Framing the human-technology relationship: How Religious Digital Creatives engage posthuman narratives

Abstract

This article highlights the fact that careful study of common posthuman outlooks, as described by Roden (2015), reveals three unique narratives concerning how posthumanists view the nature of humanity and emerging technologies. It is argued that these narratives point to unique frames that present distinct understandings of the human-technology relationship, frames described as the technology-cultured, enhanced-human, and human-technology hybrid frames. It is further posited these frames correlate and help map a range of ways people discuss and critique the impact of digital culture on humanity within broader society. This article shows how these frames are similarly at work in the language used by Religious Digital Creatives within Western Christianity to justify their engagement with digital technology for religious purposes. Thus, this article suggests careful analysis of ideological discussions within posthumanism can help us to unpack the common assumptions held and articulated about the human-technology relationship by members within religious communities.

Posthumanism can be described as an ideology that foresees the overturning of a human-centered world, in order to make room for new technologically-enhanced forms of humanity. Many diverse voices have gathered around the discussion and promotion of the notion of an emerging post-humanity, from the Institute of Ethics and Emerging Technologies and Humanity+ to the World Transhumanist Association. Each of these, as well other groups, differ in their agendas and motivations, yet together they contribute to a posthuman discourse that holds some common views about the nature of humanity and technology. Much posthuman discourse shares the belief that bio-technological developments and enhancements will lead to radical advancements in human capacities. Thus, technology is seen as aiding human progress towards new forms of being. Posthumanism presents a unique worldview that sees humanity as evolving toward a new state of existence, where the human form is simply one stage in an evolutionary process driven by technological advancements (Campbell, 2009). As Pepperell (1995) argued two decades ago, emerging biological and digital technologies are allowing us to become radically enhanced beings able to transcend the confines of our current physical, emotional, and cognitive limits. I suggest current posthuman discourse employs one of three common narratives presenting humanity’s connection to, and engagement with, technology in a range of distinct ways. Roden (2015) describes these narratives as critical posthumanism, transhumanism, and speculative posthumanism. While each of these narratives serve to ‘frame’ the human-technology relationship in unique light, all of them promote the inevitability of the posthuman condition.

This article argues these distinct frames not only highlight a range of common posthuman outlooks offering different interpretations of humanity’s relation to technology, they have become frames employed within broader cultural discourses about the nature of the human-technology relationship within digital culture. In other words, rhetorical strategies used by posthuman advocates to describe present-future human relations to technology often mirror discourse employed in other sectors of contemporary society to rationalize and promote their engagement with technology in everyday life. Here I suggest these frames are even evident in the discourse of religious groups seeking to justify their engagement with digital technology.

In order to consider the ways aspects of these posthuman narratives are also seen within religious discourse about the human-technology relationship, I explore three common frames derived from Roden’s reading of posthumanism, described as the technology-cultured, enhanced-human, and human-technology hybrid frames. Specifically, this article unpacks how these frames are enacted within the discourse of many Religious Digital Creatives (RDCs) within the Western Christian tradition. RDCs are defined in this study as digital innovators, designers, and content producers whose new media work grants them unique status and influence within their religious communities. This study focuses on how certain digital workers connected to Christian institutions and groups explicitly and implicitly justify their digital work in relation to the religious communities with which they seek to affiliate, in ways that pick up core aspects of posthuman argumentation. We see justification strategies used by RDCs to explain their motivation for and understanding of digital work often closely mirror the frames employed within posthumanist discourse regarding the human-technology relationship. For this reason, RDC discourse provides a unique forum for exploring how popular posthuman narratives have spread beyond this ideological community by subtly filtering into religious discourse about technology. This exploration also further suggests the importance of paying attention to posthuman narratives as a way to map dominant rhetorical strategies and characterizations of the human-technology relationship within contemporary Western culture.

Identifying posthuman narratives about the human-technology relationship

In order to demonstrate the connection between posthuman discussions about the nature of the human-technology relationship and the language used by Religious Digital Creatives to explain their digital work within their religious communities, we must first identify these common narratives. I will then show how these narratives correlate with three frames used to justify various outlooks about the role and nature of technology within digital culture.

