The Angel of the iPhone: Part 2, Discerning the Spirits

I've titled these posts "The Angel of the iPhone." I'd like to explain that phrase.

If you're familiar with the work of Walter Wink, or have read my posts on The Demons and the Powers (see the sidebar), you know where I'm going. Specifically, the idea here is trying to recapture the close association--the parallelism--the ancients saw between the physical and the spiritual. The notion that every physical power is also understood to be a spiritual power.

Three examples from the bible to illustrate this idea:

First, consider Psalm 82:

God presides in the great assembly;
he gives judgment among the "gods":

"How long will you defend the unjust
and show partiality to the wicked?

Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless;
maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed.

Rescue the weak and needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.

"They know nothing, they understand nothing.
They walk about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.

"I said, 'You are "gods";
you are all sons of the Most High.'

But you will die like mere men;
you will fall like every other ruler."

Rise up, O God, judge the earth,
for all the nations are your inheritance.
Notice here how Yahweh addresses the gods of the nations in a heavenly assembly. More specifically, how God, in addressing the spiritual Powers of the nations, is speaking about physical arrangements, like economic disparity and unjust systems ("How long will you defend the unjust and show partiality to the wicked? Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed."). Note the dualism and parallelism on display:
The god of the nation = the economic and justice systems of the nation
Later, the "gods of the nations" come to be known (extrabiblically) as the "angels of the nations." Eventually these angels of pagan nations become associated with demons. An example of this emerging angelology and demonology in the bible occurs in Daniel 10. Daniel has been praying for three weeks. Finally, on Day 24, an angel arrives to answer his prayer. And the angel explains his delay like this:
Do not be afraid, Daniel. Since the first day that you set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to them. But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia.
The explanation for the delay is that the angel of the nation of Persia prevented the messenger angel from reaching Daniel sooner. Only after the intervention of the angel Michael was the messenger able to get through. Again, what we see in this, as in Psalm 82 (see also Deuteronomy 32.8-9), is an association between an angel and a real-world political power, the Persian Kingdom. Again, note the dualism/parallelism:
Angel = Persian Kingdom
A final example comes from the book of Revelation where John is asked by Jesus to address the angels of seven churches. John address the people in the church by addressing the angel of the church: "To the angel of the church in Ephesus write..." Just like a nation has an angel that represents and personifies the spirituality of its common life, so do churches have an angel that represents and personifies the spirituality of their common lives. My church has an angel. Your church has an angel. And the angels are different. You see this when you read through the letters to the seven churches in Revelation noting that their angels--their collective, inner spirituality--were very, very different.

What I'm doing in this analysis is following the lead of Walter Wink who suggests a swap between spacial metaphors to understand the relationship between spiritual and physical powers. That is, the ancient way of thinking about the physical and the spiritual was through a higher vs. lower metaphor. Heaven is above and the earth below. What is spiritual is higher and what is physical is lower. This is why demons are "fallen" angels. A spacial metaphor--moving from high to low--is used to make a comment on the moral status of the spiritual agent.

The trouble with this higher vs. lower metaphor is that it becomes a bit strained for modern people. We know heaven isn't on a cloud above us. Nor do we think hell is down below us. So Wink suggests that we swap the higher vs. lower metaphor for an inner vs. outer metaphor. What is spiritual in now on the inside and what is physical is on the outside. An "angel" in this view is the inner life of a physical organization, be that organization a human being, a household, a organization, a business, a nation, or an economy. Recall the long list of Powers enumerated by William Stringfellow in the last post. Each of these organizations has an "angel," an associated spirituality that mirrors and animates the physical processes. Thus, when we address the "angel" or "god" of a physical organization, a nation in Psalm 82 or a church in Revelation, we are addressing the inner spiritual reality of that physical system.

To illustrate this, ask yourself about the angel associated with your place of work. What is the spirituality of this organization? What does it value? What does it worship? What is its animating spirit?

Beyond our workplaces we could go on to try to characterize the angel or spirit "of this age." Or the angel of our economy. Or the angel of our culture. And in each case we ask: What is the spirituality associated with this particular organization? What does it worship? What does it value? In asking these questions we engage in the task the bible calls "discerning the spirits." In trying to understand the angels around us, the spiritual powers tempting us into idolatry, we follow the admonition in 1 John 4:
Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God.
The point in going back into this material regarding The Powers is that I'd like to argue that there is an angel associated with iPhones. More precisely, there is an angel associated with what the iPhone represents--our world of mobile and social computing. There is a spirituality associated with the iPhone, what I'm calling its angel. And I'd like to engage in a process of discerning the spirits, to discern the angel of the iPhone the same way Jesus discerns the angels of the seven churches in Revelation.

