Comments on Denis Alexander's 'Worshipping God with technology'
Andrew Basden
June 2004
In the situation in which we find ourselves, in which Christian cultural attitudes to technology are mixed and often contradictory, it is important to make an attempt at "thinking biblically about technology." This is what Denis Alexander has done in his Cambridge Paper 12(4) Worshipping God with Technology . It raises a number of important issues around an important topic, but I find it is not sufficient to fulfil the role of being any kind of definitive statement of a Christian view of technology. It is only a start - but it is a very useful start that takes us further than many other attempts have done.
I will comment on the good points of the paper, then discuss eight problems I have with it, in the hope that doing so will enable a fuller Biblical thinking about technology to emerge; how this might be achieved is addressed in the Conclusion. But, first, let me explain my ...
1. Approach to Critique of Paper
I want my interest in technology, and my use of it, to be in harmony with my faith, and vice versa. Involved in computer technology since the early 1970s, and electronic technology before that, I have struggled with at least three 'new' technologies - expert systems, multimedia and virtual reality - seeking to understand them and to discern something of their 'place' in the world as the Living God intends and in the salvation that he brings though Jesus Christ.
Some of my critique of the paper might be unfair to Denis Alexander because it seems he was attempting some kind of general reflection on technology, whereas what I want is Biblical thinking that provides useful wisdom and guidance in the real world where I meet technology on a daily basis. The guidance I want is of two types. I need to decide how to relate to technology, and I need to form a robust paradigmatic perspective on technology in general from which classifications, theories and methodologies relating to technology are generated. Some of these things, in my view, need to be added to Alexander's account.
I agree with some of Denis Alexander's specific views (such as the need to question our acceptance of the car) and disagree with others (such as his stance on genetically modified crops; see my reasons for opposing GM). I want to put such agreements and disagreements to one side, as far as I can, and make criticisms (positive and negative) of this paper that would stand whether I agreed or disagreed with the author on such issues.
2. Good Points
As mentioned above, the present confusion of Christian attitudes to technology demands a Biblically-founded discussion. Some Christians are uneasy about it, some see it as a wonderful opportunity to spread the gospel, some see it as almost mandatory if we want to bring our church life up to date (as long as we have the funds to spend on video projectors, computers and the like), and most tend to accept it as part of that 'other' life, the secular life, that is of little importance when compared with spiritual realities.
Denis Alexander tries to cut through this confusion. He starts with Genesis 1:26-28 and sees technology as part of humankind's role of dominion over the creation. So technology is fundamentally positive, part of God's plan. To me, this is a very useful starting point.
He then develops this positive theme further, suggesting that technology is part of our very worship of God. This should chime well with those (maybe the majority) who believe that worship is the primary thing that God requires of us in life. If it could be argued that technology is part of that worship, then surely Christians will be properly positive towards technology, and creatively so.
If technology is good, the question then becomes whether we use this positive thing in good or bad ways. Denis Alexander goes further than many do to stress our responsibility to use technology aright, and he approaches it from several different angles. He suggests that technology should be beautiful. He draws our attention to our distorted notion of risk - suggesting it is at least ironic that we should blandly accept a technology that kills 800,000 people a year and injures 23 million - the motor car. He has a useful discussion of appropriate technology, and his suggestion of practical examples of what Christians can do (e.g. use a bike, not a car, to help the poor) inject a spark of liveliness in the paper. His discussion ranges over several technologies, including the internet, transport and crop technologies.
He emphasises, several times, that God values material things, which is an important corrective when Christians too often emphasise the spiritual. Going beyond this, Alexander points out that, at least to the Greeks, technology applied also to non-material things; this is important in discussing, for example, information technology.
His brief discussion of the relational view of technology provides important insight that is often overlooked. It could be developed further, though perhaps in a more specialised paper. Linked with that, he argues that "the social perspective should be central in our thinking about technology", by which he means especially that we should take account of the diverse indirect impacts that our use technology has on others around us, and even on society as a whole. Thus his discussion about technology is situated where it needs to be: in the wider social context within which we all have responsibility under God.
3. Problems in the Paper
But I also have reservations about the paper, especially from the point of view of a reader who wants a Biblical understanding to contain wisdom that can guide. I will discuss them in greater detail than the good points since it is my hope that a better version of a biblical understanding of technology could be generated if the following points are taken into account. Some just need to be added to the paper, but some challenge the underlying assumptions or approach.
