Blog

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.

Road Trip: AI Theology Goes to Nashville

This week, I take a break from my recent blog series to report on my road trip to Nashville last week. This was a unique experience as I traveled in the middle of the work week to meet new friends and engage in meaningful conversations in the evening all while working from different offices in the day. One of the perks of working remotely for a company that is present in 40 states is that I can always find an office in most large and mid-size cities. So, while my work week started in Acworth, GA (Monday), it took me to Chattanooga, TN (Tuesday), Nashville (Wednesday and Thursday), returning home on Friday. I logged over 600 miles of driving, listened to hours of podcasts and attended three different events in my stay in Nashville.

Leaving the family behind for three days was a challenge that took some preparation. I am very grateful for my wife that held the fort with our three kids so I could go. She continues to be my rock and my safe refuge that I can return to. I am also grateful for my adopted grandma Carolyn who warmly received me in Nashville so I could be there for three days. Finally, I am thankful to both Scott Hawley and Micah Redding for re-arranging their schedule to accommodate my visit and greeting me with open arms. Though we had not met in person, I felt like I was visiting old friends.

Reflections on the Road

I hit the road on Tuesday at 7:30 am. The way to Tennessee is visually stunning. Early in the morning, I can still see the mist in the air as I drive through large open prairies. The sun is just starting to rise, the open road and inviting scenery can only be enhanced by listening to inspiring podcasts. My list includes an eclectic mixture of Economics (Freaknomics), Theology (Homebrewed Christianity), Data Science (Linear Digressions) to futuristic journalism (The Future of Everything) , Christian Transhumanism (CTA Podcast) and sermons from Trinity Anglican in Atlanta. For this trip, I added Richard Rohr’s “Another Name for Everything,” which is a series of interviews where he introduces chapters of his new book, The Universal Christ.

I am an auditory learner who can easily get lost into rich conversations and stories. Listening to podcasts in the road makes time pass faster allowing me to forget that I am driving. I will often go through a full podcast and then have 20 minutes of silence so I can react mentally to what I just heard. This is often the time where ideas, deep thoughts and life-giving insights come to me.

Recently, I have learned that the process is not just limited to thoughts but also includes feelings. At times, I will hear something that will cause an emotional reaction which I can’t immediately identify the cause of it. In this trip, this happened after listening to a sermon from Trinity, an evangelical Anglican church I attend on occasion. I could not pinpoint what triggered it but I noticed an acute discomfort while listening. When I started probing it, I realized this was a recurring feeling that emerged when I went there.

I have grown increasingly bothered by the evangelical tendency to reduce the gospel to individual piety. Everything becomes a moral lesson on how to become a better person, a plea to read my Bible more or to tell others about God. While those are all good things, they no longer captivate my imagination. I yearn for a bigger vision of God’s activity on earth, one that encompasses not just my individual life but also my community and the world.

Later in the trip, I heard Richard Rohr’s reflections on the Universal Christ and found hope that he may be onto something. Is this the cosmic vision I am yearning? Above all, is this the next station God is leading in my spiritual journey? The jury is still out but the traveling must continue.

Visiting Belmont University

My time in Belmont started with a lovely dinner with a group that included a physicist, a mathematician, a theologian (the visiting lecturer) and an engineering student. Our conversation touched on many topics, most notably, how deep specialization in academia has hindered the integration between humanities, science and technology. This is even more problematic in the US where PhD curriculums tend to be more narrow than in Europe. Thankfully, our dinner felt like a step in the right direction. If we could get more Mathematicians to talk to Theologians, maybe integration can start.

After dinner, we all headed to campus for the talk entitled “Remaining Human in a Technological Age.” Dr. Waters’ lecture was in essence a critical Christian response to Transhumanism (H+). In his view, H+ offers an attractive but flawed vision for the future of humanity. In its search for perfection, it threatens to erase the very traits that make us humans, namely, our imperfections. Instead, he believes Christianity offers a counter-message in encouraging us to find God in the mundane and by accepting rather than fighting the limitation brought on by death. All creatures have a beginning and an end, and therefore humans must accept that their lives on earth will eventually come to a conclusion.

