Enjoy the Process

Tag: theology

  • The Letter of Robert to the New Jerseyians

    Introduction

    The idea to write this letter sprouted a couple of years ago when I submitted an application for an entry in a theological newsletter. The idea was to document the process of writing a handwritten letter and to contrast that with reading letters in print. I wanted to summarize what I learned academically and disseminate the nuggets of wisdom I discovered in an accessible format. However, my idea was not accepted.

    A few months ago, I spoke with a friend from New Jersey. We talked about faith and church. Through the conversation, I remembered this idea. However, this time I had a particular audience in mind and a greater reason as to why I wanted to write the piece.

    I wrote this letter because I wanted to encourage and inspire a handful of people I knew. I wanted to succinctly document my theological learning and experiences over the past five years. I wanted to express the content in a familiar format so people can approach biblical letters with a renewed perspective.

    The Letter in Print

    Whether or not a New Jerseyian was encouraged or inspired, it was a fun process to write (by hand), type, edit, format, and print this creative piece with a humble curiosity for greater things.

    New Jerseyians

  • The Boundless Universe Proposal: Engaging Science and Theology

    An understanding of space and time is inextricably linked to an understanding of cosmology. Religions, philosophers, and the sciences are seeking to understand these concepts better. “Before 1915, space and time were thought of as a fixed arena in which events took place, but which was not affected by what happened in it. … It was natural to think that space and time went on forever.”[1] However, Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity shifted these prior conceptions. “The old idea of an essentially unchanging universe that could have existed, and could continue to exist, forever was replaced by the notion of a dynamic, expanding universe that seems to have begun a finite time ago, and that might end at a finite time in the future.”[2] Based on just these two scientific ideas, it is apparent how people can think about space-time in an eternal or finite sense. In this paper, I will argue that Stephen Hawking’s proposal on a no boundary universe may broaden our current understanding of cosmology and in effect, may provide a more robust eschatology.

    Before diving into Hawking’s proposal, I would like to investigate what happened in the seventeenth-century with the infamous trial of Galileo Galilei. I would like to frame this paper in this context so that Hawking’s proposal is not simply dismissed on the grounds of pure scientific inquiry. Galileo’s main proposal was to defend the Copernican system of heliocentrism[3]—a cosmological understanding that most take for granted today. A pre-Copernican cosmology assumed that the earth was static and the sun revolved around it. It was a “common popular assent” that was also accepted by those with ecclesiastical authority.[4] The Holy Office and ecclesiastical court “declared the motion of the earth to be ‘stupid and absurd in philosophy.’”[5] They “held that the immobility of the sun was foolish and formally heretical because it contradicted the literal meaning of the Scriptures.”[6] When Galileo published the Dialogue on the Two Principal World Systems, he was eventually “suspected of heresy” and condemned to prison for promoting the Copernican model.[7]

    They “held that the immobility of the sun was foolish and formally heretical because it contradicted the literal meaning of the Scriptures.”

    While this is an extremely brief snapshot of what took place, the intention of my investigation is to highlight the true tragedy that ensued. The “rejection of a purely scientific theory of the universe was a disastrous blunder for the church. It led not only to Galileo’s condemnation in 1633, but also to an antiscience reputation.”[8] We are now approaching nearly four centuries since this incident and while there have been some attempts to bridge the gap between science and religion, the two camps are still largely at odds with or simply have no relevance to one another. Theologians still argue that “theology is queen of all the sciences, [and] she need not bend in any way to accommodate herself to the teachings of less worthy sciences which are subordinate to her.”[9] And non-theologians believe that “science has replaced theology on the throne of Western thought.”[10] The main takeaway here is that the Church and Christians should not dismiss scientific theory on aiding in matters such as cosmology or we would still assume that the earth was static. Galileo understood the different roles science and theology ought to play in understanding the universe. By adopting his theological and scientific worldview, I hope the following presentation of Stephen Hawking’s proposal on the no boundary universe will not be read with a presupposed, antiscience posture.

    Stephen Hawking, interestingly, was born exactly 300 years after the death of Galileo.[11] He also interacted with an ecclesiastical authority during his lifetime when he and other experts were invited to attend a conference on cosmology hosted by the Catholic Church. The pope advised these experts “that it was all right to the study the evolution of the universe after the big bang, but [they] should not inquire into the big bang itself because that was the moment of Creation and therefore the work of God.”[12] Ironically enough, Hawking did not want to suffer the same fate as Galileo as his proposal posited “the possibility that space-time was finite but had no boundary,” thus could mean that “it had no beginning, no moment of Creation.”[13]

    The boundless universe proposal is Hawking’s attempt to formulate a unified theory on quantum mechanics and gravity.[14] Two features necessary for this unified theory is “Feynman’s proposal to formulate quantum theory in terms of a sum over histories” and “Einstein’s idea that the gravitational field is represented by curved space-time.”[15] Explaining these complex theories in detail are outside the scope of this paper, however, one very interesting concept Hawking discusses is the use of imaginary time. He likens the idea to the mathematical concept of imaginary and real numbers. In order to overcome the technical difficulties found in Feynman’s proposal, one must measure time using imaginary numbers, which “has an interesting effect on space-time: the distinction between time and space disappears completely.”[16] This creates a boundless universe where space-time would appear like the surface of the earth. “The surface of the earth is finite in extent but it doesn’t have a boundary or edge” as depicted below.[17]

    Source: Figure from Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (Toronto: Bantam Books, 1988), 138.

    Hawking argues, “There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time. … The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE.”[18] He continues,

    “In real time, the universe has a beginning and an end at singularities that form a boundary to space-time and at which the laws of science break down. … So maybe what we call imaginary time is really more basic, and what we call real is just an idea that we invent to help us describe what we think the universe is like. … So it is meaningless to ask: Which is real, ‘real’ or ‘imaginary’ time? It is simply a matter of which is the more useful description.”[19]

    As demonstrated by this summary, the boundless universe proposal has some major implications, particularly with how people perceive time, that I will discuss later.

    Hawking sought to propose a new model for the universe not for simple aesthetic or metaphysical thought, but because this was important to explain the very existence of life in his way with his particular talents and language.[20] Interestingly, he saw limitations to the current theories on the origin of the universe from a scientific and mathematical perspective, including the “hot big bang model,” which is generally accepted by most in the modern West.[21] Hawking also does not accept a simple, relativistic approach such as the “anthropic principle” where we simply see the universe the way we perceive it to be.[22] And he does not leave it up to mere chance as that would remove all hope and understanding.[23]

    While most may not use the technical language above to describe their beliefs and thoughts on the origin of the universe, the contemporary sentiment and understanding of cosmology vastly ranges including these views. Most in the pragmatic West are not interested in these topics and give little thought to them, yet would probably borrow from a mixture of sources to formulate an opinion if probed. As evidenced earlier, religious leaders are not exempt from the broader cultural shaping as well. In the Middle-Ages, most of society acknowledged a “God-confidence” over self-confidence and did everything to the glory of God.[24] However, the prevailing thought on cosmology was the Ptolemaic model. Hawking critiques the adoption of this model by the Christian church because it fit with the reading of Scripture, “for it had the great advantage that it left lots of room outside the sphere of fixed stars for heaven and hell.”[25] Martin Luther also operated from a pre-Copernican cosmology. While he mocked those who placed God in a cosmological way, he reasoned that “because the visible heaven or sky is constantly moving, … this would mean that God cannot sit still for one moment.”[26] And now, Hawking argues, “With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws.”[27] Cosmology has advanced since Galileo’s time, however, it is still a large mystery now as it was then. While religious and university establishments may have overstepped their boundaries influencing Galileo’s trial,[28] the result now where science and religion have little to no interaction with one another is just as detrimental to a wholesome understanding of the universe and time.

    Considering the current understanding of cosmology, or lack thereof, what would a wholesome interaction between science and theology look like? That is, if Stephen Hawking’s proposal on the boundless universe was proven by observational evidence and advance quantum computing, how would religious leaders respond to these discoveries? Two major implications would be regarding the nature of creation and the concept of time. Hawking states, “If the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be.” He follows by questioning, “What place, then, for a creator?”[29] The knee-jerk reaction of most conservative Christians would be to judge this as heresy. It is very clear from one of the most famous Bible verses, “In the beginning God created the heavens and earth.”[30] However, what if this was not a description of the entire universe, as we understand today, but utilizing the anthropic principle, was how Moses and Jewish believers understood their cosmology? How would Hawking’s analogous description of the universe as a surface be compared to the darkness “over the surface of the deep,” and how “the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters?”[31] Either one would have to acknowledge this surface was in reference to the earth or the surface of the universe. On the other side of the coin, Hawking’s proposal would not necessarily negate the singularity of a moment of creation, particularly in real time. “When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities.”[32]

    It is the concept of time that will also face major challenges if the boundless universe proposal is proven to be true. As mentioned earlier, based on the classical theory of gravity, most assume that the universe existed for an infinite amount of time or had a particular beginning and thus may have a particular end.[33] This is not a new concept as most other religions or worldviews operate in a cyclical perception of time while a “linear understanding of time originated in the Judeo-Christian religion.”[34] The boundless universe proposal would appear to enrich this concept of time. It would not necessarily disprove any current understanding of linear time as this is what is perceived in real time. However, time would not necessarily end in the way a modern person perceives time as a chronological, historical idea.

    It is also this concept of imaginary and real time that I believe greatly aids one’s understanding of “spiritual time”.[35] The practical Western mind that has operated under chronological, linear time would find conversations about a higher form of time as something out of science fiction or the Marvel Universe. However, what if the distinction Hawking makes as real and imaginary time is what Charles Taylor defined as ordinary and higher time, or sacramental time? A modern individual, unfortunately, looks on antiquated philosophies with suspicion. However, if novel scientific discoveries can validate some of these seemingly antiquated ideas of cosmology and eschatology, perhaps there can be better explanations of the origin and eschaton of the universe and time.

    With any good scientific theory, there would have to be rebuttals. The first was already mentioned that Hawking’s boundless universe proposal is just that, a proposal. Also, quantum mechanics and computing are still limited even till this day. An argument could be made that Stephen Hawking is an atheist,[36] but to reiterate again, this posture will only be detrimental to all. Another rebuttal from a religious perspective would be on how to place the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo. While space does not permit to thoroughly explain the various arguments, the biggest challenge for contemporary theologians in the West would be to suspend their interpretation of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo from a temporal perspective.[37]            

    This presentation of Stephen Hawking’s boundless universe proposal is not an argument to adopt this model, despite how it can enrich one’s understanding of the universe and time. With new discoveries in the sciences and a rich theological foundation, an interdisciplinary approach to understanding life may be beneficial to all of humanity. If both camps conversed with humble postures, perhaps we can continue to uncover the mysteries of the universe. Hawking attempted to convey “the basic ideas about the origin and fate of the universe” without using complex mathematical formulas, which most who do not have an advanced education would not understand.[38] He presumes that most “go about our daily lives understanding almost nothing of the world. … In our society it is still customary for parents and teachers to answer most of these questions with a shrug, or with an appeal to vaguely religious precepts.”[39] I believe the onus is on scholars of both science and theology to convey their messages in a language that the majority will be able to understand. “Ever since the dawn of civilization, people have not been content to see events as unconnected and inexplicable. They have craved an understanding of the underlying order in the world. Today we still yearn to know why we are here and where we came from.[40] Let us hope we do not make the disastrous blunder of separating science and theology to the point where leading intellectuals convince their people that the “Son” revolves around the earth.

    [1] Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes (Toronto: Bantam Books, 1988), 33.

    [2] Hawking, 33–34.

    [3] I.e. the sun is stationary and the earth revolves around the sun.

    [4] Galileo Galilei, “Letter to Madame Christina of Lorraine, Grand Duchess of Tuscany,” Inters.org, accessed March 19, 2019. http://inters.org/Galilei-Madame-Christina-Lorraine.

    [5] Charles E. Hummel, The Galileo Connection: Resolving Conflicts between Science & the Bible (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 109.

    [6] Ibid., 108.

    [7] Ibid., 9–13.

    [8] Ibid., 112.

    [9] Galileo, “Letter to Christina”.

    [10] Hummel, 7.

    [11] Hawking, 116.

    [12] Ibid.

    [13] Ibid.

    [14] Hawking admits that this proposal cannot be deduced from other principles. “The real test,” he states, “is whether it makes predictions that agree with observation.” See Hawking, 136-7.

    [15] Ibid, 134-5.

    [16] Ibid., 134.

    [17] Hawking, 135-6.

    [18] Ibid., 136.

    [19] Ibid., 139.

    [20] Hawking, 13, 136.

    [21] Ibid., 116.

    [22] Ibid., 124.