3.1 Primary and Secondary Norms?
The section that sets out the main approach, 'A biblical mandate for technology' contains three principles:
" Development of technology is mandated by God for the human race.
" Therefore, "Technology is a moral obligation ..." and, by implication, any attempt to resist or halt technology is at best suspect and probably going against God.
" The only limit on our technological development cited in this section is that we should not use it to build idols.
Thus we have the basic mandate, a motivating principle, and a limiting principle. I agree with the mandate, to some extent, but find the other two principles not particularly helpful in practice. The sole limit contained in the third principle is too general to be of much help in guiding us when tackling tricky issues, as we shall see below.
He does argue for certain other limits in later sections. But that is the only one that he includes as inherent in the biblical mandate; the others seem 'tacked on' and thus weaker in their effect. It might not have been the author's intention, but the effect of placing discussion of these other norms outside this section is to imply they are secondary.
A full biblical understanding of technology would have all the important norms that might limit technology included in the main list of principles, not secondary to them.
We will see some such norms emerging from our discussion of the rest of the paper. Therefore, they are there, and just need to be moved; this criticism is mainly about how the paper has been structured, and is thus not particularly severe.
3.2 Prioritising Technologies
One major issue that faces us is: how should we prioritize the development of various technologies? For examaple, how should the nation's resources (money and human effort) be divided between nuclear technology versus information technology? And how much of the nation's resources should be devoted to developing technology rather than to, for example, social services? Are there any grounds for deciding to not develop a particular technology in a particular situation>? Decisions must always be made on which technologies should have priority, and on the speed with which technology should develop.
But the three principles above give us few grounds on which we can prioritise different technologies. They suggest there are no Biblical grounds, apart from using technology to build an idol, for deciding to stop development of a given technology.
The second principle above is dangerous also because it effectively prohibits even any discussion about whether a certain technology should be not developed. If someone does not wish to abide by one of the author's normative suggestions (e.g. that we should use bike rather than car), they they can appeal to the second principle above to override it. It allows anyone to urge that their own pet technology should be given resources for its development, and provides no framework by which such an appeal could be resisted.
Moreover, from a non-Christian point of view, the second principle is dangerously close to the now discredited view of 'technology for technology's sake', and as such would make it very difficult for Christian thought based on Alexander's approach to make a real contribution to the wider debate on technology. If this were the Christian view, Christians would be seen as people with their mindset back in the 1970s.
I want a full Biblical mandate to provide me with a framework that will enable me to consider and discuss which technologies to develop and which not in any particular circumstance or cultural situation.
Related to this is the important question of how to decide between technology and natural processes.
3.3 Relationship Between Technology and Nature
There is no discussion of the very important issue of the relationship between nature and technology. To what extent should we be content with the natural processes and things that God provided, and to what extent should we drive forward in our technological development of new things? In developing technology we are, very often, deciding that the natural things are not sufficient for us, inconvenient for us, or do not allow us to maximise some aspect and thus reduce our ability to compete with others. Romantics and Alexander, it would seem, would give opposing answers to this question, but I believe we need a more considered approach to this, and believe that, perhaps, it is the most important question we face with regard to technology.
The sole time the author mentions nature is when he says "And then as a final challenge to an overly romanticised view of nature, the new heaven and the new earth are represented not by a restored garden but by a Holy City (Revelation 21)." This is unfortunate, because though I agree that an "overly romanticised view" needs to be challenged, the 'body language' of the author in writing that indicates that he is deeply unsympathetic to any view that places importance on natural (i.e. less technological) ways of living. From the absence of any other discussion of this issue, it seems he does not admit that there could be a valid (not overly romanticised) view of nature.
It is important for a full biblical mandate framework to help us decide, or at least allow us to discuss the issue of, how far we let technology displace what is 'natural', and how far it is good to be content with the processes and things that God has provided in the natural world.
Related to this is the section on 'Technology as Healer and Destroyer', in which he remarks, "It is ultimately human choice as to whether technology is used to heal or destroy." This is true, but I found myself thinking "Of course; that's obvious, but how does it help me?" What I need is some guidance as to the ground on which I should,
- first, discern healing from destruction and,
- second, make the choice between them.
