Finding Our Way with
Technology
Jim
Stewart
Published in the “Technology and Culture” section of the January
2006 Issue of Global Missiology
My Confession
I am a technophile. I admit it. I love gadgets of every sort, and eagerly search the popular and professional
literature for the next generation of technologies that will change our lives, perhaps to a degree and in a direction yet
unimagined.
But my general enthusiasm is counter-balanced with deep and
growing concerns about the cumulative impact of technology in general, and of certain
technologies in particular, upon the way we perceive ourselves, our culture,
and our God.
I was reminded of my evolving misgivings recently while
watching a basic cable program on the world’s largest commercial port, the port of Rotterdam. The narrator told of how
enormous container ships navigated the relatively-narrow channel into the port
where they would be unloaded by a complex automated system of towering cranes
and robotic transport vehicles. Using time-lapse photography, the producers
then accelerated the action to create a beautifully-choreographed dance of
machines. It was truly hypnotic.
Still, what was missing from the port, or at least from the
discussion? People. There was not even a glimpse of
the men and women who must surely chaperone the dance. Clearly, the thoughtful
viewer would not think that all this had developed absent a human cause or
functioned each day without human oversight. Nevertheless, the message of the
video was powerfully anthropomorphic. Unreasoning machines were given
personality, sentience, with human agency subordinated to the point of
inconsequence.
Technological
Explosion
In the mid-twentieth century,
the Christian philosopher and historian Francis Schaeffer proposed a
hierarchical structure that begins with God,
then man, animals, plants and machines. Schaeffer was concerned primarily
with the blurring of lines between God and man,
and between man and animals. Being forward looking and prophetic in his
pronouncement/publication, a technological
tsunami took place and literally inverted Schaeffer’s hierarchy not long after
his death in 1984.
In my opinion,
the ocean of technological explosion began to engulf contemporary culture at
the time when change occurred: from Digital Research’s Gary Kildall
to Bill Gates and the Microsoft Corporation for a disk operating system to
drive its new personal computers. Others might place the time marker at a
different point. Some might say that it was the advent of radio or television
that truly served to differentiate our modern concept of technology from the
mechanical age. Others might say it was the introduction of the telephone, or the electrical light bulb (both of which were
critical in the connecting of homes and businesses to a technology source), or perhaps the invention of the transistor that
would quickly lead to the development of the microchip.
Regardless of where the marker of major shift might be
placed but the fact is there has been a technological explosion. My choice of the popularizing of PC by Microsoft
as a clear shift for henceforth a powerful interactive technology was placed on
the corporate desktop. It was Bill Gates’ vision of the ubiquity of personal
computers that fueled the “IBM compatible” revolution and which would soon
spread into every aspect of our lives. And,
again in my opinion, it has been the
conceptual platform upon which virtually every other major medical, educational,
industrial or communications advancement has been based on and facilitated by it.
In just 25 short years we have moved technologically from
the first few clunky personal computers to a cascading torrent of systems that
could not have been imagined for all the preceding centuries of man’s history.
To mention just a few below:
- A
network that has virtually implanted a cell phone in the ear of every child, grade school and beyond;
- The
creation and expansion of the internet as a global information network;
- The
creation and expansion of the internet as a global communications network;
- Medical
testing systems such as Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), and Computed Axial Tomography (CAT) scans;
- The
mapping of the human genome and genetic engineering;
- Global
positioning, tracking and
mapping systems that unlock the world;
- Embedded
computer systems that provide “smart” functions to everything from
toasters to cars, and to
satellite technologies.
Impact on Culture
Yes, it is pretty
cool. I am incredibly thankful that I was,
by the grace of God, born into this
era of transition and technological advancement. My earnest regret is that I
will not be around 50 or 100 years from now to see what the impact of our
enthusiastic and unquestioning acceptance of these technologies will be and
their impact on culture.
Recent events demonstrate a pressing need to construct a
theology / philosophy of technology to establish the intellectual and ethical
frameworks within which science and its resulting technologies should be viewed
and employed properly.
