Search
Close this search box.

Blog

Listening to the Maya Story Through their Technology

What can an ancient Mesoamerican culture teach the global community in the 21st century? I pondered on these question on my 2.5+ hours bus ride between Cancun and the Chichen Itza’s ruins. With no pretensions or pressure to come up with something, the trip would prove thought-provoking and inspiring. In this blog, I’ll share my findings and a bit about how I ended up there two weeks ago. While being a sucker for exploring new cultures, what I found here went beyond the usual history lesson. With their rich history, delicious cuisine, advanced technology, the Maya surprised me while also challenging me to care for this earth.

An Invitation to a Journey

Like rivers flowing into oceans, so are the unplanned encounters of the soul in unexpected journeys of discovery. I didn’t set out to the Yucatan peninsula in a quest to learn about the Mayas. Quite the contrary, I was there to rest and celebrate with my wife our 20th anniversary. Away from kids, work, and the many demands of our life at this stage, we yearned for the gentle soothing sounds of the sea.

Even so, places have a way to whisper. They often carry with them stories untold of a past waiting to be discovered. I knew some important monuments and Mayan ruins were nearby and that was enough to pique my interest. In the hotel I learned about my options, only wanting to spend a day I chose the most visited site: Chichen Itza, only a 2.5-3 hour drive from the area we were staying.

My wife, seeking to avoid the crowds and rest up for a day, decided to stay while encouraging me to go. Being one day away from each halfway through our stay sounded like a good compromise from the wisdom of 20 years of marriage. In an interesting twist, when learning I was from Brazil, the hotel agent booked me with a Portuguese-speaking guide. I would join Brazilians and Portuguese natives who were also discovering this Mayan Jewel.

Mayan Zodiac Circle – by Wikimedia commons

Re-enchanting the World through Native cultures

Modernity’s move toward secular science has borne out many achievements. Even so, it also resulted in tremendous loss. For one, people in the West lost their sense of connection with nature and with it also their reverence and respect for it. Nature went from an object of worship to raw material to be exploited. The call to subdue earth meant more than taming nature but ultimately came to justify a massive amount of destruction, pollution, and degradation.

Hence, it is no surprise that westerners like me would have a renewed interest in pre-Modern cultures like the Mayas. They point us to a time when connection and reverence to nature were the order of the day. Rejecting prevalent attitudes that would either see it as a competing religion or dismiss it as primitive superstition, we can now look at Mayans with a humble attitude to listen. What does their story of advancement, exuberance, warfare, and decline teach us today as we live in our age of environmental crisis? It is with this posture, that I approach and reflect on my recent visit to Chichen Itza.

The STEM side of the Maya

As I rode the bus on the way to Chichen Itza, I was bracing for a real-life history lesson. What I did not expect was a math class early morning on my 3rd day of vacation! Yet, since we had a long drive there, our guide Mauricio Dzul, proceeded to explain the very elaborate yet elegant numbering system the Mayas created. Using only dots, dashes, and a shell-like symbol they can represent any number! I must say that my curious mind was intrigued and made me wonder, shouldn’t we teach this more as a way to diversify teaching mathematics? I might teach it to my kids just for fun.

From Wikimedia Commons

Why did they develop their number system? While there may be other reasons, The Maya people were astute observers of the skies. They used the movement of the Sun, Moon and Venus to devise the most elaborate calendar system in the world. In this calendar, they counted time that went back thousands of years and needed a way to express these long dates. It was a misunderstanding of this calendar that led to the paranoia with the 2012 date. That was not a good use of Maya technology!

From Wikimedia commons

Their historical witness challenges us to look up and consider the stars anew with keen curiosity and reverence. Their astronomy did not only lead to a number system but also greatly influenced their engineering. The Yucatan peninsula is dotted with the remains of buildings oriented towards the movements of the Sun and Moon. They continue to attract thousands to witness intriguing light patterns on Solistice dates. In my visit to Chichen Itza, our guide showed how when clapping from designated place we could hear multiple echoes and even the sound of a bird.

Mysterious Abandoments

Since my visit, I have become obsessed with all things Maya and their technology. Browsing materials on it and now listening to a course on their history, I learned of the vastness and richness of the field. Mayan studies continue to expand as many ruins are yet to be discovered and properly understood. In this thriving field, one of the most daunting questions has been the cities’ abandonment. By the time the Spanish arrived, many of the great Mayan cities were already ruins covered by the rainforest.

I asked our knowledgeable guide about this. While there was warfare involved, in many cases, the population simply left migrating to other cities or smaller settlements in the forest. He indicated that it was most likely because of weather changes, some of which may have been precipitated by agricultural practices to feed growing populations in the region. Changes in rain patterns disrupted harvest yields leading to political instability and warfare.

If this is indeed the case, then the Maya story through technology also offers a cautionary tale for our time. It re-inforces the message scientists have been warning us about in the last decades on climate change. We must revisit our way of life and how we sustain our growing populations or see our big skyscrapers become ruins overtaken by forest.

Conclusion

Contrary to what it seems, I don’t purposefully look for reasons to blog on my vacation. Yet, they occur from time to time. All it takes is a willingness to enter into the story of a place. Even in a digitally connected world, physical spaces matter. We sit on land that was re-settled by many before us. They, in turn, lived in ecosystems that took millions of years to form. Attending to the story of both the land we inhabit and the people that lived before us is our duty and call for this time.

I cannot see a more theological task than this. If we believe in a timeless God who created the earth, surely we must learn to hear God’s voice in the ground we step on and the cultures that preceded us. If we slow down to listen, we’ll be amazed at the wisdom that surfaces. These are the very whispers of God speaking truth through time and space.

With that posture, I am grateful for the Mayans and their land which I had the privilege to visit. In my time of rest and recreation, I also found new nuggets of wisdom to take along the journey.

Which story is the place you live in telling you? If you haven’t pondered on this question maybe now it is time to start searching.

Do We Live in a Technological Age?

Are we living in a technological age? A brief answer is that we have always lived in a technological age.

The danger we see is that technology is a product from ourselves. This brings fear and hope, both. We fear ourselves and have hope in ourselves.

At our January meeting, the AI Theology Advisory Board discussed the idea that we are living in a technological age. Understanding our time and context is an important step for our discussions and everything we do in AI Theology. Our exploration of AI and theology will be most fruitful if they are connected to the time in which we live.

We began with a presentation that reviewed the three perspectives outlined in previous blogs: Teilhard, Ellul, and Arthur. Here is a summary of our discussion:

Elias: I want to start with two questions.

1) Are we living in a technological age, and if so, why?

2) If we are living in a technological age, what is the danger of not acknowledging or discussing it? What happens when we take it for granted? In other words, if we are living it, what is the danger of not naming it?

The Nature of Technology

Maggie: Technology is such a part of life. The danger is that, if we omit reflection on it, we are suppressing a part of our own lives. If you spend your whole day interacting with the digital world, 40 hours a week, that is going to impact who you are and what the world means to you. 

