Technology has torn through all that’s worth conserving, and it has often preferred to wear a white coat while doing so. Yet medicine and health cannot escape the human body in all its glory, frailty, and limits, and it is out from that center of moral gravity that we can build. Strictly defining medicine’s rightful authority, embracing the limits of embodiment, and building communities where we suffer together and embrace those who are suffering even to our own hurt gives us the framework we need for technology that serves human nature rather than destroys it.

For a tech-skeptic lover of Wendell Berry, Ivan Illich, and Neil Postman, as a family physician I sure picked the wrong job. Doctors have always used various technologies for treating patients, from the ancient Egyptian prescription to fumigate the womb with incense for eye pain to today’s slightly more informed but still ineffective placebo surgeries. The human body as it has been given to us by God has all sorts of vulnerabilities — to infection, to trauma, to its processes gone awry — and technology gives us power to prevent or treat a wide variety of problems that arise from those vulnerabilities.
To make matters worse, though, nowadays doctors have admitted that they cannot know everything and so they have abandoned their pocket handbooks for databases on smartphones. A good doctor, I tell my students, looks up something new every day and books cannot be printed quickly enough to keep us all up to date. My use of WhatsApp to examine rashes or read ECGs is a bit more primitive than the systems that are evolving in highly developed contexts, but medical practitioners everywhere are finding that technology is invading every imaginable aspect of their work.
This might be tolerable if it was all beneficial, but it’s clearly not. Francis Bacon famously urged us to use science and technology to ameliorate human suffering, but now the Baconian Project has fooled us moderns into thinking that suffering ought to be optional, and we must use technology to eliminate suffering. If technology gives us the power to turn stem cells into useful organs, turn useful organs into simulacra of the opposite sex’s organs, or eliminate un-useful children before they are born, the logic of technology is that those powers ought to be used. If technology doesn’t work, as it often doesn’t, Stanley Hauerwas has suggested that doctors who are unable to ameliorate suffering effectively often feel the need to kill the sufferer.
One can find countless examples of Jon Askonas’ thesis that technological innovation bulldozes tradition throughout medicine; a new drug or device can make years of careful study and practice unnecessary. For the most part, this is a good thing: the vexatiously difficult-to-dose blood thinner warfarin was replaced by much simpler drugs about a decade ago, requiring far less expertise and work from the doctors prescribing it. Yet the existence of any new drug, device, or treatment tends to inspire a search for patients with insurance who will pay for them. Disease mongering, indication creep, overuse of fancy gadgets, and the marketing of insecurity to sell cosmetic surgery have been problems for decades, now reaching a horrifying apotheosis in the current craze of teenagers being memed into thinking that they should be chemically or surgically altered to change their gender expression.
More subtle are phenomena like antibiotics, which are one of modern medicine’s greatest gifts and thus have been terribly abused to the point where now it is an open question whether we will have any working antibiotics in fifty years. The culture that the technology of antibiotics created — desiring a pill or injection to immediately cure an infection — has made antibiotics less effective. Whenever one tries to assert the dangers of technology to human culture and flourishing, antibiotics are one of the first examples that uncritical devotees to the Baconian Project point to: So, you conservatives want to take us back to when we didn’t have penicillin? No, in fact, the revolutionary way in which we have been shaped by technology is already taking us back to the pre-antibiotic era.
Read More
Related Posts:

In all your conflicts, it never failed you. In all your injuries, it preserved your life even when your body failed because the kind of life it protects is similar to the battle in which it is engaged. We do not wrestle against flesh and blood but against principalities and powers, and this armor never promised to keep your flesh and blood from failing. Instead, it guards your spiritual life, and that life is eternal. 

There is blood on your armor. It is bent, marred, and scarred with years of service, and your body is worn, tired, and giving way. Not too long ago, your armor was shiny and new. Still wet from the baptismal, you looked down the long and narrow path ahead of you, took your sword into your hand, and set out in service of your King. The vitality of youth and the excitement of future conquests drove you forward, but it did not take long to realize it was not exactly as you thought it would be, and your motivations faltered.
The strength of your youth began to fade long ago, and the battles did not go as planned. Often, you flinched as you failed to trust the armor when the fiery arrows flew toward you. The enemies you faced did not simply back down at your appearance. On the contrary, your peculiarity provoked them. Too often, you dropped your sword to blend in and avoid the battle. Other times you attempted to use weapons not sanctioned by your King. This misuse only exposed you further. Despite these failures, you felt your belt cinch up to secure your armor, and your sword always found its way back into your hand. You pressed on.
The external enemies were terrible enough, but what you did not expect were the internal ones, of which there were two types. Many attacks you faced did not come from without but from those appearing to wear similar armor as yours. These surprise attacks caught you off guard more than once, and the injuries were significant. It took time for the bones and bruises to mend. It even reopened some older wounds and knocked you off balance as you lost your footing. Your feet seemed unable to move forward, but suddenly they were equipped and prepared for the work, and you put one foot in front of the other.
Read More
Related Posts:

The Presbyterian Church in America at 50 is stronger, more committed to her Westminster heritage, more beautiful, more healthy, more orthodox, and more united than ever before. The PCA at 50 shows every sign of being a living, growing, vibrant Church. The PCA is worth fighting for because the PCA is worth having!

