7 Genesis Truths for Thinking About Any New Technology

Confronted with novel decisions about technologies impacting such areas, Christians may struggle to find biblical guidance because Scripture does not directly address new technologies. But God’s Word does offer timeless truths for wise decision-making based on the reality of who we are and who we are meant to be, as revealed by our infallible Creator.3 These truths for human flourishing originate in Genesis, making creation theology especially central to Christian ethics. For instance, we find in Genesis seven truths about humanity—seven theological anthropological principles—that can help us make ethical decisions about any new technology.

These principles may be formulated as “7 C’s of Humanity” (not to be confused with the 7 C’s of Biblical History). Notably, the 7 C’s of Humanity are by no means an exhaustive or solely sufficient framework for ethical decision-making, nor are all these truths exclusive to humanity.4 Even so, they comprise a valuable tool kit for ethical reflection in view of big-picture realities about what being human means. To unpack this tool kit, Part One of this discussion identifies the 7 C’s and their underpinnings in Genesis, backed by the wider biblical canon. Part Two discusses the philosophy and theology of technology in light of these biblical principles. With these conceptual bases established, Part Three shows how each of the 7 C’s offers bioethical guidance regarding new technologies.

Part One: The 7 C’s of Humanity

The first Genesis truth of humanity is that humans are creatures.5 Scripture’s initial mention of humankind appears in Genesis 1:26, where God declared, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” This statement fundamentally defines humanity’s identity, ontology, and position within the created cosmos.6 Having fashioned Adam and Eve as the first humans, God called all his creation very good (Genesis 1:31) and rested from the completed work of creation (Genesis 2:1–3).7 Humanity’s utter creatureliness underscores that we are not ultimately self-possessed, self-determined self-creators who hold the absolute right to define our own natures, meanings, ethics, truths, and destinies. Rather, we are the completed workmanship of an all-knowing, all-wise, and all-loving Creator to whom we are morally accountable.

Second, the point that this Creator made us in his image reveals that humans are costly beings with inherent value. While theologians debate the exact nature of God’s image (the imago Dei), what does seem clear is that the imago entails significant ethical implications.8 For example, Genesis 9:6 points to humans’ image-bearing status as the basis for why one person must not shed another person’s blood. Later, James 3:9–10 condemns the practice of cursing other humans who are made in God’s likeness. Even after humanity’s fall into sin, the imago Dei makes humans costly in a way that shapes our ethical obligations toward others, providing grounds for principles such as nonmaleficence and respect for persons.

Third, humans are corporeal, meaning that we are embodied as well as ensouled.9 Genesis 2:7 records that God formed Adam from dust and personally animated him with “the breath of life,” known in Hebrew as nephesh (נֶפֶשׁ).10 While animals too have nephesh (Genesis 1:30), multiple New Testament passages affirm that humans have an integrated physical and spiritual nature that continues through eternity.11 The fact that God’s Son Jesus, the last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45), took on human flesh, died a physical death, and rose bodily from the dead reflects the significance of bodily life in God’s plan for humanity.12 Jesus’ redemptive work ensures that all who believe in him can live wholly sanctified lives, their bodies, souls, and spirits preserved blameless (1 Thessalonians 5:23) until Jesus returns and renews all creation. Meanwhile, our redeemed bodies are not our own to use however we wish; rather, we belong entirely to our Creator. Ultimately, as emphasized by a resurgence of theological scholarship on embodiment, both our physical and immaterial aspects matter in ways that bear significant ethical implications for how we should live.13

Part of being embodied creatures is being finite. We are not God. In fact, our very existences depend on God. So the fourth “C” is that humans are contingent, finite beings. The Creator who upholds the cosmos sustains our lives, for “in him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). Only our triune God is—and can be—omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. As Adam and Eve discovered the hard way, if we think that we can make ourselves become “like God,” we deceive ourselves to an infinite degree.

A fifth truth Genesis reveals about human beings is that we are inherently communal, designed for relationships with God and others.14 We clearly see this principle in Genesis 2:18, where God declares a sole aspect of creation not good: “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” Subsequently, God created Eve and defined the institution of marriage (Genesis 2:21–24). Millennia later, Jesus answered a moral question about marriage by affirming God’s design for husbands and wives “from the beginning of creation” (Mark 10:2–9). Thus, Jesus himself directly cited a Genesis truth about humanity to provide guidance for ethical decision-making, in this case about marriage.

Jesus himself directly cited a Genesis truth about humanity to provide guidance for ethical decision-making, in this case about marriage.

While not everyone marries, passages throughout God’s Word affirm that all humans are designed for relationships. For example, Scripture’s two greatest commandments call us to love God and others (Matthew 22:36–40), suggesting that rightly ordered relationships are foundational to human flourishing. Additionally, Scripture summons Christians to consistent fellowship with the wider body of Christ (Hebrews 10:24–25).

Humans’ integral relationality accompanies a sixth truth: humans are called to specific vocations that God designed us to fulfill. The first of these vocations appears in Genesis 1:26, which states God’s intentions for his image bearers to “have dominion” as representatives of his loving authority over creation. Various theologians interpret this “dominion mandate” as calling humans to caringly cultivate and steward God’s creation, reflected in how God placed Adam in Eden “to work and keep it” (Genesis 2:15).15 God’s restatement of this mandate in Genesis 1:28 also calls humans to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth,” blessing the vocation of parenthood in God’s general design for humanity. While not every human is called to parent,16 later Scriptures affirm that all followers of Christ are called to build the family of God by making disciples (Matthew 28:19). Because our collective and individual vocations (e.g., Ephesians 2:10) are central to the purposes for which God created us, these vocations play a fundamental role in human flourishing.

Unfortunately, our vocations grew entwined with toil, pain, and suffering due to humanity’s rebellion against God (Genesis 3:16–19). This point raises the seventh truth: humans are corrupted, with all physical creation, because of sin (cf. Romans 8:20–23). Such corruption has not always been inherent in God’s creation, for God originally designed a world that he rightly called very good.17 In that newborn world, Adam and Eve could freely eat from any tree except for the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, lest they die (Genesis 2:16–17). In other words, God’s “very good” cosmos included the presence of a moral line that humans could cross but should not cross—both for their own good and for the good of all creation. This line granted humans a type of boundary-enabled freedom while simultaneously positioning the continual choice to obey God at the center of human life and flourishing.18

Tragically, Adam and Eve rejected God’s authority, bringing death and suffering into creation.19 But Jesus, the Creator who alone could redeem his creation, came as the last Adam whose obedience would reverse the effects wrought by the first Adam (Romans 12:5–19; 1 Corinthians 15:45). Jesus, not our own efforts or inventiveness, will create a new heaven, new earth, and new Jerusalem restored without suffering, death, or tears (Revelation 21:4). Humans do not build the new Jerusalem through their own technological efforts, the way Babel’s citizens sought to “build a tower to the heavens” (Genesis 11:4).20 Rather, as theologian and software engineer John Dyer points out, the new Jerusalem moves in the opposite direction of Babel by “coming down out of heaven from God” (Revelation 21:2).21

Part Two: The Philosophy and Theology of Technology

Having surveyed a biblical view of humanity, we can transition to considering a biblical view of technology. First, a brief discussion of technology itself is in order. People tend to intuitively view technology as a set of human inventions—especially digital devices.22 The Merriam-Webster dictionary, however, states that technology refers to “the practical application of knowledge” within specialized fields to accomplish specific tasks.23 Dyer, meanwhile, defines technology as the “human activity of using tools to transform God’s creation for practical purposes.”24 Combining popular and scholarly definitions, we can think of technology as “(1) the practice of applying specialized knowledge and tools to achieve human goals in transformative ways, and (2) the human-made objects associated with this practice.”