Wen: I see technology not as a part of ourselves, but as something we interact with, either consciously or unconsciously. The third concept, from Arthur, reminded me of “stewardship of resources.” At a broad level, it’s how we steward our natural resources. How do we use our natural resources and make things out of them? I’m thinking here not only of digital technology but various types of technologies that impact the way we use resources.  

Elias: This subtle distinction can change how we interact with and discuss technology. One view is that technology is, in some ways, “the other.” We use and interact with it. The other view is that technology is a part of who we are. I’m not saying that either way is right or wrong. But this subtle distinction can change the way we approach technology.

There is fear and hope because technology is on the edge of the transcendental.

Frantisek Stech

Every Age Is Technological

Frantisek: Are we living in a technological age? A brief answer is that we have always lived in a technological age. When human beings started to reflect on themselves, they started organizing their environment–that is using technology. Even language can be considered technology in a sense. We can discuss building a nest as a kind of technology for animals. Since we are able to reflect on our skills, craftsmanship, or any kind of ability, this is technology. It’s the Greek word Téchne, the knowledge of “how to”. 

white egg on nest
Photo by nastia on Pexels.com

The danger we see is that technology is a product from ourselves. This brings fear and hope, both. We fear ourselves and have hope in ourselves. It is a clash between a Promethean approach to life and a transcendental approach to life. Between our own powers, and transcendental powers. Technology is something you can control. When you try to control the transcendental, it’s called magic. There is fear and hope because technology is on the edge of the transcendental. Everything is assembled like the Jewish story of golem, a creature made to serve the master. Technology has the potential to either serve or destroy the master, and the community it is inserted into.  

The larger issue of digital technology today is, it is a kind of development of the ecosystem. We are living in a digital landscape as well as the physical world. We fear that it will destroy us if we use it too much.

Technology and Culture

Frantisek: If we think about theology and AI, then it presupposes theology of technology, and before that, a theology of culture (for context).

Elias: We’ve always had technology, but is there something about the time we are living that makes it the dominant force? And this is where we can agree or disagree. We can say that technology is a reflection of other forces, or that technology itself influences everything. I have the idea that technology is the dominant force, and when we don’t talk about it, it becomes even more powerful. 

On the other hand, some people can think differently. 

Wen:  Technology today is built for automation and speed. So technologies of the past, like a windmill or a hammer, couldn’t do very much in a short time. This technology required more human effort to “make things happen.” A hammer couldn’t do much on its own, but today if you press a single button, many things can happen.

Elias: That’s an interesting point, Wen. Let me build on that a bit. Given the compounding of technologies in our time, not only is technology self-perpetuating but it is doing so with impressive speed. In other words, there is a different level of self-perpetuation that we may no longer be in control of. It is almost as if technology has taken a life of its own.

Religion and Technology

Ben: I think we’ve always lived in a technological age. As it relates to the theological construct, I think religion is technology. It’s meant to codify and systematize entropy and suffering, and explain it in a consistent worldview. That is a technological movement. It is also an attempt to systematize and control.

Is technology a co-creator, or is technology existential? This conversation has roots in incarnation. What does it mean to be enfleshed, a human? The question I come up with is, technology is about automation and efficiency. But for what? For what end, and what is the cost of this efficiency? I wonder if technology is unable to address incarnational needs such as love, truth, beauty, and we hope to automate those things so we can seek the intangibles. So there are now studies to classify the intangible human needs. Technology is becoming part of the intangible of life as well. 

burning candles in old palace with arched ceiling
Photo by Julia Volk on Pexels.com

Elias: What you are saying connects with what Maggie was talking about, the idea of technique as a way of control. The totality of technique–trying to find the best technique. Trying to find the best way to love or communicate. 

Purpose and Reflection

Maggie: One view of technology is that, “now we have more time to be fully human.” I don’t know if that actually happens. We spend more time thinking about what makes a human good than we do spending time with things we enjoy. The iterative nature of technology contains a reductionist assumption that everything that is good can be reduced to a test. There isn’t a lot of stepping back to ask about the larger purpose. For instance, “I’m working to reduce retail prices,” but do the retailers want help setting prices? Is that what is going to save them time? Does this technology improve something, reduce something? Is this really going to help people save time? 

Wen: The phone being replaced every two years, I see it more as capitalist behavior than as tech getting better. I think the underlying social context is consumption. This frames how the tech manifests itself. If we changed the cultural context of the world we live in, we would see a very different manifestation of technology. The products would be different. In a world where capitalism wasn’t the center, we would see a different line of technology, both in its tools and its uses. 

Technology is trying to be the Tower of Babel or the fountain of youth. I don’t mean just apps, but the broad range of technology and industries strive toward these ends

Wen Dombrowski

The Tower of Babel

Ben: I agree with what you said. Is there a longing aspect? Are we trying to create and advance ourselves to enlightenment? And if it’s true, the kingdom on earth concept becomes more concrete. Or are we iterating because we don’t know what else to do with the opportunity, cost, and time we have lost? Where does this get us any closer to enlightenment? 

Wen: Technology is trying to be the Tower of Babel or the fountain of youth. I don’t mean just apps, but the broad range of technology and industries strive toward these ends.

Ben: To illustrate this, I’m going to use myself as a negative example. One thing I learned with a neuroscientist is about the correlation of quality of sleep and cognitive issues (like dementia and Alzheimer’s). So I became obsessed with the technology of sleep, looking for technology to help me sleep. And when I lay down, I would get anxious about the fact I wasn’t sleeping. So when technology was supposed to help me sleep better and prevent these diseases, I was actually anxious about the tech. The existential crisis is that technology creates more opportunity for existential non-incarnational presence as we rely on “external transcendent divine,” rather than on our own ability, to track and examine data.

Latest on Ethics, Democratization of AI, and the War in Ukraine

There is a lot happening in the world of AI. In this short update we explore AI ethics, democratization, and tech updates from the war in Ukraine. For more on the latter, check out our recent piece where we dove into how AI is changing the landscape of warfare and possibly tilting the balance of power to smaller actors.

Let me begin with wise words from Andrew Ng from his recent newsletter:

When developers write software, there’s an economic temptation to focus on serving people who have power: How can one show users of a website who have purchasing power an advertisement that motivates them to click? To build a fairer society, let’s also make sure that our software treats all people well, including the least powerful among us.

Andrew Ng

Yes, Andrew. That is what AI theology is all about: rethinking how we do technology to build a world where all life can flourish.

Next Steps in the Democratization of AI

When we talk about democratization of AI, it is often in the context of spreading AI knowledge and benefits to the margins. However, it also means extending AI beyond the technical divide, enabling those with little technical ability to use AI. Though many AI and data science courses have sprung up in recent years, machine learning continues to be the practice of a few.

Big Tech is trying to change that. New Microsoft and Google tools allow more and more users to train models without code. As machine learning becomes a point-and-click affair, I can only imagine the potential of such developments as well as the danger they bring. The prospect of harnessing insight from millions of spreadsheets is promising. It could boost productivity and help many advance in their careers.

taken from pexel.com

One thing is for certain in AI applications: while coding may be optional, ethical reflection will never be. That is why, here in AI Theology, we are serious about expanding the dialogue to the non-technical masses. A good starting point for anyone seeking to better understand AI technologies is our guide. There you can find just enough information to have a big picture view of AI and its applications.

Trends in AI Ethics

The AI Index report from Stanford University has good news: AI ethics has become a thing! The topic is no longer restricted to academics but is now commonplace among industry-funded research. It is becoming part of mainstream organizations. Along with that, legislation efforts to regulate AI have also increased. Spain, the UK, and the US lead the way.

Furthermore, in the US, the FTC is levying penalties on companies that build models on improperly acquired data. In one of the latest instances, Weight Watchers had to destroy its algorithms developed on this type of data. This represents a massive loss for companies. Developing and deploying these models cost millions of dollars, and algorithm destruction prevents organizations from realizing their benefits.

This is an interesting and encouraging development. The threat of algorithm destruction could lead to more responsible data collection and retention practices. Data governance is a key foundation for ethical AI that no one (except for lawyers, of course) wants to talk about. With that said, ensuring good collection practices is not enough to address inherent bias in existing data.

War in Ukraine

A Zelensky deepfake was caught early, but it will likely not be the last. This is just a taste of what is to come as a war on the ground translates into a war of propaganda and cyber attacks. In the meantime, Russia is experiencing a tech worker exodus which could have severe consequences for the country’s IT sector for years to come.

Photo by Katie Godowski from Pexels

On the Ukrainian side, thousands continue to join the cyber army as Anonymous (the world’s largest hacking group) officially declared war on Russia. Multinational tech companies are also lining up to hire Ukrainian coders fleeing their homeland. Yet, challenges still remain around work visas as European countries struggle to absorb the heavy influx of refugees.

The war in Ukraine has been a global conflict from the start. Yet, unlike the major wars of the 20th century, the global community is overwhelmingly picking one side and fighting through multiple fronts outside of military action. While this global solidarity with the invaded nation is encouraging, this also raises the prospect of the military combat spilling into other countries.

Human Mercy is the Antidote to AI-driven Bureaucracy

If bureaucracies are full of human cogs, what’s the difference in replacing them with AI?

(For this entry following the main topic of classifications by machines vs. humans, we consider classifications and their union with judgments for their prospect of life-altering decisions. It is inspired by a sermon given today by pastor Jim Thomas of The Village Chapel, Nashville TN)

Esau’s fateful Choice

In Genesis 25:29–34 we see Esau, the firstborn son of Abraham, coming in from the fields famished, and finding his younger brother Jacob in possession of hearty stew, Esau pleads for some. My paraphrase follows:   Jacob replies, “First you have to give me your birthright.”   “Whatever,” says Esau, “You can have it, just gimme some STEWWW!” …”And thus Esau sold his birthright for a mess of pottage.”

Simply put, it is a bad idea make major, life-altering decisions while in a stressed state, examples of which are often drawn from the acronym HALT:

  • Hungry
  • Angry
  • Lonely
  • Tired

Sometimes HALT becomes SHALT by adding “Sad”.

When we’re in these (S)HALT states, our brains are operating relying on quick inferences “burned” into them either via instinct or training. Dual Process Theory of psychology calls this “System 1” or “Type 1” reasoning, according to the (cf. Kahneman, 2003; Strack & Deutch 2004). System 1 includes the fight-or-flight response. While System 1 is fast, it’s also often prone to make errors, oversimplify, and operate based on of biases such as stereotypes and prejudices.

System 1 relies on only a tiny subset of the brain’s overall capacity, the part usually associated with involuntary and regulatory systems of the body governed by the cerebellum and medulla, rather than the cerebrum with its higher-order reasoning capabilities and creativity. Thus trying to make important decisions (if they’re not immediate and life-threatening) while in a System 1 state is inadvisable if waiting is possible.

At a later time we may be more relaxed, content, and able to engage in so-called System 2 reasoning, which is able to consider alternatives, question assumptions, perform planning and goal-alignment, display generosity, seek creative solutions, etc.

Hangry Computers Making Hasty Decisions

Machine Learning systems, other statistics-based models, and even rule-based symbolic AI systems, as sophisticated as they may currently be, are at best operating in a System 1 capacity — to the extent that the analogy to the human brain holds (See, e.g., Turing Award winner Yoshua Bengio’s invited lecture at NeurIPS 2019: video, slides.)

This analogy between human System 1 and AI systems is the reason for this post. AI systems are increasingly serving as proxies for human reasoning, even for important, life-altering decisions. And as such, news stories appear daily with instances of AI systems displaying bias and unjustly employing stereotypes.

So if humans are discouraged from making important decisions while in a System 1 state, and machines are currently capable of only System 1, then why are machines entrusted with important decision-making responsibilities? This is not simply a matter of which companies may choose to offer AI systems for speed and scale; governments do this too.

Government is a great place to look to further this discussion, because government bodies are chock full of humans making life-altering decisions (for others) based on of System 1 reasoning — tired people, implementing decisions based on procedures and rules – bureaucracy.1 In this way, whether it is a human being following a procedure or a machine following its instruction set, the result is quite similar.

Human Costs and Human Goods

By Harald Groven taken from Flickr.com

The building of a large bureaucratic system provides a way to scale and enforce a kind of (to borrow from AI Safety lingo) “value alignment,” whether for governments, companies, or non-profits. The movies of Terry Gilliam (e.g., Brazil) illustrated well the excesses of this through a vast office complex of desks after desks of office drones. The socio-political theorist Max Weber, who advanced many of our conceptions of bureaucracy as a positive means to maximize efficiency and eliminate favoritism, was aware of the danger of excess:

“It is horrible to think that the world could one day be filled with nothing but those little cogs, little men clinging to little jobs and striving towards bigger ones… That the world should know no men but these: it is such an evolution that we are already caught up, and the great question is, therefore, not how we can promote and hasten it, but what can we oppose to this machinery in order to keep a portion of mankind free from this parcelling-out of the soul, from this supreme mastery of the bureaucratic way of life.”

Max Weber, Gesammelte Augsaetze zur Soziologie und Sozialpolitik, pp. 412, (1909).

Thus by outsourcing some of this drudgery to machines, we can “free” some workers from having to serve as “cogs.” This bears some similarity to the practice of replacing human assembly-line workers with robots in hazardous conditions (e.g., welding, toxic environments), whereas in the bureaucratic sense we are removing people from mentally or emotionally taxing situations. Yet one may ask what the other costs of such an enterprise may be, if any: If the system is already “soulless,” then what do we lose by having the human “cogs” in the bureaucratic machine replaced by machines?