What about technologies that destroy one thing while healing another? Does the possibility of 'healing' a disease completely justify destruction of, for example, animals, rain forests or cultures? Especially when the disease itself is very much a result of our affluent and unconcerned lifestyles (Ezek. 16:49).
A biblical view of health and destruction involves the natural world as inherently interwoven with that of human beings, rather than being seen as a mere resource; think, for example, of God's desire that animals and the land, as well as people, should enjoy sabbaths.
3.4 Distinct Areas of Concern re. Technology
I work in information technology, in which there are at least four areas of concern:
- the shaping (or bringing into being) of a type of technology,
- its use to create artifacts for human use or systems with which humans work,
- the repercussions of use of such artifacts or systems (beneficial or detrimental), and
- the way in which technology is itself an environment, an Umwelt , in which we live, affecting the way we live, our expectations, our aspirations, our world views, etc. (e.g. the Internet or the dominance of Microsoft).
The author does not sufficiently differentiate between them. Most of his discussion is on the first, though he slides into the others from time to time without apparently realising that different issues pertain in those. I find the norms that guide me in each area are different, and it is confusing or even harmful if norms of one area are assumed to apply to others.
I want a biblical mandate to provide a framework that recognises the difference between - though also the connections between - the above, and enable me to consider each from a biblical point of view.
3.5 Traditional and Systemic Technologies
Taking part of the preceding point further, there is a difference between technology as fashioning things using natural materials and what has been called systemic technology, in which we are very much removed from natural materials and which require a huge societal infrastructure to support it (e.g. cars would be useless were it not for the road system, the system of supplying fuel, the system of dealing with accidents, the police, etc.). This difference is much discussed in philosophy of technology circles. But I believe the author does not sufficiently distinguish between them.
The three examples he gives of large technological projects in the Scriptures - Noah's ark, the tabernacle and the temple - are all of the first kind, and retained the natural materials - gold, jewels, stone, linen, etc. - which, in a sense, could still be discerned and could be seen as themselves glorifying their Creator. It is dangerous if we draw general conclusions from these three projects and apply them to the huge systemic projects of today.
There are a number of differences between natural and systemic technology.
" One is that in systemic technology, the natural materials can no longer be discerned and no longer themselves glorify their Creator; all shouts glory to Man rather than God.
" Also, in systemic technology, we become locked in to a system and thereby lose some of our freedom - which might be of little consequence to us in the affluent West but is much more problematic in the poorer parts of the world. (This is one of the problems I have with GM crops as distinct and that set GM apart from selective breeding.)
" A third thing is that systemic technology distances us and our lifestyles, habits and expectations from the natural world, so that it becomes less important to us and our stewardship of it becomes a more distant concern.
" A fourth is that systemic technology tends to pander to our laziness and worship of convenience, our pride and desire to be above others, and so on.
This is not to say that systemic technology is inherently evil, but rather that a full biblical understanding of technology should provide a framework in which the difference between systemic and traditional technologies is recognised and in which its salient characteristics may be given their due, so that we can properly discern when it is evil and when good.
In the view I hold, it has much to do with world views and aspirations which, in Western climes (including Americanized-Christian climes), are predominently idolatrous, as we see below.
3.6 New and Mature Technologies
The author suggests "Today technology often promotes smaller-scale working ... quiet rural settings ..." Such good effects might occur in the initial stages of the development of a technology, especially among people of good will; and often the early adopters of technology are such people. But, in most cases, this proves to be a rather romanticized view of technology which does not match the reality once a technology becomes mature. Think, for example, of the promise of the paperless office! The initial promise of a technology too often turns out to be a chimera or worse. We need to differentiate between initial and mature stages in the inception of a technology. A technology cannot be justified simply because of apparent benefits that appear during its early years.
A fully biblical framework would provide a means by which the mature state of a new technology could be at least discussed, and by which premature acquiescence to the initial, exciting stages of the technology could be avoided.
3.7 Dehumanisation
The section 'Technology as Humanising and Dehumanising' introduces a very important topic, and the author very nicely links this with the norm of loving our neighbour and underlines the importance of indirect impacts on people and things distant from us users of technology. The author cites global warming and low-lying areas of the world as a major issue to which we should give attention.
But I found the treatment of the topic of the dehumanising effect of technology somewhat disappointing. 'Dehumanising' is used more for its connotation than its meaning, and this led the author into 'chucking in' at the end "Even more dehumanising is the failure to create and use technologies to meet human needs." Despite the author's obvious wish that we should accept this, we cannot accept this as given, without proper argument or discussion.
