How Safe is My Castle?

Castles on the Rhine

One of the highlights of a Rhine River cruise occurs on the middle portion of the tour. As the river meanders back and forth down the valley between France and Germany, castle after castle appears on the heights looking down on the aquatic highway of commerce and travel. The soaring towers and arched walls are beautiful, ancient relics. 

Castles protected the domain of a duke or lord, allowing him to command a region of the valley. They offered protection during an attack from his enemies. The predecessor of the castle was the wooden palisade, providing a reasonably sturdy fort against the attacking enemy. Until the enemy came with battering rams and flaming arrows. Like the third little pig, the fortification designers turned to brick and stone as a stronger material than wood. The duke could rely on stone bulwarks to keep him and his subjects safe.

How safe was the castle? Though the stone could withstand flaming arrows easily, it still had certain vulnerabilities. If the enemy couldn’t penetrate the walls, they could go over them. They could run up to the wall with ladders and quickly climb to the top. Even with defenders shooting at them, a large enough force could eventually surmount the walls. 

Even then, engineers realized that any single point of failure was not acceptable. This led to the invention of a moat to surround the walls, slowing down any would-be invader sufficiently to repel the attack. The necessity of entry and exit created a permanent structural vulnerability—a weak point that required further innovation. The invention of the portcullis helped fortify this gap. The portcullis was a metal grating that could be lowered into the archway to prevent entry. 

The degree of safety all depended on people. The lord of the castle had to trust that the architect planned it well and that the builders constructed it with proper materials and technique. One slipshod use of materials could weaken a wall, making it vulnerable. He had to trust the guards who stood watch over the gates at night. One bribe might let the enemy slip inside during the night watch. The lord of the castle would be making a grave mistake to believe that the physically imposing structure by itself guaranteed his safety. He would be putting his trust in something that seemed reasonable and tangible, but ultimately the wrong foundation on which to place his trust.

Stone bulwarks provided a tangible sense of security in the past. Even further in the past, humans trusted in technology to protect them, such as military grade carts and horses. But then as now, perhaps their faith was misplaced. “Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the Lord our God.” (Psalm 20:7)  Let’s take a closer look at our own personal safety in light of scripture.

Personal Safety and Scripture

My home is my castle; my body is my temple.  These are metaphors of physically imposing structures that imply stability and safety. We all want to feel safe in our own homes and feel safe from bodily harm.

In contrast, the Bible points us away from ourselves. Even though self-preservation is our natural instinct, the urge to preserve ourselves can lead to sin. Pursuing our own safety can lead to the sin of pride by putting ourselves before God and others. It can lead to the sin of idolatry by putting something else powerful in place of God to give us (the illusion of) safety, such as  money, power, or technology. The problem is not the desire for safety by itself – the problem is who or what we trust to make us safe.

Safety is most often described in scripture as finding our refuge in God. God tells us to change the direction we turn for self-preservation. Instead of focusing on ourselves or earthly things, we must focus on trusting him. I suspect this is one way of honoring the greatest commandment, to love God with all our heart, soul, and mind. That is, love is not just a feeling of our heart, but the trust we place with our mind.

Engineering a Parapet: Safe Designs for My Neighbor

The second greatest commandment gives us another twist on how Christians should think about safety. Our urge for self-preservation was turned upward to trusting in God, now it is turned outward as well. The commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves means that we must preserve our neighbor as much as we preserve ourselves.

Engineers can do a lot to preserve the safety of our neighbors. We can improve their physical well-being and reduce their risk of harm through the technology we design. We can also be mindful that our technological products themselves could harm our neighbor. I have mentioned this passage in a previous blog “Running with Scissors” but it is worth repeating here: “When you build a new house, make a parapet [low guard wall] around your roof so that you may not bring the guilt of bloodshed on your house if someone falls from the roof.” (Deuteronomy 22:8)

Clearly we are responsible for the health and welfare of our guests. If our belongings, including our technology (such as rooftop terrace) cause harm, we are accountable. As engineers, we should think of our designs the same way: if they cause harm, we take responsibility and work to reduce that harm in the future. Building a higher parapet is building in a safety factor.

Besides concern for everyone using our technology, we engineers can also give extra attention to our neighbors who are most vulnerable to harm. In the Old and New Testament, we repeatedly see that God has a special heart for the defenseless, destitute, and unwanted among us, such as widows, orphans, and foreigners. Most of us live in places that have a capitalistic economy, which drives technology design to cater towards the rich. While capitalism can be very efficient and often fosters stewardship of our resources, it can also devalue the vulnerable who are usually short on cash. 

Thus, it might seem that the only way we can design for the vulnerable is when we pursue it as an altruistic work of volunteerism. It is true that there are many opportunities for engineers to serve their communities near to home or around the world. However, I wonder if we could think deeper, based on a presentation I once heard at the national conference of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE). The presenter pointed out that billions of people in the world today live on less than a few dollars a day. He noted an opportunity for development focused on very low-cost technology that could still be attractive to business because of the huge scale (billions of customers). Volunteers might be able to address poverty in a single community.  By creating a technology along with a business plan, helping the poor could be scaled up to global proportions. He challenged the audience of engineering educators to inspire their engineering students to think along these lines. I think we too can think along these lines for addressing the safety of our vulnerable neighbors. That is, in order to provide safety at scale, we need to be particularly ingenious about developing technology with a business value. We need to incentivize mass production to get to global scale.

I suspect our Christian witness speaks most clearly through actions that show love of neighbor. Neighbors that see we care for their physical safety may then be more receptive to understand the second greatest commandment and pass it forward themselves.  That understanding may then cultivate a readiness to understand the greatest commandment: to love the God from whom all good things come.

Epilogue

Although some Rhine River castle sites date as far back as the 12th century, around the 14th century castles no longer provided safety to the monarch and his subjects.  A disruptive technology was invented in China and became a widespread tool of war in Europe in the 14th century: the cannon. Rounded towers replaced square structures because they withstood glancing cannonball blows somewhat better. Eventually castles gave way to star forts, which used sloped, angled walls and shorter, stouter earth and breastworks and stone battlements.

The old castle ruins remained for hundreds of years until refurbished in the 19th century. However, the refurbishments tended to fantasize how a castle should appear, with lofty towers reaching to the sky, large windows, and broad archways that satisfied the whimsy of the romantic period. Thus the castles we see along the Rhine today are beautiful, but do not accurately depict the previous historical structures. The real castles of previous ages were much less romantic but much more defensible. In architecture, a “folly” is a building constructed primarily for decoration, but it is built to look like it has another purpose.  (Headley and Meulenkamp, Follies: A Guide to Rogue Architecture. 1986).  What an apt name for these faux castles.  But also an apt description for our pursuit of safety through our own devices and own power.  It is true folly to place our trust in anything besides our all-powerful and loving God.

One final thought. Safety is a good thing that we seek for ourselves. God does not ask us to stop behaving safely or seeking safe environments. Rather, we must put God above our personal safety needs, and put our neighbor’s safety needs above (or at least equal to) our own. Likewise with other good things: health, justice, prosperity, peace, and so forth. We may rightly seek them, if ordered correctly. We must seek them for our neighbor as much as ourselves, and we must pursue God more than any of these, for God is our greatest good.

Technology Should Recognize Human Frailty

My drone controller has two control sticks. They screw on to the controller near the top. Before I pack away the drone and controller, I must unscrew the control sticks, tuck them into a holding slot and then slide the controller into my drone satchel. Why do they make me go through this hassle each time? Because if the satchel got bumped hard or squeezed between other luggage, those control sticks are perpendicular to the rest of the controller and would be a weak spot that could easily break. During normal use, it would probably be fine, but this ensures no failures even with unexpected rough and tumble. 

