Contemporary discussions of animals commonly speak of them in one of two ways. The dominant, anthropocentric, discourse regards animals as property. The second, more recent, and subordinate discourse treats non-human animals as living beings with their own interests. These interests are usually modelled upon human comparisons: to avoid suffering, to have a suitable environment, and so on. In this, the subordinate discourse is also anthropocentric, though less assertively so. Before the twentieth century, a third alternative existed. Certain Protestants, whom I have termed nonconformists, found in the biblical texts points of resistance which disrupted the then dominant ways of talking about animals. It spoke of a theocentric creatureliness, coexisting in praise of God; of mutual dependence; and of justice. It did not consider animals speechless, even to the point of themselves teaching humans. This generated a language conducive to creating new forms of agency and institutions in the public domain. The dual suppositions that humans are made in the Image of God, and have dominion over other animals are integral to nonconformity, with its more animal friendly discourse. Yet these are the very features widely perceived as legitimising the human exploitation of animals, causing routine suffering. I explore this seeming paradox, identifying the mechanisms of appropriation which have transformed Image of God and dominion into terms of oppression.