fbpx
Articles

Public discourse in the age of social media

/
May 19, 2017

What is social media doing to our ability to communicate with kindness, clarity and depth?

Should social media be seen as a redeemable form of communication, or is it a medium that is not meant to hold the weight of discourse?

Can heavy matters of faith even be discussed on social media, or is the platform too temporary and cheap for the eternal riches of the gospel?

In 1985, Neil Postman published Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business to show how the advent of television caused much of American public discourse to be “dangerous nonsense.”

Oh, Mr. Postman, if you only knew.

When I go to work each morning, my job is to help Christian authors navigate digital communication tools like social media and blogs to use the gifts God has given them to serve their audiences. To some on the outside, this job might just look like “marketing” or “platforming” for the sake of selling a few more books.

To me, my job is much, much more than that: it is about warring against the overwhelming negativity and hopelessness of much of social media culture with messages of encouragement and gospel hope so that more may come to know the goodness found in Christ and his salvation.

But is social media made for such weighty, eternal matters? Can 140 Twitter characters or a five-minute Facebook Live video bear the burden of the gospel message?

Social media deceives us into believing we are informed when we are, in fact, misinformed.

Three limits of social media as a medium

  1. Social media deceives us: First, social media deceives us into believing we are informed when we are, in fact, misinformed. Postman writes that television created a species of information that might be properly called “disinformation.” He writes, “Disinformation does not mean false information. It means misleading information—misplaced, irrelevant, fragmented or superficial information—information that creates the illusion of knowing something but which in fact leads one away from knowing.” Consuming an obscene amount of useless information as a means of entertainment deceives us because, over time, it can erode our ability to prioritize and address information we receive.
  2. Social media distracts us: Second, social media distracts us with an offensive amount of unimportant information disguised as matters of great importance. Social media, in its perpetual barrage of “BREAKING NEWS” alerts and other false flashes of urgency, actually end up cheapening that which is “BREAKING NEWS” and urgent. We are deceived into thinking we are being more informed when we are, in fact, just becoming more distracted. Postman says regarding the telegraph, “Telegraphy made relevance irrelevant. The abundant flow of information had very little or nothing to do with those to whom it was addressed.” Indeed, the barrage of unimportant information leads us to believe we are more informed when, in fact, we are just more distracted.
  3. Social media drowns us: Third, social media drowns us in information upon which we cannot be expected to act. A friend recently texted me to ask if I had seen a recent popular Christian hashtag in which hundreds if not thousands of people were conversing about issues within the global Church. I said I had not seen the hashtag and that I, honestly, didn’t have time to keep up with trendy Christian hashtags—it just isn’t a priority of mine.

We are bombarded with so much content via social media that is asking us to act that we cannot be expected to act upon it all. Postman writes, “How often does it occur that information provided you on morning radio or television, or in the morning newspaper, causes you to alter your plans for the day, or to take some action you would not have otherwise taken, or provides some insight into some problem you are required to solve?”

If we’re honest when we answer this question in regard to social media, most of us would respond, “Not often.”

We cannot be expected to address every problem we are told we must solve by the people or organizations we follow on Twitter or other such platforms. The idea that we are able to solve human trafficking or world hunger by posting a picture with a shirt on or some marker drawn on our hands breeds slacktivism and ultimately cheapens the importance of the work that needs to be done.

Social media as a medium as its limits, but as Christians, I do believe we bear a responsibility to steward the tools we have been given and proclaim the gospel.

The necessity of gospel stewardship in the digital space

Social media is a black hole—a mysterious gravitational force that absorbs everything around it. The temptation on social media is to get enveloped to the point at which you cannot discern digital reality from physical reality, but I do not believe this temptation should dissuade Christians from filling social media platforms with the hope of the gospel.

Social media is a neutral tool—it is not inherently good or evil—that we have been given to communicate with the world. It has its limitations, a few of which were outlined above, but Christians would be wise to take this tool and wield it for the glory of God.

To use the cliché: social media is a double-edged sword. As I observe Christian spheres of influence on Twitter, Facebook, and otherwise, it seems to me that both sides of the sword get their share of the action. The challenge for Christians is to use social media in a sanctified way—in a way that looks different from those whose hearts have not been transformed by the gospel.

Using social media for redemptive purposes is a challenge not to be underestimated. Postman writes concerning television preachers, “It is naïve to suppose that something that has been expressed in one form can be expressed in another without significantly changing its meaning, texture, or value.” Indeed, Christians must understand that the medium of social media has a tendency to cheapen that which is rich and to deprecate that which is holy. But, ahead we charge. Because, even on social media, the eternal import of the gospel bursts like a light in the darkness of an endless stream of temporary, unimportant information.

Chris Martin

Chris Martin, author of “Terms of Service,” is a content marketing editor at Moody Publishers and a social media, marketing and communications consultant. He has led social media strategy at Lifeway Christian Resources and advised some of the foremost Christian leaders and authors on digital content strategy. He writes regularly at … Read More

Article 12: The Future of AI

We affirm that AI will continue to be developed in ways that we cannot currently imagine or understand, including AI that will far surpass many human abilities. God alone has the power to create life, and no future advancements in AI will usurp Him as the Creator of life. The church has a unique role in proclaiming human dignity for all and calling for the humane use of AI in all aspects of society.

We deny that AI will make us more or less human, or that AI will ever obtain a coequal level of worth, dignity, or value to image-bearers. Future advancements in AI will not ultimately fulfill our longings for a perfect world. While we are not able to comprehend or know the future, we do not fear what is to come because we know that God is omniscient and that nothing we create will be able to thwart His redemptive plan for creation or to supplant humanity as His image-bearers.

Genesis 1; Isaiah 42:8; Romans 1:20-21; 5:2; Ephesians 1:4-6; 2 Timothy 1:7-9; Revelation 5:9-10

Article 11: Public Policy

We affirm that the fundamental purposes of government are to protect human beings from harm, punish those who do evil, uphold civil liberties, and to commend those who do good. The public has a role in shaping and crafting policies concerning the use of AI in society, and these decisions should not be left to those who develop these technologies or to governments to set norms.

We deny that AI should be used by governments, corporations, or any entity to infringe upon God-given human rights. AI, even in a highly advanced state, should never be delegated the governing authority that has been granted by an all-sovereign God to human beings alone. 

Romans 13:1-7; Acts 10:35; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 10: War

We affirm that the use of AI in warfare should be governed by love of neighbor and the principles of just war. The use of AI may mitigate the loss of human life, provide greater protection of non-combatants, and inform better policymaking. Any lethal action conducted or substantially enabled by AI must employ 5 human oversight or review. All defense-related AI applications, such as underlying data and decision-making processes, must be subject to continual review by legitimate authorities. When these systems are deployed, human agents bear full moral responsibility for any actions taken by the system.

We deny that human agency or moral culpability in war can be delegated to AI. No nation or group has the right to use AI to carry out genocide, terrorism, torture, or other war crimes.

Genesis 4:10; Isaiah 1:16-17; Psalm 37:28; Matthew 5:44; 22:37-39; Romans 13:4

Article 9: Security

We affirm that AI has legitimate applications in policing, intelligence, surveillance, investigation, and other uses supporting the government’s responsibility to respect human rights, to protect and preserve human life, and to pursue justice in a flourishing society.

We deny that AI should be employed for safety and security applications in ways that seek to dehumanize, depersonalize, or harm our fellow human beings. We condemn the use of AI to suppress free expression or other basic human rights granted by God to all human beings.

Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 8: Data & Privacy

We affirm that privacy and personal property are intertwined individual rights and choices that should not be violated by governments, corporations, nation-states, and other groups, even in the pursuit of the common good. While God knows all things, it is neither wise nor obligatory to have every detail of one’s life open to society.

We deny the manipulative and coercive uses of data and AI in ways that are inconsistent with the love of God and love of neighbor. Data collection practices should conform to ethical guidelines that uphold the dignity of all people. We further deny that consent, even informed consent, although requisite, is the only necessary ethical standard for the collection, manipulation, or exploitation of personal data—individually or in the aggregate. AI should not be employed in ways that distort truth through the use of generative applications. Data should not be mishandled, misused, or abused for sinful purposes to reinforce bias, strengthen the powerful, or demean the weak.

Exodus 20:15, Psalm 147:5; Isaiah 40:13-14; Matthew 10:16 Galatians 6:2; Hebrews 4:12-13; 1 John 1:7 

Article 7: Work

We affirm that work is part of God’s plan for human beings participating in the cultivation and stewardship of creation. The divine pattern is one of labor and rest in healthy proportion to each other. Our view of work should not be confined to commercial activity; it must also include the many ways that human beings serve each other through their efforts. AI can be used in ways that aid our work or allow us to make fuller use of our gifts. The church has a Spirit-empowered responsibility to help care for those who lose jobs and to encourage individuals, communities, employers, and governments to find ways to invest in the development of human beings and continue making vocational contributions to our lives together.

We deny that human worth and dignity is reducible to an individual’s economic contributions to society alone. Humanity should not use AI and other technological innovations as a reason to move toward lives of pure leisure even if greater social wealth creates such possibilities.

Genesis 1:27; 2:5; 2:15; Isaiah 65:21-24; Romans 12:6-8; Ephesians 4:11-16

Article 6: Sexuality

We affirm the goodness of God’s design for human sexuality which prescribes the sexual union to be an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman in the lifelong covenant of marriage.

We deny that the pursuit of sexual pleasure is a justification for the development or use of AI, and we condemn the objectification of humans that results from employing AI for sexual purposes. AI should not intrude upon or substitute for the biblical expression of sexuality between a husband and wife according to God’s design for human marriage.

Genesis 1:26-29; 2:18-25; Matthew 5:27-30; 1 Thess 4:3-4

Article 5: Bias

We affirm that, as a tool created by humans, AI will be inherently subject to bias and that these biases must be accounted for, minimized, or removed through continual human oversight and discretion. AI should be designed and used in such ways that treat all human beings as having equal worth and dignity. AI should be utilized as a tool to identify and eliminate bias inherent in human decision-making.

We deny that AI should be designed or used in ways that violate the fundamental principle of human dignity for all people. Neither should AI be used in ways that reinforce or further any ideology or agenda, seeking to subjugate human autonomy under the power of the state.

Micah 6:8; John 13:34; Galatians 3:28-29; 5:13-14; Philippians 2:3-4; Romans 12:10

Article 4: Medicine

We affirm that AI-related advances in medical technologies are expressions of God’s common grace through and for people created in His image and that these advances will increase our capacity to provide enhanced medical diagnostics and therapeutic interventions as we seek to care for all people. These advances should be guided by basic principles of medical ethics, including beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice, which are all consistent with the biblical principle of loving our neighbor.

We deny that death and disease—effects of the Fall—can ultimately be eradicated apart from Jesus Christ. Utilitarian applications regarding healthcare distribution should not override the dignity of human life. Fur- 3 thermore, we reject the materialist and consequentialist worldview that understands medical applications of AI as a means of improving, changing, or completing human beings.

Matthew 5:45; John 11:25-26; 1 Corinthians 15:55-57; Galatians 6:2; Philippians 2:4

Article 3: Relationship of AI & Humanity

We affirm the use of AI to inform and aid human reasoning and moral decision-making because it is a tool that excels at processing data and making determinations, which often mimics or exceeds human ability. While AI excels in data-based computation, technology is incapable of possessing the capacity for moral agency or responsibility.

We deny that humans can or should cede our moral accountability or responsibilities to any form of AI that will ever be created. Only humanity will be judged by God on the basis of our actions and that of the tools we create. While technology can be created with a moral use in view, it is not a moral agent. Humans alone bear the responsibility for moral decision making.

Romans 2:6-8; Galatians 5:19-21; 2 Peter 1:5-8; 1 John 2:1

Article 2: AI as Technology

We affirm that the development of AI is a demonstration of the unique creative abilities of human beings. When AI is employed in accordance with God’s moral will, it is an example of man’s obedience to the divine command to steward creation and to honor Him. We believe in innovation for the glory of God, the sake of human flourishing, and the love of neighbor. While we acknowledge the reality of the Fall and its consequences on human nature and human innovation, technology can be used in society to uphold human dignity. As a part of our God-given creative nature, human beings should develop and harness technology in ways that lead to greater flourishing and the alleviation of human suffering.

We deny that the use of AI is morally neutral. It is not worthy of man’s hope, worship, or love. Since the Lord Jesus alone can atone for sin and reconcile humanity to its Creator, technology such as AI cannot fulfill humanity’s ultimate needs. We further deny the goodness and benefit of any application of AI that devalues or degrades the dignity and worth of another human being. 

Genesis 2:25; Exodus 20:3; 31:1-11; Proverbs 16:4; Matthew 22:37-40; Romans 3:23

Article 1: Image of God

We affirm that God created each human being in His image with intrinsic and equal worth, dignity, and moral agency, distinct from all creation, and that humanity’s creativity is intended to reflect God’s creative pattern.

We deny that any part of creation, including any form of technology, should ever be used to usurp or subvert the dominion and stewardship which has been entrusted solely to humanity by God; nor should technology be assigned a level of human identity, worth, dignity, or moral agency.

Genesis 1:26-28; 5:1-2; Isaiah 43:6-7; Jeremiah 1:5; John 13:34; Colossians 1:16; 3:10; Ephesians 4:24