What are the chances I drop one of these small sticks while setting up? Maybe I am just clumsy, but in my experience so far, chances are about 1 in 5. I am often out in a remote area to fly my drone, so when I get the controller out, I am mindful to remove and attach the control sticks while standing over a flat, wide surface. That way, if I accidentally drop one, it is unlikely to roll away or fall into a crack. I rarely drop one, but this practice ensures no unexpected failures. 

I see this as a case of the engineering maxim: “Hope for the best, but plan for the worst.”

Planning for the worst means anticipating abnormal and faulty behavior. Such planning is a hallmark of good engineering and is at the heart of safety-critical engineering. While it is relatively easy for me to anticipate the abnormal case of dropping a control stick, many of the systems we engineer are massively complex. Then it is not trivial to enumerate all the ways things can go sideways. As an example, let’s look at modern software.

Modern software is complex

To quantify how big modern software has gotten, I will use the traditional measure – in units of Apollos. That is, if the US 1960s spacecraft had around 30,000 Source Lines of Code (SLOC), then how many “Apollos” is a modern piece of software? The Operating System (OS) on your device (whether a smartphone or laptop) is in the 10s of millions of lines of code, or over 500 Apollos.

Consider the Linux kernel. It has surpassed 40M SLOC. Where does all that code go? The Pareto Principle states that roughly 80% of consequences or effects result from only 20% of the causes. Likewise in many software programs. Only a small portion of that OS code is exercised regularly. Much of it is rarely used, and on any specific machine, much of it may never be used. 

You can see in the Sankey diagram that the lion’s share of the Linux kernel goes to drivers. Many of these drivers are only needed on a select few target machines. (Kind of like in typical church congregations where 20% of the people do 80% of the work!)  

On the one hand, this uneven distribution means that the open source community can focus on ensuring the quality of that central core of the kernel. On the other hand, this means some bugs may lurk in the less used (and thus less examined) code. Whether they are software bugs or design miscalculations, subtle errors can be difficult to detect even with thorough testing, especially when the flaw only presents in unusual corner cases. The behavior of complex engineering systems can be very difficult to predict comprehensively. Even when the individual components are simple, the sum of the parts can exhibit unforeseen emergent behavior.

Beyond the Blueprint: The Secret Life of Complex Systems

Our designs often do not behave exactly as we intend. Abnormal behavior that we do not foresee can lead to unanticipated consequences that cause harm. This lack of foresight can be traced back to two fundamental characteristics of our human identity: we are finite and fallen.

Finite

Engineers who design technology (such as the Linux kernel) and people who use technology (all of us) are finite. Humans are finite – not as a result of the fall into sin – but from the very beginning. God created us; we are creatures. 

God intended the human characteristic of finitude. We are engineered with this inherent design characteristic. Although made in the image of God, we do not share God’s infinite qualities of omniscience and omnipotence. We thus do not have perfect foresight and cannot anticipate all consequences for our designs. Our brains have a limited capacity. 

Even when we augment our thinking by working with teams of naturally intelligent people using tools like artificial intelligence, our collective capacity for foresight is still finite. 

Because every creature, and indeed all of creation is finite, certain trade-offs were necessary even in the beginning, before the fall. Even in the garden of Eden, the design of a bridge would require choosing the right materials, trading off load capacity with total length, and so forth. That finite nature of our materials holds true today: trade-offs are a natural part of the design process.

Fallen

Both the engineers designing technology and the people using it are fallen. Humans are corrupted by sin, and all creation with us. Sin taints our thinking and our desires, and thus it taints our engineering design. Sin taints the thinking and desire of the users of technology.

God did not intend this human characteristic of fallenness. However, when the first humans sinned, although not God’s plan, he provided a new redemptive plan to address the flaw we introduced. 

Until the final restoration, sin taints creation – though it is often hard to separate out the characteristics of creation that are finite  from those that are fallen. To act as Christ’s redemptive agents in this world today, we require the discernment that comes from the Holy Spirit so that we can identify the original creational good and work to root out the corruption of sin. 

There are many virtues we could bring to bear in designing technology that properly recognizes both these characteristics. As an example, let’s consider the virtue of humility and see how it undergirds one particular avionics technology.

Case Study: Avionics Partitioning

A new avionics standard was published in late 1996. In that year I was an Assistant Professor of Engineering at Calvin College (now University). I wanted to keep my teaching fresh and relevant, so I pursued engineering consulting work during the summers. That particular summer I landed a part-time position at Smiths Aerospace in Grand Rapids. One of my tasks was evaluating the proposed international standard, ARINC 653. Little did I know then that I would continue working with this standard for much of my career. Thirty years later, just before my retirement, I have had the privilege to co-chair the ARINC 653 standards committee.

The ARINC 653 standard was first published in the fall of 1996, but my manager back then at Smiths had an early draft of the standard for consideration over that prior summer. I was part of a three-person team that he asked to evaluate the proposed standard. It would be used on a new powerful centralized avionics computing system. The new approach would consolidate numerous legacy federated computing systems into a single Integrated Modular Avionics (IMA) platform. Since each federated system was a separate box in the aircraft with its own power supply, enclosure, and connectors, this consolidation would substantially reduce the Size, Weight, and Power (SWaP) needed to execute all the software on a modern aircraft.

The substantial reductions in SWaP provided by IMA increase the range of the aircraft while reducing its cost. The drawback is that software previously segregated on physically separate computers is now integrated on one. This raises the possibility of unanticipated interactions between independent functions. The ARINC 653 standard, coupled with another standard, DO-297, describes how to continue segregating independent functionality using robust partitioning. 

System engineers map each independent software program to a partition. The partition is allocated a certain portion of the resources. The resources are provided by the computing platform, but shared among multiple partitions. This sharing can be done in one of two ways: time partitioning or space partitioning.

Time partitioning gives a partition exclusive access to a resource but only periodically. Think of a teacher who gets to use a classroom for a 9am class, but gives it up at 10am. Likewise, the partition gets to use a processor core for the first 10ms of every 100ms, but gives it up for the rest. 

Space partitioning gives the partition continuous (rather than scheduled) access to a resource – but not the whole resource, only a portion of it. Think of a student who gets one locker out of a bank of lockers, but has exclusive access to that one locker whenever they want. Likewise, the partition gets to use certain pages of memory that contain its data, which no other partition may read or modify.

Partitioning as Design Humility

By partitioning all shared computing resources in time and/or space, we can have high confidence that one partition cannot influence the intended behavior of another partition. Avoiding unintended interactions and reducing the chance of unanticipated changes in behavior is important for safety-critical systems like avionics.

Partitioning demonstrates humility in our design. As an engineer of any stripe, but especially a Christian engineer, I ought not put undue confidence in my own ability to comprehend complex systems and foresee all the ways things could turn out. 

Partitioning is a way to recognize my finite nature. By segregating each independent function, I can now simplify my analysis by restricting myself to thinking about that function alone – knowing that the other functions cannot impede or alter the function I am examining. I might not be able to wrap my finite mind around 50 complex software programs all combined into one monolith, but I have a fair chance at comprehending each one individually. Partitioning allows me to divide and conquer.

Partitioning is also a way to recognize the fallen nature of humanity. A negligent or malicious design of one function is now isolated in a partition so that it cannot harm the operation of other partitions.

Conclusion

If you are an engineer, whether designing software, automobiles, bridges, or some other technology, consider humility not only as a personal virtue, but one that can become part of your work as well. Humbly consider all the ways you yourself could be biased against seeing a flaw. Humbly consider all the negligent and malicious ways a user could abuse the product beyond its intended use. Designing technology in humility makes it safer for all. If our systems are too big for any one mind to hold, is it arrogant to build them without partitioning (or equivalent)?

Welcome to the Fishbowl: Do we have the Right to Privacy?

A distraught woman wrote Dear Abby, worried that she had made some unflattering comments about her daughter-in-law to her son. 

She got caught because the comments were recorded on their Ring doorbell, which the daughter-in-law heard later. The famous advice columnist replies that the mother-in-law has “learned the hard way that in our technological society, privacy is history.” 

We can no longer assume our conversations are private at someone’s doorstep. Before 2013 we assumed our phone calls were private. But then Edward Snowden debunked this misplaced trust. He leaked information about a government program to collect broad swaths of data regarding the phone calls of its own citizens. The existence of such programs was previously denied by US intelligence officials. James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, justified his original denial that the government collected such broad data by explaining he was forced to use the “least untruthful” statement in order to keep the program secret. After the program was outed, some of the same officials told the American public not to worry – they weren’t actually listening in on our phone calls, merely recording the time and destination of the call. However, given that officials  felt compelled to tell “untruths” about the programs in public testimony before Congress, it was hard to discern whether the later statements might be true or again, the “least untruthful”. Stories about our lack of privacy seem to come out weekly. We are being watched: by social media, by CCTV, by drones, by doorbells, and more.

Stories of close electronic scrutiny in our everyday lives remind me of “The Dead Past”, a science fiction short story by Isaac Asimov. The protagonist is a historian, desperately trying to gain access to a chronoscope (a sort of time machine that lets one see any location in the past), in order to study the history of ancient Carthage by direct observation. However, the instruments are controlled by a heavily bureaucratic government. After years of red tape and rejections, he builds his own chronoscope -- only to have it quickly confiscated by government agents. It turns out that the instruments have poor resolution and cannot look very far into the past. The government keeps the machines under lock and key because they realize the implications for privacy:  the past begins immediately after the present. Thus, one can observe another’s private behavior in the past, but the past is simply moments ago. That is, the instrument observed events in nearly real time. The past was not so dead after all!  The story ends with the inadvertent publication of simple instructions for building a chronoscope and thus privacy is destroyed for all: “Happy goldfish bowl to you, to me, to everyone …”. 

An NSA program to spy on the public is the first step to living in such a fishbowl. Face recognition technology and ubiquitous recording devices give many public and private institutions an extraordinary amount of intelligence about the ordinary citizen. When only privileged people in power have access to this intelligence, such power can easily be abused. It is thus worth examining more closely what precisely is the nature and origin of the so-called “right to privacy”. 

Cultural Origins of the Right to Privacy

The US Constitution does not have an explicit right to privacy. However, over the last century US courts have interpreted several clauses in the Bill of Rights to include privacy, particularly the 4th Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure and the 14th Amendment’s prohibition on limiting one’s liberty (extended to include privacy) without due process of law. Other nations have followed suit, giving limited privacy protections to citizens because such benefits have been collectively endorsed by society. For example, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union states that “Everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and communications.” (Article 7) and “Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her.” (Article 8)

There are legitimate reasons to keep personal information confidential. Privacy helps prevent identity theft. Privacy prevents stigma because of medical conditions. Privacy protects intellectual property, such as a trade secret – the “secret sauce” ingredient in a company’s flagship product.

The secrecy of our data is valuable to us because of the potential harm that comes with its public release. It thus represents a kind of power. Identifying information enables us to conduct business and obtain services. We share certain information with selected organizations in order to confirm our identity. As long as only the two parties (you and the selected organization) know that information, it serves as your ID. 

However, once you or any of those organizations lose control of that information and it falls into the wrong hands, your ID is no longer secure and others can successfully impersonate you online. Thus a thief who steals your identity holds power over you. Likewise, an unscrupulous person who learns of your confidential medical condition could use the power of that information to blackmail you, shaking you down for cash or favors in order to keep the information from going public. Stealing intellectual property such as an invention idea is truly theft because it robs the owner of the full value of the idea.

While this section briefly outlined the social foundations of the right to privacy, it is also worthwhile for Christian readers to consider whether biblical foundations also support privacy.

Biblical Origins of the Right to Privacy

It turns out that scripture doesn’t have much to say about privacy. First, let’s look at a couple spots that hint at privacy but really seem to be about something else. 

We could perhaps infer such a right from the commandment against stealing, interpreting stealing to include the theft of someone’s intellectual property. However, that may be a stretch, since this commandment seems more about justice than privacy.

Another place where we might infer a right to privacy is the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus exhorts us to keep certain acts secret (out of the public eye), including our giving  (Matthew 6:3) and our prayers (Matthew 6:6). However, in both these cases, the purpose of privacy here is not about the power of someone else because they know confidential information. Rather, the purpose of privacy in these cases is to avoid prideful pretentiousness. Giving or praying publicly is to impress people rather than God. Giving or praying in private is directed toward God instead of fellow humans. 

In the same hilltop sermon, Jesus tells us to avoid judging others, lest we ourselves be judged (Matthew 7:1). His mandate recognizes that we only have a partial picture of our neighbors, and it is wrong for us to judge them without fully knowing their circumstances. Thus, there is an implied value for keeping information about others private and not gossiping about it. Paul repeats the call to avoid judging. “Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of the heart.“ (1 Corinthians 4:5, NIV)

Albert Borgmann notes the connection between privacy and judgmentalism:  “...Thomas Huff has helpfully isolated the notion of privacy as freedom from intrusions that can lead to an unwarranted judgment on the person whose sphere of intimacy has been invaded. Of course, our next of kin, who are naturally members of our personal circle, and our friends, whom we have invited into it, are entitled to judge whatever we do. No one else may without our permission.” (Albert Borgmann, Power Failure: Christianity in the Culture of Technology, Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2003, p. 40.)  However, Borgmann then observes that we often use privacy to shield our consumerist behavior from the prying eyes of others. “What Huff calls the privacy norm is in large part the collective affirmation of consumption as an exercise of freedom that would be encumbered by judgmental intrusion.” (p. 43)  

Materialism is not the only bad behavior we attempt to keep secret. Most sins are private affairs that would shame us if made public:  adultery, domestic abuse, addictions, and the like. 

Privacy as Cover

Modern technology can afford us privacy in the form of anonymity on the web.  However, this privacy can be used to shroud illicit acts. The shroud can hide the sin or hide the sinner.

Hidden Sins of a Public Person

We are all public persons in one way or another. We may not be celebrities, but we are known, and thus “public” to our friends, family and colleagues. We value what others think of us, so we cultivate a certain public image. When we use privacy to hide shameful behavior that could tarnish our image if it became known, the technology of anonymity becomes an enabler of sin. 

The perception of electronic anonymity facilitates bad behavior on the web, such as online affairs or gambling. Ironically, people may turn to these vices in trying to find fulfillment. Yet the biblical book of wisdom tells us the opposite results:  "Whoever conceals their sins does not prosper, but the one who confesses and renounces them finds mercy.” (Proverbs 28:13, NIV)

Public Sins of a Hidden Person

Some sins are public by their nature. In these cases, anonymity shrouds the perpetrator rather than the sin. 

An example is cyberbullying or anonymous revenge porn, where a break-up leads to an angry man posting risque pictures of his ex-girlfriend that she shared with him when they formerly trusted each other. This sin (of posting the pornographic pictures without permission) is perpetrated publicly while often keeping the perpetrator hidden. 

Why is bullying wrong? ”With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings, who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this should not be.” (James 3:9-10)   The apostle reminds us that the person we bully is made in God’s image. We must treat all humans with the respect due image-bearers.

Using Privacy with Care

Our legal right to privacy is not absolute -- one’s privacy can still be invaded if warranted, i.e., if due process is afforded to ensure the invasion is justified, in the judgment of a fair and unbiased court. This is important to prevent abuse of those rights. 

Likewise, any biblical basis for privacy is limited. And certainly if privacy is a cloak for sin.

• "...And know that your sin will find you out.." (Numbers 32:23)
• “Nothing is hidden that will not be revealed, and nothing is secret that will not be made known. So then whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in private rooms will be proclaimed from the housetops.” (Luke 12:2–3)

Accountability to others depends on their ability to regularly observe our behavior. However, privacy allows us to hide our behavior. While there might be legitimate reasons for keeping that communication and data out of the public eye, how do we avoid the temptation to use privacy to hide our bad behavior?  Here’s a check. Would you dare let a trustworthy friend review your past week’s email or web browsing history?  

As engineers designing technology, are we making it too easy for people to live double lives?  Do we enable people to have a public face of righteousness with a technologically hidden face of wickedness?

Our Christian faith should make us cautious when exercising and enabling the privilege of privacy.  Privacy is too often merely a pretext to keep our sinful ways out of the light of day.  “It is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. But everything exposed by the light becomes visible.” (Ephesians 5:12-13, NIV)

Second Commandment Technology: Part 2

In the first part I made the case that in describing the  second greatest commandment, Jesus defines our neighbor very broadly. Further, I suggested that technology expands our neighborhood significantly. In part two, let’s look at why we should care for our neighbor and then examine a few specific examples of tools helping or hindering us in that endeavor.

Why Should I Care?

Why should I care about the perspective of someone far from me? Or even if they are close, why should I care about others more than myself? I should care because God commands it.  However, let’s look closer. There is some rich depth and consistency to this divine directive if we dig a bit deeper.

Care for Humans Created in the Image of God

I should care about my neighbor because loving God’s creatures honors the creator. In Genesis 1:28, God appoints humans as stewards of his creation. As stewards, we are to love and care for his creatures and cultivate the garden of his creation. Our neighbors deserve extra stewardly attention because in contrast to all other creatures, humans are created in the image of the Creator. Thus, the second greatest commandment (to love our neighbor) is related to the greatest commandment (to love God). We are created in God’s image, so we honor God when we care for people also created in his image. At the same time, that image has been distorted by sin.

Care for Sinners in Need of Grace

I should care about my neighbor because fallen people stained by sin need grace and care. In Adam and Eve, all humans have inherited a sinful nature. On our own we can do no good – we tend towards selfishness and evil. Even our best efforts are marred by our fallen nature. I am called to care for my neighbors even though they are not perfect people. In the story of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), the expert in the law wanted to justify himself and asked Jesus: “Who is my neighbor?” Why would he ask this? Did he really not know? Perhaps he was hoping that Jesus would provide some criteria to judge which neighbors were worthy – and which were not. When serving those in need, I sometimes likewise find myself becoming judgemental.

I was too quick to judge when I previously served as a deacon at a church that ran a food pantry. We worked with a county agency to help us identify families in need. Each week one deacon was assigned to make deliveries to those families. Occasionally when it was my turn, I came across a disturbing situation. As I brought the grocery bags laden with food into the home, I noticed that they had a nicer couch and larger television than I had myself. I was dismayed and even a bit angry that a family would take advantage of the system. Nevertheless, I brought the food into the kitchen. That’s when I noticed their cupboards were literally bare. As the family put away the groceries, I could see they had no food – that my delivery was desperately needed. I suspected those expensive items in the living room might be “rent-to-own”. Those expensive items on high-interest loans meant they were likely in too much debt to buy food. 

The point is, we never really know the full story about someone else. Even if occasionally our food pantry served someone that wasn’t needy, I resolved that it was worth being generous to all that were perceived to be in need, even if occasionally it was undeserved. Thinking further, who was I to judge who was deserving or not?  The grace of God is not based on merit – just the opposite! In my sin I am most undeserving, yet Christ’s all-sufficient merit covers my debt. I am not called to love my neighbor because they are deserving; I am to love them with no regard to merit. I am called to love them as fellow image bearers.

That’s not to say we shouldn’t pay attention to justice. If our food pantry had been running low, I might be justified in ensuring the most needy families got fed first.  In my case, the pantry was full. We had food sufficient to cover all who asked. And honestly, my work as a deacon was a lot more joyful and a lot less burdensome when I stopped judging and started serving. When we serve in love of God and neighbor, we are acting as redemptive agents in Christ’s name.

Care for Those We Are Called to Redeem

I should care about my neighbor because I am called to be Christ’s hands and feet in this world. God promised that through Abraham, all nations would be blessed. Two-thousand years later, Christ embodied (literally and figuratively) the fulfillment of that promise. When we put our faith in Jesus and become Christ-followers, we become Christ’s redemptive agents in the world.

Having answered the question of why one should care, now consider how one should care. More specifically, how can we love our neighbor with technology? Technology – whether a tool, process, or algorithm – is always an instrument, i.e., a means to an end. We who design or work with technology can shape and use these tools to love our neighbor. Engineers and scientists are not the only ones to use tools.  Making and using tools is part of what makes us human. Using tools to love our neighbor is one of the finest examples of this creative yet practical aspect of our humanity. 

Tools for Loving Neighbors

Tools and instruments that can be a means to the end of loving our neighbor include those for hospitality, for care, and for stewardship. These are simply examples, with the hope you will notice many of the tools you have at hand can serve similarly.

Tools for Hospitality

Oxford Languages defines hospitality as “friendly and generous reception and entertainment of guests, visitors, or strangers.”  Here are a few examples of technological tools that enable or enhance our welcoming of neighbors.

Homes are hospitality tools. My church recently supported the building of a tiny home community. It is a set of 16 very small homes designed as inexpensive housing for the working homeless in our area. Designed to function as a home in a very small space, they provide hospitality to the homeless – and further, giving the newly homed a space to show hospitality to others.

Electronic communication is a hospitality tool. My wife and I support two missionary couples. One couple posts pictures and stories regularly on social media, helping us stay in touch with the work they do. The other couple is working in a sensitive area where publicity could be problematic. Their choice of communication is thus a bit more selective, posting a newsletter by email to supporters. Both communication technologies connect us  with missionary neighbors who are geographically distant. 

Open source software is a hospitality tool because it encourages sharing and collaboration. By licensing code in this way, software developers create a community of professionals that can build creatively on each other’s foundations.

Instant Messaging is a hospitality tool. My team at work is spread out geographically, with most working from home. We use a variety of communication tools, including MatterMost for instant messaging. One of the channels is named “Water Cooler” where team members can share a bit of their personal lives: gardening, woodworking, music, cooking, latest big purchases, vacation photos, or new baby photos. This channel helps co-workers to be neighbors to each other.

Barbecue grills are a hospitality tool. Technology for entertaining and welcoming guests is not limited to modern, high-tech digital devices. It can be a device as simple as a grill used for the community cook-out.

Tools for Stewardship

Merriam-Webster defines stewardship as “the careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one's care.”  Let’s look at a couple of example tools to help pursue stewardship. 

Citizen science community apps are a stewardship tool. With my retirement approaching, I decided to become a bit more serious as an amateur biologist. I have started using the iNaturalist app to record my observations. The app helps identify the species and shares the recorded sighting with others on the app. I can then see a map of where the species has been spotted. It also enables others to confirm or correct the identification. So far I have identified 270 distinct species (134 at research grade). Using this stewardship tool, I am becoming more observant of the variety of plant and animal life that surrounds me, learning greater appreciation for God’s good and complex creation. This app also creates a community, thus becoming a tool enabling hospitality. Recently I had a more professional biologist comment on my picture of a Meadowhawk dragonfly, noting that the lighting did not allow for them to see the legs clearly enough to identify the specific species. However, like a good neighbor, they did not leave criticism alone – they also advised on additional resources and offered encouragement to continue contributing.

Clean water technology is a stewardship tool. For much of the developing world, finding potable water is a challenge. “Lack of clean drinking water corrodes the critical structure of communities—health, education, business” (Clean Water Institute). In order to keep a well-water system working effectively in developing areas, the replacement parts for maintaining the well and filtering the water must be low-tech. That is, the tools must be appropriate to the neighborhood. By designing tools for stewardship such as clean water technologies, engineers can love many neighbors in far away places. 

Tools for Care

Oxford Languages defines care as “the provision of what is necessary for the health, welfare, maintenance, and protection of someone or something.” We can get some perspective on such a provision from Cornelius Plantinga Jr, in his book Not the Way It's Supposed to Be: A Breviary of Sin. Plantinga defines a concept related to true caring: shalom. “In the Bible, shalom means universal flourishing, wholeness, and delight--a rich state of affairs in which natural needs are satisfied and natural gifts fruitfully employed, a state of affairs that inspires joyful wonder as its Creator and Savior opens doors and welcomes the creatures in whom he delights. Shalom, in other words, is the way things ought to be.” 

 Shalom is thus a deep way of caring for our neighbor. I suggest two tools for caring below. 

Assistive technology is a caring tool. These instruments of care – such as eye glasses or hearing aids – restore human abilities to the way things ought to be. They are tools for restoring shalom. And restoring shalom is a key way of showing Christ’s redemptive love.

GPS mapping is a caring tool. Although I am fairly good with directions, I still rely on my mapping app for most travel. It helps me avoid unexpected traffic snarls and ensures I get to my destination even when I miss a turn. Voice prompts or heads-up displays provide further care by helping me keep my eyes on the road. 

These are just a few examples of tools designed intentionally as means to virtuous ends. Even when the designer had only one good end in mind, we users of technology can creatively find ways to use the tool as an instrument of more diverse virtuous ends. Unfortunately, the reverse is also true, which we investigate in the next section.

Tools for Hating Neighbors

By their nature, tools amplify our abilities – they make us more powerful. Sadly, sin can taint our technology design so that we end up with more powerful means of division and hate. Every tool has tendencies that are built-in, i.e., by design. Some of these tendencies are intentional; some are involuntary. In the former, the designer is consciously trying to bend the design toward the specified use. In the latter, biases and prejudices of the designer sneak into the design.  

A design intended for a virtuous end might also be abused by the user, making it a means to some sinful end. Even when the designer puts safeguards in place to prevent unintended uses, we clever humans often find work-arounds. 

For some concrete examples, consider the following technologies that can amplify the vices of greed, sloth, and malice.

Tools for Greed

Greed is a “selfish and excessive desire for more of something … than is needed.” (Merriam-Webster).  Technology can be easily abused to feed our greed. 

Credit cards are a greed tool. Many have yielded to temptation to buy now and pay later. Purchases are now so easy. Too easy. We don’t always judge carefully whether we really need more. We deceive ourselves and greedily desire more than we need. 

Bitcoin is a greed tool. Originally designed as a digital currency, it has become a platform for speculation. Many now use  it as a tool of greed, hoping that the value will rise like a pyramid as others buy it. 

Malware is a greed tool. Perhaps the most insidious of greed tools, there are technologies designed specifically for greed. For example, malware is designed specifically to extort money from others.

Tools for Sloth

While greed is desiring more than necessary, sloth is the “turning away from the necessary effort” (Merriam-Webster)  

Home automation can become a sloth tool. I have a number of automated devices in my home. 

When I am away from the house, I use these devices for security such as turning on lights or detecting motion and recording on a camera. My connected thermostat dials back the HVAC, conserving energy and saving money. However, this automation can become a little too convenient. Just as the TV remote has made us couch potatoes, home automation further lulls into never leaving the easy chair.

Tools for Malice

Malice is the “desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another.” (Merriam-Webster)  Although I earlier listed social media as a technology that could be used for virtuous purposes, like most technology, it can also be abused for evil. 

Social media is a malice tool when used for cyber-bullying, spreading lies, or insulting someone. Perhaps worse, some social media sites use algorithms that are focused on increased engagement resulting in emphasis on angry posts.

Cars are a malice tool when road rage overcomes the driver. Some technologies are so dangerous that we, as a society, choose to regulate them. These include heavy machinery and certain chemicals and drugs. Likewise, the automobile is regulated via licenses, insurance requirements, and driver’s license requirements. Regulations help prevent tools being used for malice. But even with regulation, we sinners find a way to abuse the technology, such as when road rage gets the better of us when behind the wheel.

Wrap-Up

Jesus calls us to love beyond those that love us. He calls us to love our enemies, to love those that hate us. My sin-tainted inclinations make it easy to do the former and quite challenging to do the latter. Tools can help – technology used thoughtfully can be an instrument towards loving our neighbors. 

Second Commandment Technology: Part 1

My Peculiar Map

I couldn’t understand what was odd about my map. Working remotely during COVID, I often started my work day early in Grand Rapids to overlap with my globally-distributed colleagues, who were five hours ahead in York, UK. To encourage camaraderie during the enforced isolation, one day our managers encouraged us all to share pictures of our home workstations on the company messaging board. What a variety!  I posted my own setup, proudly showing my laptop with a second large monitor on a sit/stand desk. I had my Galileo thermometer standing in the corner of the desk, and a stylish map of the world on the wall behind the desk. Most of the comments on my setup were encouraging or humorous. But one observation stood out.

A response from a wise colleague in the UK caught me by surprise. He said he couldn’t figure out at first what was odd about the world map on the wall in the background, ending his reply with the enigmatic “...and then I realized.”

What did he realize?  He never did end up telling me. What was so odd about my map? What was he seeing that I was not?  

Here is a photo of that wall map. Later that day I realized the oddity was due to our differing perspectives of the world, literally. Having purchased my wall art in the US, it centered my own country in the middle, even though this placement awkwardly splits the continent of Asia across the edges. A more globally friendly split would have been down the Pacific ocean, so that all continents appeared unbroken on the 2-D rendering.  

What prevented me from realizing why my map seemed odd? In part, it was a local coordinate system error.  My choice of map art literally centered the world around me. Figuratively, I was placing myself at the center of the universe. While most maps—paper or digital—center on the location of interest, a lack of empathy (or perhaps a touch of pride) prevented me from even noticing how literally self-centered my map was.

My Odd Neighbor

As a Christ follower, I am called to love my neighbor. But Christ didn’t really mean for me truly to love someone beyond my immediate family and those that love me, right?  Does it really include my odd neighbor? The one that acts strange? The one that smells funny?  The one that puts up political signs for the party I vehemently oppose? 

But at least I only need to tolerate those that live immediately adjacent to me. Surely someone at work is not my neighbor. Or someone I meet while traveling. Loving a friend makes sense. But does it make any sense to love a stranger or an enemy? They will not likely repay such kindness.

Yet, astonishingly, Christ says to love our neighbors and even our enemies.

The Second Greatest Commandment

Matthew 28 records “The Great Commission” where Jesus tells the apostles to go make disciples of all nations. This commission is often a central tenet in modern church vision statements. Yet this was not the mandate Christ identified as one of the greatest commandments. To first love God and secondly to love our neighbor – these were the greatest. Jesus stated these two as a summary of the law and prophets. (Matthew 22:36-40)

That second command – to love your neighbor as yourself – appears throughout scripture.  In the Old Testament, the command appears to apply to literal neighbors who are of the same nationality:  ‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.” (Leviticus 19:18)  

Rather than reading this commandment expansively, the Israelites likely read it very narrowly. By contrast, Jesus ensured we understood this command to love others very broadly, in the story of the Good Samaritan, found in Luke 10:29-37. He also makes this point in other places, such as:  “But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven...If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?” (Matthew 5:43-48)

Caring for the Alien>

In many science fiction tales, the alien is an intelligent being from another world.  These creatures are so different from us that they seem grotesque and horrific. They look, communicate, and act in ways we do not expect – that do not fit inside our comfort zones of “normal”.  But such differences need not necessarily lead to aversion. We could also experience surprise, or even wonder and curiosity. Many other science fiction tales tell the stories of first contact, of amazement and enjoyment of differences, leading to understanding and respect. The aliens are simply using another perspective, making them seem quite foreign until we understand the translation. It is like the topsy-turvy world of the spherical coordinate system compared to our more familiar Cartesian coordinates. It is like the parable of the blind men and the elephant, where each touches a different part and reaches radically different conclusions about the same animal.

Of course aliens are not just science fiction creatures from another world. The alien at our gates could be a fellow human being from another city, another state, or from the far side of the globe. Even with other people we are prone to notice differences first – in appearance, dress, language, and mannerisms. 

Look even nearer to home and we still have differences. Those closest to us – family and friends – are not precisely the same as us.  The call to love our neighbor is not different in kind, but only in degree when we consider the spectrum of humanity that Jesus calls us to love.  (I’m not sure if there really are aliens on other worlds, but if there are, I’m pretty sure we are supposed to love them too.)

The Hebrew word for “neighbor” in Leviticus 19:18  can be translated literally as the word friend or companion. It comes from the same root as a verb that means “to associate with.” Neighbors defined as associates leads to a rather small circle of those we ought to love.

Jesus expands that circle. The Good Samaritan finds not a close associate lying beaten by thieves on the road, but a sworn enemy. The neighbor is now anyone we come across.  The neighbor is the one who shows mercy. Living in proximity no longer defines our neighborhood. The Good Samaritan did not live near to the victim – he was merely traveling along that road.

More Tech = More Neighbors

Technology is woven throughout our society, and it tends to give us more neighbors – especially when we define our neighbor as broadly as Jesus did.  By technology, I do not mean simply modern computer technology -- I mean all tools that we design. For example, tools designed to stamp out a product: the wine press, printing press, and machine press. Tools designed to transport us from A to B: the wagon, bicycle, automobile, and airplane. Tools to help us communicate: the telegraph, telephone, and the Internet. Technology expands our neighborhood in several ways: who we work with, who we work for, and who we interact with.

Neighbors are the people we work with

Technology has expanded our work networks over the past few centuries. Prior to the industrial revolution, which started in Great Britain around 1760, most people worked in small-scale agriculture such as farmers or laborers – or small crafts, such as a butcher, baker, or blacksmith. This meant a relatively small number of people were one’s co-workers, a handful of folks at most. The industrial revolution concentrated workers, where early factories led to teams of dozens. 

In the modern mass-production society, a factory or a digitally connected corporation puts one in contact with hundreds or even thousands of work colleagues. For example, I am regularly on web conferences (using tools like WebEx, Microsoft Teams, Zoom, or Google Meet) with professional colleagues. They are frequently in different time zones, and often in different countries. Yet they are my neighbors. 

As a Christian who is an engineering professional, my work connects me with yet more neighbors. I have made acquaintances and friends through my work, including at engineering conferences. I recently served as the general chair for the 2025 Digital Avionics Systems Conference, leading a steering committee of volunteers to plan and organize the conference. By offering a forum and venue for exchange of professional ideas, we were providing hospitality to our professional “neighborhood” – a kind of professional block party.  

Neighbors are the people we work for

As an engineer, I design technology for my employer, but ultimately I am designing technology for people. The customers that use the technology I design are my neighbors. Even people that did not purchase the technology may be impacted by it, and they are also my neighbors. 

I can love my neighbor through my technological products by thoughtful design. I can show loving care by ensuring the design is safe for everyone, incorporating robust fault tolerance and strong security.  I can show loving hospitality with intuitive and aesthetic designs where form implies function. I can demonstrate loving responsibility by providing prophetic witness. How can an engineer be a prophet? By raising ethical flags, warning of dangerous technologies, and testifying to the potential dangers of abuse for even seemingly benign technologies.

Neighbors are the people we interact with

When the Internet was first introduced in the 1980’s, it was mainly a technological neighborhood for scientists and engineers. With the advent of the http protocol and the world wide web in the 1990s, the neighborhood opened up to a much wider audience. Smart phones starting in the 2000s made that neighborhood instantly present.Today, we are more globally and immediately connected than anytime in history. We are aware of the needs of neighbors who are geographically distant, but technologically adjacent. 

The Second Commandment compels us to reject self-centered maps and embrace a more hospitable perspective. As engineers and scientists, our expanding technological neighborhood is not just a feature of our work; it is a mission field. In Part 2, we will explore the tools, interfaces, and algorithms that can either build bridges of mercy or walls of division in our ever expanding circle of neighbors.

Facebook Generations: Four Principles for Redeeming our Communication Devices

Some cultural observers show disdain for teenagers using smartphones during family dinner or for couples checking messages during a date. Their thesis is that people should always give priority to in-person communication. While I generally agree, I think such decisions should be more nuanced – on some occasions, electronic communication may be better.

Every Generation Used the Facebook of Their Day

Even before Facebook and smartphones, people did not solely communicate face-to-face. For as long as people have dispersed beyond the range of hearing, humans have used technological tools to continue conversing. Faced with separation, clever people have invented communication technology to serve as a proxy for face-to-face conversation. 

Go back one generation. When my mother was young, she responded to a call for pen pals in The Banner, the denominational magazine of her church. The magazine was setting up a network of “Banner Pals”, connecting young people from the Christian Reformed Church with others who wanted to make new friends. My mom, Marianne, was 10 or 11, living in Grand Rapids, Michigan. She was paired with Joanne, a girl who lived in Monroe, Washington. They wrote back and forth for some time, sharing little details of their lives. In those days, long-distance phone calls were costly and thus rare, so letters were the only economical way for children to communicate regularly over a distance.

Go back another generation. My paternal grandparents were married not long after World War II.  My grandfather was a returning GI, having served in the Pacific theater, including time as one of the first soldiers on the front lines to operate the new technology of radar. The wedding was in the hometown of my grandmother: Bozeman, Montana. But my grandfather’s family was  1,300 miles away in Racine, Wisconsin. To ensure their congratulatory message was received on the day of the ceremony, my grandfather’s family in Racine used the asynchronous messaging medium of the day: a Western Union telegram.

The telegraph was not new at that time. We must go back three more generations to the time the first telegraph message was sent by Samuel Morse in 1844. The telegram was sent from Washington D.C. to Baltimore. The operator at the far end translated the dots and dashes of Morse Code to reveal the message “What hath God Wrought.” 

Morse invented the telegraph in response to grief. While he was away on a trip, his wife fell ill. Letters about the severity of her sickness reached him too late; he was not able to return in time for her funeral. As he mourned her loss, he dreamed of a means of rapid communication over a distance, leading to his invention of the telegraph.

New technologies do not always replace old technologies, and even when they do, there can be considerable overlap.  The last telegram was sent in India on July 14, 2013. During the 169 years from Morse’s first message until this last Indian missive, the telegraph would be outpaced by the telephone, radio, television, cellular phones, text messages, and Internet communication services such as email, web video conferencing, and instant messaging. 

Go back one hundred generations. In ancient Greece, the philosopher Plato imagined a conversation with the inventor of letters (and thus written communication), but saw its dark side: “this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners' souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves.” (Plato, Phaedrus)  It was true – verbal accounts faded. Civilization likely predates writing, but it is pre-historic and largely unknown. The only ancient cultural insights and historical events known today are because they were written down. For example, the Biblical stories – from Adam and Eve through the near destruction of humankind save Noah and his family – all of this was passed down through oral tradition until Moses wrote them down in the Pentateuch.

Technology has been used to communicate over time and distance for all of human recorded history. Rather than disdaining it, let’s discern some principles for redeeming it.

Redeeming Technological Communication

All good gifts in nature and culture have their roots in the good creation. Jellyfish, mountain peaks, the spray of an ocean wave, music, arboriculture, legislation, calculus, poetry, medicine, and chemistry – all good gifts from our Creator. Each is also tainted by sin, but by God’s grace can still provide benefit. From the beginning God called all humans to steward these gifts, i.e., to develop and cultivate them. Today, God also calls Christians to redeem them. Let’s consider some principles that could guide our use of the good gifts of communication technology.

Principle 1: Do not unthinkingly use tech to communicate

The content of the communication is affected by the tools we use, as McLuhan famously quipped, “the medium is the message." We should have a strong preference for in-person communication. If sent electronically, many messages would lose meaning. Physical presence is important for messages such as a hug of comfort, a good-natured slap on the back for good work, or freshly picked flowers delivered in person as a token of apology.  Many spiritual practices and sacraments are best done in person. Showing love in fellowship, providing acts of service and care, discipling and teaching, partaking in the Lord’s Supper, congregational singing in worship – these are all best done together, in person. 

If in-person communication is usually better, then electronic messages are a poor substitute in many situations. If we choose the medium of email to break up with someone we have been dating, this shows disrespect and lack of care. Difficult conversations like this ought not to be minimized. If we intentionally choose a less intimate medium for the message, we are evading our responsibilities. Likewise, choosing email to fire an employee sends a message of arrogance, indifference, and discourtesy. If we intentionally choose a less personal medium for our message, it does not convey strength.  It conveys a lack of courage and shirking of responsibility. 

One of the reasons that communication over distance can be disrespectful or uncaring is that humans are made in the image of God. They are worthy of our time and care. Making an effort to communicate in a more personal setting shows our care for our fellow image-bearers. Communicating remotely over a distance can feel remote and distant. 

We ought not unthinkingly or habitually choose technology as our default means of communication. However, there are times we might rightly choose to communicate via technology, which is where the remaining three principles come into play.

Principle 2: Recognize limitations in tech communication

When messaging, we sometimes use a sideways smiley face :-) in text-based mediums or a smiley face emoji in instant messages. We do so because we recognize the lack of body-language signals that would help our recipient recognize our tone. We want to be sure the receiver understands the nuance of our message, so we add a visual hint.

Even when communicating in person, what we mean is not necessarily what is heard. Our words can be misunderstood or misinterpreted. Communicating to be understood requires careful thought about the environment (e..g, speaking louder in a noisy room) and the listener (e.g., using the right tone and clear language). Knowing the listener is important. For instance, if the listener is a musician, then musical examples may convey a concept effectively. Feedback is important to gauge understanding. A head nod of agreement versus a quizzical look from the listener can help direct the next stage of the conversation.

Similarly for communication that is not in person, what we mean is not necessarily what is heard. Communicating to be understood requires careful choice of medium. My work colleagues have distinct preferences for communication mediums. Some prefer e-mail, others want a video call, and others like instant messaging. 

Once a medium is selected, creative use of that medium can enhance understanding. For instance, in a video call, if the discussion refers to a website with a long URL, pasting the URL in the chat can help ensure listeners can follow along. Listeners without their own video feeds can give feedback to the speaker through the use of reactions that are displayed as the visual equivalent of a head nod in agreement.

When we choose to communicate with tech, we ought to thoughtfully consider its limitations and address them where we can. When we are able to achieve effective and affective communication despite the limitations, we can then achieve some noble and God-honoring ends, such as those the final two principles suggest.

Principle 3: Use tech to communicate with respect and convey worth

It is not always better to choose live, in-person communication. Business meetings that simply convey information with no interaction and little flair are often so boring that they show a lack of respect for those that were forced to attend. That meeting truly should have been an email. Similarly, too much information in one verbal deluge might be difficult to process or remember. Putting it in writing will convey the meaning better and sustain the impact longer.

Sometimes live, real-time communication is preferred, but not absolutely. For example, when there is a death in the family, the caring medium to communicate this somber news to close relatives is in person. However, if you cannot get immediately in touch, time is of the essence. Making a phone call is better than leaving them without knowing. If they don’t pick up, then leaving a voicemail or sending an email may be better than waiting too long. These choices hinge on respect – those impacted the most should hear important news first. Important family news should be shared first with the immediate family, Likewise, important business reorganizations should be shared first with those that are being shuffled in the new organization. The need for promptness influences the medium we select for the message. Respect for the message recipient may require us to balance intimacy and immediacy.

The spiritual practices and sacraments mentioned earlier are best done in person, but in extraordinary circumstances, technology may allow those practices to continue when doing so in person is not possible. Illness may prevent individuals from gathering. When I have the flu, I show respect and care for my fellow believers by staying home from Sunday services and watching online instead. War or pandemics may prevent entire communities from gathering. COVID caused many congregations to temporarily meet online. A blizzard on Christmas weekend caused my church to cancel services in person, proceeding online instead.

Tech gadgets help parents stay in touch with children who are studying or working in distant locations. They help spouses connect when one is away on a business trip or called to active military service. They help siblings catch up on each other’s lives when living in different states. Even when they are far away, staying in touch with loved ones and friends may take precedence over strangers nearby. Sitting outside during lunch break, you might forgo a conversation with a person you don’t know who is sitting across the walk. Why? To make a check-in call with your wife to see how an important event that morning went for her.  While having family dinner, you might respond to an urgent text from your best friend, temporarily stepping away from those present in the room. Rather than attending a local sporting event, you might choose to watch your granddaughter's soccer game in another state, watching via Facetime. 

Thoughtful choice of communication medium demonstrates caring and respect. Before unthinkingly selecting your habitual means to communicate, take a moment to consider the message and the audience, then choose your medium wisely. One particularly meaningful demonstration of respect is when technology also enables others to flourish in their communication, which is the focus of the final principle.

Principle 4: Use tech to give people a voice

New means of communication can provide new opportunities. Although e-mail is now old, and Facebook is no longer new, consider what a director at Intel Corp. observed as each technology became prevalent:  “I have so many stories of people reflecting on the ways technology gave their parents voices they didn’t know they had. I remember years ago, people -- mostly 20-,30-, and even 40-somethings -- reflecting on the fact that when e-mail and text-messaging came along, they suddenly heard their father in a way he’d never been before. It gave a generation of taciturn men a way to have affective relationships across their families. I still hear that about the way people are connecting on Facebook.”  (Genevieve Bell, Director of Interaction and Experience Research for Intel Corporation, in an interview with Alexis Marigal in “What Makes Her Click,” The Atlantic, December 2012, p. 42.)  Bell noticed that technology gave a voice – a means of expression – to family men that they didn’t have previously. 

Giving someone a voice means granting them access and the means to participate. Technology can be a tool to give voice to the oppressed and disenfranchised. Tech can enable us to hear the plight of the hungry, destitute, or war-torn. Technology can give voice to professionals whose company cannot afford the travel expense to send them to a conference in person – if the conference provides a virtual option, they can now share their insights with other experts in their field. 

I have experienced this gaining of voice personally. I had early onset loss of hearing, starting before I was 40. I figuratively lost my voice as well as my hearing.  When I could not distinguish what other speakers were saying, I could not participate in the discussion. The technology of hearing aids remediated my hearing to a large degree, giving back my ability to participate in conversations – giving me back my voice.

However, the technology is not perfect. Even with hearing aids, I can have trouble distinguishing the words of a soft-spoken person on the other side of a room. When I served as an elder on my church council, there was another elder who was very quiet, but often spoke with great insight during meetings. I intentionally would find a seat near him to be sure I could hear his words during the meeting. Unfortunately, he wasn’t the only quiet voice, and sometimes the HVAC or other peripheral noises would make even loud voices hard to make out. Keeping up with the discussion was mentally exhausting and could be frustrating at times. When COVID hit, our council moved to web-based video conferences. Suddenly I could hear every speaker! With each person sitting in front of a microphone and with my own volume control, I could finally hear every person, even the quiet ones. 

Just as children in school have different learning styles and just as children and adults have diverse talents for expression, we all have different communication styles and needs. When done well, technology can help level the playing field so that all can participate and all have a voice.

Conclusion

In high school, my shop teacher would tell us “choose the right tool for the job.”  Although he was referring to the power woodworking tools we were about to employ, his insight applies to tools for communication just as well. For each message and in each conversation, choose the means of communication that best loves your neighbor and honors God. Choose tools not for self-aggrandizement, but for how well they enable respect of others, by whether the tool grants them a voice and enables us to truly hear the heart of the matter from their perspective.

Technological Honesty

My smartphone is lying to me again. I’m walking around downtown Minneapolis looking for dinner after a conference. My maps app is telling me to continue northeast on Marquette and then turn left at 6th Street. But I’m not on Marquette. I’m a block over. I’m the victim of a well- known problem:  urban canyons can foil GPS navigation, fooling us with false location information. 

Technically, the app wasn’t lying with a false location.  If I zoom out a bit, I see a faint blue circle around my location. The center dot is the best estimate of my location, but the wider blue circle represents the tolerance of the available data. My displayed location is dependent on the number of GPS satellite signals currently received, though my phone tries to be a bit smarter and also uses available cellular and WiFi data to refine the location estimate. It turns out that my actual location on 2nd Avenue is within the larger blue circle. Thus, although the walking directions are based on the false location, I can quickly orient myself and keep going. A short time later my displayed location updates, jumping over a block to show me on 2nd, tracking me very accurately in real-time for the rest of my journey.

Back at home from my trip, as I am writing this blog, I check my location while sitting at my desk in my home office. Compared to the moving target I presented in Minneapolis among buildings that interfered with the GPS, as a stationary target here in the suburbs of Grand Rapids I should be easier to find. But again the location is not quite right – the app thinks I am sitting in the backyard. At least it knows my car is really parked in the garage.  Honesty is a key virtue for Christians to pursue. In this article I first identify the definition and some nuances about honesty, then turn to how technology can aid our honesty or spur us towards dishonesty.

Defining Honest

Merriam-Webster defines the word honest as “legitimate, truthful, free from fraud or deception.” Two of the most respected American presidents are revered largely because of this virtuous characteristic. The honesty of the first American President, George Washington was also renowned, particularly the mythical story of the young George chopping down his father’s cherry tree, but then confessing to the crime later, announcing that he could not lie about it. The truthfulness of the sixteenth American President “Honest Abe” Lincoln was also widely reported. 

Honest statements are not only true but also sufficiently accurate and complete so that the statement does not intentionally mislead. If the listener was unintentionally misled, then at the first sign of confusion, the speaker is obligated to correct the misinterpretation. If one feels the need to justify one’s statement as “technically true” then it was probably misleading and was thus dishonest.

Dishonesty with ourselves is self-deception corrected only when we are truthful with ourselves. Certain truths are unpleasant or even repulsive. In the face of these, I might cope through mental self-defense mechanisms. I might ignore certain information that would detract from my preferred narrative. I might push certain facts into my subconscious. For example, we may need to face the music on our spending habits when deep down we recognize that our expenses are higher than our income. Overcoming self-deception is similar to the stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, guilt and depression, and finally acceptance.

Lack of truth can certainly be harmful, but before turning to technological honesty, let’s also briefly look at how truth can be used as a weapon. I can use honesty as a cover for cruelty. Choosing to share a brutal truth, without regard to kindness, is spiteful and hard-hearted. This is particularly true if my opinion was not solicited, Even when asked, I ought to choose my words with care. If I point out an error in spite, rather than in love, I may be hurting more than correcting. If I pronounce judgment on someone’s worth, looks, or ability, my words become stones cast to injure through degradation. Cruel honesty is no virtue. 

Likewise, sharing information that does not belong to me does not count as honesty. Such an act is theft if I am stealing intellectual property. If I am threatening to share this information unless compensated, it is blackmail.  

But what does honesty have to do with technology? Quite a bit, it turns out.

Tech Keeping Us Honesty

Many technological tools are quite reliable. This trait can promote honesty in the users of those tools in at least two ways. First, technology provides a written record of our commitments. We can find such technological tools in some of the earliest uses of writing to document a contractual arrangement. For example, the Sumerian contract  shown in the figure is written in cuneiform on a clay tablet dating around  2600 B.C., recording the sale of a house and field. Modern technology provides additional instruments to document our promises. My Apple Watch reminds me I need to walk a bit more today to hit my exercise goal. Blockchain algorithms are used to authenticate and record a Bitcoin transaction.

A second way technology promotes honesty in users is through error detection. Some tools detect dishonesty in others. A polygraph monitors physiological indicators to signal when a person is likely telling a lie. A police radar gun detects when motorists are speeding. In 1986, a radiation detector in Sweden alerted the world to the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl. Some tools help us to be honest with ourselves. If I commit to exercising to keep my blood pressure down, a home blood pressure monitor helps me track whether I am sticking to my commitment. The lane departure warning on my car alerts me when my vehicle strays, probably because my attention was straying. A grammar checker helps me detect errors in my writing. But not all tools are aids to correction. Some are designed to deceive.

Less than Honest with our Tech Tools

Preying on our trust in devices as reliable, some technological inventions have been designed for deceit, aiding and abetting our dishonesty. Deep fake videos take advantage of our trust in the reliability of technology, fooling us into falsely believing a famous person said or did something. Counterfeit money is designed to look just like the real thing, enabling theft through dishonesty.

Ironically, while we might be duped because we trust technology too easily, at the same time we might try to fool others through the common experience of tech breakdown. We might lie about a phone battery dying to get out of awkward conversations. We might claim an email never arrived to excuse missing a deadline. We might paint an overly glamorous picture of our lives by carefully curating a social media persona that glosses over any blemish.

Technology that enables deceit is contemptible, but using technology in the name of honesty in order to harm is equally reprehensible. How often do we see replies and comments on social media that someone claims to be posting in the pursuit of truth, but really are meant to insult and hurtfully criticize? Cruel honesty using technology is no virtue. Similarly, publicly announcing a security flaw in a widely used product without giving the vendor a reasonable chance to first correct the problem is an intentional act of sabotage, done for the thrill or notoriety, without a care for the company or for their users. Such cruel exposure of truth is no virtue.

Conclusion

Christians with influence over technology should work towards designing products that promote honesty in two ways. First, the design itself should be open and clear to be sure users understand how it works, how reliable it is, and how safe it is. Second, the product should be designed with characteristics that promote honesty in the user and avoid enabling deceptive practices.

For those that have less influence over technology design, we still make choices as consumers. As tech users, we ought to be thoughtful about the biases our tools might have, discerning carefully what to buy and how to use it with integrity. Furthermore, our individual buying decisions accumulate into market forces that drive the direction of future design. We implicitly vote for the technology we want tomorrow by what we purchase today. Let us buy and use our tools wisely.