The Heart of the Matter

So, what is different about machines doing things, specifically performing classifications (judgments, grading, etc.) as opposed to humans?

One difference between the automated and human forms of bureaucracy is the possibility of discretionary action on the part of humans, such as the demonstration of mercy in certain circumstances. God exhorts believers in Micah 6:8 “to love mercy.” In contrast, human bureaucrats going through the motions of following the rules of their organization can result in what Hannah Arendt termed “the banality of evil,” typified in her portrayal of Nazi war criminal Adolph Eichmann who she described as “neither perverted nor sadistic,” but rather “terrifyingly normal.”

“The sad truth is of the matter is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be or do evil or good.”

Hannah Arendt, The Life of the Mind, Volume 1: Thinking, p.180 (1977).

Here again we see the potential for AI systems, as the ultimate “neutral” rule-followers, to facilitate evil on massive scales. So if machines could somehow deviate from the rules and show mercy on occasion, how would that even work? Which AI researchers are working on the “machine ethics” issue of determining when and how to show mercy? (At the time of writing, this author is unaware of such efforts). Given that human judges have a tendency to show favoritism and bias in the selective granting of mercy to certain ethnicities more than others. Also, the automated systems have shown bias even in rule-following, would the matter of “mercy” simply be a new opportunity for automated unfairness? It is a difficult issue with no clear answers.

Photo by Clay Banks on Unsplash
Photo by Clay Banks on Unsplash

The Human Factor

One other key, if the pedantic difference, between human vs machine “cogs” is the simple fact that with a human being “on the line,” you can try to break out of the limited options presented by menus and if-then decision trees. Even the latest chatbot helper interfaces currently deployed are nothing more than natural language front ends to menus. Whereas with a human being, you can explain your situation, and they can (hopefully) work with you or connect you to someone with the authority to do so.

I suspect that in the next ten years we will see machine systems with increasing forays into System 2 reasoning categories (e.g., causality, planning, self-examination). I’m not sure how I feel about the prospect of pleading with a next-gen chatbot to offer me an exception because the rule shouldn’t apply in this case, or some such. 😉 But it might happen — or more likely such a system will decide whether to kick the matter up to a real human.

Summary

We began by talking about Jacob and Esau. Jacob, the creative swindling deal-broker, and Esau who quite literally “goes with his gut.”. Then we talked about reasoning according to the two systems described by Dual Process Theory, noting that machines currently can do System 1 quite well. The main question was: if humans make numerous erroneous and unjust decisions in a System 1 state, how do we justify the use of machines? And the easy answers available seem to be a cop-out: the incentive of scale, speed, and lower cost. And this is not just “capitalism,” rather these incentives would still be drivers in a variety of socio-economic situations.

Another answer came in the form of bureaucracy. System 1 already exists albeit with humans as operators. We explored “what’s different” between a bureaucracy implemented via humans vs. machines. We realized that “what is lost” is the humans’ ability to transcend, if not their authority in the organization, at least the rigid and deficient set of software designs imposed by vendors of bureaucratic IT systems. Predicting how the best of these systems will improve in the coming years is hard. Yet, given the prevalence of shoddy software in widespread use, I prefer talking to a human in Mumbai rather than “Erica” the Bank of America Chatbot for quite some time.

[1]    Literally “government by the desk,” a term coined originally by 16th-century French economist Jacques Claude Marie Vincent de Gournay as a pejorative, but has since entered common usage.

—

Scott H. Hawley, Ph.D., Professor of Physics, Belmont University. Webpage: https://hedges.belmont.edu/~shawley/

Acknowledgment: The author thanks L.M. Sacasas for the helpful conversation while preparing this post.

The Nature of Technology: Our Source of Fear and Hope

In previous blogs, I contrasted the critical view of Ellul toward technology with the more hopeful outlook of Teilhard. In this piece, I want to offer a third view of a technological age that is more detached yet still useful for our discussion: W. Brian Arthur’s emphasis on the link between technology and nature. If the positive and negative value judgments offered by Teilhard and Ellul form two ends of a spectrum, Arthur’s alternative takes us outside that spectrum. He provides a more neutral evaluation of what technology is and how humankind should approach it.

Hailing from the prestigious Santa Fe Institute, economist W. Brian Arthur was one of the first academics to tackle the question of how technology evolves. In his 2009 seminal work, The Nature of Technology: What It Is and How It Evolves, Arthur sketches the theoretical contours of how technology emerges. Using examples from the last two centuries, he builds a comprehensive case to show how new technologies build upon previous technologies, similar in nature but also with their own particularities. This book is a valuable resource for anyone seeking a deep-dive, theoretical perspective on the topic of technology’s emergence and evolution.

Given Arthur’s theoretical and technical approach, what could such a detached view contribute to our discussion on the technological age? How can his observations and framework inform a broader analysis of technology’s impact on society? I would like to highlight two main insights from the book that provide further nuance to our discussion.

https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Nature-of-Technology/W-Brian-Arthur/9781416544067

Nature and Purpose

Arthur defines technology as an effort to harness natural phenomena for a purpose. If we break down this definition, two main insights emerge. The first is the recognition that technology is intricately tied to nature. That is, the technology we have today is only here because nature provided the conditions, parameters, and materials for them to exist. Technology does not exist in a vacuum and it is not self-referential. In order to make it work, at its foundation, one must understand the laws of nature that govern our planet, or at least enough of them to use and direct them for a purpose. This is why the marriage of science and technology that started in the 20th century has been so effective. Our understanding of nature grew by leaps and bounds in the last century, and so did technology.

Underneath this point, there is also a surprising realization. Because of nature’s primacy, it does not need technology to live on. After all, nature has progressed for billions of years on Earth without the help of human technologies. It can continue to do so in spite of the absence or failure of technologies in the future. Technology, on the other hand, cannot exist without nature. That is, if we move out to another planet, all our technologies must be reconfigured or redesigned to fit into a new world.

Photo by TeeFarm on pixabay.com

The second insight from Arthur’s definition of technology is equally illuminating. That is, technology starts with a purpose. If we press this question further, it often starts with a problem yearning to be resolved. The builders begin with a clear end goal, exploring the best approach that will best reach that goal. In this way, it is very similar to evolution in nature, an iterative process always in the search for the best way to enhance and perpetuate life in a given environment.

Source of Fear and Hope

Arthur’s work stays mostly on the technical and theoretical level for the vast majority of the book. He goes on in detail not just to explain his theory but also to demonstrate it with examples of how specific technologies evolved. Yet, towards the end, the book takes a more reflective tone. In that part, the author talks about the relationship humans have with technology that goes beyond just building them.

Arthur also evaluates human attitudes towards technology in pop culture and more specifically in science fiction. There he finds an interesting paradox: humans both fear and hope in technology. On the one hand, the technological artifacts that surround our lives give us a sense that they are unnatural, artificial. They are not always intuitive, nor do they blend well with our environments. They evoke strangeness to bodies that evolved for millions of years without their aid. We are unsettled by them. We fear them.

On the other hand, we often deposit our hope in technology. Nature can harm us, or limit us, and technology promises to help us harness nature in ways that allow us to surpass those limitations. In a world where nature has lost its enchantment, we turn our adoring eyes to technology. We look to technical solutions to calm our fears, reduce our anxieties, and provide comfort and distraction from the harsh realities of life. Though the author does not go that far, I would say that the cult of technology has become a religion in and of itself.

Conclusion

Where Ellul approaches technology with pessimism and Teilhard with optimism, Arthur’s perspective allows for both. The paradox of fear and hope undergirds and defines our technological age. There is hope that as technology advances, human suffering and death will diminish. There is also a profound sense of loss and a nagging desire to return to nature, the starting point for our bodies. That uneasiness is hard to shake off.

Above all, Dr. Arthur highlights technology’s dependence on nature. This is a remarkable insight that leads us back into reflections on identity and connection. If technology is dependent on nature, then one could argue that it is an extension of nature just like we are. If that is the case then it is time to remove the illusion of artificial versus natural. It is all natural.

If we see technology and nature as a continuum, we can enrich our conversation about technology. It is no longer a foreign agent that we need to deal with, but a reflection of who we are.

Warfare AI in Ukraine: How Algorithms are Changing Combat

There is a war in Europe, again. Two weeks in and the world is watching in disbelief as Russian forces invade Ukraine. While the conflict is still confined to the two nations, the proximity to NATO nations and the unpredictability of the Russian autocrat has caused the world to get the jitters. It is too soon to speak of WWIII but the prospect is now closer than it has ever been.

No doubt this is the biggest story of the moment with implications that span multiple levels. In this piece, I want to focus on how it is impacting the conversation on AI ethics. This encompasses not only the potential for AI weapons but also the involvement of algorithms in cyber warfare and in addressing the refugee crisis that result from it. In a previous blog, I outlined the first documented uses of AI in an armed conflict. This instance requires a more extensive treatment.

Andrew Ng Rethinks AI warfare

In the AI field, few command as much respect as Andrew Ng. Former Chief Scientist of Baidu and co-founder of Google Brain, he has recently shifted his focus to education and helping startups lead innovation in AI. He prefaces his most recent newsletter this way:

I’ve often thought about the role of AI in military applications, but I haven’t spoken much about it because I don’t want to contribute to the proliferation of AI arms. Many people in AI believe that we shouldn’t have anything to do with military use cases, and I sympathize with that idea. War is horrific, and perhaps the AI community should just avoid it. Nonetheless, I believe it’s time to wrestle with hard, ugly questions about the role of AI in warfare, recognizing that sometimes there are no good options.

Andrew Ng

He goes on to explain how in a globally connected world where a lot of code is open-source, there is no way to ensure these technologies will not fall in the wrong hands. Andrew Ng still defends recent UN guidance that affirms that a human decision-maker should be involved in any warfare system. The thought leader likens it to the treatment of atomic weapons where a global body audits and verifies national commitments. In doing so, he opens the door for the legitimate development of such weapons as long as there are appropriate controls.

Photo by Katie Godowski from Pexels

Andrew’s most salient point is that this is no longer a conversation we can avoid. It needs to happen now. It needs to include military experts, political leaders, and scientists. Moreover, it should include a diverse group of members from civil society as civilians are still the ones who suffer the most in these armed conflicts.

Are we ready to open this pandora’s box? This war may prove that it has already been open.

AI Uses in the Ukraine’s war

While much is still unclear, reports are starting to surface on some AI uses on both sides of the conflict. Ukraine is using semi-autonomous Turkish-made drones that can drop laser-guided bombs. A human operator is still required to pull the triggers but the drone can take off, fly and land on its own. Russia is opting for kamikazi drones that will literally crash into its targets after finding and circling them for a bit. This is certainly a terrifying sight, straight out of Sci-fi movies – a predator machine that will hunt down and strike its enemies with cold precision.

Yet, AI uses are not limited to the battlefield. 21st-century wars are no longer fought with guns and ammunition only but now extend to bits and bytes. Russian troll farms are creating fake faces for propagandist profiles. They understand that any military conflict in our age is followed by an information war to control the narrative. Hence the use of bots or another automated posting mechanism will come in handy in a situation like this.

Photo by Tima Miroshnichenko from Pexels

Furthermore, there is a parallel and very destructive cyber war happening alongside the war in the streets. From the very beginning of the invasion, reports surfaced of Russian cyberattacks on Ukraine’s infrastructure. There are also multi-national cyber defense teams formed to counteract and stop such attempts. While cyber-attacks do not always entail AI techniques, the pursuit to stop them or scale them most often does. This, therefore, ensures AI will be a vital part of the current conflict

Conclusion

While I would hope we could guarantee a war-free world for my children, this is not a reality. The prospect of war will continue and therefore it must be part of our discussions on AI and ethics. This becomes even more relevant as contemporary wars are extending into the digital sphere in unprecedented ways. This is uncharted territory in some ways. In others, it is not, as technology has always been at the center of armed conflict.

As I write this, I pray and hope for a swift resolution to the conflict in Ukraine. Standing with the Ukrainian people and against unilateral aggression, I hope that a mobilized global community will be enough to stop a dictator. I suspect it will not. In the words of the wise prophet Sting, we all hope the Russians love their children too.

What is the Connection Between Liberation Theology, Data, and Employment Law?

In the second part summary of our November AITAB meeting, we explored AI for good in Europe, Industry, and Academia. This final blog closes out our summary of our meeting in November. In this piece, you will find varied insights that range from Biblical interpretation, law, liberation theology, and exploring different definitions of data.

Model Training and Biblical Wisdom

Brian:  I’ll jump to the question of the theological and biblical frameworks for AI for good. Something Scott said sparked a direction I hadn’t considered but could be an interesting resource. When Scott mentioned taking one model that was already trained and then training it differently, that opens up exciting new avenues of meaning in terms of how AI is formed, what inputs guide its development. Everything the Scripture has to say about how people are formed can potentially guide the way that we do machine learning.

The book of Proverbs and other Wisdom literature in the Bible address the way people are formed, the way sound instruction can shape people. And what’s really interesting is that these books approach wisdom in a variety of dimensions, all aspects of our lives. Wisdom means not only insight or understanding but practical skill, morality, experience, sound judgment. And that multivalence is important. We as people are formed by so many different inputs: we don’t exist in discrete bundles of attributes. I’m not only a student. I’m a student and a person from my family, a member of my local community. Those things overlap and can’t be easily separated. I don’t stop being from middle Tennessee when I enter the classroom. So teaching and learning must take account of this overlap and strive for our integration, the formation of the whole person. And Wisdom literature exemplifies that in some respects. 

