Theology: A Perspective on Ecology

I was recently walking around the zoo with my wife and kids and I had something of a revelation that I amusingly decided to call zoo theology… hear me out on this.  From time to time in the areas of science, philosophy and theology the question is raised, what separates humans from the rest of the animal kingdom?  On the side of science they would most often say, not much.  We have opposable thumbs which have allowed us to do some special things like make tools and so forth, but it is no different than the special features that other species uniquely posses.  We are an equal part of the animal kingdom and at the end of the day we are nothing terribly special.

 

On the philosophical and theological side (and yes I am going to intermingle them, though a fair share of philosophy streams do agree with science... humor me) they say there is a lot that separates us.  We have the ability to contemplate our own existence; we can compose music, write literature and create art, none of which was actually necessary for the survival of our species in the evolutionary process. Certainly we are above animals and are something special!

Though this may sound like an argument between the melancholy and egocentric both have valid points to offer.  As science says rightly, we are one-of-many intricate parts of the biological kingdom within one-of-many eco-systems that exists within in a ridiculously vast universe. Yet, we also have the ability to be contemplators of it all and operate in unusually creative avenues.  Perhaps both sides could add to this so to strengthen their positions and even attempt to explain the other a way, but I have a different alternative. 

        

            My “epiphany” that I observed happening in the zoo setting to some degree embraces both points.  I realized what really separates humans from animals was not that we ourselves are not animals, but we are the one species with the ability to care for all other species (including our own) in ways they could never do for each other or us in return; and we regularly do it at the risk of our own safety.  We can be loving towards them even when they cannot for us, we provide medical attention for their well-being, and we can contemplate and comprehend their existence enough to know their role in our world and creatively enable them to continue existing in that way, even in the face of extinction.  We have a profound influence in our world that does only belong to us.  

  

What makes this theological is that is also based on the assumption that humans are the species made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26) but to what extent do we bear His likeness?  Well I think it is safe to say that it is not in our anthropomorphisms (i.e. our physical attributes) it is perhaps in what is said after the image-bearing statement. It was qualified in God’s saying that we would reign (hdr)) radah) over the animal kingdom and eco-systems (Gen. 1:26-28), though this could just as well have been understood as “take responsibility for it.”  This may not wrap up every way we bear God's likeness, but it is something we see God regularly do for us.  It would then seem that those we have deemed tree-hugging environmentalists are doing something right as it is in our ability to creatively care for and influence the animal kingdom and eco-systems (for the better)  that we in some sense naturally fulfill our role as God’s image bearers.  Surely this has much broader implications for human character and action, but I will let you think through that one.