The technology-cultured frame: Online, digital culture shaping humanity

One common narrative found within posthuman discourse focuses on the view that technological culture and its associated developments are pushing us towards a future where the human form will eventually give way to a new technologically-mediated existence. In The Posthuman Manifesto (2003) Pepperell asserted that our current technological advancements mean we no longer live in a human-centered world, as ‘all technological progress of human society is geared towards the transformation of the human species’ (Postulate 1.2). He further suggests we should regard our ‘own being as embodied in an extended technological world’ (Postulate 8.8). This narrative draws attention not only to perceived human need to embrace technology, but posits technological experimentation as the basis for understanding our evolving human world. It suggests human-technological assimilations are a given, and we are moving towards a new technological state of being that will displace the centrality of the human in culture. The human form is thus seen as a less desirable state, and because it is, posthuman advocates present themselves as ‘individuals who suppress biological determinism’ by going beyond traditional boundaries of gender, sexuality, and species (Moore, 1999: 127). Roden (2015) describes this narrative as ‘critical posthumanism’, which seeks to deconstruct the human subject and privileges emerging technological forms. Such narratives of an inevitable technologically-driven future prioritize the role technology plays in cultural development over humans shaping society. It asserts technology has the primary power to transform human existence.

This is identified as the ‘technology-cultured’ frame, which presents technology as the superior partner in the human-technology relationship. Posthumanity is best explained through an embrace of emerging technologies, whose values will shape our future. This calls attention to technological culture as the basis for understanding, and then interpreting, the transformation of humanity in this posthuman future. By prioritizing the role and influence of emerging technologies in society, the technology-cultured frame suggests understanding humanity within Internet culture is best done by embracing network technologies and the unique digital space and social structures they create. This frame highlights the way networked technologies have restructured our social realities and everyday lives. Describing digital technologies in terms of creating a culture that allows humans to transcend time-space boundaries and more efficiently do our work becomes the basis for understanding the role technologies can and should play in our daily lives.

This frame, I argue, can be seen in the narratives of many digital professionals, who seek to serve religious organizations with their digital skills. They emphasize the need of their constituents to understand the role online technology can and should play in their community and the influence digital culture is having on religious culture. While religious digital professionals would not support the posthuman push towards valuing technological forms over human ones, or the de-centering of human agency, they do echo the convictions that the world is being cultured by technology, and we must embrace these changes and learn how to adapt to the new cultural space they create.

The enhanced-human frame: Humanity and the offline adapting to online technology

Another narrative often presented within posthuman discourse asserts understanding the evolution of humanity augmented by technology must begin by evaluating our current human state and reconceiving it in new ways. Roden (2015) and others describe these arguments as the ‘transhumanist’ narratives, which focus on how technological enhancements can aid and advance human capabilities. This narrative draws on definitions that present the posthuman as ‘someone or an entity whose basic capacities so radically exceed those of un-augmented humans as to be best thought of as constituting a new kind of being’ (World Transhumanist Association FAQ, 2001). Seen from this perspective, posthumanity is conceptualized in relation to a unique description of humanity’s current form, the transhuman, which is seen as an ‘intermediary transition between the human and a possible future human’ (World Transhumanist Association: http://humanityplus.org/philosophy/transhumanist-faq/#answer_22).

Transhuman discourse focuses attention on the evolution of humanity, asserting the engagement and adoption of various bio-, digital, and nanotechnologies has ushered us into a new state, that of the ‘transitional-human’. This suggests we are moving from the centrality of the traditional human form towards making room for a more highly evolved species enhanced through technological innovations. While transhumanism is a movement without a fixed set of affirmations, groups such as Humanity+ and its precursor the World Transhumanist Association have endorsed the Transhumanist Declaration (1998), a charter emphasizing the redesign of the human condition through embracing enhancement technologies through responsible rational planning, in order to influence the ‘well-being of all sentience’. In summary, transhumanists believe in the moral right to extend life, in enhanced mental and physical capabilities, and in embracing new technologies aiding these progressions while exercising ongoing reflection about the future.

What is important in the transhumanist narrative is that while they call attention to the challenges and limitations of an embodied, non-enhanced existence, they clearly situate posthuman discourse around reframing traditional understandings of the human. In extolling the ways technology can extend life spans, intellectual capacity, and bodily functions, they carefully describe and critique the human condition. This narrative is based on a desire to extend traditional human abilities and eliminate what are seen as unnecessary boundaries. In this case, the human-technology relationship is one where technology serves as a human helpmate, enabling humanity to become more fully developed.

This discourse employs the ‘enhanced-human’ frame, focusing on the affordance offered by new technologies to extend human abilities. While the enhanced-human frame emphasizes embracing new technologies, its rationale is firmly situated on doing so for the betterment of humanity. Technological opportunities and advantages are discussed in light of embodied culture. Humans are called to embrace technology, because its unique affordances free them from the limits of the human condition. This frame insists we acknowledge the fact that the human state is already being enhanced by technology and asks, why not simply embrace the potential opportunities offered by technology?