Photo by Nitin Arya from Pexels

Elias: That’s a great point. One of the biggest searches of my life has been the search for integration. Even AI Theology started as a journey of integration of my work, machine learning, and my theological and Christian faith. I love when we start seeing these connections. It may seem a little awkward. How can the book of Proverbs connect to machine learning? As you stay with it, eventually something comes up, something you haven’t thought about. 

Liberation Theology and Employment Law

Levi: In a different lens of what Brian was talking about: I’m working on a book project right now from the question about “preferential option for the poor ” (Catholic term). It comes from liberation theology and how it is understood. How you typically hear and study about it in theology. Being voices for the voiceless and champions of justice.

Yet, one of the biggest problems that are overlooked within this perspective is a recognition that the poor experience the world differently. The dignity of the poor is typically overlooked in societies where the ruling class identities are the ones that get imposed.

You mentioned the question of bias. We know for the most part, like facial recognition bias, isn’t because the programmers thought “I hate people from different races, so I’ll make sure this technology doesn’t work.” Most of the time, it’s because they weren’t aware of these problems. And that happens when you are a part of the dominant group.

When we look at the people who write about preferential options for the poor, they are people who aren’t poor. On the one hand, that is a great problem, that AI has currently, has been, and will continue to have the bias of the people who program. And these people are mostly upper-middle-class of white men. Even in places outside of Western countries, they still mostly are men.

The way AI works is based on what data it receives. If the data is given by white men, it’s going to be data they have curated. But if you bring data from different people, you will have different perspectives. And this perspective has great potential. When I listen to people from different countries, backgrounds, social economics classes, I can be sympathetic but I won’t ever understand fully.

If AI is trained by the data from people of different backgrounds, it can potentially be a better advocate of those things. One of the great advantages is that we think of AI as objective, and we think of the perspective of outcasts as being jaded. It’s harder to say that the computer’s outputs and ideas are not conducive to the realities of the poor. This is one of the great opportunities that help to bring the theological concept of preferential option for the poor and make it a preferential option “of the poor”, instead of only on their behalf. 

Davi: Trying to navigate these waters as an attorney. The EEOC, is the US agency that handles employment discrimination cases. It just launched an initiative called “listening sessions”. They are starting to tackle the problem of algorithmic bias in the law. They are starting to see a lot of cases related to selection tests and association tests (IQ tests) that companies use to hire people. The right answer is based on a specific type of cultural background. If you come from a different background, make different associations, you score badly.

These listening sessions are open to the public. You can see how the government of the US is dealing with these problems. In Congress and other legal areas, you still have fewer folks raising these issues. So the law is being decided in the court in big cases, like FB on FR. AI for good may be creating some democratization through these listening sessions, and I hope this will be one way to get input from other people besides big companies only. 

Data as the Voice of the Poor

Wen:  I’d like to contribute by reflecting on what others have said and adding some thoughts.  Several others have mentioned the democratization of AI with open source courses and data. Additionally, as different AI toolsets become more powerful and simpler to use, these will allow non-technical people who are not data scientists to work with AI.  An analogy is how it used to be difficult to create fancy data visualizations, but now there are tools for anyone to create them with just a few clicks.  As AI tools do increasingly more, the role of data scientists will differ in the years to come.

Scott mentioned a lot of AI tools are from ivory tower and/or homogenous model developers. There is a lot of bias encoded in those AI tools.  Levi mentioned AI algorithms and training data tend to favor upper-class white men and overlook the experiences of the poor.

When we think about amplifying the views and voices of the poor, I’d like to speak from my perspective of Data Strategy:  How are we defining “data”?  What data is collected?  Who collects the data?  How is the data structured?

Photo by Vitaly Vlasov from Pexels

Most people who work with data think of spreadsheets, tables, and numbers. We need to also think about qualitative data, things in the realm of social science and anthropology. And audio and visual data, such as from self-driving cars, selfies, and surveillance cameras.

How can these datasets be used to serve poor and marginalized communities?  For example, spf.io is a platform that captions and translates live events and church services into many languages, including less common languages; this increases the accessibility of informative content for people in lesser-known communities.

I want to widen this conversation on data.  There are things we don’t currently collect as data, things that are happening but aren’t being captured, such as someone’s intuition in making decisions. We also need to explore the realm of epistemology – what is knowledge and information? And what are categories we haven’t considered yet?

Teilhard’s Hope: Technology as an Enabler of Cosmic Evolution

In a previous piece, we explored faithfulness in a technological age through Jacques Ellul’s critical view. In his view, technology, with its fixation on perfection, was stifling to the human spirit and an antithesis to nature. While providing an important contribution to the debate, Ellul’s perspective falls short by failing to recognize that technology is, in its essence, a human phenomenon. In doing so, he highlights the dangers and pitfalls but fails to see their potentialities. What if technology is not opposed to but a result of nature through cosmic evolution?

To complement the previous view, we must turn to another 20th century Frenchman, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. This Jesuit Paleontologist offered a paradigm-changing perspective by fusing evolution with Christianity. Because of his faith, Teilhard saw evolution not as a heresy to be disproven but as the mechanism through which God created the cosmos. It is this integrative vision that sheds a very different life on what technology is and how it can lead to a flourishing future.

Humanity as a Cosmic Phenomenom

To understand Teilhard’s view of technology one must first turn to his view of the universe. Published in 1955, Le Phénomène human is probably Teilhard’s most complete vision of a purposeful human evolution. To the French Jesuit, evolution is not just a mechanism to explain the diversity of being on earth. It is instead the process by which the cosmos came to be. It is God’s way of bringing us out of stardust, slowly creating order and harmony from the primordial chaos of the Big Bang.

From Pexels.com

In his perspective, cosmic evolution was leading to both diversity and complexity. At the pinnacle of this complexity was human consciousness. That is, evolution brought humanity to earth but as humans became self-aware, this marked a new stage of the cosmic evolution. In this new phase, evolution was pointing towards a future that transcended humanity. This future is what he called the omega point. The future of evolution would lead humanity to a convergence of consciousness, what some now call the singularity.

To fully unpack Teilhard’s teleological view of the cosmic future, one must first understand his concept of the Noosphere. While difficult to explain in a few sentences, the Noosphere is an expanded view of human intelligence that encompasses not just the material reality of human brains but also the more abstract notion of human knowledge. It is not contained in one person but it is present in between all humanity as the air we breathe. The closest analogy we can get is the Internet itself where most of human knowledge is distributed and easily accessible.

The Technological Age as part of Cosmic Evolution

How does technology fit into this rich perspective of cosmic evolution? It is part and parcel of the Noosphere. Teilhard’s expansive concept contained three main parts: 1) heredity; 2) apparatus; and 3) thoughts. The first one has to do with genetic and cultural transfer. Every person receives a set of information both from their parents and their surrounding culture that enables them to function in this world.

From Pexels.com

The second concept encompasses the vast area of human-created tools which we often associate with technology. In addition to our genetic and cultural material, humans now rely on a complex network of artifacts that extend their reach and impact in the natural world. From clothes to fast computers, this apparatus, in Teilhard’s view, is another part of the noosphere.

The reason why this is important is that by placing technology as an extension of human evolution, the French Jesuit connects it back to nature. Unlike in Ellul’s perspective, where technology is a force opposing nature, Teilhard sees continuity. Instead, it is a vital part of the human ecosystem and therefore it is teleological. By placing technology in the noosphere, Teilhard gives it a purpose and direction. It is not a force of destruction but a result and an enabler of cosmic evolution to the omega point.

In other words, nature and cosmic history converge to create this technological age. In that, Teilhard adds a sense of inevitability around technology. This is not to say that he was a blind enthusiast. A European who lived through two world wars, Teilhard is inoculated against the illusion of perpetual progress. Instead, he takes the long view and sees technology as an essential part of the long arch of history towards Cosmic redemption promised in Christian eschatology.

Hope, Caution and Courage

I can say with no reservation that my Christian faith would not exist today if it wasn’t for Teilhard’s integrative theology. In the despair of a false choice between pre-critical Biblical faith and materialistic humanism, I found the third way of Chardian synthesis. This is a story for another time but suffice it to say that the power of Teilhard’s Christian vision is its integration between science and religion. This integration then allows us to have a different conversation about the technological age.

For one, it destroys the illusion of separation between nature and technology. Without negating the dangers and disorientation that technological progress has brought, we can rightfully see it as an extension of cosmic history. Yet, how do we account for the uneasiness we instinctively feel towards it? Why does it not feel natural? One explanation is that as any evolutionary process, it takes time to fully form. Therefore, it is not an issue of substance but of time.

With that said, I cannot shake off reservations with Teilhard’s view of technology as part of cosmic evolution. There is a quasi naivete in his optimist belief in the inevitable evolution of humanity. We all hope he is right but are too afraid to bet our lives on it. The disappointment would be too grave and devastating. Perhaps that is the greatest asset of his view, one that requires courage and faith. One does not need faith to prepare for a dystopian future of technology overlords running the world. It does, however, require a courageous and terrifying faith to believe that technology can fulfill its full potential as another step in human evolution.

Living Faithfully in a Technological Age: Heeding Ellul’s Warnings

We are living in a technological age. The acceleration and pervasiveness of technology (both as knowledge and objects) is a dominant force shaping the direction of history. No other time in history has techno-optimism, the idea that we can “techno” our way out of any problem, been such a driving force in society. As Big tech, maybe the biggest symbol of this trend, accumulate staggering profit, the narrative marches on.

Consider this, if the global technology sector were a country, its GDP would be the third-largest in the world. Even so, the pervasiveness of tech extends far beyond the economy. It has come to touch every aspect of human societies, revolutionizing how we shop, study, work, and relate to each other. The cyber-world, as it was once known, is no longer a virtual representation of reality. It is, instead, a reality of its own that now exists in parallel to our offline reality.

If technology is the defining force of our age, how can we live the good life in it? For centuries humans have asked this question as a way to engage faithfully with their environment. How do we do that in a technological age? In this case, a clarification is in order. In a time where the word technology gets thrown around a lot, what actually does it mean? To help us with this task we now turn to a 20th-century scholar.

The Danger of Technique

In 1954, French theologian and sociologist Jacques Ellul put forth one of the most complete critique of technology’s impact on humanity. His seminal work, La technique ou l’enjeu du siècle, is one of the first to recognize that we were indeed living in a technological age. In his view, that was a concerning development. He saw the rise of technology as a vortex that started in the industrial revolution but accelerated in the last two centuries. He used the French word technique that meant not just the objects themselves but a mentality, an approach to the world. Underneath it was the culmination belief that the world was a machine, and that by combining the right parts, one could solve any problem.

Technology was not a neutral force. Instead, it was marked by rationality. It obeyed prescribed rules and follow dictated patterns. It is obsessed with efficiency in every field of human activity. Not only that, but it often supplants and destroys the old, replacing them with the new. In doing so, it often leaves a trail of loss, confusion, and disorientation.

Furthermore, he believed that technology was self-perpetuating. It starts with a narrow purpose in mind but eventually, by creating new problems, it begets new objects to address it. In this way, it can raise whole new industries in a short amount of time. Thus, it can both be a fantastic driver of economic growth and job creation, even as it destroys and disrupts existing structures.

Techno-determinism and the Human-Machine Telos

Photo by ThisIsEngineering from Pexels

Jacques Ellul observed that technology tends to be deterministic. This is even more true today in a digital age where algorithms and decision engines are shaping our future by predicting, nudging, and optimizing human behavior toward pre-determined aims. In its pursuit of perfectionist dreams, it stubbornly seeks the most efficient method in a process which often supplants human creativity. It imposes its preferred method as a universal law, forcing all its users to follow its pre-determined principles.

At its essence, it drives the future toward a human-machine telos. Because it believes the universe is mechanistic, it further transforms us into machines. Technology, therefore, seeks to conform us to its image of mechanical perfection. It treats living beings as predictable objects built to accomplish narrow objectives.

If it wasn’t enough, Ellul believed that as it became ubiquitous, it has also become the new sacred. Supplanting religious hegemonies of the past, technology is the new god before which everyone must bow. One cannot question it, one must only accept its sovereign plan for a future of efficiency, perfection, and effectiveness. In that, he could not be more right.

A Faithful Response

It does not take much probing to realize Ellul’s proposed response to this predicament. In a technological age, where our world has turned to tech worship, Ellul is an iconoclast. Breaking down the idols through resistance and subversion is the only way. As a Christian, he believed that to be the most appropriate response in view of a mounting techno-tyranny. The faithful must throw a wrench into the whole process and work for its collapse.

By that, I don’t think he meant a complete return to nature. Yet, it starts with a recognition of the pervasive pernicious impact of technology in society. Resistance to technique, as both objects and mentality, is a return to human creativity and partnership. It most certainly entails a new way to build and operate machinery. A way in which it recognizes its limitations while upholding the sacredness of live beings.

mystic Christianity
Photo by Kiwihug on Unsplash

It means dismantling the centralizing power of techno elites and spreading their knowledge with the masses. Placing technology in its rightful place as one tool among many in the work for the flourishing of life. A subversion that returns to the human and hopefully leads us back to the ultimate. This is the type of response, I believe, Jacques Ellul could get behind and see it as a faithful rendering of his legacy.

Conclusion

Ellul’s critique of technology only gets more relevant with time. The prophetic insights that he originally saw in the half of the 20th century continue to reverberate in a world where technique has only become more predominant. Coupled with an appropriate mindset that replaces despair with action, it can lead to the type of subversion we need to see in our time.