For example, this
past month (November 2005) a court decision in Kansas stated that intelligent design could
not be taught in public schools because it is an unconstitutional endorsement
of religion. Intelligent design, the
court determined, was not “science.”
More important in the decision is the judge’s statement that he was not making
any determination as to whether intelligent design was true, just that it was not science. And so we have yet
another example when truth is neither a consideration nor a defense. Science (and
by extension, the scientific
community which includes applied technologies) by way of legal pronouncement is
the judge of truth and perceived to be superior to truth. Science has moved
from the bottom of Schaeffer’s hierarchy,
to the top. Science then became the judge of God.
Biological advances in technology also lack a sound
philosophical framework. Fetal viability (read baby) is often a critical factor
in the decision to abort. As Planned Parenthood acknowledges “Abortions after fetal
viability are extremely rare. Half of the 1.5 million abortions in the U.S. each year
take place within the first eight weeks of pregnancy; nine in 10 occur within
the first 12 weeks. Less than 1 percent are (sic) performed
after 20 weeks. Some 300-600 abortions -- or up to four one-hundredths of 1
percent -- are performed after 26 weeks.1”
Further, they state
that “In COLAUTTI, the Supreme Court defined viability as occurring ‘when, in
the judgment of the attending physician on the particular facts of the case
before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of the fetus' sustained survival
outside the womb, with or without artificial support. 2’” Typically,
that is set at no earlier than 23 to 24 weeks gestation.
So life and death
decisions are subject to the ability of technology to sustain a newborn outside
of the womb. If technology changes,
then our perception of who is a child changes? Does…or should…technology be the determining
factor in deciding what is life…who is human and who is not?
At the other end of the
continuum, with the possibility that embryonic stem cells could treat and cure presently
terminal conditions, is it appropriate to use newly-developed technologies to
extend life by sacrificing what many consider to be yet-unborn life?
Certainly, there are men and women behind each of these
decisions. Technology in its purest form would,
in many respects, be mute. I believe
it is true, however, that absent a coherent,
consistent and accepted ethical understanding,
technology is perceived by those with an agenda to be the dispassionate trump
card to any moral argument. As investigator Gil Grissom of CBS’ Crime Scene Investigation might say, “Science can’t lie. Science doesn’t take sides.”
In the minds of many, if science, and its operational technologies, can,
then it should. If morality and ethics divide,
then science should govern.
Implications on Ministries
The appropriate role of
technology extends into the church and ministry. Several weeks ago I had a
wonderful conversation with mission historian Dr. Mary Wilder. She talked of
the great men and women of faith who have answered the call of God to service
in some of the most difficult regions of the world. Their stories encourage
hearts and testify to the power of God often generations later. When I studied
for missions service almost thirty years ago, the discussion always returned to people…both
those who needed to hear the Gospel and the men and women who were training for
faithful service wherever He might lead.
In many of the ministry
discussions in which I have been involved in recent years, however, much of our
time has focused on how technology might reduce our dependence on personnel
assets. Can we use technology to replace the face-to-face recruiter with a web
site? What communication and administrative tools are available to reduce the
infrastructure demands of the mission? Can we use technology to extend our
field ministry without increasing the number of deployed personnel? Admittedly,
some of the discussions might be weighted because of my participation.
Discussions often turn to technologies when I am involved; don’t know why.
It is clear that I am neither a philosopher
nor a historian. I am certainly not a prophet. I am one who welcomes change,
loves the potential that new technologies represent, but recognizes that we
still have much to learn about how to integrate new systems into our
contemporary cultural context. Has it not always been so? I imagine that
following the discovery of fire, more than one person was burned until we
learned to harness its power and control its safe use.
And
so I conclude with some questions for your consideration:
How
do we in ministry, as citizens of
our time, help to develop a
philosophy / theology of technology? Where do we begin? What is an appropriate
role for technology in ministry? I invite your comments and suggestions. Please
e-mail me at jstewart@westernseminary.edu
or call me at 503-517-1898.
___________________________________________________
1 http://www.ppacca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuJYJeO4F&b=139571
2 ibid.