Introduction
Computer technology is changing rapidly. There are many wonderful gifts with this technological advancement and there are also many issues that accompany it. One of the challenges facing the Church is thinking through the morality of these developments and working out principles that help guide the use of these new tools. There are technological developments where the morality of the issue is not complicated and is obviously wrong (e.g. robosex, etc) and then there are other developments that are more complicated. Acknowledging the complication in this matter is not an excuse to ignore these things, but rather this means we need to think carefully about them. This means that we need to get the conversation going now in order to arrive at a thoughtful position. In keeping with that spirit, this discussion is offered as a prompt (divided into two articles).
In this discussion, I will focus on tech implants. What I mean by that term is a piece of technology that you would physically and permanently attach to your body. These implants could include things like an earphone implant in your ear, a digital bar-code implant in your hand, or even an extra computer arm. While some of these might seem bizarre and far-fetched, the point is to consider the principles involved rather than trying to predict the next technological development.
This is an important discussion because we live in a time which emphasizes the fluidity between the human body and our identity. This discussion on tech implants is downstream from the fundamental questions of what is the human body and how should we understand the relationship between body and soul. In these discussions, we must emphasize that God designed us as bearing His image which in turns gives dignity to the human person.
Five Principles
I suggest five key principles to consider for this discussion.
First, the natural form of the body matters. The way God created the human body in its natural form is important: two arms, two legs, two eyes, etc. Christians should care about the bodily form that God gave Adam and Eve in the beginning (Gen 1:27). God was not being random or careless when He designed the body. He designed it in a particular way and that design is good. This is the form that God the Son took in becoming a man (Luke 2:7, 40; Luke 3:21, 23). This is the form that we will have in the resurrection. One of the results of sin is that the body can be damaged and distorted. These unnatural conditions do not negate this principle but rather uphold it. A person missing an arm is not less human, but he is suffering from something that needs to be corrected. This condition is a problem because God’s original design was for two arms.
Second, the soul matters to the body. In our age, which is shaped by a materialistic worldview, the soul is marginalized in this discussion. While technological resources can help with physical deformities and conditions, there is no implant for the soul. The soul is where the problem of sin lies and to think that the body is all that needs healing is to address the symptoms and ignore the disease. This principle is also important because the soul is a part of the natural form of the body that God made (Gen 2:7). The soul and the body are linked in an intimate way. This in turn means that the soul and body are boundaries for each other. The physical body limits the soul and the soul limits the physical body. While we might be able to add technology to the physical body, there is no way to add technology to the soul. This means that the soul will always “read” an extra implant as just that: extra. A physical implant will never be part of the soul. The human soul will always know that there is a division between the body and the implant, even if the person is not conscious of that divide. This is not an objection to artificial limbs or a pacemaker. I will discuss those kinds of aids in the next point.
Third, the purpose of the technology is key. Does the technology serve a job or is it for decoration? If it serves a specific job, then it should be a job that relates back to the first principle: it should support the natural function of the body or restore the body to its natural state. An example of this is an artificial limb. If a soldier loses his arm in a war and he gets an artificial limb, that is an appropriate implant because it is following the principle of maintaining the God-given design of the body. While the arm is artificial, it is following the natural form that God made. If the technology is merely decoration, that is, it is something extra and beyond the form of the body, then that is generally inappropriate. I would argue for this principle especially if the technology is excessively unnatural or deforming, like a tattoo, neck stretching, and foot binding.
Fourth, treat the body with dignity as made in the image of God (Gen 1:26). This is related to the first principle but this is key to highlight. The body does not belong to the individual. It is on loan from God and it is a mirror of God. This principle should curve strange and unusual implants and additions to the body. The body is made to glorify God (1 Cor 6:20).
Fifth, technology is a tool. This means it has inherent power in it. This power can be wielded wisely or foolishly. This is true of all tools: from hammers to airplanes. We cannot just decide to use a tool however we want. There is a purpose for it. There might be many purposes and we might not know all of the purposes but that does not negate this idea. It is our duty to study what a tool is and to know the proper use for it. Given the power in a tool, that power can be wielded directly by the person or by another on the person. It is not necessarily bad for another person to have control over another’s body or to use a tool on that body: e.g. a doctor and a patient, or an airline pilot and a passenger. But this is an aspect of the nature of technology and we need to be aware of it and think through these things.
This discussion continues in Part 2.