    [23] Ibid., 133.

    [24] Hans Schwarz, Eschatology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000), 14.

    [25] Hawking, 3.

    [26] Schwarz, 401.

    [27] Hawking, 140. Also see Charles Taylor, A Secular Age (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2007), 325.

    [28] Hummel, 125.

    [29] Hawking, 141.

    [30] Gen 1:1 (NASB).

    [31] Gen 1:2.

    [32] Hawking, 139.

    [33] Ibid., 33-4, 135.

    [34] Schwarz, 7.

    [35] Taylor, 54-5.

    [36] Alan Boyle, “‘I’m an Atheist’: Stephen Hawking on God and Space Travel,” accessed March 18, 2019. https://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/i-m-atheist-stephen-hawking-god-space-travel-n210076.

    [37] See Alan Torrance, “Creatio ex Nihilo and the Spatio-Temporal Dimensions, with special reference to Jürgen Moltmann and D. C. Williams,” Chapter 5 of The Doctrine of Creation: Essays in Dogmatics, History, and Philosophy, ed. Colin E. Gunton (Edinburgh, Scotland: T&T Clark, 1997), 83-103. Torrance engages with Moltmann’s linear view of time as well as his possible suggestion of panentheism. He also engages with D. C. Williams who discusses the four-dimensional aspect of space-time from a philosophical perspective, which Hawking also argues from a scientific model.

    [38] Hawking, vi.

    [39] Ibid., ix.

    [40] Ibid., 13.

  • Book Review: Theology in the context of World Christianity: how the global church is influencing the way we think about and discuss theology

    By Timothy C. Tennent
    Zondervan, 2007
    295 pages
    ISBN-13: 978-0-310-27511-4
    $43.99 CAD

    In the era of late globalization, it is jarring that there is not a greater concern and focus on theological discussions with a global framework. Timothy C. Tennent’s Theology in the context of World Christianity is a much-needed work, particularly for theologians who still operate under the assumption that Christianity solely follows a Western narrative. As the tides of Christianity have shifted to the Majority World, it is important “to explore the implications these shifts are having in the formulation of theological discourse” (11). Tennent argues for the “mutual exchange” between theologians and missiologists (22), between Christians from old Christendom and new burgeoning areas of religious plurality, in the hopes that with humble collaboration, a beautiful church of Jesus Christ would emerge.

    Tennent unapologetically structures his book under major headings of systematic theology (19), which include, theology, bibliology, anthropology, Christology, soteriology, pneumatology, ecclesiology, and eschatology. He explores each topic within the context of emerging churches in non-Western continents, particularly those who have come to know Jesus Christ from an Islam, Hindu, or Buddhist background (21).

    Tennent seeks to bridge the gap between students studying systematic theology from a Western perspective and Christians who are from the Majority World asking questions rooted in their culture and traditions. He notes that while there may be some acceptance of cultural translatability—referencing Andrew Walls’ “pilgrim” and “indigenizing” principles (12)—there is a greater hesitancy to accept theological translatability, which he defines as “the ability of the kerygmatic essentials of the Christian faith to be discovered and restated within an infinite number of new global contexts” (16). It is upon this premise that he engages his readers in hopes that they will listen to the various theological questions that are being asked by a rapidly growing church. By structuring his book in this manner, Tennent is bringing this conversation to the forefront, highlighting the fact that it is no longer “mere squabble” among “Christians with strange faces from even stranger places,” but these new Christian voices are influencing what the West has viewed as essential truths and expressions (19).

    An example of the significance of this conversation is how Christians from an African heritage express their Christology—see Chapter 5. Tennent begins most of his discussions with a general background to the particular topic of systematic theology from a Western perspective. He then introduces the particular people group or religion and then provides a case-study on how these emerging Christians influence the theological discussion of the specific topic at hand. While many may be comfortable with their “Christology from the shelves of universities” (117), Christians from Africa are challenging Western Christians with a different “ontic expansion of God in Jesus Christ” (111). Tennent demonstrates that these are no longer peripheral matters, but are central to the developing Christology not only in Africa, but for Christians around the world and through time.

    In the concluding chapter, Tennent promotes for a “renaissance in Western theological scholarship” (250). He concludes with four key themes that may mutually benefit theological scholarship and missiological praxis, which then will serve “to pull the entire church forward into that great eschatological fact of Jesus Christ” (272).

    While a theological scholar may easily dismiss this work due to the brevity and treatment of each theological topic, Tennent is well aware and admits that this book is not exhaustive. Yet, it is “suggestive” of the “general direction of theological inquiry in the context of global Christianity” (271). Theology students studying in Western contexts simply may not have the experience or awareness of some of these matters discussed in Tennent’s book. He provides a broad background and technical language so scholars may, hopefully, engage with these topics and even more so, the people behind them (22).

    Tennent writes with experience as a pastor, missionary, and seminary professor (250), thus knowing the strengths and weaknesses of each vocation. While he has nearly twenty years of experience in India and with Hinduism (xxi), he gives fair weight to other regions and beliefs such as Africa, Japan, Latin America, Muslim nations, and China, to name a few. He assesses the complexities of each culture and or religion and the impact they have on theological reflection and practice. He asks in the conclusion of his chapter on theology, “Why do theological students in the West continue to spend countless hours learning about the writings of a few well-known, now deceased, German theologians whose global devotees are quite small, and yet completely ignore over one billion living, breathing Muslims who represent one of the most formidable challenges to the Christian gospel today” (49)? Upon reading this book, at the very least, students will no longer be able to plead ignorance.

    On the other side of the spectrum, Tennent also does not want to dismiss the importance of traditional systematic theology. He does not give in to mere syncretism or relativism, but defends against some of the emerging trends with strong biblical references. His posture though is not one of determining which train of thought is most correct, but again “to think more globally about the formation of theology and to expand our own understanding of what it means to be a Christian in the twenty-first century” (xviii).

    It is this very theme that interweaves from the beginning of the book to the end. And in doing so, Tennent’s work provides a refreshing critique of Western theological scholarship. During my own studies, I have found that much of Christian reflection is done in a “theological vacuum” (35) and many of the questions being asked have little to no relevance in a globalized, pluralized world. Global or World Christianity should not be an elective course or peripheral topic for students in the West, but rather be mandatory regardless if one ventures out of their comfortable Western lifestyles and thought. At the least, this book may equip Western students to converse with people of different backgrounds. Or with more hope, to humble ourselves to admit that our “experience and expression of Christianity” is not “normative for all Christians everywhere” (6).