This frame emphasizes viewing humanity in light of technology, understanding the limits of human form and the ways technology can aid it. I suggest this frame is often used within religious discourse about technology that promotes digital technologies as a means to enhance the work of religious ministries. This language is often employed by religious digital spokespersons working for a specific religious institution, as they seek to frame their digital work as serving their religious community and offering its members unique opportunities for outreach and communication.

The human-technology hybrid frame: Merging humanity and technology in the online-offline context

Roden (2015) also describes a third posthuman narrative, which he calls ‘speculative posthumanism’. While speculative posthumanism opposes human-centered thinking about technology, it also understands any form of ‘technological singularity’ achieved must be considered as a descendant of current humans. Yet this narrative also suggests conceptions of the posthuman must acknowledge the fact that technology will enhance human attributes in unforeseen directions, and so recognizes some markers of what it means to be a rational human may be lost in our technological evolution.

This narrative says posthumans will ‘emerge via modified biological descent’ and yet be seen as ‘recursive extensions of AI technologies’ (Roden, 2015: 22). This suggests a third frame presenting posthumanity clearly as a hybrid form, carrying characteristics of human predecessors, while existing as radically new technological successors. Roden’s speculative posthumanist narrative posits future posthuman forms will be a unique state, blurring previous humanity with new technological forms.

This is described as the ‘human-technology hybrid’ frame, presenting an interesting, though not necessarily equal, integration or relationship between the two. It places emphasis on considering how various characteristics of humanity and technology interrelate and inform one another, creating not just a new relationship, but potentially a new cultural existence. This frame closely relates to current discussions within Digital Religion studies, highlighting the need to carefully consider the interplay between digital (or online) and traditional (or offline) culture, and the ways it creates a new, blurred social reality (Campbell, 2013). The space between the online and offline is often described as ‘third space’, where physical spaces intersect with liminal social spaces to create a new conceptual space that emerges at the intersection of two established terrains (Oldenburg 1989). Hoover and Echchaibi (2014) have described how importing and translating religion online creates a unique technological culture or ‘digital third space’, where individual religious practices are remediated by digital technologies, so new articulations and relationships emerge. This article shows how the ‘human-technology hybrid’ frame is enacted by certain religious digital strategists as they describe their attempts to build a bridge between online culture and offline religious institutions.

Posthumanism framing religious technological engagement in digital culture

I would argue that three common narratives exist within popular posthuman discourse, highlighting different ways of conceiving how the human condition intersects with technological innovation. These narratives present distinctive frames spotlighting prevalent conceptions of the human-technology relationship. I suggest these frames are often employed by religious individuals as they explain and justify their digital media use for ministry purposes.

The critical posthumanist narrative privileges the role technology plays in transforming human subjects into the posthuman. This presents the human-technology relationship within a technology-cultured frame that suggests one must recognize the pervasiveness of technology, in order to understand how it is shaping, and can shape, human culture. In other words, describing the powerful opportunities offered by online technologies and the digital culture it creates become important strategies for advocating the embrace of technology, especially amongst religious digital professionals seeking to use their skills on behalf of specific religious groups. The transhumanist narrative focuses on how human capabilities can be advanced and augmented through technologies. This presents an enhanced-human frame, emphasizing how certain affordances of technology enable humans to adapt to the coming posthuman reality. This frame is used by religious digital professionals seeking to carefully justify their online work within their offline religious organizations.

Finally, the speculative posthumanist narrative considers the extent to which new, enhanced posthuman beings are linked to, or informed by, their human predecessors. This reflects a human-technology hybrid frame spotlighting the fact that the human-technology relationship is becoming integrated and blurred in a way that requires new language and conceptions to explain it. This frame suggests human, offline, and digital/online contexts are being embedded within one another, creating a unique cultural context. This requires discourse exploring technology use, such as that of religious digital strategists, to interpret and carefully explain to constituents the blurred relationship between online-offline contexts.

Studying the use of human-technology frames through Religious Digital Creatives

In order to explore how these posthuman narratives can be seen at work within religious discourse, I will consider how they are employed within the technology talk of Religious Digital Creatives. Religious Digital Creatives (RDCs), I argue, are an important emerging class within digital culture, influencing many religious communities, both online and offline. Digital Creatives are individuals with specialized skills in computer coding—web or software designers, digital content creators, and/or social media innovators—who leverage their expertise for a specialist cause, often motivated by a personal passion or agenda. This article asserts the work and prominence of especially Religious Digital Creatives within digital culture often requires them to evoke a technological apologetic to justify and explain their role and digital work within their religious communities. Before unpacking this assertion, it is important to more carefully contextualize who RDCs are, so that we understand why they might need to employ the human-technology frames described above.

