Authentic community: How online substitutes damage our empathy

June 5, 2017

I still remember what it felt like when I gave a local town a state-of-the-art police station. I remember the sense of accomplishment one Christmas when dad and I brought to life an underwater city and the rug by the fireplace that became the temporary repair shop needed to rebuild Luke Skywalker’s landspeeder. You probably have your own memories, all provided by the innovation and wondrous simplicity that comes packaged in a box of Legos.

Legos do more than build, don’t they? They transform. Small, colorful, plastic bricks transform dinner tables into architectural drawing boards and living room floors into hardhat zones. Legos bring emotions and feelings that you never thought were possible. They unveil awe and showcase wonder. Each dismantled box temporarily disguises children and adults alike as Frank Lloyd Wright or I. M. Pei. Yet, even in the midst of the seemingly endless worlds that Legos create, there’s a limit to what they can do. They give a sense of the creation and a glimpse into the complex construction of modern world wonders, but they don’t bring authenticity. They can’t—because a package of Legos was meant to do one thing: bring representation, not reality.

No well-educated architect would trade steel for blue and red plastic blocks. No landscape artist would swap out sod with green, bump-filled rectangles. Real works of art, true architectural masterpieces, require more than what Legos can provide. Reality needs a more solid structural foundation; one that Legos simply cannot and were never meant to support.

Sociologists have issued the same conclusions regarding our exhaustive use of social media and technology. Our beloved social media platforms bring us unending entertainment, distraction, meaning and perceived communal connectivity. We’ve come to believe in our online community’s ability to bring forth true, lasting friendship. But, the generation tethered to digital connection and online content sharing more than any other is using online interactions as substitutions for face-to-face relational connectivity.

Even though we’re more connected than ever, the question must be asked: Connected to what, and how?

A loss of emotions

Even though we’re more connected than ever, the question must be asked: Connected to what, and how? The method of connectivity is more important than the breadth of connectivity. In our search for a connected world, we’ve become masterful Lego architects without memories and experiences of steel, iron and concrete. We’ve lost the skill of building true foundations. Over time, we’re losing any knowledge we had of how to live life in person, amongst others and trading it without thought of consequence for a life lived through our online avatars.

This is the focus of long-time MIT professor Sherry Turkle’s 2015 release, Reclaiming Conversation. Turkle shows from the opening pages that our emotional development is suffering great damage due to constant online activity. Called on to consult for one New York middle school, certain teachers inform Turkle of their 12-year-old students who are unable to show signs of empathy, deeply relate and connect with other students. The teachers explain these students show empathy levels that are present in eight-year-old children, who lack the ability to understand and process the emotions of their peers. It’s not that they’re particularly cruel, the teachers say. These children simply don’t know how to process emotional responses and facial expressions because faces don’t accompany the words we type in online communities.

But empathy is a vital ingredient for friendship and basic human interaction. Without it, our relationships remain self-focused. To have a biblical understanding of relationships that are healthy, we must learn to rise above and beyond our own thoughts and feelings. We must have the ability to see life, both its joys and horrors, from the eyes of another. Constructing social foundations via the web moves forward without this basic need, creating a dangerous sinkhole.

Turkle comments, “face to face conversation is the most human—and humanizing—thing we do . . . conversation advances self-reflection, the conversations with ourselves that are the cornerstone of early development and continue throughout life.” We’re connected, but we aren’t learning. We aren’t engaging with the thoughts, feelings, emotions and personalities of those close to us. We’re failing to experience grief and sorrow, much less sharing in the grief and sorrow of others. Instead, our responses to life events consist of a simple click or tap. 140 characters. One filtered picture.

This is the new structure of present-day conversation. To this, Turkle explains, “the new conversation is to talk about what’s on our phones. . . . it is not doing the work of the old conversation. As teachers see it, the old conversation taught empathy. These students seem to understand each other less.” We’re losing the ability to wrestle, respond and build. We have a starved interest in putting our hands to work on the real joys of friendship that are much harder and take much more time than one Monday evening sitting in front of a box of Legos. We don’t want the risk of building lasting connections with others or to rise from our comfort zones. We’d rather stay put building temporary monuments without ever getting up and moving away from our screens. We want the benefits of connectivity without the risk of intimacy. But this isn’t the way God designed people to interact. Sherry Turkle continues:

From the early days, I saw that computers offer the illusion of companionship without the demands of friendship and then, as the programs got really good, the illusion of friendship without the demands of intimacy. Because, face-to-face, people ask for things that computers never do. With people, things go best if you pay close attention and know how to put yourself in someone else’s shoes. Real people demand responses to what they are feeling.

The more we engage with our screens, the less we truly engage with one another. More seriously, the more we engage online, the less we engage our understanding for how to engage in person. If we lose our ability to empathize and feel and recognize emotions, we lose our ability to know ourselves and one another. When this happens, how can we, as Christians, carry out our gospel mandate to make disciples and share with others the love of Christ? If we can’t experience empathy, how can we engage in gospel expansion? How can we bind up the brokenhearted and release from darkness those imprisoned? We may feel more connected than ever before, but that doesn’t mean we know one another more intimately and deeply than we have before.

Empathy vital for gospel living

If we can’t empathize, how can we bear one another’s burdens (Gal. 6)? How will we comfort those that need the comfort we’ve experienced (2 Cor. 1)? How will we feel the urge to share the truth of our past and how Christ has redeemed us (Rom. 5)? How can we heed Paul’s exhortation to live as Christ did and sacrifice as he sacrificed (Phil. 2)?

Yes, we’ll serve where we see the need to serve, but without the ability to understand the hearts and minds of those in our neighborhoods, jobs and communities, to what extent can we bring hope and joy? We must care for those that need caring and meet the needs of those who are in distress and without help. But to do so, we need to practice gospel empathy every day. We need to bear the weight and significance of face-to-face contact, no matter how difficult.

Jesus said the world would experience, know and see him when his followers love and care for one another the way he did us. The world won’t experience the redemption found in Jesus by the way we repost and retweet. Christ says that his children will live as he lived and love as he loved when they know the great extent to which Christ has saved their souls. It’s been said that a gospel that doesn’t sound too good to be true is a gospel that is too small. Rest assured, a gospel that is too small is devoid of empathy.

We’ll love when we know how much God has loved us. We’ll forgive to the extent we know we’ve been forgiven. We’ll serve and sacrifice to the extent that we understand how Christ has served and sacrificed for us. This is what it means to know the beauty of Jesus’ death in our place. When we lose our ability to self-reflect, we lose our ability to embrace the true nature of the gospel and the ability to live its radical nature out amongst others. The key to unlocking gospel transformation that extends down in our bones and out to those around us is true gospel empathy. We put ourselves in the stress, pain, sadness, hurt and hopelessness of others because we know, according to Ephesians 2, we once wandered in darkness.

The more we tether ourselves to our devices, the more untethered we become from our hearts. If we connect with one another but lose our ability to process and show emotions in the process, what good are we? Without empathy, we become the people Isaiah spoke of; honoring God with our lips via our social media posts/rants while our hearts are far from treasuring Christ and his people.

The model of the Incarnation

The way we learn to be with other people and experience life in the fullness of being known by God and others is to look at the example Christ set for us by coming to be with and among us. Paul tells us that Christ sacrificed everything to come be with us, to offer us hope and empower us with a new way of life. This is the beauty of the incarnation. Christ gave up all that he had in order to give all that he had to us, his very enemies. In the words of the church father Athanasius, Christ became what we were so that we could become what he is. Whole. Complete. Righteous. Clean. Connected.

God saw our need and did something about it. He brought great pain on himself to bring us great pleasure. As we reflect on the beauty of Christ’s entrance into our world, we understand what we must do in order to bring his hope into the world of others. Without the presence of technology, Christ showed us the best way forward in our present-day context. We must leave the comforts we experience behind our screens and walk out to meet one another in person. We must let go of our devices in order to grab hold of the hands of others, no matter the cost.

Jonathan C. Edwards

Jonathan C. Edwards (M.Div, Th.M) is the Director of Curriculum for Docent Research Group where he also serves as a lead writer. He is the author of Left: The Struggle to Make Sense of Life When a Parent Leaves. He and his wife Katherine live in Durham, N.C., where he is … 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