    In my own reading, it was difficult to pinpoint any major issues with Tennent’s work. Perhaps at times he could be overly harsh on Western Christians, however, I believe his criticisms are warranted. His main audience is Western theology students. Thus, he still uses language, such as kerygmatic or preparatio evangelica, which is tailored to this demographic. However, he provides a glossary at the end of the book to ensure that this work can be used as a platform for all Christians to engage with one another. Another minor point of contention is Tennent’s use of Protestant or Evangelical interchangeably. It may have been helpful if he clarified what he meant by his use of labels, however, it may also reflect how muddy denominational affiliation can be.

    Tennent reminds us that “in the context of global Christianity we must first and foremost see ourselves as Christians proclaiming the apostolic faith and only secondarily as Reformed Christians, Pentecostal Christians, Dispensational Christians, or Arminian Christians” (269). With the aid of this book and more importantly with God being sovereign over all, we Christians in the twenty-first century can do our part and begin this long and complex process of being a people from every nation, tribe, people, and language (Rev 7:9).

    The author is currently undertaking a Masters in Theological Studies at Regent University.

  • Theological Reflection of a Vocational Dishwasher

    “You cook, I will clean,”

    I told my beloved wife. My wife and I agreed this would be a fair distribution of household duties while considering our natural preferences and desires. I do not mind cleaning and prefer doing the dishes. Cleaning dishes began as nothing more than a simple responsibility within the complex dynamic of a marital relationship. However, it has now evolved to be a mirror reflecting culture, theology, identity, vocation, and technology. Dishwashing has aided in the development of my personal theological foundation as well as of my understanding of how the gospel relates to (my) culture.[1] Dishwashing has helped me understand the overarching narrative of culture; pushed me to question what is the good news of Jesus Christ and its relevance to my role as a dishwasher; redeemed my understanding of identity and vocation; and guided my reflection on the impact of technology.

    “Can you please put away your dirty dishes,”

    my mom occasionally told me while growing up. Dishwashing and anything related to it was never something to look forward to or be inspired by. My experiences as a dishwasher began in my early childhood, when putting away the dishes and sometimes cleaning them was nothing more than a menial chore. If anything, both cooking and cleaning were the tasks of my mother—the kids simply put their dishes away once finished with the meal. Later into adolescence, the chore slightly evolved acquiring a small payment for doing the task and with rare glimpses of maturity, I did my own dishes perhaps to help out my mother from time-to-time or to establish some sort of illusionary independence. I also learned at an early age that cleaning in general was the only job I could get without requiring special skill sets or simply being older. It seemed my own childhood experiences were universal as I learned when I started living with roommates during my undergraduate years. No one enjoyed doing the dishes and they would frequently pile up in the sink, leading to a game of who can stack the dishes the highest without touching the spout. It seemed as if I frequently lost this game as I ended up doing them out of frustration. This general pattern persisted up until my marriage, where I voluntarily chose to be the primary dishwasher or dishwasher loader—more will be said about this later.

    My past experiences, including being the primary dishwasher for the past five years, has taught me much about culture. Dishwashing serves as a reflection on how culture views identity and what it values. Much of our cultural identity is shaped by what we do which further reflects what we value. And the role and function of a dishwasher is not on the high-end of what culture values. A simple job search easily reveals this notion and even more so, people do not attend university so they could obtain a degree in household cleaning.[2] Washing dishes as a function also does not “help pay for the bills” as the cliché goes. This challenged the deep-rooted narrative that had been written on my mind and heart for many years—the value of culture is largely determined by occupation and close behind that, money.[3],[4]

    The subtlety of this value taking hold of my worldview revealed itself once I became a dishwasher. Prior to marriage, I thought I genuinely affirmed the role of full-time, stay-at-home mothers, recognizing household duties as valuable and necessary work. However, once I was in the position to be a full-time, house husband, that genuine affirmation slowly eroded after realizing one of my primary responsibilities was to wash dishes. According to cultural standards, because I had no occupation and was making little to no money, what I did had little value and in turn, my very identity as well.

    Our occupations provide financial and social value. Thus, occupations that are high-paying or with significant titles generally hold more currency. There has also been a more recent shift or rather attachment to this cultural narrative, where personal fulfillment and meaning has become a major factor in choosing one’s occupation.[5] It would also be easy to assume that this cultural narrative is only a secular one. Particularly from a Western Christian perspective, there is an additional “religious currency” where the most valuable occupations or callings, to spiritualize the term, are ministerial roles such as pastors or traditional missionaries. Other occupations merely exist to support the institutional church’s agenda.[6] This false dichotomy between the sacred and secular and hierarchy of what one does plagues Western Christianity. In essence, so called sacred vocations are much more valuable than being a dishwasher. This version of the gospel of Jesus Christ has nothing to do with washing dishes, or one’s occupation, and more importantly, one’s vocation.

    “Do you believe Jesus died for your sins,”

    would be the most common focus of the version of Christianity I knew. Where dishwashing reflects a broad cultural narrative, what is reflects about the gospel in most Christian narratives is the mere irrelevance of one to the other. Through my journey of becoming a vocational dishwasher, I have questioned what is the gospel. My prior understanding of the Christian gospel is my belief in Jesus Christ for my personal salvation. While there may be some truth to this, this solely individualistic perspective and “truncated version of the biblical gospel” has no relevance to the broader culture, society, and world.[7] While “it is gloriously true that sinners are saved through the cross of Christ, it is not actually the whole gospel or the whole achievement of the cross.”[8] If Christians continue to adopt this form of the gospel, there will continue to be this negative dualism and a complete insignificance to the burgeoning pluralistic culture. By redeeming the entire biblical narrative from the beginning of creation to the end of new creation, including themes of the value of one’s so-called ordinary work, being a blessing to other nations, and not only believing but knowing Jesus Christ who lived, died, and rose again from the dead, could there be a possible redemption of the relevance of the gospel to be just that—good news to culture.[9],[10]

    “I am a vocational dishwasher,”

    is the new mantra I now confidently live by. My recent and ongoing explorations of the gospel and the whole biblical narrative has helped me to understand vocation and redeemed my identity as a dishwasher. According to the biblical narrative, who we are is shaped and defined by our relation to God and who God is and what we do is shaped and defined by our relation to what matters to God and what God is doing.[11] This stands in stark contrast to a cultural narrative that says we are largely shaped and defined by the shaky foundation of what we do. “Work is a creational good, but the Bible is well aware of the temptation to turn work into an idol – when we live for what we can do and achieve, and then derive our identity and fulfillment from that.[12] Rather, when our vocation is the whole range of relationships and responsibilities, not just our occupations or our primary means of making money, can we then live a life filled with good news.[13]

    My vocation as a dishwasher is vital to the role I play in the relationship with my wife. As I am liberated by the narrative that I ought to be the primary financial provider, I can blossom in my responsibilities to provide a space and home that is clean, welcoming, and loving. As I am liberated by the notion that more is better, I can live simply within my means and truly be satisfied. This type of meaning and fulfillment had largely been elusive even when I was making a six-figure salary or doing impactful work. By living my life according to the biblical narrative, I can see how God is pure and “clean” and thus is in the job of cleaning up, not only my personal mess, but the entire world.

    Another beauty in becoming a vocational dishwasher is the amount of transferable skills and lessons I have acquired over the years. When people see dishwashing as a vocation and not just a menial chore, they can benefit from practical growth. Over the years, I have improved on my time-management, organization, and innovation skills, just to name a few. An early lesson I learned is to do a little bit at a time because once the dishes pile up, they are much harder to do. Procrastination can be a form of poor time-management in any occupation or aspect of life and washing dishes has helped me to be more diligent in this regard. I have also found that it is better to do big dishes, pots, and pans at the end when there is more room in the sink. By organizing in this manner, it is much easier to tackle the little dishes or easier tasks before attempting to finish more difficult ones. And being a vocational dishwasher can lead to more innovative approaches and solutions in achieving one’s goal. For example, by stacking dishes utilizing my “proprietary method,” one is able to save water, which in turn cuts down on costs and is better for the world. One final lesson I learned in this journey is the importance of communication. Dishwasher or doing the dishes can mean different things depending on one’s context and culture. It is important to communicate and understand what work means for different people.

    “Just put it in the dishwasher,”

    is a common instruction for the modern-day individual. While most discussions on technology surround digital innovations, one only has to look at dishwashing to see the impact of technology. The dishwashing machine was invented a little over a century ago. And now an Internet search for “dishwasher” returns results for dishwashing machines from major appliance stores.[14] Ironically, there have been more recent concerns for artificial intelligence (AI) and robots taking over the jobs of humans. However, this trend has already started long ago. Dishwasher is no longer a human who washes dishes, but for most in the modern world, it is a machine. While a discussion on the impacts of technology require its own place, my journey as a vocational dishwasher has reflected the trends of technology and its relation to or rather now its monopoly over culture.[15]

    In simpler times, there may not have been a question of who is in control—the human uses and has control of a tool or technology. For example, a construction worker uses and controls a hammer or a dishwasher is in control of the tools used to wash dishes. With the invention of the dishwashing machine, it is more difficult to discern who is in control. The machine has stripped the human the title of dishwasher and so now we have to wonder if the human is still in control and utilizing the dishwasher or is the dishwasher dictating to the human its own ideology? It is not difficult to make the leap to where society and culture is now with “scientific studies” explaining the harmful effects of screen time or how we lose our relationality with robots and the networked life.[16] Scholars are concerned with the impact of our existing digital technologies, yet the wave of innovation for new discoveries in AI or blockchain, for example, show no sign of slowing down. Washing dishes may seem to have absolutely no relevance to this more complex topic and in some sense it does not. However, if a culture does not have a proper framework and understanding of people’s vocation, something as simple as washing dishes, it is only a matter of time that titles and professions humans hold dear such as accountant or caretaker will be monopolized by technology. It is also crucial that society does not leave this topic on the periphery, but address it head on. It is crucial for religious institutions to be relevant in this sphere as well so that they do not make the same mistake by disregarding the vocation of dishwashers and in turn having no good news to share with culture.[17]

    “So, what is your vocation,”

    one may ask. My vocation is a dishwasher. Dishwasher relates to my wife who constitutes much of my life. Dishwasher speaks to my responsibility to wash dishes and by understanding my identity in light of a biblical narrative and Creator God, it also speaks of my responsibility to be a cleaner of all things, that whatever I touch, I can make the world a slightly cleaner and better place. The beauty of this vocation is anyone and everyone can do it. So,

    “Are you willing to wash some dishes?”

    [1] In the era of late globalization, it would be foolish to assume one culture is normative over another. When I use the term culture, it is from a modern, Western perspective and a middle-to-wealthy socioeconomic class.

    [2] Out of curiosity, I searched if something like this existed. The closest thing would be online certificates, material from an established institute for cleaning practices, and a questionable “university for maids”.

    [3] I must recognize that this is not the only value dominating the current cultural narrative, however it will be the one I will focus on. Other examples include consumerism or post-modernism.

    [4] See Craig M. Gay, Cash Values: Money and the Erosion of Meaning in Today’s Society (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans and Regent College Pub, 2004).

    [5] The influence of post-modernity is changing what people value in regards to occupations. I am mainly assuming that most in the modern West still value occupations that provide more financial and social currency.

    [6] Christopher J. H. Wright, The Mission of God’s People: A Biblical Theology of the Church’s Mission (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2010), Location 206, 3953, 4191, Kindle.

    [7] Wright, Loc 5250.

    [8] Wright, Loc 824.

    [9] See Gen 2:15-16, Isa 65:17-25, Acts 4:1-22, Jer 29:7, and 1 Tim 2:1-4.

    [10] This is a very brief and elementary summary of the biblical gospel. Much more can and needs to be said in light of traditions differing from Western Evangelicals and more importantly the growth of World Christianity.

    [11] Steven Garber, Visions Of Vocation (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP BOOKS, 2014), 161. Also adapted from Christopher Wright, The Mission of God’s People.

    [12] Wright, Loc 4537.

    [13] Garber, 11.

    [14] Based on a search result from DuckDuckGo. Accessed on Feb 28, 2019. One would need to input “dishwasher job” to get results related to the human act of washing dishes.

    [15] I owe much of this discussion on technology to Neil Postman, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, Reprint edition (New York: Vintage, 1993).

    [16] See Sherry Turkle, Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other, First Trade Paper Ed edition (New York, NY: Basic Books, 2012).

    [17] My stance here is not an anti-technology one, as I am well aware of the tremendous benefits technology has brought to society, even the dishwashing machine, which I use. This excerpt is to highlight that the gravity of technology is much heavier than most probably realize.

  • Ideology of Technological Money

    Introduction

    “Nothing is more persuasive and insidious than money.”[1] It impacts every person regardless of race, nationality, social status, or religion. And as globalization continues to grow, it is nearly impossible to discuss global trends without having a conversation about money. Simultaneously, technology has grown at blinding speeds. What was once defined as a tool used by humans, these tools are evolving to form a “technopoly”, as Neil Postman defines.[2] And for a modern person, technology has become synonymous with digital technologies. A broad review of history suggests that money and technology grew hand in hand, particularly during the Industrial Revolution.[3] However, what happens when money and technology become one in the same?

    In this paper, I argue that as money and technology marry to form what is commonly known as cryptocurrencies, the combination of these two powers will form a new ideology that people have yet to perceive. I will initially provide general overviews of both money and technology and discuss technological innovations surrounding money. I will then present what this new ideology could be and lastly provide a critique from a theological worldview.

    There are inherent limitations to my research as most scholars have the benefit of hindsight being 20/20. While it is important to learn from history, I believe it is an ever more critical time to apply and prepare ourselves for the future changes to come. My analysis is done in broad strokes, with the hope that this paper will just be the beginning of equipping both scholar and layperson to take money matters more seriously.

    Overview of Money

    The Merriam-Webster dictionary provides five different entries for the definition of money.[4] Most intriguing is the phrasing, “something generally accepted as a…” [italics mine]. This something is further defined as official coins or stamped metal currency, money of account, or paper money. The functions of money as defined by an institutional investor are a “1) Store of value, 2) Means of payment, and 3) Unit of account.”[5] While an average person may not consciously make these distinctions, one may very well behave in these patterns by opening savings accounts, using credit cards, or simply looking at products in a grocery store. What is more revealing is that no one would think twice about what money truly is or how it is used. For most, it is enough of a task thinking about how to obtain more. Yet, “Nothing, whether in human nature or in the nature of things, whether in technology or in reason, adequately explains the original act of creating and accepting money.”[6]

    Based on a modern person’s understanding of how money works, one would logically conclude that a barter system was the antecedent to money.[7] However this has recently been challenged as a myth by anthropologists such as David Graeber—rather, money was birth as an abstract ledger of credit and debt, or a unit of account.[8] Over time, money has evolved beginning with commodity money or specie currency, to a bullion standard, fiat currency, and now a possible transition to post-fiat currency. This current era of fiat currency largely began once the United States ceased to operate under the gold standard in 1971. The predominate form of money today is “sustained by a collective trust in [its] value rather than any intrinsic worth.”[9] “The fact that a central bank issues paper doesn’t make currency any more legitimate than any other vehicle or commodity that a community trusts or values for trade or commerce,” states David Birch, creator of the Digital Money Forum.[10] Whether from a sociological, economical, or historical view, the abstraction of money is complicated to say the least.

    The current form of money has developed certain ideologies during present times. Particularly for the modern West, it is the system’s exaltation of the monetary unit, or capitalism’s Money Metric, coined by Craig Gay, that has ultimately redefined or objectified value, reshaping and even diminishing traditional meanings.[11] Society has bought into this Money Metric, pursuing money as an end goal and whatever pleasures its fruits can provide. Clearly, money and its power has persisted throughout history in many different shapes and forms. Theologian and sociologist, Jacques Ellul argues, “Money is not a power because man uses it, because it is the means of wealth or because accumulating money makes things possible. It is a power before all that, and those exterior signs are only the manifestations of this power which has, or claims to have, a reality of its own.”[12]

    Overview of Technology

    Technology may be just as, if not more, complicated as money.[13] The definitions are muddling at best and I would argue most would not typically define it in scholarly terms. One crass definition asserts technology is, “Anything that has to do with computers. Often misused by stupid people and corporations that market to said stupid people.”[14] While an exploration of technology deserves its own space, I will briefly describe its evolution mainly borrowing from Neil Postman’s Technopoly. Postman frames his narrative by categorizing cultures into three types: tool-using cultures, technocracies, and technopolies.[15] In a very simple summary, cultures have evolved from a tool-using culture, where tools were used to serve a specific purpose[16] to a technocracy, where tools were “a central role in the thought-world of the culture,”[17] to lastly a technopoly, the complete totalitarian dominance of technology, where our so called tools are questioning and redefining all past traditions and social spheres such as government, religion, economy, education, and family.[18]

    It is in this current paradigm most of the developed world exists as well as developing cultures are headed. “In Technopoly, we are surrounded by the wondrous effects of machines and are encouraged to ignore the ideas embedded in them. Which means we become blind to the ideological meaning of our technologies.”[19] Two clear examples of this effect that is now coming to surface is the impact of social media and smart phones. When a major technology company creates an application to possibly limit the use of their own product, I would argue, is a pretty good indicator of a greater issue at hand.[20] The most harrowing effect of the growth of technology is how much trust we place in it, which I will expound upon later.

    Technology, similar to money, has a wide-ranging impact. While advances in technology has generally improved living for most, there are detrimental effects as well. Economist Raghuram Rajan best explains, “… technological advance is a good thing for everyone in the long run… But in the short run, technological advances can be extremely disruptive, and the disruption can persist into the long run if people do not have the means to adapt.”[21]

    Technological Advance of Money

    It is the technological advance particularly in the financial services industry that is of particular concern. PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), released a paper in 2016 highlighting ten technological disruptions the financial service industry ought to prepare for.[22] The authors are well aware that, “It is now becoming obvious that the accelerating pace of technological change is the most creative force – and also the most destructive – in the financial services ecosystem today.”[23] More alarmingly, 81% of banking CEOs surveyed are concerned with this pace of change more than any other industry sector.[24]

    One of the technological disruptions mentioned is the blockchain, the essential technology cryptocurrencies are built on. “Cryptocurrency,” as PwC defines, “is a medium of exchange, such as the US dollar, created and stored electronically in the blockchain, using encryption techniques to control the creation of monetary units and to verify the transfer of funds.”[25] What is interesting is how PwC compares cryptocurrency to the US dollar as a medium of exchange. While most cryptocurrencies are not currently backed by any major government, there is a clear interest in adopting or creating their own digital currency. Regardless, there is a difference between “government-based legitimacy or legitimacy based on law” and a market-based legitimacy, as Jon Matonis, Executive Director of the Bitcoin Foundation, argues. “Bitcoin doesn’t necessarily require the former to be successful or functional.”[26]

    Bitcoin was initially created as a peer-to-peer, electronic payment system. The mysterious creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, writes, “What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party.”[27] In essence, this is the culmination of the evolution of money, allowing strangers to transact with one another without the limitations of current forms and systems. This “Trust Protocol,” coined by Don Tapscott, is “a trustworthy global platform for our transactions.”[28] “Today thoughtful people everywhere are trying to understand the implications of a protocol that enables mere mortals to manufacture trust through clever code.” [emphasis mine][29]

    It is this disruptive technology, initially starting with bitcoin in 2009 to the countless cryptocurrencies, coins, or tokens constituting the crypto universe, that has the attention of all global powers. “In the sense that cryptocurrencies are an abstract unit that can be used as a token of exchange by anyone with a computer, they are, by most definitions, money. However, they do not cohere to the modern, global economic definition of the function of currency.”[30] It will be interesting to see how this narrative will unfold, especially as global powers such as Japan seek to create their own cryptocurrency.[31] If history is any indicator of what is to come, historian William N. Goetzmann best illustrates this point: “financial technology allowed for more complex political institutions, enhanced social mobility, and greater economic growth—in short, all the major indicators of complex society we call civilization.”[32]

    This review of the technological advance focused solely on the form of money or perhaps what it is evolving to be. Blockchain has only garnered the attention of media, unsurprisingly, when pegged to price fluctuations. The applications of this technology are much deeper, reshaping digital identity, supply chain management, and telecommunications to name a few. Other disruptors such as robotics and artificial intelligence are making significant headway in financial technology and other sectors as well. How all these changes will affect global society and humankind is another matter altogether.[33]

    New Ideology

    Based on the material discussed thus far, I will briefly attempt to forecast how these tectonic shifts may further impact our global society. I believe the most significant shift in ideology will be related to trust. Up until this point, society has not valued technology to the degree of trust. No one would hoard multiple iPhones or attempt to exchange software as transactional values. However, what seems to be happening is that global powers are looking for a new store of value in the form of technology, whether that be bitcoin or a different protocol (e.g. Ethereum or Ripple). It is already evident that cryptocurrencies are a valid and more effective medium of exchange. And lastly, the distributed ledger may serve as a global unit of account. Simply put, society has increasingly valued money, despite the abstract form that it has already taken today. Society has also put a certain level of trust and dependency on the various forms of technology. Now with technology marrying or perhaps even overtaking this abstraction of money and becoming money itself, it is evident not only how much trust we put in technology, but that it becomes the very value we seek to desire. This will naturally have a waterfall effect in all spheres of life. There is already a growing distrust, whether it be of corporations or governments. Search results for words of the year in 2018 are misinformation, toxic, and justice.[34] It is only a matter of time society will put their collective trust in technology and code than in any major institution, and perhaps even in other people and humankind.

    This technological change will have ecological effects—it will neither be additive or subtractive, rather “one significant change generates total change.”[35] As with all technological advance, there are immediate, superficial benefits. Taking one example, the remittance industry is plagued with archaic processes and high fees. Companies such as TransferWise[36] have begun to disrupt this industry, however, companies like Abra are utilizing blockchain technology and are envisioning “open access to the global financial system and drive greater financial inclusion.” [sic][37] There may be no need for remittances as this technology can be the catalyst in including those who are incapable of participating in the global economy. David Birch states, “…it’s not just people who are already fairly wealthy, or who are already fairly tech savvy, who can enjoy the benefits of money in electronic form, but actually we’ll be pulling more people into the economy and helping them with their finances and spending behavior and all of it because of these tools.”[38] While no one may overtly disagree with helping those in extreme poverty, these massive shifts will only fuel the narrative to trust in technology over any institution. As decentralization provided through technology proves to be a more effective method in governance and consensus, it will only exacerbate issues already created by digital technology.[39]

    Theological Response

    “Today, we live in a global community, one where commerce is now transacted in ways the Sumerians, Greeks, Chinese, Italians, and other early founders of our monetary system could never have conceived of.”[40] I would add that we live in a global community that the early church could never have conceived of. The universal church is no longer an abstract theological doctrine, but is now a reality. Financiers see the need for “Seeing the future clearly and developing a proactive, strategic response – rather than simply reacting to events,” which “will set apart the winners from the losers in a fast-evolving market.”[41] The leaders of the global financial system known as the Masters of the Universe are clearly preparing for these major disruptions.[42] Will the global church be proactive about these shifts rather than simply reacting to them?

    I would argue that the church has predominately been reactionary thus far. In his lecture turned paper, “Should We Listen to the Churches When They Speak on Economic Issues?”, Professor Anthony Waterman illustrates the differences between strong and weak utterances and how to speak on these issues in a free verse un-free society.[43] Weak utterances are broad, usually pastoral, and largely uncontroversial. I believe Craig Gay’s remark, “we are occasionally encouraged to reflect about the ethical implications of the ways that we spend money,” would fall under this weak utterance.[44] However, “the implications of assigning monetary values to things is not typically something that we worry very much about… Yet it is important to stress that everything — including even religious understanding — is indeed effaced in the alchemy of monetary commodification.”[45] While one can hope this is not true or disagree, it is difficult to see how most modern Western churches are not influenced by or operating under the Money Metric, where success is measured by false proxies such as attendance and finances.[46]

    Waterman also discusses examples of strong utterances, such as when Canadian bishops made their recommendation on unemployment verse inflation, where they “risk making themselves and their church look foolish or irrelevant if it turns out that they used their sacred office to recommend disastrous economic policies.”[47] Another example is Michael Schluter’s relational economy, where he acknowledges that “First and foremost, there has to be a change in worldview, where the dominant values of individualism and materialism are replaced by those of ‘Relational Thinking’. Unless people learn to think differently, and prioritise relationships over wealth for example, other changes will be cosmetic.”[48] Schluter’s critique is mainly regarding capitalism and while hopeful, it is still nonetheless a view looking through a lens through past and present situations only.[49] I do wholeheartedly agree with his conclusion that, “Rather than wait for these sinister alternatives to emerge, Christians need to read the signs of the times. To protect society for the wellbeing of our children and children’s children, the time to press for radical economic and social reform is not in 20 years’ time. It is today.”[50]

    I believe the other extreme response would be almost Platonic in nature—i.e. to dismiss or ignore the significance of economic matters and place an unbalanced focus on non-earthly ones. I believe the balance for a Christian is first to be faithful to God’s will. “Everything that tends to turn us away from this faithfulness (first expressed as recognition of sin, then as acceptance of grace, finally as personal commitment to personal action) diminishes Christian effectiveness, even if outwardly we do a great deal, changing institutions and mobilizing the masses.”[51] I would also agree that “What the churches have to say to us ‘when they speak on economic issues’, in other words, is far more important, far more truly radical, than any mere advocacy however well-meaning, however well-informed. It is simply that there are really no such things as ‘economic issues’ at all.”[52] Upon this foundation, do I believe it is critical to tackle the looming changes at hand. Regardless of one’s eschatology or theological doctrine everyone will have to face these changes on this side of heaven. Whether we simply and blindly adopt blockchain technology and use cryptocurrency once the greater masses start doing so, or think about these changes and speak into them despite its inevitability, is something individuals will all have to act upon and not rely on some vague collective response.

    Conclusion            

    This paper presents a broad scoping overview of the technological change of money and the potential it has in forming a new ideology and thus the ecological effects it will have on society. There is much more to address and much has been omitted, however my hope is that this paper will spark an initial interest to dive deeper into the complicated world of cryptocurrency and technological disruptions. My hope is that Christians would not be irrelevant to these broader changes and be rulers even over money.

    [1] Clive Lim, “APPL/INDS 564: Money Matters: Money, Mammon, & the Meaning of Life,” accessed Dec 21, 2018. https://moodle.regent-college.edu/course/view.php?id=714.

    [2] Neil Postman, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, Reprint edition (New York: Vintage, 1993).

    [3] David S. Landes, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some so Poor (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1999), 187.

    [4] Merriam-Webster Dictionary, s.v. “money,” accessed on Dec 15, 2018, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/money.

    [5] John Pfeffer, “An (Institutional) Investor’s Take on Cryptoassets,” accessed Dec 21, 2018. https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/john-pfeffer/An+Investor%27s+Take+on+Cryptoassets+v6.pdf.

    [6] Jacques Ellul, Money and Power (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2009), 81.

    [7] Adam Rothstein, The End of Money: The Story of Bitcoin, Cryptocurrencies and the Blockchain Revolution., New Scientist’s Instant Experiment (Boston, MA: Nicholas Brealey Publishing, 2017), 115.

    [8] Ibid.

    [9] Rothstein, End of Money, 121.

    [10] Brett King, Breaking Banks: The Innovators, Rogues, and Strategists Rebooting Banking (Singapore: John Wiley & Sons Singapore, 2014), 120.

    [11] Craig M. Gay, Cash Values: Money and the Erosion of Meaning in Today’s Society (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans and Regent College Pub, 2004), 42–43.

    [12] Ellul, Money and Power, 76.

    [13] Some define money as a tool or technology. While there are certain aspects that qualify money as a technology, the distinction I will make is money from a digital technology.

    [14] Urban Dictionary, s.v., “technology” accessed on Dec 18, 2018, https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=technology.

    [15] Postman, Technopoly, 22.

    [16] Ibid., 23.

    [17] Ibid., 28.

    [18] Ibid., 48.

    [19] Ibid., 94.

    [20] See Apple’s recent Screen Time app. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208982.

    [21] Raghuram Rajan, Fault Lines: How Hidden Fractures Still Threaten the World Economy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010), 22.

    [22] PwC, “Financial Services Technology 2020 and Beyond: Embracing Disruption,” accessed Dec 21, 2018. https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/financial-services/assets/pdf/technology2020-and-beyond.pdf.

    [23] Ibid., 3.

    [24] Ibid., 9.

    [25] Ibid., 14.

    [26] King, Breaking Banks, 128.

    [27] Satoshi Nakamoto, “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System,” accessed Dec 21, 2018. https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf.

    [28] Don Tapscott and Alex Tapscott, Blockchain Revolution: How the Technology Behind Bitcoin Is Changing Money, Business, and the World (New York: Portfolio, 2016), 6.

    [29] Ibid., 5.

    [30] Rothstein, End of Money, 130.

    [31] Arjun Kharpal, “Japanese banks are thinking of making their own cryptocurrency called the J-Coin,” accessed Dec 20, 2018. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/27/japanese-banks-cryptocurrency-j-coin.html.

    [32] William N. Goetzmann, Money Changes Everything: How Finance Made Civilization Possible (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016), 14.

    [33] I must reiterate at this point that this review has been done in broad strokes. Much more can be said about money and the various role it plays in different systems, as well as blockchain technology and the implications it may have. Matters such as decentralization, privacy, and ownership will all play a role alongside the technological shift in the form of money. The importance here is not to discuss what has passed nor what has progressed thus far, but rather what will come.

    [34] See Dictionary.com, Oxford, and Merriam-Webster, respectively.

    [35] Postman, Technopoly, 18.

    [36] See https://transferwise.com/.

    [37] To note, Abra initially began as an app to aid remittances primarily between the US and Philippines. See https://www.abra.com/where-is-abra-available/. Accessed Dec 20, 2017.

    [38] King, Breaking Banks, 133.

    [39] Due to the limits of this paper, I avoid bringing into discussion the works of previous scholars such as Peter Berger’s, The Homeless Mind. Berger discusses, much better than I can, the effects of technological production on the consciousness of mankind. I believe these new technologies will heighten some of these effects or birth new ones altogether, adding to the ecological effect of technological money.

    [40] King, 121.

    [41] PwC, 4.

    [42] Tapscott and Tapscott, Blockchain Revolution, 55.

    [43] Anthony Waterman, “Should We Listen to the Churches When They Speak on Economic Issues?” of Recent Developments in Economics and Religion, ed. Paul Oslington, Paul S. Williams, and Mary Hirschfeld (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2018), 351-62.

    [44] Gay, Cash Values, 60.

    [45] Ibid.

    [46] The idea of a false proxy was taken from, Dave DeVries, “Measuring Success in Your Church,” accessed Dec 21, 2018. https://www.missionalchallenge.com/measuring-success-in-your-church/.

    [47] Waterman, 356.

    [48] Michael Schluter, “Beyond Capitalism: Towards a Relational Economy” of Recent Developments in Economics and Religion, ed. Paul Oslington, Paul S. Williams, and Mary Hirschfeld (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2018), 258.

    [49] Note, Schluter’s paper was written in 2010 during the early inception of bitcoin, thus his views may certainly have changed.

    [50] Schluter, 260.

    [51] Ellul, Money and Power, 19.

    [52] Waterman, 361.