In his book, ‘The Beauty of the Lord’, Jonathan King makes a wonderful case that Beauty can be properly identified as a synonym for the glory of God. The implication is that Beauty is a divine attribute. King mentions such passages as Psalm 27:4; 96:6; and 145:5,12 which portray images of the crown, kingdom, and sanctuary of the Lord. These passages directly link to the theological concepts of God’s sovereignty and the kingship of Christ. This connection between the glory of God and Beauty is important because it generates a category for us to objectively evaluate whether something is beautiful or ugly.

Technology shapes the character of our everyday lives. Without it, we would have great difficulty getting to work, having our morning cup of coffee, and reading this article. My problem with technology is not that we have it, but that we have allowed it to shape our lives in a way that we barely recognize. What I mean is that technology is no longer a means of Godly stewardship, but that it now establishes its own worldview. 
The technological worldview urges us to buy, build, trade, and relate with the world in a way that resembles a vending machine. I put x in and out comes y. For example, many people go to work not because they know that it will stimulate the economy by producing valuable goods and services, but rather because it will give them a paycheck. Perhaps another example: the contemporary evangelical scene sees people attending church either because of the spiritual experience or to manipulate God by doing their Christian duty. In an extreme example, one could think of the use of pornography in American culture. Such a phenomenon arises out of a technological impulse that demands ease of access to something that—in a God ordered society—takes time, commitment, and genuine relationship to obtain. 
In a word, the technological worldview is bland. It’s ugly; and it’s ugly for some very specific reasons. My point in this article is to show that the only antidote to the technological worldview is a return to the classical and protestant vision of Beauty. 
Art, Technology, and Idolatry
At the outset, I want to make it clear that when I am discussing technology, I do not necessarily mean technological tools. These are things that can be genuinely useful and fall in line with the biblical notion of stewardship. I readily admit that technological tools have a place in God’s world, but it is the worldview behind the creation of tools that we ought to question. 
As I mentioned above, the technological worldview is ugly and in light of statements about beauty and ugliness it’s appropriate to turn to the topic of art. While art can certainly ascend to true beauty, there is an inherent danger in the human pursuit and use of it. In fact, it is the dangerous temptation that art poses to humanity that has aided in the development of the technological worldview. Technology has emerged out of a desire to reach the highest of human potential. While this aspiration is not entirely bad—think of all the lovely devices that you and I use to our genuine benefit—it has also caused us to become extremely self-centered and goal oriented. 
It is for this reason that I have taken to calling the technological worldview “the idol of the self.” This idolatry arises in the sphere of art as well. In his work of public theology, Abraham Kuyper writes about art and its dominion over humanity. While he does not directly correlate his work on art with technology, a retrospective eye sees the point clearly. He argues that, 
The human race cannot exist without a king. Once it has closed its eyes to the glory of Jesus’ kingship, the presence of sin could mean only one thing: humanity would proclaim itself king over nature, the world, and all of human life…what sets the tone and acts as the instrument for the new enthroned-humanities dominion is art, and it is through art that modern life attempts to satisfy its thirst for the ideal.1
Here we can see that the sphere of art and the sphere of technology occupy the same space. They both seek to “satisfy the thirst for the ideal.” By observing Kuyper’s further remarks, we notice an even stronger correlation between the two. He writes, “What art and religion have in common is that they depend on inspiration.”2 Here, Kuyper exposits the defining feature of art, religion, and technology. Even though he does not mention technology, its origin and the arts’ have a strong correlation. 
Both technology and its devices are derived from inspiration. This claim is rather obvious in regard to devices as they require an inventive mind to create them, but technology’s inspiration may not be so clear. Technology, unlike its subsequent devices, relies on inspiration not as a process, but as a fountainhead. The technological worldview presupposes inspiration by inventors, scientists, and the like in order to fuel their creation of inspired art: their devices. Thus, technology is not a virtueless endeavor, as it rises from human creativity to taking the place of religion as the inspired worldview. 
Herein lies the root of the problem. The technological worldview is a form of idolatry. Art, technology, and religion always derive their inspiration from the divine, but that “does not mean that art—or technology—itself acknowledges and recognizes this circumstance.” In its purest form, the quest for technological tools is not an unworthy pursuit in the realm of God’s created order. However, as Craig Gay notes in his work on Christian interaction with technology, it is an abandonment of the Christian worldview that drove the technological worldview into its idolized position.3 
When the technological worldview takes root in a society, it takes on the role of divinity. No longer is technological progress achieved in light of God’s inspiration, but technology itself becomes the inspiration for human creativity. In The Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin writes, “whenever scripture asserts the unity of God, it does not contend for a mere name, but also enjoins that nothing which belongs to divinity be applied to any other.”4 In North America, the technological worldview is widely assumed and left unquestioned. The problem with this disposition is that it passively allows technology to take on the role of inspirator, where the bible attributes inspiration to God alone. It is, therefore, idolatrous. 
Read More
Related Posts:

Parents can hardly pass on to the next generation what they lack themselves. How can we expect rising generations to take the Christian worldview seriously when the overwhelming majority of their parents are clueless, shaped far more by cultural trends than Scripture?

The Cultural Research Center of Arizona Christian University has released its American Worldview Inventory 2022. The results are disconcerting, to put it mildly. Two-thirds of parents of pre-teens in America identify as “Christian,” yet only 2 percent meet a minimal criteria of possessing a Biblical worldview.
The study exposed serious deficits in both homes and pulpits around America. As for the home, lead researcher George Barna notes that “A parent’s primary responsibility is to prepare a child for the life God intends for that child. A crucial element in that nurturing is helping the child develop a Biblical worldview—the filter that causes a person to make their choices in harmony with Biblical teachings and principles.” Yet Millennials, who now make up a majority of today’s parents, have become the generation least likely to ascribe to a Biblical worldview, with a meager 4 percent meeting the basic criteria.
Roughly one-in-four parents of preteens believe in objective moral truth, the personal agency of the Holy Spirit, and that life is sacred. Parents can hardly pass on to the next generation what they lack themselves. How can we expect rising generations to take the Christian worldview seriously when the overwhelming majority of their parents are clueless, shaped far more by cultural trends than Scripture?
Read More
Related Posts:

Imagine I have drawn a small circle inside a much larger circle on a sheet of paper. The inner circle is labeled the circle of responsibility, and the outer circle the circle of concern. The circle of responsibility—the smaller, inner circle—represents things God has called you to do that you cannot give to anyone else. These are your daily, God-ordained duties. The only proper response to this inner circle is to carefully and faithfully obey, trusting God for the empowering grace to do so. Many other things in life grab your attention, capture your mind, and weigh heavy on your heart, but they are not your responsibility or your ability to change. These are the things you put in the circle of concern.One of my favorite lessons Paul Tripp taught me during my time at Westminster over two decades ago was his Circles of Responsibility. Yesterday, he featured this teaching in his Wednesday Word. I encourage you to read it below or link over to his original to read it. Regardless of where you read it, this teaching is so very helpful. This teaching ranks as one of my favorite and most helpful of all time.
In a world that seems so out of control, where bad things happen to you and those you love while reward falls on those who deserve the opposite, it’s hard to believe that God is sovereign.
How could the one who declares himself to be perfect, wise, good, and loving in every way also be in absolute control of the universe and let all of this happen on his watch?
Much of our regular anxiety, worry, fear, and discouragement results from thinking that when things are out of our control, they are out of control completely. But the Bible tells us that if we want to properly understand what is happening around us, we need to remember what’s happening above us.
As a being made in the image of God, you are a meaning maker. Because we’ve been given intellectual and conceptual abilities, we have a hunger to know, a desire for life to make sense, and a determination to understand.
These are all excellent qualities, and the Bible encourages growth in these areas: “An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge” (Proverbs 18:15). But we must all be willing to accept that there is a creature/Creator line that we are unable to cross.
Read More