April 2019

Will AI Deliver? 4 Factors That Can Derail the AI Revolution

2019 is well under way and the attention on Artificial Intelligence persists. An AI revolution is already underway (for a very informative deep dive on this topic check this infographic). Businesses are investing heavily in the field and staffing up their data science departments, Governments are releasing AI strategy plans and the media continues to churns out fantastic stories about the possibilities of AI. Beyond that, discussions about ethics and appropriate uses are starting to emerge. Even the Vatican is paying attention. What could go wrong?

If history is any guide, we have been through an AI spring before only to see it fall into an AI winter. In the mid 80’s, the funding dried, government programs were shut down and the attention moved on to other emerging technologies. While we live a different reality, a more globalized and connected world, there is no guarantee that the promise of AI will come to pass.

In this blog, as an industry insider and diligent observer, I describe factors that could derail the AI revolution. In short, here are the things that could turn our AI spring into another bitter winter.

#1: Business Projects Fail to Deliver

Honestly, this is a reality I face everyday at work. As a professional deeply involved in a massive AI project, I am often confronted with the thought: what if it fails? Just like me, hundreds of professionals are currently paving the way for an AI future that promises intelligent processes, better customer service and increased profits. So far, Wall Street has believed the claim that AI can unlock business value. Investors and C-level executives have poured in money to staff up, upgrade systems and many time re-configure organizations to usher in an AI revolution in their business.

What is rarely talked about is the enormous challenges project teams face to transform these AI promises into reality. Most organizations are simply not ready for these changes. Furthermore, as the public becomes more aware of privacy breaches, the pressure to be innovative while also addressing ethical concerns is daunting. Even as those are resolved, there is the challenge of buy-in from internal lines of business who can perceive these solutions as an existential threat.

The significant technical, political and operational challenges of innovation all conspire to undermine or dilute the benefits promised by the AI revolution. Wall Street may be buying into the promise now but their patience is short. If AI projects fail to deliver concrete results in a timely manner, investment could dry up and progress in this area could be significantly halted. If it fails in the private sector, I can easily see this cascading into the public sector as well.

#2: Consumers Reject AI-enabled Solutions

Now let’s say the many AI projects happening across industries are technical and organizational successes. Let’s say they translate into compelling products and services that are then offered to consumers all over the globe. What if not enough of them adopt these new products or services? Just think about the Segway that was going to revolutionize mobility years ago but never really took off as a mass product. Adoption always carries the risk inherent in the unpredictable human factor.

Furthermore, accidents and business scandals can have a compounding effect on the public opinion of these products. One cannot deny that the driverless car pedestrian fatality last year in Arizona is already impacting its development possibly delaying launches by months if not years. Concerns with privacy threaten to erode the public’s confidence on business usage of data which could in turn further hamper AI innovation.

Technology is advancing at neck-breaking speed. Can humans keep up and even more importantly, do they care to? For the techno-capitalist, the human need for devices is endless. They spread this message through clever marketing campaigns. Yet, is everyone really buying it? AI-enabled products and services can only succeed if they are able to demonstrate true value in the eyes of the consumer. Otherwise, even technical marvels are destined to fail.

#3: Governments Restrict AI Innovation Through Regulation

Another factor that could derail the AI revolution is government regulation. It is important to note that not all regulation is harmful for innovation. Yet, ill-devised, politically motivated, reactive regulation often does. This could come from both sides of the political spectrum. Progressive politicians could enact burdensome taxes on the use of AI technology discouraging its development. Conservative could create laws siding with large business interests that choke innovation at the start-up level.

Emerging technologies like AI are currently not front-end center topic in elections. This can be a blessing in disguised as it is probably too early to create regulatory apparatus on these technologies. Yet, that does not mean government should not be involved. Virtuous policy should bring different stakeholders to the table by creating an open process of discussion and learning.

With that said, governments all over the world face the challenge to walk the delicate balance between intervention and neglect. Doing this well is very context-dependent not lending itself to sweeping generalizations. Yet, it must start with engagement. It was shocking to see US lawmakers’s ignorance of social media business models demonstrated in recent hearings. That gives me little hope they would be able to grasp the complexities of AI technologies. Hopefully, a new batch of more tech-savy lawmakers will help.

#4: Nationalism Hampers Global Collaboration

The development of AI thrives on an ecosystem where researchers from different countries can freely share ideas and best practices. A free Internet, a relatively peaceful global order and a willingness to share knowledge have so far ensured the flourishing of research through collaboration. As Nationalist movements rise, this ecosystem is in danger of collapsing.

Another concerning scenario is a a geopolitical AI race for dominance. While this can incentivize individual nations to focus their efforts on research, it can also undermine the spread and enhancing of AI technology applications. A true AI revolution should not be limited to one nation or even one region. Instead, it must benefit the whole planet less it becomes another tool for Colonialism.

On the one hand, regional initiatives like the European Union’s AI strategy are a good start. The ambitious Chinese AI strategy is concerning. The jury is still out on the recently released US strategy. What is missing is an overall vision of global collaboration on the field. This will most likely come from intra-governmental organizations like the UN. Until then, nationalist pursuits in AI will continue to challenge global collaboration.

Conclusion

This is all I could come up, a robust but by no means an exhaustive list of what could go wrong. Can you think of other factors? Above all, the deeper question is, if we these factors derail the AI revolution, would that be necessarily tragic? In some ways, this could delay important discoveries and breakthroughs. However, slowing down AI development may not be necessarily bad as conversations on ethics and public awareness is its beginning stages.

In the history of technology we often overestimate their impact in the short run but underestimate it in the long run. What if the AI ushers no revolution but instead a long process of gradual improvements? Maybe that’s a better scenario than the fast change promised to business investors by ambitious entrepreneurs.

ERLC Statement on AI: An Annotated Christian Response

Recently, the ERLC (Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission) released a statement on AI. This was a laudable step as the Southern Baptist became the first large Christian denomination to address this issue directly. While this is a start, the document fell short in many fronts. From the start, the list of signers had very few technologists and scientists.

In this blog, I show both the original statement and my comments in red. Judge for yourself but my first impression is that we have a lot of work ahead of us.

Article 1: Image of God

We affirm that God created each human being in His image with intrinsic and equal worth, dignity, and moral agency, distinct from all creation, and that humanity’s creativity is intended to reflect God’s creative pattern.

Ok, that’s a good start by locating creativity as God’s gift and affirming dignity of all humanity. Yet, the statement exalts human dignity at expense of creation. Because AI, and technology in general, is about human relationship to creation, setting the foundation right is important. It is not enough to highlight human primacy, one must clearly state our relationship with the rest of creation.

We deny that any part of creation, including any form of technology, should ever be used to usurp or subvert the dominion and stewardship which has been entrusted solely to humanity by God; nor should technology be assigned a level of human identity, worth, dignity, or moral agency.

Are we afraid of a robot take over of humanity? Here it would have been helpful to start distinguishing between general and narrow AI. The first is still decades away while the latter is already here and poised to change every facet of our lives. The challenge of narrow AI is not one of usurping our dominion and stewardship but of possibly leading us to forget our humanity. They seem to be addressing general AI. Maybe including more technologists in the mix would have helped.

Genesis 1:26-28; 5:1-2; Isaiah 43:6-7; Jeremiah 1:5; John 13:34; Colossians 1:16; 3:10; Ephesians 4:24

Article 2: AI as Technology

We affirm that the development of AI is a demonstration of the unique creative abilities of human beings. When AI is employed in accordance with God’s moral will, it is an example of man’s obedience to the divine command to steward creation and to honor Him. We believe in innovation for the glory of God, the sake of human flourishing, and the love of neighbor. While we acknowledge the reality of the Fall and its consequences on human nature and human innovation, technology can be used in society to uphold human dignity. As a part of our God-given creative nature, human beings should develop and harness technology in ways that lead to greater flourishing and the alleviation of human suffering.

Yes, well done! This affirmation is where Christianity needs to be. We are for human flourishing and the alleviation of suffering. We celebrate and support Technology’s role in these God-given missions.

We deny that the use of AI is morally neutral. It is not worthy of man’s hope, worship, or love. Since the Lord Jesus alone can atone for sin and reconcile humanity to its Creator, technology such as AI cannot fulfill humanity’s ultimate needs. We further deny the goodness and benefit of any application of AI that devalues or degrades the dignity and worth of another human being.

I guess what they mean here is that technology is a limited means and cannot ultimately be the salvation. I see here a veiled critique of Transhumanism. Fair enough, the Christian message should both celebrate AI’s potential but also warn of its limitations less we start giving it unduly worth.

Genesis 2:25; Exodus 20:3; 31:1-11; Proverbs 16:4; Matthew 22:37-40; Romans 3:23

Article 3: Relationship of AI & Humanity

We affirm the use of AI to inform and aid human reasoning and moral decision-making because it is a tool that excels at processing data and making determinations, which often mimics or exceeds human ability. While AI excels in data-based computation, technology is incapable of possessing the capacity for moral agency or responsibility.

This statement seems to suggest the positive role AI can play in augmentation rather than replacement. I am just not sure that was ever in question.

We deny that humans can or should cede our moral accountability or responsibilities to any form of AI that will ever be created. Only humanity will be judged by God on the basis of our actions and that of the tools we create. While technology can be created with a moral use in view, it is not a moral agent. Humans alone bear the responsibility for moral decision making.

While hard to argue against this statement at face value, it overlooks the complexities of a world that is becoming increasingly reliant on algorithms. The issue is not that we are offloading moral decisions to algorithms but that they are capturing moral decisions of many humans at once. This reality is not addressed by simply stating human moral responsibility. This needs improvement.

Romans 2:6-8; Galatians 5:19-21; 2 Peter 1:5-8; 1 John 2:1

Article 4: Medicine

We affirm that AI-related advances in medical technologies are expressions of God’s common grace through and for people created in His image and that these advances will increase our capacity to provide enhanced medical diagnostics and therapeutic interventions as we seek to care for all people. These advances should be guided by basic principles of medical ethics, including beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, and justice, which are all consistent with the biblical principle of loving our neighbor.

Yes, tying AI-related medical advances with the great commandment is a great start.

We deny that death and disease—effects of the Fall—can ultimately be eradicated apart from Jesus Christ. Utilitarian applications regarding healthcare distribution should not override the dignity of human life. Furthermore, we reject the materialist and consequentialist worldview that understands medical applications of AI as a means of improving, changing, or completing human beings.

Similar to my statement on article 3, this one misses the complexity of the issue. How do you draw the line between enhancement and cure? Also, isn’t the effort of extend life an effective form of alleviation of suffering? These issues do not lend themselves to simple propositions but instead require more nuanced analysis and prayerful consideration.

Matthew 5:45; John 11:25-26; 1 Corinthians 15:55-57; Galatians 6:2; Philippians 2:4

Article 5: Bias

We affirm that, as a tool created by humans, AI will be inherently subject to bias and that these biases must be accounted for, minimized, or removed through continual human oversight and discretion. AI should be designed and used in such ways that treat all human beings as having equal worth and dignity. AI should be utilized as a tool to identify and eliminate bias inherent in human decision-making.

Bias is inherent in the data fed into machine learning models. Work on the data, monitor the outputs and evaluate results and you can diminish bias. Direction AI to promote equal worth is a good first step.

We deny that AI should be designed or used in ways that violate the fundamental principle of human dignity for all people. Neither should AI be used in ways that reinforce or further any ideology or agenda, seeking to subjugate human autonomy under the power of the state.

What about being used by large corporations? This was a glaring absence here.

Micah 6:8; John 13:34; Galatians 3:28-29; 5:13-14; Philippians 2:3-4; Romans 12:10

Article 6: Sexuality

We affirm the goodness of God’s design for human sexuality which prescribes the sexual union to be an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman in the lifelong covenant of marriage.

This seems like a round-about way to use the topic of AI for fighting culture wars. Why include this here? Or, why not talk about how AI can help people find their mates and even help marriages? Please revise or remove!

We deny that the pursuit of sexual pleasure is a justification for the development or use of AI, and we condemn the objectification of humans that results from employing AI for sexual purposes. AI should not intrude upon or substitute for the biblical expression of sexuality between a husband and wife according to God’s design for human marriage.

Ok, I guess this is a condemnation of AI porn. Again, it seems misplaced on this list and could have been treated in alternative ways. Yes, AI can further increase objectification of humans and that is a problem. I am just not sure that this is such a key issue to be in a statement of AI. Again, more nuance and technical insight would have helped.

Genesis 1:26-29; 2:18-25; Matthew 5:27-30; 1 Thess 4:3-4

Article 7: Work

We affirm that work is part of God’s plan for human beings participating in the cultivation and stewardship of creation. The divine pattern is one of labor and rest in healthy proportion to each other. Our view of work should not be confined to commercial activity; it must also include the many ways that human beings serve each other through their efforts. AI can be used in ways that aid our work or allow us to make fuller use of our gifts. The church has a Spirit-empowered responsibility to help care for those who lose jobs and to encourage individuals, communities, employers, and governments to find ways to invest in the development of human beings and continue making vocational contributions to our lives together.

This is a long, confusing and unhelpful statement. It seems to be addressing the challenge of job loss that AI can bring without really doing it directly. It gives a vague description of the church’s role in helping individuals find work but does not address the economic structures that create job loss. It simply misses the point and does not add much to the conversation. Please revise!

We deny that human worth and dignity is reducible to an individual’s economic contributions to society alone. Humanity should not use AI and other technological innovations as a reason to move toward lives of pure leisure even if greater social wealth creates such possibilities.

Another confusing and unhelpful statement. Are we making work holy? What does “lives of pure leisure” mean? Is this a veiled attack against Universal Basic Income? I am confused. Throw it out and start it over!

Genesis 1:27; 2:5; 2:15; Isaiah 65:21-24; Romans 12:6-8; Ephesians 4:11-16

Article 8: Data & Privacy

We affirm that privacy and personal property are intertwined individual rights and choices that should not be violated by governments, corporations, nation-states, and other groups, even in the pursuit of the common good. While God knows all things, it is neither wise nor obligatory to have every detail of one’s life open to society.

Another statement that needs more clarification. Treating personal data as private property is a start. However, people are giving data away willingly. What is privacy in a digital world? This statement suggest the drafters unfamiliarity with the issues at hand. Again, technical support is needed.

We deny the manipulative and coercive uses of data and AI in ways that are inconsistent with the love of God and love of neighbor. Data collection practices should conform to ethical guidelines that uphold the dignity of all people. We further deny that consent, even informed consent, although requisite, is the only necessary ethical standard for the collection, manipulation, or exploitation of personal data—individually or in the aggregate. AI should not be employed in ways that distort truth through the use of generative applications. Data should not be mishandled, misused, or abused for sinful purposes to reinforce bias, strengthen the powerful, or demean the weak.

The intention here is good and it is in the right direction. It is also progress to point out that consent is the only guideline and in its condemnation of abusive uses. I would like it to be more specific on its call to corporations, governments and even the church.

Exodus 20:15, Psalm 147:5; Isaiah 40:13-14; Matthew 10:16 Galatians 6:2; Hebrews 4:12-13; 1 John 1:7

Article 9: Security

We affirm that AI has legitimate applications in policing, intelligence, surveillance, investigation, and other uses supporting the government’s responsibility to respect human rights, to protect and preserve human life, and to pursue justice in a flourishing society.

We deny that AI should be employed for safety and security applications in ways that seek to dehumanize, depersonalize, or harm our fellow human beings. We condemn the use of AI to suppress free expression or other basic human rights granted by God to all human beings.

Good intentions with poor execution. The affirmation and denials are contradictory. If you affirm that AI can be use for policing, you have to concede that it will be used to harm some. Is using AI to suppress hate speech acceptable? I am not sure how this adds any insight to the conversation. Please revise!

Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 10: War

We affirm that the use of AI in warfare should be governed by love of neighbor and the principles of just war. The use of AI may mitigate the loss of human life, provide greater protection of non-combatants, and inform better policymaking. Any lethal action conducted or substantially enabled by AI must employ human oversight or review. All defense-related AI applications, such as underlying data and decision-making processes, must be subject to continual review by legitimate authorities. When these systems are deployed, human agents bear full moral responsibility for any actions taken by the system.

Surprisingly, this was better than the statement above. It upholds human responsibility but recognizes that AI, even in war, can have life preserving aims. I would have like a better definition of uses for defense, yet that is somewhat implied in the principles of just war. I must say this is an area that needs more discussion and further considerations but this is a good start.

We deny that human agency or moral culpability in war can be delegated to AI. No nation or group has the right to use AI to carry out genocide, terrorism, torture, or other war crimes.

I am glad to see the condemnation of torture here. Lately, I am not sure where evangelicals stand on this issue.

Genesis 4:10; Isaiah 1:16-17; Psalm 37:28; Matthew 5:44; 22:37-39; Romans 13:4

Article 11: Public Policy

We affirm that the fundamental purposes of government are to protect human beings from harm, punish those who do evil, uphold civil liberties, and to commend those who do good. The public has a role in shaping and crafting policies concerning the use of AI in society, and these decisions should not be left to those who develop these technologies or to governments to set norms.