Photo taken by Scott Hawley

In the next day, I sat beside Dr. Waters in Dr. Hawley’s class where we took turns answering pre-submitted questions from students. Interacting with the student’s questions was one of the highlights of the trip. The questions ranged from the impact of AI on humanity to what it means to be human. Dr. Waters offered insights majorly hinging upon the view he expressed in the night earlier. He called students to continue to attend to the mundane in a fast-changing world intoxicated by novelty.

Hoping to provide an alternative, though not necessarily opposing perspective, I challenged students to re-think about how they see technology. At times, I questioned the notion of artificial and natural, affirming that technology was part of nature. That is why, when asked whether one could be a cyborg and Christian, I answered with an unwavering yes.

Finally, one of them asked whether the development of AI would turn out to be good or bad for humanity. Instead on speculating on an answer, I turned to them and said: “I turn this question on you. You will decide how AI impact our future.” It is my hope they , and all of us, heed to this call to engage in the debates that are shaping the use of AI technologies in our times. We neglect this reality to our peril.

Christian Transhumanist Association Meetup

The meetup, the following evening, closed the trip in grand style. There I met fellow Christians seeking to engage Transhumanism from a more receptive stance. I shared a bit about my journey from feeling a call to the ministry to discovering it in Data Science. Sometimes, when you re-tell your story, you gain new insights. As I shared in the meetup, I realized that my journey was really about integration. Seeking to bring together profession with faith, technology with meaning, piety with concrete action, and hopefully people from different upbringing with each other.

While the initial topic was around AI, we ended up having a deeper discussion around what is means to be a Christian in our time. One issue was the role of Scripture in a world where knowledge is becoming more democratized. I confessed that the fundamentalist view of Scripture handed over to me by my upbringing was simply inadequate to navigate reality today. This perspective tried to build a virtual fortress around Scripture to protect from all questioning, fearing that any perceived error would collapse the whole edifice of faith. In doing so, it not only failed to address reality but also kept us from experiencing the true power of Scripture, namely its ability to point us to God in new situation. Change must be in order.

Photo by Micah Redding

Micah shared how Christianity has undergone major upheavals every 500 years where the primary question was the source of authority. At first, the question settled on the creeds, then on the figure of the Pope and finally on Scripture itself. Our 500 years is up, is it time for a new reformation? What would that look like? I would suggest that the path to that answer must pass through science and technology, even if it does not end there.

Coming Home

I often wonder how community can happen online. So far, my answer would be: only if accompanies, supports or facilitates actual encounters. This trip was an example of the online world paving the way to real world connections . It would not have happened have I not started blogging and met Dr. Hawley and Micah through the Christian Transhumanist Association Facebook group. Is this how a connected world work? Virtual friendships that culminate on dialogue over good burgers and beer? My trip to Nashville suggests that may be so.

Writing this blog was a journey of its own. I wasn’t sure what I would say but wanted to allow the writing to take me there. My intent here was to pull back the curtain on my internal musings so the reader may relate with aspects of my own personal experience. While I don’t think mine or anyone’s experience is normative, sharing them can open doors of meaning in others. That is my hope with this blog

Thanks for joining me on this ride and see you next week!

Reframing: Moving Technology from Oppression to Liberation

In my last blog, I explored Philip Hefner’s theory of “Created Co-Creators” to set a foundation for a theology of technological hope. In this blog, I want to flesh out more what it means to shape and re-direct the ethos of technology using Moltman’s cycle of oppression and liberation. This framework provides a critical lens through which we can evaluate the aims, impact and implications of technology while also setting a blueprint for an alternative. If technology is to be the means of liberation then it must aspire for more than the endless accumulation of gadgets.

A Theology of Liberations

In Moltmann’s seminal work, The Crucified God, the theologian works out the political implications of a theology of the cross. In short, he concludes that the event of the Christ crucifixion challenges the very structure of political power. If Christ was killed as a condemned political prisoner, this reality in turn challenges the legitimacy of all political power henceforth. What that means, in practice, is that the Christian community should never align itself with those in power but instead with the oppressed, persecuted and marginalized.

The kingdom of God proclaims a re-doing of human society, challenging existing structures of political oppression and pointing humanity to new ways of living together. In essence, the message of the gospel is one where humans choose life over death, supporting new ways that breed flourishing over and against existing systems that perpetuate death.

