Faith Awakened Review, Part Two

There are two main, related ideas here:

1. God designs our lives much as a programmer designs a complex program, and
2. God can control even virtual reality.

I don't disagree with either point. The problem for me is the nature of the interface. You see, God designed us to interact with him and with each other through this world and these bodies. So it seems reasonable to conclude that these interfaces (body and world) are the best--though they are certainly tainted by sin.

But the characters in FA who comment on the virtual experience find it paradisical: they don't want to leave it. Now, I can believe that, though for very different reasons than given in the story. Could God reach people through VR? Certainly. Would they be more reachable there? Certainly not.

You see, apart from the interface issue--God's preferred interface is surely out here--there is the nature of the virtual realm itself. Even in FA, there are doubts. The main character has a "dark night of the soul" experience in VR, which I would consider typical, and some computer-generated friends seem artificial: their behavior is mechanical. Again, no argument here.

The nature of VR is to turn away from the God-given interface to a man-made one: artificial worlds and bodies. Reality points to God; does artificial reality do so? Wouldn't it underscore our sinful tendency to turn away from God and others, accepting only imaginary versions of them all? For all our electronic connectedness, we are more lonely than ever.

This is the problem of all technological "improvements" to God's design. The transhumanists believe that we can become better by re-engineering ourselves--something C. S. Lewis addressed with horror in The Abolition of Man. But making ourselves stronger or faster or even more intelligent wouldn't actually make us better in spiritual terms, and by moving us away from our original design, it could actually make us harder for God to reach. Follow God's design. Accept no substitutes.

Buddhists, Not Buddhism

I recently had an abortive discussion with someone who was determined to research matters normally off-limits to Christians. The idea was to reach out to those involved.

I can relate to that. My introduction to theology came when one of my best friends went from nominal Baptist to red-hot Mormon. So I studied Mormonism and assailed it and him with my amazing intellect.

It didn't work.

For one thing, reaching people for God is a spiritual activity, so it's a mistake to rely on intellectual methods such as research. (Research isn't bad; it's just not enough.)

But the major problem is focus. I was not called to evangelize Mormonism; I had a chance to reach a specific Mormon. God generally calls us to deal with individuals more than groups, and groups more than systems. The higher up you go, the more abstract it all gets. An individual can accept Christ; a group can't (though its members can). A system can't be saved.

Kosuke Koyama is a Japanese theologian with an interest in missionary work. In his book Water Buffalo Theology, he says that one of the mistakes missionaries to Buddhist countries make is studying Buddhism when they should study Buddhists. But the system is only important so far as it enables the missionary to reach the system's follower. So why not study the one you want to reach?

In Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer, C. S. Lewis wrote that it's easier to pray for a bore than to visit one. Isn't this the same thing? Isn't it easier to study Buddhism or Mormonism than to get to know actual Buddhists or Mormons? Study people!