The statement points to the right direction of public oversight. I would have liked it to be more bold and clear about the role of the church. It should have also addressed corporations more directly. That seems to be a blind spot in a few articles.

We deny that AI should be used by governments, corporations, or any entity to infringe upon God-given human rights. AI, even in a highly advanced state, should never be delegated the governing authority that has been granted by an all-sovereign God to human beings alone.

Glad to see corporations finally mentioned in this document making this a good start.

Romans 13:1-7; Acts 10:35; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 12: The Future of AI

We affirm that AI will continue to be developed in ways that we cannot currently imagine or understand, including AI that will far surpass many human abilities. God alone has the power to create life, and no future advancements in AI will usurp Him as the Creator of life. The church has a unique role in proclaiming human dignity for all and calling for the humane use of AI in all aspects of society.

Again, the distinction between narrow and general AI would have been helpful here. The statement seems to be addressing general AI. It also seems to give away the impression that AI is threatening God. Where is that coming from? A more nuanced view of biology and technology would have been helpful here to. They seem to be jumbled together. Please revise!

We deny that AI will make us more or less human, or that AI will ever obtain a coequal level of worth, dignity, or value to image-bearers. Future advancements in AI will not ultimately fulfill our longings for a perfect world. While we are not able to comprehend or know the future, we do not fear what is to come because we know that God is omniscient and that nothing we create will be able to thwart His redemptive plan for creation or to supplant humanity as His image-bearers.

I disagree with the first sentence. There are ways in which AI can affirm and/or diminish our humanity. The issue here seems to be a perceived threat that AI will replace humans or be considered equal to them. I like the hopeful confidence in God for the future but the previous statement suggest that there is fear about this already. The ambiguity in the statements is unsettling. It suggests that AI is a dangerous unknown. Yes, it is true that we cannot know what it can become but why not call out Christians to seize this opportunity for the kingdom? Why not proclaim that AI can help us co-create with God? Let me reiterate one of the verses mentioned below:

For God has not given us a spirit of fear and timidity, but of power, love, and self-discipline

Genesis 1; Isaiah 42:8; Romans 1:20-21; 5:2; Ephesians 1:4-6; 2 Timothy 1:7-9; Revelation 5:9-10

For an alternative but still evolving Christian position on this matter please check out the Christian Transhumanist Association affirmation.

AI Future: Technology And The Direction of Cosmic History

One of the biggest casualties of Western subject-based knowledge is the separation between Science and Humanities. Because of this rift, Science became abstracted from human affairs and Humanities disconnected from the natural world. This did not happen by accident but came as a result from the combination of specialization and human limitation. As each field expanded, it became humanly impossible to learn about it in conjunction with others. Yet, what specialization added by uncovering complexity it hurt by promoting fragmentation. If academia is to serve society again, then it must find ways to train holistic scholars who are both competent in their fields while also able to relate their field of knowledge to other areas.

A recent attempt to integrate the two is an effort called Big History. This teaching philosophy, idealized by historian David Christian and recently funded by the Gates Foundation, seeks to connect Humanities with Science by looking at history in its totality. That is, from the beginning of the cosmos to the emergence of human history. The field of History would most often limit itself to human civilization having little interest in what preceded it. That was left to natural sciences with little connection between the two.

While I applaud such integrative effort, I must point out that David Christian is not he first one to attempt such holistic view. Religious texts have been doing that for centuries. The Hebrew Bible, for example, wades into natural history territory in its first chapters of Genesis. Other religious texts of the time also contained creation stories that meant to explain the perennial question of how it all began. Certainly, scientific discoveries of the recent centuries have complicated these narratives. Yet, the main point here is to locate an attempt such as Big History in the persisting human need for a holistic story. We long for an integrated view of the world separating into different subjects will not help us get there.

Where Did We Come From?

For centuries we looked at Cosmic History through a religious lens. Cultures developed their own view of the origins of the world. This was not only a way to understand beginnings but also its meaning and implications for how to live together in society, functioning as a regulating standard for all members of that society.

In the West, this perspective began to be challenged by the the theory of evolution and with the rise of modern natural sciences. While this approach uncovered new findings, it abstracted the question of meaning from the quest for knowledge. The scientific endeavor became obsessed with tracing the origins of existing natural processes with little regard for questions of “why?” and “what for?”.

Such predicament forced us to operate with hybrid brains. For questions of how, we turn to science (often associated with the left side of the brain), for questions of meaning we turn to religion, art and philosophy (often associated with the right side). As long as no attempt to relate the two were made, life could go on.

In religion, and more specifically in Western Christianity, the dominant religious response was rejecting evolution and its implications. This response did not entail in a wholesale rejection of science, but removing it from the areas that contradicted traditional religious views. This solution was made possible by a separation between the natural and the supernatural. The natural, the realm of humanity, could still be run by the pre-suppositions of science and technology. Yet, in the realm of the supernatural, where ultimate meaning lies for believers, religious worldview ran unchallenged.

In science, the reigning philosophy is naturalism. That is, we can only understand and trace back the processes that gave way to the world we live in. This “objective” quest has no room for questions of meaning. The universe simply is and the only knowledge that matters is the one that can be quantified or verified by scientific experimentation. In essence, the naturalist view does not dispute the natural and supernatural divide. It is simply not interested in the latter.

Clearly these responses have run into tremendous difficulties in a multi-cultural world. Its main loss, however, was the original unified view of reality that pre-modern creation stories provided.

A New Path For Cosmic History

In The New Cosmic History, Theologian John Haught forges a path aiming to transcends the natural vs supernatural divide by looking at cosmic history as a way to engage and also challenge both science and religion. Informed by scientific discovery that describe an evolving universe and holding tight to the religious yearning for justice, the theologian proposes an anticipatory view of Cosmic history. It incorporates the development of life through billions of year but it gives it a future goal. Haught sees the emergence of religion in the axial age (800-300 BC) as a precursor of what is to come. By doing so, John Haugth flips the natural-supernatural divide into a time continuum. God is not out there in a supernatural realm but in the future. Religion, birthed as hope in the human consciousness, points to a reality that evolution will eventually leads us to.

Haught calls this view of Cosmic history, anticipatory. It moves the locus of meaning away from quantifiable natural processes and from supernatural conceptions and places it in time dimension. The yearning for rightness present in all religious is not simply a hope but the very direction of Cosmic History. In a sense, religion is the universe whispering to us: “everything will be ok at the end.”

While heavily influenced by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s natural theology, this perspective also shows echoes of Molmann’s hope theology and Pannenberg revelation as history view. Yet, it adds to these thinkers by presenting it within the context of a science-informed Cosmic History. By doing so, it emphasizes that the development of religion was indeed a revolutionary step in the history of the cosmos, not only of humanity. It is so, not because of what it is but to the future that it points to. In a Christian perspective, Haught’s view reinforces that idea that truth is eschatological – an unfolding that will only be fully understood at the end when God renews the earth.

Implications for Technology

For the purpose of this blog, I want to correlate Haught’s anticipatory view of Cosmic History to an understanding of technology. First, it is important to note that discussions of technology tend to fall in into discipline-based mode of knowledge of natural sciences most often done with little correlation to human experience. The fragmented foundation in which current technology was developed yields a byproduct misaligned with human flourishing. Hence re-visiting this foundation and replacing with a holistic view of reality can go along way to repair this disconnection.

Second, Haught’s dispelling of the natural/supernatural divide also helps address another divide in the topic of technology. That is, the natural/artificial divide. The same dualistic thinking that encouraged the natural/supernatural divide is also behind our tendency to divide the natural from the artificial. Usually, the connotation is that natural is pristine and superior to the artificial which is often seen as a poor approximation of nature. An alternative view would place technology in a continuum with nature as opposed to another category of its own. This would not only help humanity back to nature but also allow technology find its purpose in flourishing.

These two insights opens the path for a new way of re-imagining our relationship with technology and in shaping its future. Can technology be part of the renewal of the earth prophesied by religion? If so, then we have a lot of work to do for certainly what we see today is underwhelming, only an evolutionary stage in the way of becoming something beautiful and true.

Is God’s Charity Broad Enough for Bears? Technology and Ecojustice

Last week, I had the privilege to see one of my favorite theologians speak in person at Emory University. I was introduced to her in one of my first classes in seminary through her book “She Who is”. In it, Johnson sheds light in the many astonishing yet often neglected feminine aspects of the Triune God. Being a feminist Catholic nun and a theologian (yep, that is quite a unique mixture!), her theology comes through as both pointed and generous. That is, as a feminist theologian she is unafraid to tip some sacred cows. Yet, her commitment to the Catholic church and to a life of sacrifice, adorns these pointed critiques with generous orthodoxy. She lives in the tension between protesting for change and faithfulness to tradition and does it gracefully.

God’s Love For Bears

Dr Johnson’s lecture used John Muir’s writing to challenge us to re-think our relationship with nature. After encountering a bear corpse in one of his hikes, Muir asks: “Is God charity broad enough for bears?” The context of his remarks was a critique to religious people he knew that held nature in total disregard. To them, nature was only an accessory to God’s crowning creation: humans. She then turned to Laudato Si, Pope Francis’ recent encyclical that addresses ecojustice issues as a source to answer Muir’s timely question.

Before proceeding, a bit of historical context is warranted. In 1967, Lynn White published an article that traced the root of our ecological crisis to Genesis 1:26-30, where God commands humanity to subdue the earth:

Christianity] not only established a dualism of man and nature but also insisted that it is God’s will that man exploit nature for his proper ends… Man’s effective monopoly…was confirmed and the old inhibitions to the exploitation of nature crumbled… Christianity made it possible to exploit nature in a mood of indifference to the feelings of natural objects.
Lynn White Jr., ‘The Historical Roots of our Ecologic Crisis’, Science 155 (1967) 1203-207 (p. 1205)

White’s critique initiated serious soul-searching in theological scholarship to re-evaluate Christian’s theology role in defining our relationship to nature. I see Dr. Johnson’s perspective here as a mature fruit from this conversation. She not only re-defines the Christian view of our relationship with nature but also turns it into a moral and theological imperative for action.

A Conversion To Earth and Ecojustice

Echoing Pope Francis’s call in Laudato Si, Dr Johnson exhorted us to a conversion TO earth. In her view, our detached ways to nature made us so prone to destruction and neglect that we now need a wholesale conversion, a radical turning and change of heart, in order to address the ecological crisis we are in. Only when we realize God’s love for creation and endeavor to love creation with such love will we be able to avert disaster. Thus, the incarnation is at the heart of ecojustice.

While such conversion entails many implications, one of the primary results is a revision in liturgy. As a small example, Dr. Johnson suggested we started reading “us” in Psalms not only as people but as all of creation. This simple expansion of meaning yields tremendous change. What if God’s liberation was not just about saving humans but saving all of creation? This would also amplify Romans 8:19-20 where creation itself is groaning for liberation from decay and destruction.

Selah (pause and think about these things)

When It came time for questions, I raised my hand. I asked her what was, if any, the role of technology in this conversion back to earth. By her pause and initial comments, I could tell this was not a question she gets asked often. I could also detect some puzzling looks from the audience who were wondering why this question was even relevant. Questions preceding mine revolved around liturgy, politics and art. As technology is most often regarded as the culprit of ecological destruction, does it even belong in the conversation around ecojustice?

Dr. Johnson answered by making a few points. She first highlighted issues of production and disposal of gadgets. Understanding how we extract materials all the way to how we dispose them involves issues of ethics in treatment of laborers and pollution. Beyond that, she recognized the complexity of the issue, which therefore does not lend itself to simple answers. She also acknowledged the inevitability of technology growing role in our lives. It has the potential for a lot of good and a lot evil, hence, calling for more robust ethical consideration.

From Incarnation to Resurrection

I want to pick up on Dr. Johnson’ answer as a way to expand on some of the ideas of her lecture. Her call to a return to nature is a fitting admonition in a time of climate change. Highlighting God’s connection with creation through the incarnation also addresses Lynn White’s critique that a misinterpretation of Gen 1:27-30 has led Western civilization towards ecological destruction. This happened primarily because at that point in history, humanity was interpreting the Bible from a position detached from nature. Emphasizing incarnation, help us re-build that connection back with nature leading to new ways of looking at the Bible.

Yet, incarnation is not enough. The trajectory of the Christian Bible implies not only incarnation but renewal and transformation. Connecting with nature and turning from destruction is only the first step. If Christians are to be people of the resurrection, we must complement this turning with a call to the renewal of nature. That is, to actively work for the flourishing of all life. In this view, the role of technology changes from one of ecological destruction to rebuilding, repairing and replenishing. Bending the trajectory of technological advancement towards flourishing becomes a central task in pursuing ecojustice.

Much more could be said on this, but the first step is clear. As we turn back to nature, we start with the incarnation and look forward to resurrection. We start with Advent then move on to Lent, start with Christmas but look forward to Easter.

Month: April 2019