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!

Reflections on the 2018 LAMP Symposium on the Future of Life

Last Saturday I attended the 2018 LAMP (Leadership and Multi-faith Program) symposium, a collaborative endeavor between Emory University and Georgia Tech. The topic for this year was “Religious and Scientific Perspectives in the Future of Life.” The event was sub-divided in three parts, starting with life in the body and mind (religion meets science in deciphering the soul), life in our planet (warnings about Global Warning inaction) and life in outer-space (an introduction to Astrobiology). For lunch, we also learned about a AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) initiative to build bridges between seminary students and scientists.

Unfortunately, I was not able to stay for the last session and therefore cannot speak to it in detail. Yet, the very idea that there is an academic discipline studying the possibility of life in other planets is fascinating. I am encouraging my 8 year-old daughter to look into that for a college major. It sounds like a truly exciting field.

The symposium opened with Dr. Arri Eisen describing his experience of teaching science to Buddhist monks in Tibet. Apart from some entertaining stories, the main gist followed along the lines of “we have much to learn from each other if we are open” theme. While this is not earth-shattering, it was refreshing to see a Scientist affirm that his craft is not immune to personal and/or cultural biases. Of all the speakers that followed, the most interesting was Dr. Mascaro’s description of her work to test the health impacts of meditation. She first showed the overwhelming evidence for the correlation between social connection and health. That is, the more lonely we are the more physically sick we become. Hence, any activity that can increase our sense of connection with others should also have health benefits which proved to be the case. This is an important finding that hopefully with time will move us to look at physical health from a more holistic perspective.

I was particularly unimpressed by the contribution of the speakers from the religious side to the dialogue. To be fair, each of them had little time to fully state their case but their observations really added little to the debate. For example, the Muslim scholar’s main point was to question the reliability of the mind without fully describing how that really differs from the soul. I think what he meant was a suspicion of the Western cult of objectivity and rationality yet that was not clearly stated. The Jewish Scholar spoke of her research on ritual bath without really making clear connections as to how that contributes to the dialogue between Religion and Science or the connection between mind and soul.

The lunch talk was informative and hopeful as I learned about how Columbia Seminary students were being exposed to Scientific knowledge though a speaker series. The hope here is that as they become pastors they will become more engaged with Science and this engagement will makes it way to the pulpit and Sunday school classes. However, such initiative would have been much more consequential in conservative evangelical seminaries where Science is often seen as the enemy of faith. It is an encouraging beginning nevertheless.

The after-lunch session turned out to be a call to action for engaging religious community with Global Warming activism. Of the speakers in this session, I was impressed by Rabbi Kornblau’s holistic approach to the Torah that included a commitment to caring for the environment. I was disappointed by the Christian Theologian’s exploration of Eschatology and Ecology. While he brought a valid point that his generation was less concerned about a shift in worldview to moving to action, there was a missed opportunity in developing this many connections of the these two topics. Moreover, while I will second their concern with Global Warming, I was looking for discussion on the current scientific developments in life extension. I was also hoping for an acknowledgement of the role of technology in their research.

I realize that the tone of my review is rather negative. I was expecting much more from a discussion on the future of life. As someone keenly interested in the dialogue between Technology and Religion, I am rather impatient with the slow pace of the dialogue between Religion and Science in academic circles. The latter lays the groundwork for the former. Yet, given its slow pace, we may be years away from a robust dialogue between on the role of Religion in emerging technologies. I see a lot of preliminary discussion but very little in the way of actionable insights. I understand that this stems in part from the academic focus on research and theory. Even so, I find that unacceptable given the pace of change brought forth by emerging technologies (AI, VR and CRISP to name a few) on our humanity. While there are some institutions in the forefront of this dialogue (i.e.: Pittsburg Seminary and University of Durham), I was hoping the leading academic institutions of a growing metropolis like Atlanta would be making inroads in this area.

This leads me to believe that most insights and breakthroughs in this area will not come from Academia but from practitioners (pastors and technologists). Academic institutions will find themselves having to catch up with the new knowledge being uncovered by innovators in the field. This is unfortunate given academic institutions’ wealth of resources for research. I hope that changes but if what I saw on Saturday is any indication, Academia is a long way from leading in this dialogue.