Concretely, Moltmann talks about 5 cycles of oppression* that perpetuate themselves in societies:

Poverty and destitution through economic deprivation
Political oppression where one group subjugates another
Cultural and racial alienation where minority groups identity is undermined by ruling cultures
Ecological destruction where economic development happens at the expense of natural ecosystems.
Nihilism where people no longer find meaning in their lives.

To counteract these cycles, Moltmann speaks of 5 cycles of liberation that the Christian community should engage in. I took some liberty here to update and revise some of these concepts to a 21st century reality:

Fostering economic justice that creates (what capitalism does best) and distributes (what socialism does best) wealth so ALL have the basics for living (health, food, clothing and shelter).
Distributing political power and responsibility through all sectors of society. This is not just about voting rights but a situation where government listens to the populace and people take responsibility for their communities.
Integrating society with diversity where unity happens in the recognition and celebration of difference.
Cultivating peace with nature through sustainability, where human creation respects, preserves and perpetuates God’s creation.
Cultivating meaningful living through communities that enrich, nourish and develop the individual.

Moltmann’s categories presented here offer a helpful structure to start speaking of liberation in concrete terms. He touches on a wide variety of issues such as economics, politics, culture and identity. In doing so, he expands our understanding of liberation opening way for creative thinking in pursuing wholeness in all these areas.

What is missing from these categories, however, is a deeper understanding of how technology can affect, reinforce or reshape these issues which is what I turn to now.

Liberation and Technology

First, it is worth noting that technology already plays prominent role in all 5 areas described above. Technological breakthroughs have created wealth (not always distribute it) and alleviated poverty all over the world. As medicine, goods and services become more available because of technology, economic scarcity gives away to abundance. Wishful thinking? Just consider how technologies like indoor plumbing, heating and cooling, computation, manufacturing have changed the earth in the last century. Life expectancy and quality improved through these gifts of ingenuity. It is true that since these good have been delivered through unequal systems they also have not benefited all equally. However, the overall results is undeniable: people live longer today than they did fifty or even twenty years ago.

In the area of political freedom and integration with diversity the impact of technology is mixed. Social media platforms were critical in the mobilization of mass protests in Arab spring. It is likely they would have not happen without it. Yet, the improvement of biometric technology also empowers authoritarian governments to tighten their control on their people. Mobile payments have empowered the poor in remote villages of Africa all the while the bot-aided proliferation of fake news threatens the integrity of democracies all over the world. The rise in connectivity have emboldened previous marginalized groups to find community while also empowering the fringe hate groups that seek to eliminate them.

Technology has also been pivotal in the area of sustainability while also a key culprit in in environmental destruction. The advance of clean energy technologies shows how we can both meet energy needs while also preserving earth’s resources for future generations. Even so, the legacy of dirty technologies from the 20th century continue to pollute our air and water. The choice is not between whether to use technology or not but how to harness it in ways that cultivate renewal. This path is most often more complex and costly in the short run which often gives way to the temptation of cheaper but more destructive methods.

The hardest one to evaluate is how technology has impacted the cultivation of a meaningful life. This probably where it is most lacking. For all the wealth and convenience it has brought humanity, many wonder whether we are qualitatively better off. Through technology, humanity has conquered its fear of nature yet done little to solve the struggles of our soul. If technology is to play a role in this dimension, then it must be radically re-configured. Such predicament calls for the wisdom to realize the limits of technological advance and where it cannot benefit humanity. This is by far, our most daunting task.

Refle(A)ction

Technology is not just the stuff we make but a reflection of the systems that produce it. Whether technology can empower liberation or reinforce oppression depends not only in its uses but it starts by recognizing its role and ethos. As long as we bracket technology out of the discussion we will never truly experience its power to liberate. Thus, the first step to move technology towards liberation is awareness and reflection. Hence, what I propose is that we stop this bracketing and start looking at technology within the context of political, social, economic and ethical dimensions.

We can start this journey through questions like what is the driving force of technological advancement in our time? Where has it been effective in addressing true human need and where has it not? How can we harness, re-direct and re-purpose it towards life flourishing aims? Where do we need less and where do need more? How can we ensure that its benefits are spread out more equitably over all humanity?

Yet, this first move will not be complete if such reflection stays at the evaluation stage. Instead, it must also foster a new way of doing and using technology. Where is that already happening and how can we replicate these examples? This is the topic of my next blog.

*For more detail consult pages 480-490.

A Theology of Technological Hope: Created to Create

The previous three blogs were setting the stage for what I want to discuss here. I traced the beginnings of Moltmann’s theology of hope, discussed the development of liberation theology and then made the case for why technology is the main driving force of change of our time. In this part, I want to build on this point to show the contours of a theology of technological hope. That is, what does it mean to imagine liberation through technology? In order to get there, we must first re-formulate the relationship between God, humans and creation.

Created to Create

In the previous blog, I mentioned that technology is a lot more than gadgets but any material extension of ourselves into objects to fulfill a task. Observing this undeniable feature of humanity leads us to conclude that to be human is to be creative. While creativity is often associated with art, in technology, creativity is about solving problems or overcoming limitations. There is an innate drive, whether facilitated or not through our circumstances, to build our way out of challenging environments.

Philipe Hefner’s theory of “created co-creators” is illuminating in this discussion.* It is impossible to do justice to this topic in a short blog, but I will attempt to highlight the main points of the theory as a foundation for a theology of technological hope.

If you are scanning through this, I recommend you slowdown. Even a short version of the theory will only make sense as a unit which requires careful attention.

Let me try to put forth an abbreviated bullet point version of the theory

Humans are created, that is placed in an ecosystem with a genetic makeup.
Within these conditions, Humans are free. This is not a guarantee but a choice. I God who truly loves freedom would not only create free humans but also create humans who want to be free.
In a Technological Civilization as we live today, this freedom has become all the more important as it allows humans to truly influence the destiny of the planet.
Humanity’s purpose is to use technology to work with God in the continual work of creation for the preservation and flourishing of life in the biosphere.
This requires a re-thinking of God’s purpose and our future. Instead of envisioning a super-natural divine compensation, we must believe that because God not just created but continues to create on earth, God has a vested interest in the flourishing of the planet.

From Coping to Thriving

For the purpose of this blog, I want to highlight his theory’s most astounding implication to Christian mission. That is:

The work of God’s people on earth is not about helping people cope with suffering by giving them a promise of a future divine justice in a different realm. The work of God’s people on earth is about embodying wholeness/holiness HERE and NOW, believing that God IS currently working (creating) to make the earth WHOLE.

This is what is truly revolutionary and presents the foundation for a theology of technological hope. In a technological society, Christians should take their technological and scientific work, not as secondary to ministry but as the very place where we co-create with the creator. God continues to work on the Earth and we join God’s work by co-creating. As we co-create we fulfill our purpose as free humans who seek to advance the biosphere to a sustainable future. We are called to thrive along with creation rather than coping with its fallen state.

By this I don’t mean that only technologists or scientists are doing God’s work. Certainly, co-creating with God is not limited to bytes and test tubes. Yet, framing this type of work this way gives it a whole new meaning. It also forces us to re-think how technology is done. What is the purpose of doing technology? How does it impact our biosphere? How can it be re-directed towards human flourishing?

As we start asking these questions, the first step is to observe and analyze closely how technology is done today, especially in the form of technocapitalism. What is its philosophy and aims? How is it impacting our biosphere? This is the topic of my next blog.

*For those interested in digging deeper into his work, I recommend “The Human Factor: Evolution, Culture and Religion.” Pgs 264-265 provide a complete summary for the theory.

Theology of Hope Re-Imagined – From Politics to Technology

In part 1, I introduced Moltmann’s theology of hope and its origins. In part 2, I explored one of its main offshoots, theology of liberation. There, I also posed the question whether the avenue for liberation may be shifting from politics to technology. In this blog, I will probe this question further by showing the growing global impact of technocapitalism in our time.

What is Technology?

Ever since the first human chiseled a rock to make a tool, we have been in the business of developing and using technology. Recently, technology has come to mean digital gadgets. Yet in a broader sense, technology is much more than that. Every time we extend ourselves into nature’s resources to accomplish a task, we are using technology. Therefore, it is an inescapable part of our reality as human beings. It is also what separates us from other species.

Technology is not only an integral part of the human experience, but is also infused with purpose and ideology. They possess a telos, an ideal that is shaping us into. Unfortunately, we tend to treat technology as neutral means to an end. This thinking supports an illusion that we can use technology without being transformed by it. As technologies cross into the human body, the boundaries between “natural” and “artificial” become blurry. The extension of ourselves becomes part of ourselves.

Furthermore, technology is also an expression of ourselves. They express social and cultural ideals while also perpetuating beliefs. As technologies advance into every aspect of our lives, we start seeing it as the solution to all of our problems. They are no longer tools for accomplishing tasks but are becoming full-blown solutions to existential questions. You add capitalism to that and now every problem becomes a market for a new gadget or app.

The Rise of Techno-Capitalism

The growing influence of technology companies in the last decade is undeniable. Just think of how many smart phones are sold every day in the world. Yet, the extent and speed of this rise is rarely understood. The animation below illustrates this trajectory by showing how the top ranked global brands have changed in this decade. The fact that only one tech company was in the top 5 in 2010 while now they occupy all five spots is mind boggling.

Late 2010 was when I got my first iPhone. Now, that iPhone 4 is what my kids use for playing music so they can sleep. Yet, the proliferation of smart phones and tablets in this decade is only one piece of the puzzle. Less apparent is how the digital economy has disrupted so many industries such as retail, financial services and automobiles. The impact is so pervasive that in 2017, Forbes declared that all companies are now technology companies. That means, businesses will live and die based on their ability to successfully incorporate emerging technologies into their operations. Data is the new oil and code its most effective drilling technique.

The business avatars are betting that technology will take them to a profitable future. It remains to be seen whether consumers will prove their bets right. Even so, what we are undergoing right now is nothing short of a revolution. One that will likely re-organize how we work, live and play. This becomes even more prescient when one considers the potential that AI (Artificial Intelligence), VR/AR (Virtual/Augmented Reality) and IOT (Internet of Things) bring to the table. This is not just the end of a business cycle but the beginning of a whole new era.

Technology and Politics

With that said, the future promised by Silicon Valley may never materialize. The currents of technological optimism have met a wave of nationalism in politics. While not diametrically opposed, these trends tend to go in opposite directions. The rise of protectionism in trade, restrictive immigration policies and increased geopolitical tensions all threaten the advance of technology which depends on a global ecosystem of collaboration and knowledge sharing.

That’s why, when I say that the avenue of liberation is moving from politics to technology, that does not imply that politics will be inconsequential. It just means that working for change may be less about changing policy and more about creating social technologies of liberation. This work will be political in that it will challenge power structures but they may not flow through the halls of government as they did in the last century.

Furthermore, it means that any vision of liberation that does not take into account the impact of technology is simply inadequate to address our current historical moment. This is where current political movements of the left and the right (in the United States) miss the point. The first remains focused on identity politics while the latter insists on perpetuating an outdated vision of 20th century capitalism. Both fail to address the disruptive yet transformative power of technology.

Hence, a new theological vision of liberation must take an alternative path. It must speak through the left and right political dichotomy while also critically confronting the vision of a technocapitalistic future. This is what I want to address in the next blog.

Theology of Hope Moves South – Latin American Liberation

Moltmann’s theology of hope inspired theologians and clergy globally. In this blog, I explore the emergence of liberation theology.

In this process, the Crucified God became a bridge that revealed a new face of the cross. Jesus was killed as a political prisoner, challenging the political forces of the day, denouncing injustice and standing with the marginalized. Influenced by a Marxist view of history, these priests found in the cross an archetype for working for social justice. The gospel incarnated into the Latin American context as a message of liberation from inequality and racism.

In a previous blog, I introduced Moltmann’s theology of hope and its historical context. In this blog, I will discuss one of its most well-known offshoots, namely, liberation theology. While liberation theology had other influences and has recently expanded into a wide array of theologies, Moltmann’s influence was crucial in its beginning. Here is how the two are inter-connected.

The picture above encapsulates both what liberation theology is and its connection with Moltmann’s theology of hope. On November 16, 1989, Juan Ramon Moreno, Spanish-Salvadoran priest and Jesuit was murdered by Salvadoran government forces for denouncing human right violations in the country. While the soldiers carried his corpse to a room, his body hit a book in a shelf throwing it to the ground, staining it with his blood. This was Father Moreno’s last prophetic act. The book (pictured above) was a Spanish translation of Moltmann’s work “The Crucified God”, part of Moreno’s library and most certainly an important influence in his thought and work as an activist Jesuit priest.

Solidarity with the Poor

One of the key ideas of “the Crucified God” is that God suffered with Christ on the cross. This idea was controversial because it contradicted the understanding of God’s impassibility. In classical theism, God could not suffer because that would suggest vulnerability from an all-powerful being. Yet, even more scandalous was the implication of this idea. Moltmann’s cruciform theology was calling the church to retreat from identifying with the political power of Western culture and instead, align itself with the oppressed. The argument goes as follows: because Jesus identified with the oppressed in the cross and God suffered with him, Christians are called to identify and suffer with those in the margins.

Moltmann’s theological seed of the Crucified God would blossom into a full-blown theology of solidarity with the poor in Latin American soil. It emerged as Latin American Catholic priests reflected on the plight of the poor they were serving in the late 60’s. As they worked to alleviate poverty, they started looking for the roots that created and sustained structural misery for most in the continent. How could they work not only to feed the poor but also to empower them to feed themselves?

Liberation theologians would take the Crucified God a step further. Their innovation was, following the political tenor of Jesus original historical context, to conclude that God had a preference for the poor. This controversial conclusion would both align liberation practitioners with revolutionary movements and be at odds with right-wing military dictatorships and, at times, the Vatican itself. In short, it became a potent political theology speaking truth to power but also legitimizing violent guerilla movements and oppressive leftist regimes.

Liberation Theology’s Impact

Over fifty years after its initial formulation, liberation theology’s (LT) legacy is mixed. On the positive side, LT became a vital theological dialogue partner that no modern theologian could ignore. While many, both in the Protestant and Catholic side, would reject its main claims, they always felt obliged to respond to its challenge. In seminaries all over the world, the writings of Gutierrez, Sobrino and Boff continue to inspire and spark debate. Their influence has become even more prominent with the installation of an Argentine Pope. Francis, while not a liberation theologian per se, certainly has moved concern with the poor to the center of the church’s attention.

Yet, this wide-spread influence does not compare with the witness of its martyrs. The life and story of Archbishop Oscar Romero in Guatemala, Sister Dorothy Stang in Brazil and Juan Ramon Moreno in El Salvador are holy examples of those who took up the cause of the oppressed with their blood. Their example, faith and resolve shall never be forgotten. They belong to the company of the saints of the church that came before them.

Beyond that, LT never took hold in the overall church practice in Latin America. Apart from the still existing base communities, the theology did not make its way into Catholic masses. Furthermore, it did not cross into the Latin American Protestantism, the fastest-growing Christian movement of the last century. In the Latin American church a saying goes that “Liberation theology opted for the poor but the poor opted for Pentecostalism.”

In many aspects, Pentecostalism is the anti-thesis of LT. It seeks instead to align itself with the rich and focus on heavenly matters as opposed to political change. If anything, Pentecostal Christians have often politically aligned with the reactive political forces, the very ones LT sought to overturn. Ironically, the Christian movement has been split into both defending and criticizing Capitalism in the region. This is an unfortunate development as both LT and Pentecostalism have much to learn from each other.

Reformulating Hope and Liberation

In spite of producing admirable martyrs, the power and promise of liberation theology has not materialized in its native land. Yet, its promise as a hope theology, grounded in solidarity with the poor rings even more relevant now than it did in the last century.

The revolutionary spirit of the 60’s relied on the assumption that the most effective way to change society was through political means. As a result, democracies have sprung up all over the world and freedom has increased. Yet, most of these projects are showing signs of decay as the popular vote starts turning them back to authoritarianism. As democracies fail to solve persistent social-economic problems, people start looking for leaders who promise simple solutions to complex problems. Without diminishing the importance of these social movements, maybe the problem was in its initial assumption. Yet, if politics is not the way, what is it then?

As my previous blog title suggests, what if the time has come to re-formulate a theology of hope within a technological context? What if the promise of eschatological hope will not materialize through political action but technological creativity? What if the most consequential force for liberating the oppressed is not policy but social technologies? This is what I want to explore in the next part.