Think about a movie like The Social Network.



Like it or not, the movie seems to be a secular attempt at "discerning the spirits," an attempt to discern the angel of the new world of social computing. What is the spirituality that animates Facebook and Web 2.0?

Truth be told, I don't know if I'm going to be able to say anything in this mode of "discerning the spirits" that is going to be very original or insightful. Lot's of people are talking about these issues. So I might, in the end, just end up loading down this conversation with a lot of obfuscating and distracting talk about "angels."

But while this language might not work for many people, it does help me. I like the language of angels (as I define it here) because it helps me name a force in my life, a spirituality that is hard to pin down in time or space. The word "culture" gestures toward these forces when we speak of the culture of a workplace, nation or church. But the word "culture" doesn't capture aspects of these forces that I think are important. For example, how these forces can enslave us, tempt us, or become locations of idolatry. The iPhone isn't just a gadget, a physical object. As discussed in the last post, the iPhone affects us. It is a power. And the label "angel" helps me move past the gee-whiz gadgetry to name and pick out the power--the moral, behavioral, psychological, social, and economic force--behind the object. The label "angel" focuses me on the level of analysis where I think Christian reflection and discernment should be focused. Not just for the iPhone, but for every aspect of life. "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God."

This entry was posted by Richard Beck. Bookmark the permalink.

36 thoughts on “The Angel of the iPhone: Part 2, Discerning the Spirits”

  1. Richard,
    My wife and I once visited a church life group in which there were several people that had smartphones with them. Although the group was meeting to discuss subjects relating to God, Jesus, and what they meant in our lives, I noticed the the conversation invariably kept coming back to these devices as if there actually were a 'spirit' drawing the conversation away from discussing the place that God had in our life to the place that these devices had in our life.
    We (my wife and I) concluded from our observations of the effects that smartphones have on others that we would probably not bring them into our home.
    I have believed for some time that they are 'angels' of a distracting nature. Love the post.
    Mike

  2. I'm curious: what sorts of things have angels, and what sorts of things don't? Or does everything?

    For example, I think you mentioned an angel of capitalism, and an angel of church X, and an angel of corporation X, and I think people follow that pretty well. But what about microwave ovens? Does it make sense to talk about the Angel of the Microwave Oven? Or the Angel of Earthworms? Or the Angel of the Hurdy-Gurdy?

  3. Moving into very speculative territory, I'd say that emergence, self-regulating complexity, information-processing, and consciousness are all in play. All the stuff from my Omega Point series, which talks about the issues related to panpsychism.

  4. 'An "angel" in this view is the inner life of a physical organization, be that organization a human being ...'

    I realize this question is off-topic, but how might you overlap this discussion with the discussion of Cartesian dualism?

    Particularly interesting (for the fun of discussion) would be to momentarily assume Cartesian dualism as no longer being true. "Angels" would then be granted dominion over all "low/inner/physical" organic creations (us) as well as inorganic creations (iPhones) - kind of scary to extrapolate the possibilities.

    Gary Y.

  5. Not off topic. It's an interesting issue to kick around.

    The view I think this post best fits with is less Cartesian dualism than double-aspect theory (also called dual-aspect theory).

  6. While it may not make sense to speak of an "angel of the hurdy gurdy," nevertheless, it makes perfect sense to speak of the "hurdy gurdy of the angel," in the same way we might speak of an angel's harp or psaltery or lyre. Some angels play hurdy gurdys, they do, to the glory of God no less, and he loves them (because of that fact, or perhaps in spite of it).

    (Maybe I need to point out that I really like hurdy gurdies and, before I got my harps, almost bought a kit to make one.)

  7. I KINDA like this song and it has an appropriate connotation to what we speak of in the use of anything this world offers up in the form of social networking....
    and i think ... you use this to "RING THE MESSAGE OUT"

    BLESSINGS RICH

  8. "Notice here how Yahweh addresses the gods of the nations in a heavenly assembly."

    As a poet yourself (and a good one, by the way), surely you can see the poetry in Psalms 82? Heavenly assembly???? I am confident you have read John 10:34 where Jesus makes it clear (of course, nothing is clear!) that the gods of Psalms 82 are just men with leadership roles? Men who have been given authority by God to rule over men/women on earth and are thus 'gods' in that sense only.

  9. I disagree, and I think many scholars do as well. Psalm 82 (and many other OT passages) is an example of Israelite henotheism.

  10. Ahha, henotheism. You and the many scholars are probably right. Forgive me for being silly but I thought this was God talking to us and not primitive Israelites showing us their faulty understanding of deity.

  11. A common misunderstanding, David, of how the Bible works. Nothing to worry about, but a wonderful chance to enlarge one's views! And I'll bet Richard would forgive even before you ask.

  12. Once again, I am in your debt for your enlarging my views. First, because I was completely unaware that angels play hurdy gurdies. So, thanks for straightening me out on that common misunderstanding. Now, you have set me right again in clearing up that the Bible is just the thoughts of some misinformed ancients. Did the Bible writers get this Jesus thing all wrong also? Where, indeed, did you come by all this wisdom?

  13. I reckon it was the same place I did!

    (By the by, he didn't say that the Bible is "just" anything, he only implied that it's not a magic godphone.)

  14. I read your series, and I was already pretty sold on Hofstadter's explanation of how consciousness works. But I'm still skeptical about whether it's interesting to talk about an "angel of the iPhone", except insofar as it's kind of catchy and and applies particularly to your campus.

    Once you've made the catch, I think you might want to look again at what you're really interested in. The iPhone is a single smartphone, or maybe four, and the smartphone is a single pattern of software and hardware. It might lead you more interesting places if you broadened a bit to the "web/internet/cyborg" angel you mentioned.

    Or it might make things too abstract and totally kill your momentum. Shrug.

  15. My bad. I thought this was an 'adult conversation.' Implying anything about a 'magic godphone' would not seem to be adult.

    Please share. Where did you both come by all this wisdom? No, no, let me guess.... You figured it out on your own. Great.

  16. > Forgive me for being silly but I thought this was God talking to us

    When you say that, it sounds like "magic godphone" to me.

    Richard already has a post about this at (http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2007/11/on-reading-bible-dispatches-from.html) -- well, he has a bunch of posts that say essentially the same thing about interpretation -- the salient part being:

    > Meeks made the point that when I use the phrase "The Bible says..." I'm actually engaging in a bit of fakery (his word). The Bible doesn't speak. We speak. We interpret.

  17. Hi Matthew,

    I completely agree with you that the Bible says nothing. It is symbols on a page. Of course, I also agree that when we say anything about what it 'says' we are filtering and interpreting etc.

    What I was trying to say, and which was not intended to to imply anything about magic or godphones, is that (IMHO) the Bible is God's way to communicate to us some stuff that we couldn't get any other way. It is not the way for ancient people to share their mis-interpretations with us. So, when we, for example, see the word 'god' in the text, we ought to exercise care about seeing too much there. Especially, when Jesus specifically explains it elsewhere, using His (faulty human????) interpretation, of course.

  18. > the Bible is God's way to communicate to us some stuff that we couldn't get any other way. It is not the way for ancient people to share their mis-interpretations with us.

    If you think about it for a while, you might realize that the implications of this position -- asserting that we can take people out of the process of creating and interpreting the Bible -- are exactly the same as the implications of saying the Bible is a "magic godphone". Your language is just more pious.

    > Especially, when Jesus specifically explains it elsewhere, using His (faulty human????) interpretation, of course.

    It does seem like it would be hard to be "fully human" without spinning off a few "faulty human interpretations". If it helps, though, remember that what you're reading isn't necessarily what Jesus said, it's what one (or seventeen) of Jesus' faulty human biographers says Jesus said. Then compiled. Then translated.

  19. >asserting that we can take people out of the process of creating and interpreting the Bible

    I never asserted any such thing. You quoted me accurately and then proceeded to insert your personal interpretations into my thoughts. Of course God used people to 'create' the Bible. He did not say abrakadabra and poof there was this set of scrolls on the table. People wrote them.

    It is also true (at least I think it is true???) that Charles Dickens wrote Oliver Twist. The process of creation looks to us to be quite similar, no? But, if you stop there and leave God out of it (of course, maybe there isn't even a god to be left out!), then I'd recommend spending more time reading Oliver Twist than the Bible.

    Most here seem to believe in God's love which then leads them to universalism. If all we are reading is what some faulty human biographers have compiled and then translated, why is it not reasonable to assume that all the love stuff is just so much nonsense. Which parts of this book (the Bible) are really worth our time???? Oh, I know..... all those parts that I agree with! The parts that make me feel good. Like the 'we should love' part. Sorry, that is the reader playing god and it is wrong.

    One last parting shot ;-) . How many people do you know who are not only 'fully human' but also 'fully God?' Maybe that would help explain why He probably got it right when he explained Psalms 82 and took the legs out from under this blog post.

  20. > People wrote them.

    Well, most of them were passed along orally first. And then written. And compiled. And translated. And then God took out all the mistakes? Or maybe God made sure that there weren't any in there in the first place?

    I mean, sure, that's something a powerful God should be capable of. I'm just wondering why we should think that God did it that way, rather than allowing people to make mistakes, the way God seems to do with everything else.

    > If all we are reading is what some faulty human biographers have compiled and then translated, why is it not reasonable to assume that all the love stuff is just so much nonsense.

    That would be a sad and cynical thing to assume.

    > 'fully human' but also 'fully God?' Maybe that would help explain why He probably got it right when he explained Psalms 82

    Yeah, that is a nifty doctrine, isn't it? When there's a point of logical contradiction (like, humans sin but God doesn't sin), you can just punt, taking the part of the "fully" that supports your argument and ignoring the other.

    I mean, that's what I did. But I'm sure it's not what you did. ;)

  21. I took the liberty of moving this exchange to the left so we could read it.

  22. Matthew

    >I'm just wondering why we should think that God did it that way,

    Is the 'how' He did it really the important issue? How about the 'if' He did it?

    >That would be a sad and cynical thing to assume.

    Didn't you say 'what you're reading isn't necessarily what Jesus said' Was that sad or cynical? (For what it's worth, I didn't think it was.) Jesus talked about love or 'maybe He didn't.' Couldn't this love stuff just be the part we have latched onto since it 'makes us feel good?' Make sure not to talk about the blood and gore and hell stuff. That doesn't make us feel good.

    >logical contradiction (like, humans sin but God doesn't sin)

    Sin is going against what God has said. Do you know of any evidence that God has done what He has told himself not to do?

  23. Evidence for it's existence, sure; people believe all sorts of nonsense. But, the Bible does not teach henotheism to be true. Who cares what a lot of ancient lost people without iPhones believed???

  24. > How about the 'if' He did it?

    Well, I thought my "how" question was equivalent to "if".

    In other words, why should we think God cleaned up the Bible to take out any wrong bits, when in every other circumstance God appears content to let people do their best?

    > 'what you're reading isn't necessarily what Jesus said' Was that sad or cynical? (For what it's worth, I didn't think it was.)

    Thanks, I don't think it was cynical either. Yes, the love stuff could just be the part that we latch on to, and for good reason. I'd like to think that people would be reluctant to worship a violent, unjust God.

    > Sin is going against what God has said.

    Right, what I meant to imply was that in light of the fully-man-fully-God doctrine, statements that Jesus is "Just like us, but without X" are wrong. "Fully" means there are no "buts". A person could keep Biblical foundationalism by letting go of the fully-fully doctrine, I guess.

  25. Sorry, if I was too picky with the 'how' vs. 'if' distinction. What I was trying to get at was that how we got what we now have is not so important (at least to me) as the question of whether He was even involved in it's production. It, the Bible, seems to say (I know it doesn't say anything!) that He directly 'inspired' the writers or 'breathed' it into existence. So, did He control it's production or did fallible men who actually put words on paper (figuratively speaking, of course) control what we now have? If the latter, then I would indeed be wary of putting to much 'faith' into its words or any interpretations of its words. Back to Oliver Twist instead.

    >I'd like to think that people would be reluctant to worship a violent, unjust God.

    People worship all sorts of things: their lawns, their cars, their jobs, ... and the god of their own design. If God is, then we really don't have a choice to worship or not worship Him regardless of whether or not He meets our requirements. Not withstanding the fact that most people do in fact choose to not worship Him. It is just a really consequential mistake.

    > statements that Jesus is "Just like us, but without X" are wrong.

    Agreed; but, it makes for nice little sermons and bumper stickers.

    > God appears content to let people do their best?

    If I had been left to do my best, then I would be an atheist today, laughing at the foolishness of people discussing God on this blog. No, that is not the way I see Him operating.

  26. > statements that Jesus is "Just like us, but without X" are wrong.
    >>Agreed; but, it makes for nice little sermons and bumper stickers.

    Except for Hebrews 4:15. (cough)

    > What I was trying to get at was that how we got what we now have is not so important (at least to me) as the question of whether He was even involved in it's production.

    I agree, that also seems like an important question. But I think what our disagreement comes down to is that you have a basic belief in the Bible: specifically, that the Bible is not only true, but that its major truths are simple, already known to you, and pretty well understood.

    And when you start with that belief, I can definitely see how the things that you are saying are reasonable, and maybe even plainly correct.

  27. > Except for Hebrews 4:15. (cough)

    Well, I can just see you smiling as you wrote that. Gotcha!!! No problem, this should be fun.

    It is one thing to mis-interpret a passage. It is entirely another thing to get the grammar wrong; for this almost guarantees the interpretation will be in error. Hebrews 4:15 does not have 'Jesus being just like us.' What it does have is Jesus undergoing temptations 'just like us.' BIG difference?

    > that the Bible is not only true, but that its major truths are simple, already known to you, and pretty well understood.

    I really do hope I don't come across as that arrogant. But, if I do, . . .

    Being a theological genius is not required to get it right. Nevertheless, if one can understand and trust a fairly simple verse like John 3:15 (so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life), I can guarantee that everything else of any importance just falls into place. On the other hand, struggle with that verse and one might just as well go through life wearing a blindfold.

    How do you deal with John 3:15?

  28. > Hebrews 4:15 does not have 'Jesus being just like us.'

    Agreed, but the fully-fully doctrine has Jesus being "just like us". The Hebrews passage just brings out the problem. If moral failure is part of what it means to be human, then how can someone be fully human without moral failure? I'm not actually interested in resolving this issue, because I don't have anything riding on either the fully-fully doctrine or the infallibility of the text.

    > if one can understand and trust a fairly simple verse like John 3:15 ... I can guarantee that everything else of any importance just falls into place.

    This is what I meant by "already known to you and pretty well understood". I am not critiquing, just observing.

    John 3:15 doesn't cause me any trouble. Don't miss John 3:16, though, if you're really interested in considering the texts about universal salvation. I mean, based on what you said above, you're not, because everything of importance to you has fallen into place ... but if you were interested, you might want to consider 3:16, noting that the statement in 3:15 about salvation -- "if believes then eternal life" -- does not logically imply anyone's condemnation, as in "if not believes, then not eternal life".

  29. > 3:15 about salvation -- "if believes then eternal life" -- does not logically imply anyone's condemnation, as in "if not believes, then not eternal life".

    Why would one make an 'if ... then' statement without having an 'if not ... then' statement also in view? Can it be that 'if X' and also 'if not X' both lead to the same 'then Y?' If the answer to this is 'yes' then 3:16 will appear to support to universalism.

    > I'm not actually interested in resolving this issue

    What would you like to resolve? (Of course, I can't resolve anything; I can only babble.)

  30. > Why would one make an 'if ... then' statement without having an 'if not ... then' statement also in view?

    If I wanted to speak to one set of cases, and ignore everything else.

    So suppose I were giving my son instructions on how to sort the laundry, and I knew that I was the only one who had white socks in the basket. If I wanted to speed him along, I might tell him, "If a sock is white, it's mine," allowing him to simply grab all the white socks and put them in my pile. But I would be disappointed if I gave him that optimization, and he were to assume that "If a sock is not white, it's not dad's." My many green socks would end up in the wrong pile, or all over the floor.

    > What would you like to resolve?

    Nothing, anymore. I think I was just curious to understand how you viewed the Bible and your own relationship to it.

  31. If God is, then we really don't have a choice to worship or not worship Him regardless of whether or not He meets our requirements.

    Sure we do. If God is, and is a tyrannical monster bent on capriciously torturing the majority of the human race, than I feel it is my duty as a moral human being to oppose this God. I have the choice to worship, but if that's what God is like, I'm opting out.

  32. Did you read the next sentence in that comment? Of course, one can choose not to worship Him. Bad mistake though because they are basing that decision on error. If He is a tyrannical monster explain why you love your mother etc.

  33. I don't think it's based on error to refuse to worship a demon—even if it's a very powerful demon. Even if there's hell to pay, it strikes me as the only moral choice.

    If He is a tyrannical monster...

    Well I don't think God is a tyrannical monster, which is lucky for me, I suppose.

    explain why you love your mother etc.

    Because she didn't waterboard me when I sinned against her, for one. :)

Leave a Reply