About Face:   Meta, Masks, and Managing Technological Liturgies

“Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity.”^[1]

The LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen?^[2]

For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.”^[3]

[W]e pray most earnestly night and day that we may see you face to face^[4]

Preface: A Different Type of Dicta

Many Dicta editions address trends and threats with precise analysis, sober warnings, and direct rebuttals. This edition is a bit different because sin per se is not being exposed or addressed.  Rather, this discussion begins – not concludes – a conversation which must be ongoing and primarily sound in wisdom.  

TxC has exposed pagan Gnosticism in many forms, and in doing so, always affirmed that the Created order and human embodiment is good.  The question raised here explores how technological habits – liturgies, if you will – buttress or subvert the goodness of human embodiment.  In particular, to the extent that our efficient technologies reduce our physically proximate “face time,” is that a neutral, harmless thing? If not, why not?

Introduction: Facing Efficient and Convenient Threats

Automated toll booths on the Golden Gate Bridge save commuters time and taxpayers $8.0M each year.^[5]  Gas pumps and ATMs “eliminate the middle man.”  And, grocery shoppers needing only a carton of milk can speed through the self-serve line by self-scanning the item and clicking Apple Pay.  Even ordering fast food avoids the smiling (or unsmiling) fast food worker.  What’s not to like?

Then there were the COVID lockdowns – welcome to the turbo-charged ZOOM Life, including ZOOM Church – and don’t forget masking up.^[6]  No harm, no foul?  Don’t these technologies make life better, safer, and healthier?

Set aside the negative impact of undisciplined scrolling and extended head down iPhone postures.^[7]  Do our “technological liturgies” tend to reinforce and edify, or detract and undermine, what it means to be embodied persons created in the image and likeness of God?  In particular, does the increasing deficit of face-to-face proximity enhance flourishing and sanctification?  Is there a caution that ought to be sounded?  Let’s get to the gist.

The Face of Proximity:  Some Biblical Observations

Adam and Eve, prior to the Fall, lived proximately:  they were physically proximate to one another and their Creator.  Scripture never explicitly mentions “face” until after the Fall.

“Face” enters the picture because now work will be burdensome, occurring by the “sweat of your face.”^[8]  And, the face now reflects and discloses sin:  Cain was angry “and his face fell.”^[9]  The hypocrites, Jesus tells us, “disfigure their faces” when fasting to be seen.^[10]  A supreme insulting gesture, acknowledged in virtually every culture, involves spiting in someone’s face – precisely what Jesus endured.^[11]  Yet by the same token “falling on one’s face” indicates worship and/or deference.^[12]  

Jacob wrestled with God and claims to have been “face to face” with Him.^[13]  Yet, God would not permit Moses to see His face because he would die.^[14]

With redemption, however, being face to face with God is both a promise and a truth to anticipate:

For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.^[15]

Contrasting the superiority of the new covenant with the Mosaic administration, Paul compares the veiled face with the unveiled face:

Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts. But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.^[16]

With the very Gospel at stake, Paul did not anonymously ping Peter on social media, nor post a clever meme.  Instead, he “opposed him to his face.”^[17]  Both in correction and in discipleship, Paul desired to see cultivated maturity in Christians, struggling to be with them “face to face”^[18] so:

that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery, which is Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.^[19]

At least in Paul’s thinking, being face to face served as a more effective means for achieving these multi-faceted ends. Proximity mattered.  And, proximity mattered beyond the ecclesial community – it’s a human thing, not just a Christian thing.  For example, regarding public justice, Paul demanded the Roman legal practice of addressing his accusers “face to face.”^[20]

Paul confesses that he wrote letters – as a stopgap measure – because he was hindered from being physically present, that is, face to face with them:

I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that, if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth.^[21]

 This comprises a recurring theme in Paul’s ministry:

For what thanksgiving can we return to God for you, for all the joy that we feel for your sake before our God, as we pray most earnestly night and day that we may see you face to face and supply what is lacking in your faith?^[22]

John, while not at all diminishing communicative technologies – ink and paper – twice notes the benefits unavailable absent physical proximity, that is, being present and face to face:

Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink. Instead I hope to come to you and talk face to face, so that our joy may be complete.^[23]

I had much to write to you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink. I hope to see you soon, and we will talk face to face.^[24]

In redemption, God wipes away tears from our faces – this requires physical proximity:

      For the Lamb in the midst of the throne will be their shepherd,

            and he will guide them to springs of living water,

      and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.”^[25]

And this same proximate action occurs at the Consummation, as Jesus Himself wipes away every tear from our faces:

He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”^[26]

Consummation correlatively entails seeing the Face of Jesus; this too presupposes physical proximity:

No longer will there be anything accursed, but the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will worship him. They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads.^[27]

Defacing and the Gnostic Impulse

So, what’s the point?  Christianity rejects Gnosticism, the idea that the material is icky or less “spiritual” than the immaterial and ethereal.  Accordingly, a cardinal aspect of the faith confesses that Jesus became incarnate precisely because humanity, as created, consists of an embodied existence.  As Athanasius argued, Jesus “became what we are that he might make us as he is.”^[28] Jesus necessarily became what He would save:  an embodied human.  

The body, because it’s designed by God Himself, contains and conveys moral meaning.^[29]  Yes, we communicate in words, but also with “body language.”  Again, Cain’s anger was conveyedby body language:  his fallen face.^[30] Nor are we simply “brains on a stick.”^[31]  Humans are embodied creatures, who, as Imago Dei, are inherently social.^[32]  As social beings we hear others via the language of their words and the language of their bodies.  Does it therefore matter if we experience our embodiment with others proximity in contrast with mediated arenas?  Does it matter or affect what it means to be human if our proximate experiences with others decrease?

Facelessness: When Mediation Overtakes Proximity

Consider COVID with its attendant “lock downs” and masking mandates.  People subjected to these restrictions manifested measurable negative outcomes.  For example, the cognitive performance of chess players decreased while wearing masks during competitions:

Overall, there is strong evidence that the estimates reflect a negative, causal effect of masks on chess performance. Across the board, masks reduce the frequency of optimal moves by roughly a third of an SD[standard deviation]. This is equivalent to a decrease in the share of optimal moves of 6 percentage points from a baseline average share of 29%, a relative drop in performance of roughly 21%.^[33] 

Similarly, the ability to perceive and “read” emotions diminishes when faces are occluded by masks, especially among the older population:

If face masks are used by older persons, people with dementia and their companions, relatives and caregivers, reading emotions and the mind from faces will generally be hampered. Older people and persons with dementia cannot rely on facial emotions as before to convey the emotions/intentions of their caregivers nor to express their intentions/emotions in a way that caregivers can usually understand. Consequently, social interaction between these persons will be hindered.^[34]

Likewise masking small children stunts their cognitive development:

We provide empirical evidence that compared with adults, children’s face perception is more negatively impacted by the inclusion of masks. We also find evidence for a reduced holistic processing of the masked faces across ages. In conclusion, our study finds qualitative and quantitative changes in the processing of masked faces among school-age children and adults.^[35]

The face matters and even the “scientific” pagans recognize it.  Obscure the face and productivity drops and confusion increases.^[36]

What happens if our interactions with others are increasingly or even predominately mediated via various “connecting” technologies and digital “social” tools:  social media platforms, texting, emailing, Zoom, et al?  Are there costs?  Are there trade-offs? What happens when our “user experience” transcends being embodied individuals, preferring the engineered prefabricated experience to real reality?^[37] How ought a wise Christian evaluate these things?  Should we just glibly be “early adopters” and never give a second thought to the cumulative impact of such technologies?

Certainly, using technology to communicate does not transmute us metaphysically.  Yet, it does shape us and our habits and in part it shapes us because it can deprive us of proximate physical “facetime”.^[38]  

Something is lost with all the convenience gained, including cognition.  In fact, Yale researchers recently found that ZOOM conversations suppress brain activity:

They found that the strength of neural signaling was dramatically reduced on Zoom relative to “in-person” conversations.Increased activity among those participating in face-to-face conversations were associated with increased gaze time and increased pupil diameters, suggestive of increased arousal in the two brains. Increased EEG activity during in-person interactions was characteristic of enhanced face processing ability, researchers said.^[39]

Many businesses are limiting “remote” working arrangements and calling their employees to be present at the office or end their careers with that firm.^[40]

And, yet the technocrats trumpet the development of bots to “interact” with us medically, as we age, or as other special situations arise.  You may soon be “meeting” “Louise” and “Moxi” – “virtual discharge advocates” – and “Grace” a “humanoid robot” used to “combat loneliness among seniors in a facility.”  And then there’s the Woebot, “your personal mental health ally” “the best listener in the business.”^[41]  Or, why wait for a “special situation” to arise before embracing robotic assistance?  Elon Musk unveils for us “Optimus,” a faceless[!] all-purpose “autonomous assistant.”^[42]  Creepy.

Some may assert that ZOOM meetings as “just as good” as being physically present – they just require more concentration.  Does increased concentration provide a long-term solution to non-proximate mediated remoteness?  Enter more technology, technology designed to not only “read” facial expressions, but to enhance them or deface them:

“It is possible that the intensity of particular expressions could be modified on the fly . . . In addition, expression could be augmented—for example, wrinkles around eyes could be added to increase an impression of genuine smiles.”^[43]  

As Rosen summarizes the volume quoted above:

In other words, technology will soon offer us real-time Photo-shopping of the human facewith explicit intent of misleading the viewer.”^[44]

The data also suggest our “facetime” is shrinking.  The mediated life is increasing.  10 years ago, Pew and the American Life Project found that while 63% of teenagers texted their friends, only 35% spoke to others face to face.^[45] Updated in 2018 the study showed further decline:  

“When it comes to daily interactions with friends, Pew reported, “teens are much more likely to report that those interactions take place online.  Six-in-ten teens say they spend time with their friends online every day or almost every day, compared with 24 percent who spend time with their friends in person with the same frequency (not including school or school-related activities.”^[46]

Our youth would rather text than talk.  Are these trends harmless?  Some studies dispute that conclusion:

A  study published in Developmental Psychology[2012] . . . . measured the multi-tasking and media use of 3461 girls aged eight to twelve.  The contrast between mediated and face-to-face interaction was dramatic.  Subjects in the study spent an average of 6.9 hours per dayusing electronic media compared to [sic] 2.1 hours per day in face-to-face interaction.^[47]

What do business leaders and nerdy researchers know that Christians may not, but should?  Perhaps this aptly summarizes the point:

Attention to one another as embodied creatures is central to what makes us human– breathing the same air, sensing one another’s unspoken feelings, seeing one another’s faces, and being attuned to one another’s gestures – and to give attention to others we must spent time in their physical presence.  Our technologies, as brilliant as they are, cannot satisfy all of those needs.”^[48]

The writer to the Hebrews understood this point:

And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.^[49]

To the same effect, consider Scripture’s multiple “one another” passages.^[50]  These generally presuppose physical proximity for discharging those ethical duties and admonitions.  “Doing life together” biblically requires actual proximate facetime.

Given our new technological liturgies, which are fast becoming routine, if not seemingly indispensable, what are we facing?  We are facing a growing deficit of facetime.  We’ve exchanged individual interactions for engineered agenda-driven mediated “user experiences.”  In doing so, we risk stopping far short of the goal line and thereby depriving ourselves of scoring the richness of the embodied human experience.  As C.S. Lewis eloquently puts it:

“It would seem that Our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.”^[51]

^[1] Simone Weil, letter to Joe Bousquet, April 13, 1942, in Simon Petrement, Simone Weil:  A Life (1976) quoted in Christine Rosen, The Extinction of Experience – Being Human in a Disembodied World (2024), 53.

^[2] Gen. 4:6

^[3] Gen. 32:30

^[4] 1Thess 3:10

 ^[5] Christine Rosen, The Extinction of Experience – Being Human in a Disembodied World (2024), 42

^[6] Query whether this is what “facial justice” actually means in dystopia.  See, L.P. Hartley, Facial Justice (1960)

^[7] Jonathan Haite, The Anxious Generation:  How the Great Rewiring of Childhood is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness(2024).  For more general observations and concerns relating to technology use, see the work of Nicholas Carr and Sherry Turkel:  The Shallows:  What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains (2020 – expanded edition); and Alone Together (2017), and Reclaiming Conservation:  The Power of Talk in a Digital Age (2017); and also, Robert Putnam, Bowling Alone:  The Collapse and Revival of American Community (revised and expanded 2020).  See also, Jean M. Twenge, iGen:  Why Today’s Super-connected Kids are Growing Up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy—and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood – and What That Means for the Rest of Us (2018)

^[8] Gen. 3:19

^[9] Gen. 4:5, 6

^[10] Matt. 6:16

^[11] Matt. 26:67

^[12] Gen. 17:3, 17, and Gen. 19:1 – and many other passages.

^[13] Gen. 32:30

^[14] