Pro-Tech Christianity Needs Storytellers
We should not linger in the theoretical to defend creations that do practical good.
It’s imperative that Christians have a robust theology of technology. But it’s also imperative that we tell the correct story about it.
Particularly if you’re under 30, AI is often presented as a boogeyman that will probably take your job, will make you dumber, and is built via systems that oppress people. And unfortunately, that’s about as deep as many perspectives on AI go.
There is wisdom and truth and value in talking about why correct use of technology is theologically sound and perfectly in keeping with a creational view of economics. However, there is also wisdom and truth and value in rebutting stereotypes around technology in a more direct way via storytelling. Go back to those three assertions above. If we want to argue about tech correctly in the 21st century, in a way that’s compelling to apathetic or pessimistic minds, we would do well to give examples of *how* (not just why theoretically) AI creates jobs, presents tools for learning, and is actively being used to help oppressed people. (In my day job in corporate engagement, we have these sorts of conversations regularly - that’s a whole other element of storytelling that’s important.)
I’ve written a fair bit on a theology of AI, including a piece at World Magazine arguing that ‘A Reflexive Fear of AI Doesn’t Serve Christ.’ In it, I pointed out that:
“if God means for us to exercise dominion & stewardship in the realm of artificial intelligence, then we ought to be just as unapologetic about the doing of good as we are unafraid to combat the doing of evil. The church believes this in every other arena where Christians live and work. To half-hide our convictions when it comes to AI is not a move that serves the church or the productive creators who uphold its mission.”
I still believe that. 100%. However, I’ve found that along with making those arguments in the abstract, we need to concretely rebut those stereotypes. For example, is AI inherently a tool of oppression?
No, and here’s an example of how AI is being used to *combat* exploitation.
No, and here’s an example of how AI is being used to fight trafficking in the hospitality industry.
No, and here’s an example of how AI is being used to prevent predation on online gaming platforms.
My critique of much of Christian dialogue on AI is that it lingers in the theoretical, sometimes for good reason, but the discerning Christian reader should be aware that this abstract focus also sometimes works to hide a lack of knowledge/insight on the practical side. As I pointed out in a recent piece for the Acton Institute:
I’ve read many articles and heard many lectures purporting to offer a Christian approach to AI that essentially boil down to some combination of the following: (1) an assertion about how little the author has used AI, (2) a section explaining how it’s not human and never will be, (3) a lamentation over jobs lost from AI, (4) several stories about how people have killed themselves as a result of AI chatbots, and (5) a persistently vague call for Christians to be wise. Now I’m all for Christians being wise, rejecting transhumanism, and not killing themselves as a result of chatbots. But I always finish reading these articles feeling as if I’m no more informed than I was when I started reading them. (RLO, What Christians Get Wrong About AI)
We will not effectively communicate a proper theology of technology, no matter how watertight, without concrete stories about how it is used to serve and meet the needs of imago dei people. That’s where I think more energy needs to be. And why shouldn’t it be? The energy and focus need to be on the systems that allow us to help and serve people, and highlighting that help and service as proof of concept. That part has always been true for Christians interested in engaging and building culture. There may come a time when that isn’t the case - but our AI moment is not that time.
What I’m Reading
Peter Leithart on work (First Things):
What Arendt called “natality” gives human beings our distinctive character, our capacity for new beginning. Every newborn alters the entire web of human plurality. All our “babies” enter the world with the same transformative potency and express our uniquely natal power. “All labor is labor” isn’t a strained poetic conceit. Like all great metaphors, it illumines, and perhaps shapes, what it names.
Spencer Klavan on The Odyssey (The New Jerusalem):
To my mind, Nolan’s more rounded Odysseus is closer to the one we need. There are plenty of modern parables about how bookish weaklings can be heroes in their own right—we all saw The Never-Ending Story. There’s a certain value to that narrative trope. But there’s more value in the idea that men should aspire to be both strong and sophisticated. It’s one of the things that makes Odysseus so impressive. I think it’s pretty cool that Nolan got that right.
Yuval Levin on Rejecting Decline (Law & Liberty):
The very fact of human generations—the reality of natality and mortality—means that it is always the same time. It is always time to form and rear the rising generation toward flourishing. Every society always confronts that challenge, and meeting it is always its most vital work. Our civilization has evolved institutions and practices geared to that work over countless generations, and to abandon them now because we persuade ourselves that they have declined inexorably would amount not to cold-eyed realism but to cowardly escapism.