Many scholars have argued the Internet creates an environment allowing new religious actors and leaders to emerge, potentially undermining religious traditions and communities. While this has been discussed in many studies of digital religion (for example, Barker, 2005) little systematic analysis has been conducted to concretely identify these new religious authorities and their defining characteristics. In 1999, Anderson wrote a thought-provoking essay highlighting challenges the Internet may pose to established Islamic authorities and what he identified as new classes of religious interpreters, utilizing the Internet for religiously motivated agendas. He asserted that online individuals who speak out on behalf of Islam and function as curators of religious identity notably differ from traditional Muslim authorities (1999: 41). Anderson identifies three classes of new religious authorities online: ‘creole pioneers’, ‘reformer critics’, and ‘spokesperson-activists’.

Creole pioneers are individuals with professional-technical qualifications and ready access to the Internet, who ‘bring religious interest online as after-hours interests’ (1999: 50). By creolization, Anderson suggests the Internet allows individuals to create new identities by mixing traditional and modern, especially Internet, cultures. Creole pioneers mix their technological skills with their spiritual interests; by default they can become unintentional authorities simply by being early Internet adopters and thus, first to represent their religious communities online.

The ‘spokesperson-activist’ seeks to represent an established religious institution online (Anderson, 1999: 44). They are often appointed by particular religious organizations to serve as an official presence or digital media officer. Because of this connection with the broader community and the responsibility that comes with it, they often hold strictly to the policy of the group they represent and draw on established interpretive patterns, recognizing the fact that they speak for a larger group online, and not themselves.

Finally, Anderson suggests ‘reformer critics’ appear online as individuals who seek to interpret and speak for their religious tradition on the Internet. These reformer critics are often motivated by specific religious convictions or an agenda. Through their online work they hope to gain access to a wider audience for their religious message or recruit others to their viewpoint online. Though typically self-appointed, they seek to connect with their offline religious community through their online presence, and draw on a mixture of online and offline sources to build their position and credibility.

This study draws on Anderson’s categories as a way to identify and describe the work of various Religious Digital Creatives studied. While these categories are not wholly exclusive and do not encompass the only existing forms of RDCs, they did provide a helpful starting point for investigating common religious actors invested in digital media usage and rhetoric within current Western Christian organizations. These categories were used to both identify the types of informants who should be interviewed, as well as to consider how these typologies might help interpret their responses related to their motivation for using digital technology for religious purposes. In this study creole pioneers were identified as digital professionals utilizing their technical and professional skills to create digital resources for their religious communities. Spokesperson-activists are digital spokespersons working on behalf of a specific religious institution to present their beliefs and identity online. Reformer critics were identified as digital strategists seeking to use digital platforms and tools for a distinct religious agenda, which they saw as serving the mission of their religious communities.

By studying representatives of each of these RDC categories, I was able to explore links between posthuman and RDC discourse strategies regarding how RDCs’ narratives of their digital work correlate to the human-technology frames previously discussed. It is important to note that the technology-cultured, enhanced-human, and human-technology hybrid frames are not restrictive categories, and in some cases overlap can be seen in the apologetics used by various RDCs, suggesting they may draw on more than one frame. The intent here is not to suggest the direct correlations made between specific RDCs categories and posthuman frames are rigid. Rather, it is to highlight the dominant frames observed and used by respondents in each category, in order to show the notable links between RDCs and specific posthuman narrative strategies.

Methodology

From 2011 to 2015, as part of a study investigating the extent to which RDCs may serve as new religious authorities in digital culture, 110 interviews were conducted with Christian-tradition RDCs from the USA and Europe and representing Anderson’s three categories. These RDCs shared the following characteristics: active in digital work for over five years; have a recognizable online profile; were recommended by more than one interviewee as individuals recognized for their digital work; have an identifiable connection with a specific offline Christian denomination, organization, or community. Each interviewee was asked the same of set questions related to (a) describing their digital work; (b) ways they saw this work as extension of their religiosity/faith; (c) their relationship to specific religious institutions; and (d) that group’s views of their digital work. In this study the interview responses of 60 RDCs – or 20 respondents most closely corresponding to each of Anderson’s categories – were selected for closer examination. Informants included representatives from these Christian denominations: Anglican/Episcopalian, Baptist, Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, and independent Evangelical/Emergent church networks. They represented Christians from the USA or Western European countries including: Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the UK.

Discourse framing strategies of RDCs

Digital professionals as creole pioneer using the technology-cultured frame

The digital professionals studied are individuals who use their digital skills to design religious apps, software, and websites, or run online discussion forums they describe as serving their religious community. Like creole pioneers, these are individuals with professional-technical qualifications and talents, which they use to develop religiously-oriented digital resources they see as meeting the needs or goals of their community. While digital professionals typically work in tech-related industries and have secular employers, they associate closely with specific religious groups such as a church or ministry. They also describe themselves as being compelled or inspired to create digital resources to fulfill a religious goal (i.e., evangelization) or address an underserved religious outreach opportunity online.

Digital professionals interviewed in this study included web and software developers who tithed their time to help their churches develop digital resources, media directors for secular companies that do free consultation work for Christian organizations, and mobile media strategists who develop apps and tools for Christian outreach. While they represent diverse technical backgrounds and skills, analysis of their interviews showed they possess several common traits. They are early adopters of technology and keep a close eye on technology trends. They like to experiment with new tools and platforms to see how they can be adapted for Christian ministry. They do this work on their own time, outside their formal work and religious organizational structures, even if they have close institutional affiliations. They often describe their digital work as service to the Church or part of their tithe to their faith community. This gives them a sense of independence, as their work is not tied or accountable to specific institutional structures. However, many also describe their digital religious work as not valued or recognized by their religious community as a form of ministry.

A mobile software development engineer from the UK, for example, created a new mobile phone publishing system aimed at helping Christian organizations create apps and mobile websites for 2G and 3G phones. He is an active member of an Anglican church and stepped down from a lucrative career with a mobile phone company for a time, in order to focus his energies on developing resources for religious organizations doing work in the developing world where smartphone diffusion is still limited. While he realizes his design work is not recognized by his church as an official ‘ministry’, he still describes it as an important ‘calling’.

Seeing a technology work as a ministry tool is unique in some ways. I think the church needs to not get scared off because it is new and they don’t understand it. I try to encourage people I talk to in church to be open to this medium, and see maybe that God is moving, opening up new possibilities for the church that have could have surprising benefits (personal interview, 20 Feb 2013).

He thinks many churches are beginning to realize technology work is becoming an essential part of many church ministries. ‘And there is a huge volunteer army of techies out there with specialist skills who can help congregations waking up to these new possibilities for outreach’ (personal interview, 20 Feb 2013).

Another exemplar digital professional is an Australian Episcopalian and business entrepreneur, who now resides in the USA. In his spare time he develops Facebook pages and websites, enabling people to share prayer requests and do group bible studies online. His goal is to show how the Internet can serve to ‘support and encourage people in their relationship with God’ (personal interview, 20 Jan 2012). His pages have generated anywhere from 100,000 to 4 million followers, as he seeks to model innovative ways Christians can use social media for Christian discipleship. As an ordained priest and former head of an International Bible Society, he speaks enthusiastically about the church’s need to engage in online ministry.

Traditional churches don’t get it, the importance of new media. They just look at it as a functional tool to be used by particular staff members, or even something to be feared. But many of the growing ministries with young pastors are starting to; they see digital technology as an expression and extension of who they are, and that’s exciting (personal interview, 20 Jan 2012).

Both these narratives from digital professionals draw on aspects of the technology-cultured frame, which focuses attention on the importance of and opportunities offered by digital technologies. Both suggest the church is being shaped by digital-culture trends and tools, whether the church acknowledges it or not, and insist embracing these resources should be seen as essential in contemporary ministry. By presenting technology as a vital tool to be used in Christian mission, they frame it as key to the work and life of their community. Thus, by focusing their discussion on the positive affordances of new technologies and highlighting what the church may be missing in terms of opportunities it overlooks, they cultivate a positive view of digital technologies. They suggest the church must allow itself to become technologically cultured for the sake of its ability to thrive and even survive in a changing world. Digital professionals, by being actively engaged online and fluent in digital culture, are able to serve as technological guides and Internet evangelists, and their digital expertise provides them with the ability to influence their offline communities.

Religious digital professionals utilize the technology-culture frame in that their technological apologetic, or the narrative they provide to describe and promote technology use within religious contexts, emphasizes how the Internet is shaping human culture in new ways. They insist it is imperative that churches understand and adapt to digital culture. In focusing on the need for religious groups to embrace technology, a difficulty can emerge, as these professionals appear to automatically buy-in, or fail to question, how technology is transforming human culture in ways that are potentially detrimental to or may undermine religious culture. Their emphasis can also be seen as reactionary towards religious organizations that often lag behind in their technological adoption, thus presenting their communities as backward or out-of-touch with contemporary culture. Ergo, using the technology-cultured frame may be seen as overemphasizing the ability of technology to meet religious communication needs, while failing to recognize an innate problematic of posthuman argument for religious groups as technology is exalted above humanity as the prime shaper of culture.

Digital spokespersons as spokesperson-activist employing the enhanced-human frame

Digital spokespersons are RDCs who typically come from inside a specific religious institution and hold a position that involves doing digital work for that group. At least part of their role requires them to function as online identity curators, who create or manage the digital presence of their particular group online. Increasingly, religious organizations are seeing the need to employ individuals to do digital media work related to public relations and manage the online media or presence associated with their work. These spokesperson-advocates, as Anderson describes them, have jobs such as media officers, communication workers, webmasters, or even church/parish assistants, requiring them to regularly act as liaison between the media, public, and their institution and oversee the online presence and reputation of the groups for which they work.

Digital spokespersons in this study included webmasters and technology staff for specific churches, Press Officers and Directors of Communication for religious denominations, Digital Media Officers, and workers for religious organizations. Their interview narratives demonstrate the fact that they exhibit a number of shared traits and concerns. They often describe themselves being placed into situations that require them to learn important technological skills on the job through trial-and-error, due to a lack of prior digital experience or training. They recognize digital work can have both utilitarian and theological dimensions. They also believe digital technologies not only help them accomplish practical ministry goals, but are tools that can shape their group’s religious identity online. Their time is not only spent experimenting with and crafting digital media content, but also in offering new media literacy trainings and explaining how technology is changing the position and role of the church in society to others in their institution.

For example, a UK-based Catholic webmaster is in charge of creating and running the websites, as well as developing podcasts and digital training material for Catholic conferences in Britain and Wales. He gained public attention for his design work after winning an award for the website he developed for Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to the UK in 2010; the site offered live web streaming, social media links, and a chance to interact with other Catholics as these events were ongoing. He describes himself as an institutional representative of the Catholic Church whose digital work plays an important role in presenting the Church’s beliefs online.

Online we are not just speaking to the Catholic community, we want to speak to the broader human community, to share what our teachings are and what the Church stands for. Because of this there is no way I could publish anything that I had any doubts about without running it by someone with a theological background or an expert in that particular field (personal interview, 9 May 2011).

He recognizes the fact that religious websites are often the first place people encounter the Catholicism in today’s society, so the information he provides and the design he creates must put the ‘Church’s best face forward’ (personal interview, 9 May 2011).

Another digital spokesperson interviewed was a Director of Communications with the Church of England whose work focuses on developing communication plans for the Anglican Church and acting as a church liaison with the press. Like many religious organization media officers, his training is in traditional journalism, and over the past decade he has learned on the job how to best leverage new media to meet the communication needs in the Anglican Communion. The fact that he is also an ordained priest helps him understand the concerns of both media professionals and church leaders related to representing the Church in digital and traditional media spaces.

There is an increased recognition within the Church that the Internet has moved from being seen as fad to an established channel of communication. In my job I have to make decisions that may be contested internally and externally by people who are also disciples of Christ that see the embrace of social media in different ways. But the church is about building network of supports and digital media has become part of this (personal interview, 1 March 2013).

His discussion of digital media focused on embracing technologies like social media to enable the church to spread positive stories about its work and mission, and even reach those outside the church. He advocates getting church members involved in social media – for example, Twitter campaigns – in order to empower them to communicate about their religious observance to broader society.

Digital spokespersons like these know church officials often do not understand media culture, and so the professional spokesperson must educate their institution about how using media forms and communicative styles can inform church culture. They must also become literate in the mission and values of their organization, in order to consider how the affordance of digital media may shape their communal beliefs.

These digital spokespersons evoke aspects of the enhanced-human frame as they emphasize the ways digital resources can extend and advance the influence of the Church in digital culture. When they talk about technology, it is in terms of what it can do to enhance the life and work of the church. Digital spokespersons see themselves as representatives of the church equipped to extend the church’s ministry to reach broader audiences. They also serve as identity curators called to translate the mission of the Church to those in digital culture. In this way they present themselves as bridges between human and technology, or as those designated to represent and aid in the transition to digitally enhanced engagement in a manner similar to self-descriptions provided by transhumanists. By bringing the church to where the people are online, they help the church adapt to the new communicative systems and patterns, making traditional messages and practice seem more publicly accessible and relevant. Thus, the status and presentation of the church is enhanced by the digital work and rhetorical framing of these digital spokespersons.

Digital spokespersons often emphasize the need to embrace technology for the sake of increasing the profile of their religious sect within broader society. However, unlike the enhanced-human frame, they do not advocate the practical alteration or modification of the human form or biological. Thus, they resonate with this frame more on the philosophical level, focused on enhancing human communicative abilities for the sake of the growth and survival of their religious community. Unlike transhumanists, who embrace technology for technology’s sake or for physical enhancement, these spokespersons advocate incorporating technology to meet specific human needs or desires such as connection, evangelism, and social justice. Digital spokespersons’ discourse focuses on a specific aspect of the enhanced human frame – i.e., humanity’s embrace of technological affordances – as they emphasize the unique and innate features of new technologies that aid religious work for the betterment of the Church.

Digital strategists as reformer critics who draw on the human-technology hybrid frame

Other RDCs can be described as digital strategists, who leverage already available digital resources for religious ends. Digital strategists interviewed in this study included online missionaries who develop digital evangelism tools, apps and social media developers who create religious initiatives to promote Bible study or prayer, and web developers who envision sites of religious networking and discipleship. One notable type of digital strategist emerging in this work is religious bloggers motivated by particular religious convictions, who use blog platforms to share their opinions. While religious bloggers are content creators, rather than technological innovators, the content they produce online can potentially gain wide readership via others interested in their particular agenda. In this study several types of bloggers were studied including ‘theologians who blog’ and ‘theoblogians’. These types of bloggers match Anderson’s description of the reformer critic—i.e., those using the Internet to draw an audience around a particular religious topic or interpretive stance.

‘Theologians who blog’ are professional theologians or Biblical studies scholars who often work at universities or seminaries and use their blogs as a space to reflect personally on their own scholarly work or developments in their field of study, writing in a style more accessible than a scholarly article. They describe blogging as a space for translating academic theology to a broader public, or a platform where they can test new interpretations for a different audience. These theologians see blogging as a way to correct what they see as ‘bad public scholarship’, or misinterpretation of theological themes posted online by other bloggers. An American theologian working at a university in Scotland, who has been blogging since the early 2000s, describes the Internet as a venue for thinking out loud about his biblical scholarship. He argues digital culture offers interpretive techniques and ways for thinking about theological work.

Online I am technologically savvy person, who happens to be a theologian … I have never worked in a place that was willing to allow me to develop the theological teaching resources that digital culture can offer, like using podcasting, video recorded lectures and interactive elements to generate interesting seminary participation, like my blog offers (personal interview, 19 March 2013).

Theologians who blog often hold recognized positions of leadership either within churches or religious education institutions. Yet they represent a modified, or hybrid, form of the reformer critic, in that their institutional roles often limit what theological matters they can discuss or how they can discuss them. Blogging becomes a space where they step beyond the constraints of their institutional positions to speak to a wider public in a more personal way, and thus establish influence outside their prescribed hierarchical structure. Theologians who blog often argue their circle of influence is much wider online than it is offline.

Another digital strategist are ‘theoblogians’, bloggers whose online reflection focuses on theological themes and earns them an online reputation as theological thinkers. Their influence is based on their online writing, rather than official, offline credentials. What is noteworthy about theoblogians is their open and provocative writing style, which draws a network of readers and fans that link to and interact with their work. The network surrounding their blogs often grants them global influence, as others describe them as public theologians. In one case, a theoblogian who initially wrote for a collaborative blog associated with the American Emerging Church movement now blogs for a well-known informational religious website. His blogging documented and publicized many of his struggles and critiques about mainstream Christian practices and theology, and a conversational community gathered around his opinions.

Every idea about theology that I have written about, even in my books or in my PhD dissertation, was first vetted publically on my blog. I read every comment; my blog is up to almost 30,000 comments now. There are some really smart people who read my blog and tell me about the weak point in my argument. They are the equivalent of my faculty peers, if I was on a faculty and my work was being vetted my in a peer review system. Online has become the place for crowdsourcing of theological education, and it is changing the church (personal interview, 21 May 2012).

The popularity of his posts even led a Christian publisher to offer him a book contract. His notoriety online also eventually led him to pursue a PhD in theology, in order to gain offline credibility for his work. His online prominence allows him to write for a living, as well as do new media consulting work and serve as a theologian in residence for an emerging church in the USA. While most theoblogians initially blog simply as an act of personal reflection, social networks that emerge organically around their postings create visibility that can open doors for them offline. This does not mean all achieve notoriety offline, but most interviewed voiced a desire for their prominence online to lead to recognition from offline religious institutions.

In this study Digital strategists often draw on the technology-human hybrid frame, which highlights the new context created by human-technology interactions to describe their use of technology. This means acknowledging that the Church, while being dependent upon technology to do its work, also requires technologies carefully adapted to support, rather than completely transform, its ethos. Discussions about digital media and culture highlight the interconnection between church mission and digital opportunities. They note religious engagement of technology is not merely a process of adoption, but of negotiating the vision of the historical church with digital culture. These strategists argue the church should be present both online and offline, that these manifestations should be seen as interdependent and so work in synch.

Just as the human-technology hybrid frame focuses on the merging of humans with a new technological context, digital strategists highlight understanding the intersection between offline, embodied cultures with online, mediated contexts. This new intersection means online and offline spaces and interactions are blended and embedded in one another. The result is a hybridized reality to be explored, and where religion is engaged. While digital strategists here do not interrogate the theological problems that could be created by religion being enacted in these new hybridized boundaries of human community and culture, the human-technology hybrid frame does pose such a problematic for religious communities. The challenge of theologically reconciling the cross-over between bodied and disembodied communication and religious praxis has been a much-debated topic amongst religious groups in their negotiation with the Internet (Campbell, 2003). This means some aspects of the human-technology hybrid frame would not be easily embraced within religious discourse.

Conclusion: Human-technologies frames evoked by RDCs and the posthuman connection

The rise of new media creates unique opportunities and tensions for religious groups, especially those whose work with their faith communities also requires them to engage with digital technologies. This article explores the ways RDCs frame their digital work in relation to their religious affiliations, as they seek to justify their technological engagement in terms that will be seen as acceptable to their community. Digital professionals highlight the importance of the church embracing digital technologies. They describe the imperative of integrating digital tools and ways they can be used to culture the Church so it is more compatible with digital culture. Digital spokespersons note the church has an important role to play in digital culture. They assert the Church can use digital media as an extension of its mission to enrich and impact digital culture. Digital strategists urge Christian communities to see the mission and work of the church stretching between the online and offline worlds. They highlight the blurring of traditional and technological contexts, so the Church’s culture and sphere of influence is reconfigured. This requires them to adapt to and address these changes in the way they work and the resources they draw on.

This article argues that the narratives of RDCs often correlated with key premises grounding three dominant frames presenting the human-technology relationship and arising from the popular posthuman discourse explored here. The language of digital professionals reflects key aspects of the critical posthumanism narrative and technology-cultured frame, asserting the embrace of technology enables us to transcend traditional human abilities and eliminate what are seen as unnecessary boundaries. Focusing on technology’s advantages helps rationalize investments in new technologies, which are ushering in unique ‘posthumans’ that will outlast current humanity. The digital spokespersons’ discussions employ many features of the transhumanist narrative and enhanced-human frame, where technological advancements are understood as extending human existence for the better. Emphasizing the inadequacies of the human state encourages technological adoption for the sake of a promised enhanced and more developed humanity. Finally, digital strategists engage a speculative posthuman narrative and human-technology hybrid frame to suggest the human condition and technological potential must be viewed as interrelated and acting upon one another. Describing this as a human-technology partnership enables them to present a relationship of interdependence. Exploring these common posthuman narratives helps spotlight a range of arguments and concerns about humans and their relationship to emergent technologies. It also asserts these frames are common technological apologetics in other sectors of society, even within religious discourse about technology articulated by those seeking to justify engagement with technology within religious communities. This study does not claim that each class of RDC relies on a single frame to promote or justify the use of technology. Rather, this study seeks to highlight dominant discourse strategies used by various RDCs regarding the human-technology relationship and to demonstrate how common posthuman assertions and worldviews surface in broader discourses about technology in society. Overall, I argue investigating the nuances of different posthuman narratives is important, not simply because it helps us identify underlying arguments supporting a dominant non-human centered technological future. By unpacking common posthuman rhetorical strategies, we are able to reveal a range of common ways the human-technology relationship is conceived in contemporary society, ways that reach beyond this ideological framework, to inform technology use and justification narratives within popular Western religious culture.