Armed with an understanding of what technology is, we can consider what technology means. For instance, a central question Christians may ponder regarding emerging technologies is whether they are primarily good or bad. As Dyer explains, two common ways of answering this question are instrumentalism and determinism. Instrumentalism states that technologies themselves are morally neutral, but humans apply them for good or evil purposes. Determinism, on the other hand, says no technology is completely neutral, because humans develop technology with certain values in mind which may not be neutral.25 Also, even positive uses of technology can lead to unintended consequences, affecting our brains, behaviors, habits, relationships, and even languages for better or worse.26

Combining elements of both instrumentalism and determinism is a third perspective, which has been called technological responsiblism.27 This view affirms that humans can choose to use technology for good or evil purposes. Technology itself does not determine our decisions in ways beyond our control. At the same time, technology does reflect certain values. It does predispose us to think, act, and see the world in certain ways.28 And it does engender unintended consequences, affecting our thinking, habits, actions, and interactions for better or worse. For all these reasons, every technology involves both gains and losses, doing some things and undoing others.29 So we are responsible to use wisdom in how we weigh those trade-offs. We must proactively think through questions such as, “What is gained? What is lost? What assumptions and values are involved? How good are those assumptions and values? Are the benefits worth the costs? And how can we maximize the gains and minimize the losses?”

God’s Word helps us answer these questions well, in light of truths about the kind of creatures we are and the kind of world we live in. Scripture, the revelation of our all-knowing, infallible, and inerrant Creator, supplies a flawless lens through which to interpret everything—including technology. When we view technology through this lens, we can perceive that the abilities to make and use technology are gifts that reflect our God-given creativity.30 We rightfully apply these gifts for purposes in line with God’s character and commands, such as loving others, sharing the gospel, and stewarding creation. But we must also use these gifts wisely in our fallen world, where unintended consequences happen, where sin too easily motivates our actions, and where humans naturally use technology for evil purposes. The greater the technology, the more power winds up in sinful human hands. But God’s Word gives us insights to use technology well, discerning wise boundaries, safeguards, and guidelines from principles like the “7 C’s of Humanity.”31

Part Three: Applying the 7 C’s of Humanity to Ethically Approach Technology

With a biblical view of technology in place, we can see how these seven truths offer specific guidance for navigating the ethical landscape of emerging technologies. First, the point that humans are principally creatures instead of self-creators suggests we should not apply technology to try becoming something other than the particular humans God made us to be. This guideline rules out technological applications motivated by transhumanism, a philosophical movement that seeks to technologically transcend humanity to reach new stages of evolution.32 Relatedly, the fact that our Creator is both omniscient and omnibenevolent suggests that—aside from the effects of the fall—God designed us as we are for superlative reasons. When we live in accordance with God’s designs, we flourish, but if we live contrarily to God’s designs, we harm ourselves.33 So we need to use technology in ways that conform to God’s designs.34

With a biblical view of technology in place, we can see how these seven truths offer specific guidance for navigating the ethical landscape of emerging technologies.

Second, the truth that humans are costly reminds us that every human life has indelible worth as God’s image bearer. We therefore must not use technology in ways that harm or devalue others, even for otherwise noble goals such as biomedical research. This guideline rules out all biotechnological pursuits that entail destroying or damaging living human individuals, including human zygotes, embryos, and fetuses.35 While the resultant constraints on practices like in vitro fertilization (IVF), human germline editing, and embryonic stem cell acquisition will be unpopular, deference to the reality of human costliness demands nothing less. Such deference will also preclude the development of programs that propagate widespread dehumanization in the name of “the greater good.”36

Third, the fact that we are corporeal as embodied souls reminds us that God designed humans to personally interact with the world and with others through the individual bodies that he gave us. Meanwhile, the converse truth that we are ensouled bodies means we are not simply biological machines. We must be careful, therefore, not to confuse the lines between humans and machines, even by conflating “machine intelligence” with human intelligence.37

Together, these truths about human corporeality cast doubt on technological aspirations that ignore the body’s role in God’s designs. Some transhumanists, for example, hope that humans might be able to “upload” their minds onto computer chips to “live” indefinitely in virtual reality.38 These ideas fit more easily with evolutionary, materialistic worldviews that do see humans as biological machines who are continuous and interchangeable with other types of machines. But if God created humans as inherently body-soul unities who are more than mere matter and “information patterns,” then the pursuit of “mind uploads” is misguided at best.

To believe that humans can technologically improve themselves to become “like God” is to fall for a deception as ancient as Eden—and as destructive as death.

Fourth, the fact that humans are finite, contingent creatures means we are not God. We are not all-knowing, all-present, or all-powerful, and technology will never make us so. While some researchers suggest that AI, brain-computer interfaces, and “smart devices” could converge to produce a “global brain” with “godlike” qualities,39 our contingency attests otherwise. Even if everyone connected their minds to a “global brain,” we would still possess only finite, fallible knowledge. We would remain subject to the physical laws of a universe that we neither created nor uphold (cf. Job 38:4). And we would still perish when this universe does, if not long before. To believe that humans can technologically improve themselves to become “like God” is to fall for a deception as ancient as Eden—and as destructive as death.

Fifth, the fact that God made us to be communal means we’re wise to ask, “How might our uses of technology be supporting or undermining relationships?”40 How could they impact families, marriages, friendships, churches, communities, and our choices to be personally present with others?41 As incredibly useful as many technologies are, neither machines themselves nor the interpersonal interactions that they mediate can replace face-to-face human fellowship.42

This truth raises timely ethical implications pertaining to AI and robotic technologies such as “care bots” for seniors, AI “nannies” for children, and the increasing use of chatbots for romantic “relationships.”43 Namely, while AI and robots may be helpful for lending certain types of practical support, such as assisting seniors with daily tasks, humans must not outsource their roles of being personally present to others. If we forgo investing relationally in other humans, thinking that AI can “do the job” for us, then our communal nature suggests at least three tragedies will result. First, we will fail to flourish as relational beings. Second, by diminishing our relationality, we will subtly dehumanize ourselves and others. And third, we will undermine our chance to fulfill the greatest, most profitable, and most eternally significant task of our lives: to love (Matthew 22:37–40; John 15:9–12; 1 Corinthians 13:1–3).

Loving others plays an essential role in fulfilling our human vocations, tying into the sixth truth that humans are called to specific tasks. These tasks dovetail with our God-given designs, for God equips each of us with the bodily traits required for fulfilling our specific callings through his empowerment.44 We have seen how some of the broader callings mentioned explicitly in Scripture include stewarding creation, raising families, and making disciples. Other human roles that God’s Word describes include leading churches, caring for those in need, maintaining civil order, and portraying the relationship of Christ and his church through marriage.45

Technology can immensely support our abilities to carry out certain aspects of our vocations, from cultivating creation to sharing the gospel. However, we cannot flourish as the creatures whom God created, called, and commissioned us to be if we entirely outsource our God-given roles to machines. Consequently, another helpful guideline for making ethical decisions about new technologies is to ask, “How might this usage of technology support or undermine my ability to carry out my God-given calling? Am I being tempted to outsource a human responsibility that properly belongs to me?” Parents, for example, may find that novel technologies make possible creative new ways of spending time with their kids. However, families will not flourish if parents technologically forgo or delegate their responsibilities of personally being present to invest in, mentor, and disciple their children.

Still other ethical insights arise from the seventh truth that humans are corrupted due to sin. Foundational to these insights is the fact that a forbidden tree stood at the center of God’s very good creation. This historical detail reveals that, paradoxically, it has always been good for humanity to have the power to choose a course of action that would not ultimately be good for humanity. The ability to say no when appropriate is essential to human flourishing as God intended. This truth bears significant implications for living with the tension of technological powers we could actualize in ways that would cause various intentional or unintentional harms.

For example, biotechnologies including human germ line editing, nanotechnologies, and consumer-grade brain-computer interfaces pack unprecedented potential for modifying, monitoring, and manipulating human beings. Such technologies uncork new possibilities for developing the type of society Aldous Huxley depicted in Brave New World, which epitomizes the scenario C. S. Lewis envisioned of technological advances becoming “some men’s power over others, with nature as the instrument.”46 To complicate matters, these technologies tend to have dual-use capacities, applying to therapeutic as well as nontherapeutic interventions.47 Lured by the therapeutic possibilities, our scientistic48 culture tends to assume that the fact we can effectuate new biotechnological powers suggests we should do so.

A Genesis-informed perspective, in contrast, affirms that from creation’s beginning, human flourishing has always depended on saying no to crossing boundaries that humans have the technical—but not moral—ability to transgress (see Genesis 2:16–17 and 3:1–19). Correspondingly, we must maintain the ability to say no to certain usages of technology when practically wise or morally necessary. Doing so helps ensure that technology remains “in the service of human flourishing” rather than humans serving technology.49

Further insights for guarding against the latter scenario also emerge from the Genesis truth that humans are corrupted. For example, a realistic recognition of humanity’s sinfulness enables us to anticipate that humans will be naturally inclined to apply new technologies for evil purposes. We also know that, in a fallen world, even our best intentions can precipitate unexpected consequences. In view of these realities, we need wisdom to think through potential risks and benefits of specific uses of new technologies, establish appropriate safeguards, and draw biblical boundaries accordingly.

One of those boundaries is that we can rightly use technology in ways that mitigate the effects of the fall but not mirror the cause of the fall.50 During the fall, for instance, Satan apparently sowed a seed of discontentment in Eve’s mind. He suggested that her God-given capacities were not sufficiently “good” but could be improved—even to the point of becoming “like God”—if she crossed the line God had drawn (Genesis 3:1–7). To say that Eve’s plan backfired would be a colossal understatement.

As a result of Adam and Eve’s disobedience, all creation fell captive to corruption (Romans 8:21), with effects including suffering, toil, and death (Genesis 3:16–19). We rightfully use technology to mitigate the fall’s effects by seeking to alleviate suffering, cure illnesses, and prevent diseases that hinder us from thriving as the creatures we are. But we will only harm ourselves if we apply technology in ways that ignore, oppose, or attempt to recreate God’s designs. If we allow idolatry, covetousness, discontentment, pride, wrongful desires to make ourselves become “like God,” or other forms of rebellion to motivate our technological endeavors, we mirror the fall’s causes. Doing so will only compound, rather than resolve, the world’s disorder.

Conclusion: Timeless Truths for a Technological Age

Ultimately, although Scripture does not directly address contemporary technologies, God’s Word does supply timeless truths for navigating the ethical terrain of today’s biotechnological revolution. Genesis holds the key to seven such truths, offering theological anthropological insights to guide bioethical decisions about emerging technologies. According to the Seven C’s of Humanity, humans are:

1. Creatures instead of primarily self-creators.
2. Costly as God’s image bearers.
3. Corporeal, embodied and ensouled.
4. Contingent, finite and dependent on our Creator.
5. Communal, designed for relationships with other humans and God.
6. Called, commissioned to human vocations that God designed us to fulfill.
7. Corrupted due to sin.

Making decisions about technology in line with these 7 C’s of Humanity helps us optimize our flourishing as the creatures whom our Creator’s Word reveals us to be. But using technology in ways that ignore, oppose, or underestimate the significance of these truths will at best undermine our flourishing, if not reap disaster. Ultimately, as AI, human gene editing, and other emerging technologies stand to revolutionize humanity’s future, ordinary Christians have the truth society needs to flourish in a biotechnological age.