Even so, one must ask whether subversion is enough in a technological age. Is technique only a phenomenon to be resisted, an evil to be controlled? Even if it is properly pursued as a tool, is that sufficient to capture its meaning. Are there other fascets we must see if we are to fully comprehend this technological age? That is when we turn next to another French prophet, paleontologist, and theologian Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

Reshaping Christian Ministry in a Post-Covid World

It’s no secret that the church is changing in the post-Covid world. Ask any church leader and they are likely to tell you the same thing: It’s easy to draw a dividing line between the pre-pandemic world and the one we live in now. Patterns of church attendance and giving are different, as is the nature of Christian spiritual formation, the way we gather with others to learn, fellowship, and pray. As 2020 turned to 2021 and now 2022, it’s become clear that what started as a temporary suspension of life, as usual, has become a drastic shift of the status quo. “Normal” in 2022 means something different than it did in 2019.

It’s also no secret that technology is a major driver of these changes. A slew of platforms facilitate virtual small group meetings, and it’s never been easier to stream and record worship services with devices and software already on hand. The technologies that enable many people to work from home also enable us to “church from home.” Whether that’s a positive or negative shift, we can debate. What’s not debatable is the reality of it. For better or worse, technology is reshaping Christian ministry in the post-Covid world we live in.

Shifting Worship Practices

Shifts in worship and discipleship, two of the most central arenas of Christian ministry, illustrate the increasing influence of technology. Before the onset of the pandemic, in the United States, many churches offered online worship, and the number of churches doing so was increasing steadily each year. But generally, it was reserved for larger churches, usually offered through their own church website, and attendance online was sporadic. In mid-March of 2020, the Barna research group reported that 2 percent of practicing Christians attended a church with a live-streamed or other video sermons, saying “the data suggest these services are still a novelty.” Even in early 2020, streaming your worship service was a luxury for forward-thinking congregations who could afford it. Attending worship online was what you did when you were out of town and couldn’t worship in person, or a way for college students and those who had recently moved away to remain connected to the church.

Photo by Chris Montgomery on Unsplash

This all changed in the spring of 2020 when the coronavirus pandemic forced congregations to suspend in-person gatherings. Almost overnight, nearly every pastor and church leader faced a choice: find a way for the congregation to worship online, or forgo worship altogether. Most chose to establish online worship, and it became a vital link between the congregation and its people when the usual links had been severed. By June of 2020, Barna found that 96 percent of pastors reported they had begun streaming their worship services. The change happened swiftly, and even when a return to in-person worship became possible, churches continued to offer it online as well. They had taken the step, invested in the necessary resources, and seen the expected and unexpected benefits. Today, more congregations than ever offer worship online, many of them using one or more established tools such as Youtube or Facebook live.

Many of the questions regarding online worship have shifted as well, from “whether” to “how.” Before the pandemic, a congregation may have asked about viability and value. “Should we offer online worship? What will it cost, in money, time, and energy, and will it be worth the investment? Will people attend less often if they have the option?” Now that so many churches have taken the step, the sense appears to be that there is no going back. Questions now are geared toward best practices. “How can we offer online worship in the best possible way? What is the right time and format? Where should our cameras be placed? What streaming service(s) should we use to reach the most people?” And perhaps most importantly, “How can we follow up with those who encounter us online?”

Discipleship and Formation

Similar changes are taking place in the realm of discipleship and Christian formation, with the emergence of virtual or hybrid small groups alongside those that meet in person. In my congregation, several adult Sunday school and small groups classes began meeting weekly or bi-weekly by Zoom during the pandemic. A number of new groups began online during this time, with some continuing to gather virtually.

When gathering in person became possible once again, we maintained a way for people to connect virtually. And at least one of our Sunday school classes meets in person but uses Facebook’s Portal to allow people to attend virtually as well. Typically they have 4-8 people participating from home alongside the 20 or more in the classroom each week. Last fall, one Wednesday night class met in person with a computer in the room for people to participate via Zoom. I taught a different class that met in our chapel, but we also streamed it through Facebook Live and allowed people to interact via the comments.

Photo by Sincerely Media on Unsplash

Conversations with leaders and congregants in other churches paint a similar picture elsewhere. There’s a mixture of gathering online and in person. It’s messy, inconsistent from one place to the next as leaders experiment, adapt, and do what’s right in their context. But the big picture is that gathering online has emerged as a viable way to connect with fellow Christians for Bible study and fellowship, and it’s not going away.

A Glimpse of the future

It’s difficult to say much that is specific about the long-term effects of these changes. It’s still relatively new, and churches and their leaders are still finding their way through them. And of course, my experience and observations are limited. I’m speaking primarily about congregations in the United States, while technology is driving other sorts of change in other parts of the world. Even so, I can point to three early patterns that may be trends.

Photo by NASA on Unsplash

The first is a geographical shift. It’s easier than ever before to connect with a church in another city or state, because much of what they do is online now. People who move away can remain involved in the congregation by worshiping online and participating in virtual small groups. If my family member or friend across the country tells me about a positive church experience, I can see it for myself by connecting with that church online. If my favorite Christian author is a pastor, I can begin to attend their church even if I live hundreds of miles away. In this emerging reality, the quality of online worship and small group offerings becomes important, and following up effectively with those who connect online is even more important.

The second is a temporal shift. Streamed worship remains a live event, but if it’s recorded for later viewing, then “attendance” suddenly diffuses over several days instead of a single hour on Sunday. The same is true for some classes and small groups. Last fall I taught an in-person class that was streamed through Facebook Live. During the class, we had a handful of online participants, maybe 4 or 5. But when I went back a week later, I discovered Facebook had recorded more than a hundred views. Now, views alone is an unreliable metric—it may be that someone just paused on it for a few seconds as they scrolled through their feed. But even so, the class was being encountered, even in a small way, for several days after I taught it.

The third is increased recognition among church leaders of the importance and potential of digital connections. More pastors and church leaders are not only paying attention to online offerings but developing the skillsets to use them well. Church staffs and volunteer teams are beginning to include roles specifically focused on digital ministry, especially at larger churches. And forward-thinking church leaders and writers are beginning to look farther ahead, asking what implications things like cryptocurrency and the Metaverse might have for the future of Christian ministry, and what steps congregations need to take today in order to prepare for them. 

Emerging technology is reshaping Christian ministry, just as it’s reshaping many aspects of our lives. It is more important than ever for us to pay attention to technology, both the systems and devices that are already well-entrenched and the emerging technology that is going to shape the world tomorrow. As the pandemic made all too clear, the distance between the present and the future is incredibly small. The present is not a static set of circumstances but a constantly evolving, dynamic landscape in which emerging tech is a major driver of change. Looking to the future, and technology’s role within it, is a faithful act in the present.

Brian Sigmon is an acquisitions editor at The United Methodist Publishing House, where he edits books, Bible studies, and official resources for The United Methodist Church. He has a Ph.D. in biblical studies from Marquette University, and has published a number of academic and popular articles on the Bible and Christian theology. Brian loves to teach and to help people of all backgrounds deepen their understanding of Scripture. When he isn’t editing, teaching, or writing about faith and technology, Brian enjoys woodworking and writing science fiction. He lives in Kingston Springs, Tennessee with his wife and their three children.