Perhaps more seriously, the author seems to avoid the real problem of dehumanisation, because he confuses dehumanisation with other "destructive consequences". Thinkers like Weber and Habermas have long ago discussed the dehumanising effects of technology, especially of the systemic kind, and they trace it to loss of meaning. A fully biblical framework would address this issue - and Schuurman [1984] does so and proposes "a liberating perspective on technology" that avoids dehumanisation. I have taken Schuurman's ideas further in an attempt to humanise all areas of information technology, in my forthcoming work 'An Integrative Philosophy for Information Systems'.
I believe much of the dehumanising effect of technology occurs when technology leads us to treat human beings as less than God intended them to be. In fact, a fully biblical framework would go further, and address the issue of technology leading us to treat anything (e.g. plants, animals) as less than God intended them to be.
3.8 Technology and World Views
Dehumanisation is linked with world views held by society, and especially world views held by the powerful and well-resourced and dominant in society. In several places, it seems as though the author does not fully recognise the importance of world view, and the place technology has within this. (Indeed, more generally, the relationship between technology and other societal issues is at best only partially discussed.)
For example, he opines "Hopefully Christians will not be amongst the contemporary Luddites who instinctively attack new technologies without being willing to undertake the hard slog necessary to assess their possible benefits." I agree at one level. But many of those he dismisses as 'Luddites' are concerned about a particular technology because of the idolatrous world view that accompanies it, and with which such technology is irretrievably connected. We are against certain technologies because of the associated world views. To "assess the possible benefits" is not enough, because even if there are benefits the idolatrous world view needs to be resisted. Jeroboam "assessed the benefits" of creating a gold image of the Lord in Samaria, but God held it to be sin.
The author's tendency to isolate the issue of technology from our world views, aspirations, lifestyles, cultures, etc. shows in his attempt to justify GM crops. He tries to narrow our focus to the technology and its functional impact of providing food for the world's poor, understood in largely quantitative terms of population growth. But the poor are more than mouths to feed; they are human beings in cultures, and it is the height of arrogance to suggest we know best how their habits and cultures should be changed. (He does allude to this issue in one place, where he cites Calvin as urging ".. hand it down to posterity as he received it, or even better .." but he fails to apply that thinking to the issue of GM.)
A fully biblical understanding of technology would acknowledge the issues of world views, especially of an idolatrous kind (and not just whether technology is used to build an idol or not). Useful works that discuss this include Goudzwaard's Idols of our Time and Walsh and Middleton's The Transforming Vision .
4. Conclusion
The paper by Alexander is a useful contribution in a Christian discussion about technology because it raises some useful points. But it must not be seen as a definitive Christian view on technology because so much is missing. I have suggested that a fully biblical understanding of technology will be a framework that, in addition to maintaining the essential validity of technological functioning among human beings, would:
" ensure that all important norms are among the primary principles,
" provide a basis for discussing which technologies to develop and which not to,
" give us a basis for discussing how far we let technology displace what is 'natural', and how far it is good to be content with the processes and things that God has provided in the natural world,
" recognise the distinct areas of concern related to technology,
" recognise the difference between systemic and traditional technologies and enable us to discern when each is appropriate,
" discourage us from premature acquiescence to immature technologies and acknowledge that the mature state of a technology can be very different,
" provide a 'liberating perspective' that discourages us from treating human beings, animals, plants or anything as less than God intended them to be,
" recognises that, very often, technologies are inescapably tied in with certain world views, and that resistance to a technology might be needed while its accompanying world view is in force.
Would this make for a much longer paper? I believe not. There is much that could be removed without damaging the overall argument, and much of the argument could be tightened. The paper already contains elements that would contribute to some of these, and they merely have to be brought into sharper focus.
It would, however, require a different view to be taken on the root passage in Genesis 1. Our 'dominion' does not authorise us to use the rest of creation as a resource, for our own tasks, convenience or pleasure, but rather it sees us as imaging God for the sake of the rest of creation. But that is a whole new discussion, for later.
References
Goudzwaard B (1984) Idols of our Time. IVP.
Schuurman E (1980) Technology and the Future. Toronto: Wedge Publishing.
Walsh B, Middleton B (1984) The Transforming Vision. IVP.