A Theology of Hope in a Technological Age – Introduction

This blogs starts a series on re-visiting a theology of hope in a technological age. For full transparency, I write this as my reflection on the topic progresses. I do this on purpose, in the hope that this reflection is not limited to an isolated individual’s musings but instead can open the way for a dialogue with others. Theology is done best when done in community. In an age of instant global communication, the possibilities for dialogue widen and allow for an in-time collaboration that was simply not possible before. Hence, I invite the reader to enter this not as a passive receiver of information but instead an active participant in this conversation. Feel free to post comments or email me directly through the contact form in the site.

In this first blog, I want to discuss the emergence of a theology of hope in the middle of the last century looking at its most prominent proponent -German theologian Jurgen Moltmann. His seminal work Theologie der Hoffnung [Theology of Hope] in the mid 1960’s would initiate a revolution in academic theology that reverberated through decades to come. Here is how it started.

The Emergence of a Theology of Hope

Each theology engages a particular set of questions which are considered to be crucial to the context of the theologian. To do theology is precisely that: to observe the world and listen to its most perennial questions. Then, in prayerful mediation, under the guidance of the Spirit and in dialogue with their community, to seek out answers emerging from the Christian tradition and practices.

Jurgen Moltmann’s theology emerges from the Post-war experience as the world was taking stock of the horrific atrocities executed by the European powers. One of the questions his world was asking was how could there be a good God in a world where Auchwitz happens? Even seventy years later, this question rings in Western ears challenging the European Christendom projects of the previous centuries. If Christian societies were capable of such cruelty and destruction, what is even the point of upholding the Christian religion as the foundation of our political structures? Furthermore, is Christianity even relevant for individuals in a post-war age or does it belong to the history books? The crisis cast both existential (personal) as corporate (political) doubts on an European Christian identity.

A Passionate/Suffering God

A temptation, then and now, is to relegate religious expression to a privatized individualistic piety. That is, all that matters is me, Jesus and my salvation. As long as my passport to heaven is stamped, I don’t need to engage with worldly affairs. The world is confusing enough and meaningless, let me endure its reality in the weeks and escape to heavenly dreams on the weekend.

Moltmann resists this temptation by taking seriously the suffering in the world. If Christianity is to have a voice in the public square (and in our lives), it must actively engage with the questions people and societies are asking. If our faith inadequately addresses the crisis of our time, then it is no longer useful or pertinent to our time.

He starts by reframing the problem. In one of his shortest books, Open Church, Moltmann sees apathy as the biggest curse of our age:

[Our] one-sided orientation towards accomplishment and success make us melancholic and insensitive. We become incapable of love and incapable of sorrow. We no longer have tears, and we smile only because we are supposed to keep on smiling…We become apathetic, still alive but surely and slowly dying inwardly. (pg 23)

Theology of hope starts and ends with a passionate God. It is important here to recover the original meaning of the word passion. It is not just about energy and zeal but also about suffering. The best example is the Passion of Christ, where we see both an unyielding zeal as well as the resulting suffering Christ goes through. A passionate God means one that is moved by the world suffering, cries with them but also moves to action to answer the cries of humanity.

The End is the Beginning

If every theology has a starting point, theology of hope begins with the end. This is what theologians call an eschatological approach. Eschatology is the study of the last things which has come to mean many different things. Recently, because of evangelical pop culture, eschatology has sadly become synonymous with exhaustive speculation about the end of the world. That is not what Moltmann means by it.

Instead, he is following New Testament scholarship in recovering the centrality of the eschatological hope in the Early church. That is, the fact that the apostles and early Christians believed in an actual installation of God’s kingdom on earth. They believed it to be an imminent event. The point of it was not the destruction of the world but the future vindication of God’s people in view of their present political oppression. Hence, the gospel message, in the First and still in the Twenty-First century, has political implications.

By doing so, Moltmann is joining a chorus of theologians, scholars and some clergy in bringing eschatology from the supernatural realm to the natural world. With time and heavy influence from Greek philosophy, eschatology became focused on the after-life. Instead, they want to correct this notion so that Christians can focus more on the here and now.

Hence, this recovery the eschatological character of early Christianity should translate into present action. While grounded in God’s action, it raises the question of how to live today in a way the reflects that future reality. In short, how do we bring the future liberation of God’s people into the present?

Inspired on Moltmann’s writing, the early 70’s would see the emergence of a Latin American, Catholic version later known as liberation theology. If eschatology is about a political reality, then what would that look like in the context of Latin American poor? This is the topic of part 2.

AI Ethics: Evaluating Google’s Social Impact

I have noticed a shift in the corporate America recently. Moving away from the unapologetic defense of profit making of the late 20th century, corporations are now asking deeper questions on the purpose of their enterprises. Consider how businesses presented themselves in the Super Bowl broadcast this year. Verizon focused on first-responders life-saving work, Microsoft touted its video-game platform for children with disabilities and the Washington Post paid tribute to recently killed journalists. Big business wants to convince us they also have a big heart.

This does not mean that profit is secondary. As long as there is a stock market and earning expectations drive corporate goals, short-term profit will continue to be king. Yet, it is important to acknowledge the change. Companies realize that customers want more than a good bargain. Instead they want to do business with organizations that are doing meaningful work. Moreover, Companies are realizing they are not just autonomous entities but social actors that must contribute to the common good.

Google AI Research Review of 2018

Following this trend, Google AI Review of 2018 focused on how its research is impacting the world for good. The story is impressive, as it reach encompasses many fields of both philanthropy, the environment and technological breakthroughs. I encourage you to look at it for yourself.

Let me just highlight a few developments that are worth mentioning here. The first one is the development of AI ethical principles. In it, Google promise to develop technologies that are beneficial to society, tested for safety and accountable to people. The company also promises to keep privacy embedded in design, uphold highest levels of scientific excellence while also limiting harmful potential uses of their technology. In the latter, they promise to apply a cost-benefit analysis to ensure the risks of harmful uses does not outweigh its benefits.

In the last section, the company explicitly states applications they will not pursue. These include weapons, surveillance and or those that oppose accepted international law and human rights. That last point, I must admit, is quite vague and open to interpretation. With that said, the fact that Google published these principles to the public shows that they recognize their responsibility to uphold the common good.

Furthermore, the company showcases some interesting examples of using AI for social good. The example includes work on flood and earthquake prediction, identifying whales and diseased cassavas and even detecting exoplanets. The company has also allocated over $25M in funds for external social impact work through its foundation.

A Good Start But is that Enough?

In a previous blog, I mentioned how the private sector drives the US AI strategy . This approach definitely raises concerns as profit-ventures may not always align with the public good in their research goals. However, it is encouraging to see a leader in the industry doing serious ethical reflection and engaging in social work.

Yet, Google must do more to fully recognize the role its technologies play in our global society. For one, Google must do a better job in understanding its impact in local economies. While its technologies empower small businesses and individual actors in remote areas, it also upends existing industries and established enterprises. Is Google paying attention to those in the losing side of its technologies? If so, how are they planning to help them re-invent themselves?

Furthermore, if Google is to exemplify a business with a social conscience does it have appropriate feedback channels for its billions of customers? Given its size and monopoly of the search engine industry, can it really be kept accountable on its own? The company should not only strive for transparency in its practice but also listen to its customers more attentively.

Technology, Business and Society

The relationship between business and society is being revolutionized through the advance of emerging technologies such as AI. In the example of Google, being the search engine leader makes them the primary knowledge gate-keeper for the Internet. As humans come to rely more on the Internet as an extension of their brain, this places Google in a role equivalent to what religious, educational and political leaders played in the past. This is too important a function to be centralized in one profit-making organization.

To be fair, this was not a compulsory process. It is not that Google took over our brains by force, we willingly gave them this power. Therefore, change is contingent not only in the corporation but in its customers. From a practical standpoint, that may mean skipping that urge to “google things”. We might try different search engines or even crack open a book to seek the information we need. We should also seek alternative ways to finding things in the Internet. That may mean looking at resource sites, social platforms and other alternatives. These efforts may at first make life more complicated but over the long run it will safeguard us from an inordinate dependence on a company.

The technologies developed by Google are a blessing (albeit one that we pay for) to the world. We should leverage them for human flourishing regardless of the company’s intended focus. For that to happen, we the people, must take stock of our own interaction with them . The more responsibly we use it, the more we insure that they remain what they are really meant to be: gifts to humanity.