The 50th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America was a mighty demonstration of God’s grace and faithfulness to His Church.
The Presbyterian Church in America at 50 is stronger, more committed to her Westminster heritage, more beautiful, more healthy, more orthodox, and more united than ever before. The PCA at 50 shows every sign of being a living, growing, vibrant Church. The PCA is worth fighting for because the PCA is worth having!
The PCA General Assembly convened in Memphis, Tenn. Tuesday, June 12. This year’s Assembly was exceptional as it combined the regular business of the Church with numerous times of reflection, prayer, and thanksgiving in light of the 50th Anniversary of the PCA’s Founding in 1973. God was exceedingly kind, faithful, and generous to the PCA at this year’s Assembly.

Opening Worship & Election of the Moderator

At last report, 2290 elders (1559 TEs and 691 REs) gathered for the meeting of the General Assembly, which opened with a service of worship. The retiring Moderator, RE John Bise, chose the preacher for the evening, his former pastor TE Randy Thompson of FPC Tuscumbia, Ala. TE Thompson’s preaching matched the excellence of RE Bise’s work as Moderator last year.
Two men were put forward to serve as moderator. TE David Strain of FPC Jackson, Miss. offered TE Fred Greco. In his speech TE Strain emphasized the diligent service TE Greco has given to the church to help presbyters understand our polity as well as TE Greco’s qualifications to serve as Moderator of such a large gathering.
TE Charles McGowan of the McGowan Global Institute nominated TE Randy Pope. In his speech, TE McGowan emphasized TE Pope’s connection to PCA founding fathers TEs Jim Baird and Frank Barker; he concluded by asserting that if they were alive and could vote, they would vote for TE Pope as Moderator.
TE Fred Greco was elected by a wide margin (1077-739) to serve as Moderator. TE Greco serves on the Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) and is pastor of Christ Church in Katy, Tex.

It is customary for the new Moderator to make a speech as he accepts the gavel; in this first speech, TE Greco paid tribute to his wife’s vital and generous support of his ministry, which he credited as enabling him to serve in the way he does.

Selected Overtures Adopted by the Fiftieth Assembly

Overture 7: Accountability for the Atlanta Staff & Permanent Committees
Throughout her history, there has been a tension in the PCA between being a “grassroots” denomination and a centralized denomination. In our early days, the PCA founding fathers would not even permit the central offices of the various agencies of the PCA to be located in the same city in order to further diffuse the influence of those agencies. After receiving the RPCES, the offices of the PCA Committees and Agencies were centralized in Atlanta.
At the 19th General Assembly (1991) in Birmingham, TE O. Palmer Robertson as Chairman of the Administrative Committee CofC, successfully repulsed an attempt by the Permanent Committees and their Atlanta staffs to wrest more control from the Assembly regarding policy and trajectory. At this the 50th Assembly, changes were instituted into the Rules of Assembly Operations (RAO) to codify that the Permanent Committees and the Atlanta staffs are indeed accountable to the Assembly.

Overture 7 proposes the changes underlined above.
While Overture 7 (O7) did not initially garner a great deal of attention, some members of the PCA Atlanta staff reportedly indicated their reservations regarding this amendment at the Administrative Committee CofC meeting. After O7 became controversial, TE Zack Groff wrote a helpful summary of the issues. Overture 7 adds one sentence to the RAO requiring the Permanent Committees and Agency Boards to give account to the Assembly annually as to how they are fulfilling Assembly directives and/or any new policies adopted by the Permanent Committee or Agency Board.
By Tuesday, the Overtures Committee had wrested control of O7 from the various Permanent Committees and presented it to the Assembly for adoption with slight amendment. The overture passed overwhelmingly and went into effect immediately on Tuesday night around 10:00 p.m. What a kindness of our faithful God to transform an overture that was briefly controversial into a point of unity to help us begin the business of the Assembly.
This was one of the most important actions of the 50th General Assembly. As RE Melton Duncan noted on the largest and most influential podcast in the PCA, this overture reflected the “Spirit of 1973” as the Assembly moved to enable more closer review of every one of its agencies and committees. The adoption of this amendment is a step in the right direction of the Assembly reasserting control over its own Permanent Committees and Agencies and their Atlanta staffs.
Overture 13: Atheists in Church Courts
The longest debate at the Assembly concerned whether to admit atheists as witnesses in the church courts. The PCA Constitution currently permits only people who acknowledge belief in God as well as rewards and punishments after death to give testimony in PCA courts. The Constitution does not prohibit unbelievers, non-believers, or spiritualists from giving testimony in the Church courts; it only disqualifies atheists.
The Overtures Committee (OC) recommended against changing the PCA Constitution in this way. The OC reasoned such a change was unnecessary, since material evidence (e.g., police or medical reports) is always admissible. Others argued against adoption because of other unintended consequences. TE James Bruce of Hills & Plains Presbytery gave a superbly clarifying speech summarizing concerns regarding allowing those who deny the existence of God to bear witness in church courts.
A Minority Report on this matter was also presented to the Assembly given by TE Tim LeCroy. TE LeCroy’s report to the Assembly dwelt largely on hypothetical situations and seemed to be characterized by fear and suspicion regarding what the news media might say about the PCA. RE Steve Dowling, chairman of the OC, in his response called out TE LeCroy’s speech for some of its logical fallacies including mere appeals to emotion. RE Dowling also urged us not to fear men or the media, but to fear God in heaven.
RE Howie Donahoe gave a well-reasoned speech in favor of the minority report as he urged the Assembly to adopt the amendment proposed by O13.
The Overture was rejected by the Assembly in the most narrow margin of the week: 871-999 (53% against).
While I was nearly persuaded by RE Donahoe’s well-reasoned speech, I continue to believe the current witness eligibility standards are right and good. Church courts are fundamentally different from civil/criminal court. I believe this amendment was seeking to anticipate matters better left primarily to the magistrates to investigate and adjudicate (e.g., cases of abuse). The Church courts rightly must defer to the magistrate on such matters, since the magistrate is God’s deacon in his own sphere.
Overture 23: Chastity for Church Officers
Since 2018, the PCA Assemblies have met with the cloud of Revoice hanging over them. The 50th General Assembly overwhelmingly passed an amendment to clarify the chastity and sexual purity required of officers (elders and deacons) in the PCA:
…He should conform to the biblical requirement of chastity and sexual purity in his descriptions of himself, his convictions, character, and conduct.
There was little debate on this matter as 69% of the Assembly voted to close debate after hearing only one speech (that of TE Stephen Tipton of Gulf Coast Presbytery).2
There was apparently little need to debate the issue further. Overture 23 passed by a vote of 1673-223 (88.2% in favor).
If this amendment is ratified by the PCA Presbyteries, it should make the PCA entirely inhospitable to the Saint Louis Theology/Side-B/ “gay-but-celibate”/Revoice Movement. This amendment requires not merely celibacy, but chastity from church officers. It seems many of those who had long-opposed attempts to tighten and clarify our standards on sexual purity have now reached the point where they recognize the urgency and propriety of doing so. This is a matter for thanksgiving!
Overture 26: Ordination, Titles, and Clarity
Another proposed amendment that received significant debate involved whether unordained people may be referred to as pastor, elder, or deacon. Our Book of Church Order (BCO) clearly indicates all pastors, elders, and deacons are ordained. There are many congregations within the PCA who do not follow our BCO, but instead withhold ordination from those whom they call “deacons.” Other churches address unordained staff as “pastor.” This creates confusion as well as gives a false impression of who we are as a denomination and deprives the congregation of the blessing of more ordained leadership.
The proposed amendment would add one sentence to our BCO:
Furthermore, unordained people shall not be referred to as, or given the titles connected to, the ecclesial offices of pastor, elder, or deacon.
The Bible uses words like elder (old man), deacon (servant), and pastor (shepherd) in both a technical, titular sense and a generic sense (I have given the generic sense in parentheses). The Apostle Paul references pastors as gifts to the church and gives qualifications for elders and deacons in 1 Tim. 3, and Titus; this is the technical, titular sense of those words as it refers to the ordained officers of the Church.
But he also uses some of those words in a general sense (e.g., Rom. 13:4 in reference to Caesar as God’s servant/deacon).
This amendment would require churches to abide by what our BCO already requires and refrain from using generic words in a way that makes them sound “official.” This amendment is narrowly focused on the offices of pastor/elder and deacon. It does not address churches who have ordained deacons and unordained deaconesses, shepherdesses, or any other titles not connected to ordained office as those are matters of lawful latitude for the congregations of the PCA.
The Assembly approved Overture 26 by 74%. This is a good and narrow change to help us work toward greater unity within the PCA. It also represents a winsome attempt to show our brothers what their vows to the PCA Constitution require, which will hopefully help avoid sending requests for investigation of delinquent Sessions and officers (see BCO 40-5, 31-2).
Read more
2 It was I who moved the previous question in order to limit debate. After the vote was taken some members of the Assembly graciously and humbly enquired why I did so and they conveyed they wanted to have the opportunity to speak in favor of the proposed amendment. I believed the Assembly’s mind was not going to be changed by further debate (after 3-4 years of extensive debate) and so we should proceed to a vote. Nearly 70% of the Assembly agreed. I encourage those who desired, but did not have the opportunity to make speeches in favor of the proposed amendment to publish the speeches they wrote for this debate at the Assembly on their personal blogs or other news outlets. If you do not have a personal blog, I would be happy to publish your speech on my Substack. Please feel free to contact me.
Related Posts: