Last week I posted my notes on the first weekend of the second annual Ecclesia and Ethics Conference. This is my summary of Saturday’s second weekend:
Loren E. Wilkinson was the first presenter. He spoke on “‘Jars of Clay’ or ‘The Black Mirror’: The Incarnation and the Technology of Virtuality: wherein he spoke about “The Black Mirror”, “Steam Punk”, and “Trans-Humanism” in light of the Incarnation and the Gospel. It was a very, very thought provoking talk on the line between being human and incorporating technology into our daily life. It put the fear of Google Glass in me!
Brandon Cox presented on “The Nature of God and the Nature of Social Media”. He shared some of the ideas present in his new book, Rewired: How Using Today’s Technology Can Bring You Can to Deeper Relationships, Real Conversations, and Age-Old Methods of Sharing God’s Love.
During the break-out sessions I had the privilege of moderating Michael Burdett‘s “Attention Online: Christian Praxis and Internet Living”; Arthur Keefer‘s “Principles of Pedagogy with Jesus and the Insufficiency of Online Theological Education”; and Joseph Wolyniak‘s “Private Browsing?: Assessing the Pillars of Pornography in the Digital Age”.
Burdett’s presentation reminded me a bit of Schuurman’s last week. He provides some disturbing information regarding how our time online impacts our attention spans, our ability to read, our analytical thinking skills. In response, he invited us to engage the Christian practices of fasting, Lectio Divina, and silence and solitude. Honestly, in part, my Lenten fast this year focuses on online activity and social media for this very reason. The Internet is become one with our minds and this isn’t always good.
Keefer attempted to move us past the pros and cons of online education focusing instead on what the goals of an institution in light of Jesus’ pedagogical example in the Gospels. What are the intended outcomes? Now that the intended outcomes have been considered one can ask whether or not online theology education works.
Wolyniak talked about the pornographication of our society, especially via the Internet. He asked, “Where does this come from?” He finds that our modern addiction has its genesis during the Early Enlightenment. He showed how the history of pornography paralleled that of technology which helps explain our situation today.
The day ended with Ben Myers‘ “The Ethics of Looking: Patristic Reflections on the Cyber Gaze” which I also moderated. He talked to us about Tertullian’s address regarding the “spectacles” and Christian participation. While we think the eyes are passive observers, Tertullian connects the action of the eyes with the spirit of the person, and therefore “looking” is a moral act.
the archives near Emmaus 
In [1 Chronicles 21:1] David was enticed to conduct a census of Israel “that I might know their number“. Famously, this constituted ‘sin’ for which David paid the price [2 Samuel 24:10].
Why was it sin? The answer to this questions suggests a theology that impacts how we see the virtual world as this conference sought to do.
When God founded the theocracy of ancient Israel He established holy legal principles, and denied un-holy ones. For example, the idea of ‘forgiveness’ was manifest in the Jubilee year when debt was forgiven (including moral debt). With respect to property ownership, only the owner possessed authority to number what belonged to him. This means only an owner could establish an inventory of his flock, say.
In [Exo 30:12] when God established a census of the people they each ransomed their life to YHWH. This ‘marking of owership’ was akin to labelling an item that belongs to you with your name, or the branding of your cattle. Prophetically, what belongs to God was said to be marked with God’s mark, and what belongs to the Satan was marked with the mark of the world.
Israel did not belong to David. Israel belonged to God [Exo 6:7]. David was appointed a shepherd to steward the master’s flock [2 Sam 5:2], and to vouchsafe it. Since the shepherd is not the owner, the shepherd does not possess the right to mark property with a number (census). So David sinned when he presumed this right that was not his.
In this internet age, the virtual world collects much information about people. For example, see Google’s dashboard. Obtaining, demographic data, including evidence a person exists, is a kin to a census. The internet is effectively conducting a census ‘real-time‘, exactly what King David commanded Joab to do [2 Sam 24:1].
So one theology that might be explored in questions about the virtual age might be ‘Does humanity posses the right to collect information about people real time, given that we lack discernment enough to know whether or not this right belongs to God? Are we not committing David’s sin all over again
That begs another question; At the union of identity and technology exists a collection of attributes known as ‘virtual or digital identity‘ (See Wikipedia article). This ‘virtual person’ is a projection of a real person’s identity onto the virtual realm (which is why the protection of privacy information is such a big deal).
Does humanity even have the right to recreate in its own image? When this was done in the pre-Messiah era it was known as idolatry. How is it not idolatry now, given that creating things in one’s own image was a right reserved by God? Again, we lack discernment.
Conferences seeking to develop theologies relevant to our new virtual age really need to look no further than the Old Testament to grasp the issues surrounding fallen humanity.