Don: What does technology bring to the interface between God and Man? It is argued that the printing press made the Reformation possible by taking away control of information from the priest, who hitherto not only controlled access to God but also stood in the role of God himself.
The church was the gateway to Heaven, therefore excommunication meant exclusion from Heaven and consignment to everlasting hell. It was greatly feared. Then along came Martin Luther, who taught the priesthood of all believers, and the justification by faith. His radical ideas about God were printed and distributed, along with the source document—the Bible—among an increasingly literate population. The technology thus helped them to escape the control of the church authorities and broaden their worldview.
Is technology primarily liberating, or is it primarily suppressing? Does it free us or enslave us? Today’s technology is bringing about the reformation of education, which no longer need be based on memorization of information since the Internet is a readily accessible memory of all information. Is religion also based on information and if so is it then also due for (another technology-driven) reformation?
Most applications of technology to worship serve to enhance what is already done, as opposed to introducing a whole new element of worship. There is an app to help us pray depending on the motivation for the prayer—need, loss, fear, joy, thanksgiving, etc. There’s an app that calls Moslems to prayer at the appropriate times of day. There’s an app to pay one’s church tithes and give alms. Some claim that abstinence from our smartphones is equivalent to, and valid as, fasting. Thus, there is now technological enhancement of the three main conventional elements of worship—prayer, alms-giving, and fasting.
In other words, technology enhances the interface between God and Man by making the rituals and symbols and other aspects of worship more readily accessible. But can it do more? Can it bring greater meaning to the inner light, strengthen our faith, help answer our existential questions (why are we here, where do we come from, and where are we going), make us more loving, compassionate, and kind? Are there genes for compassion and generosity, for going to the back of the line, for turning the other cheek, for selfishness, for self-centered aggrandizement? If so, should we not seek to identify them in order to be able to strengthen the good genes and disable the bad ones? Where would free will enter into this? Should the individual be allowed a choice to alter his or her own genes, for good or evil, of his or her own free will?
In any discussion of technology at the interface between God and Man, it is critical to consider the concept of grace. At heart, technology is determinative—it is all about cause and effect, which is the foundation of science. But God’s grace is about the suspension of cause and effect—of getting what one does not deserve. Could there be some aspects of the interface that are determinative, and some that are not?
Donald: The camera is the technology, the tool, of the photographer. If we focus on the camera rather than on the photograph, we lose the point of photography. The surgeon focuses not on her instruments for themselves, no matter how novel and amazing they may be, but rather on how best to apply the instruments to her patient’s wellbeing. We must not worship the tool or allow it in any way to interfere with the taking of a good photograph, the healing of a sick patient, or the development of a relationship with God.
David: To me, it is axiomatic that in principle nothing—neither technology, nor church, nor anything else—can mediate between us individually and God. That interface lies at the heart of Big W Worship. But so does service to others, in the practice of which perhaps technology can indeed interfere by, for example, diverting our attention toward more pleasurable distractions, including perhaps evil ones; or, on the other hand, it can interfere beneficially by (for example) providing a conduit for the giving of alms.
Kiran: The non-dualistic West has difficulty accepting that grace can coexist with cause and effect. We flock to new technologies but soon tire of them. That we seem never to have enough pleasures, that many of us lust after the latest iPhone, should alert us to the fact that something fundamental is missing from our lives. We need something so fulfilling as to satisfy our need for fulfillment once and for all. That something is all around us, all the time. It is called God’s grace.
Donald: I would agree that small-w worship cannot replace Big-W Worship, though I am not sure we are all agreed on exactly what those terms mean. I think both types of worship are valid and in an ideal world would work together. Is church a technology, a tool designed to enhance our ability to find our way to God? For those of us in the church, that seems an almost offensive question; rather like asking someone who wears glasses (a technology) why can’t they see without them?
Kiran: Traditionally, we were confined to our own small parish churches. We were like clubs, and tended to convince ourselves we were superior to other churches. In the same way, we were confined into localized religions and nation–states, each believing in its own superiority over others. But modern communication technology lets us quickly assess and debunk such beliefs. Instead of demonizing Moslems as strangers and therefore inferior by assumption, we can access their world online and see whether the assumptions have any basis in fact. The result is that technology reveals we are all God’s children. I am not sure I could have reached this understanding without it. I can compare the different perspectives on an issue, to be found on Al Jazeera, Fox News, and CNN. These powers are new to our generation. Previous generations did not have them.
Donald: But is the information always clarifying or can it be confusing?
Kiran: It can be confusing, initially. But given time and reflection, it tends to come clearer.
Michael: Rather than ask how technology affects worship, perhaps it would be easier to ask how it affects religion. It can be liberating and it can be inhibitory.
Jay: At its core, technology is about increasing our understanding. When it comes to the personal interface with God, that is the rub; because interfacing with God is not about understanding or knowing him better. Technology used for that misguided purpose is a hindrance rather than a help. Interfacing with God is about our actions and behavior, and to the extent technology is applied to enhance our actions and behavior, then it benefits the relationship.
David: Technology cannot ever answer our existential questions, but that won’t stop us from trying! Job would have known this. God’s thoughts are not our thoughts, no matter how technologically enhanced our thoughts might become. The answers may come through total unity with God that occurs (I believe) at the interface between life and death, between Heaven and earth. That said, I agree with Jay that technology can help us enhance our actions and behaviors—it can help us distribute help more rapidly and in greater quantities, for example.
Jay: Things such as “knowing” God are wrapped up in faith and free will and grace, which cannot be measured and are therefore not amenable to technological manipulation. What we can measure are the results of godly acts, so the focus should be on what we do rather than on what we know. And in this regard, technology can be used. To me, the search for a “God gene” seems futile, because genes code for concrete things, not abstractions such as love, mercy, and grace.
Donald: The concept of “knowing” God leads to the concept of a chosen people, which in turn leads to the concept of “the truth.” Applying technological absolutes (measurement) to such subjective concepts seems incongruent. Technology has not unified humanity’s understanding of God. On the contrary; we seem increasingly intolerant of one another.
Don: Jason seems to be suggesting that there is some aspect of Man that is unrelated to our DNA. Is this like the old dualistic argument for separate material and spiritual worlds?
Jay: There was presumably no genetic cause to our Fall from the garden of Eden, since Adam and Eve were God’s perfect creations. Yet they were still susceptible to evil influence, q.e.d., from an exterior force. Faith, love, and grace are also forces that act upon us from an exterior source, but they have real-world, practical, and profound impacts on the individual.
David: The external, spiritual, force may be the evolutionary imperative: If we were not, on balance, more good than bad, we would by now have destroyed everything, including ourselves. There would have been no evolution. The evolutionary imperative favors altruism, but only in the aggregate, not necessarily in every or in any particular instance. I doubt that technology can replicate the external force even in principle, in which case even the most sophisticated virtual world must remain unitary—it cannot be dualistic. But the external force (whether we choose to call it the evolutionary imperative or God or the Dao) will still impact the worlds we inhabit, whether those worlds are real or virtual.
Anonymous: Jesus pointed to that dualism when he said that the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.
Donald: For some people, photographs are important not so much as objects but as memory joggers. They do not displace the moment photographed, but they allow us to recall a beautiful or moving moment more clearly and also to share that beauty and emotion with others. We can study the Bible on our own, but we’d rather gather together to do it. We must find some benefit in sharing.
Jay: But if we gather because we think we will learn more about God, it is futile. If we gather in order to learn how better to behave, then it is valid and valuable.
David: I see benefit in seeking to know more about God provided that one approaches it with the humility of Job and the recognition that while we may stumble across points of enlightenment (such as the evolutionary imperative) along the way, we will never truly know God or find the definitive answers to our existential questions. We can’t help seeking to know more; it’s in our nature. But we must accept that there will always be an ultimate limit to our understanding of God.
Don: What I seem to be hearing is that technology has no role in the interface between God and Man, but a key role in the interface between Man and Mankind; that a belief that technology can help us know God better is misguided, whereas it has a definitive role to play in human interpersonal relations. Is it all as simple as that?
Jay: I would add that those two things are not mutually exclusive, but they are directional: As Man improves his relationships with Mankind, it improves his relationship with God; but it is a mistake to assume (as we seem to do) that improving the Man–God relationship will automatically improve the Man–Mankind relationship.
Donald: Provided we respect one another, our respective contributions at our weekly meetings helps me (at least) understand the Man–God relationship that much better, and that in turn might subtly alter my behavior, though I can’t be sure of that. Our approach could be seen by some as potentially subversive; at least, it is radically different from the traditional “prooftext” concept of “Here is the question, and here is its answer.”
Michael: Technology will change the game if it leads to immortality. It may remove the perception of a need to interface with God. (It is a big “if”, of course.)
David: I think there is a difference between an immortal mortal life (so to speak), and an immortal divine life. The former could turn into a nightmare, but we take it on faith that the latter will not. There is plentiful evidence that earthly utopias are fleeting at best; our only hope (if we hope at all) lies in the promise of a heavenly paradise.
* * *
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.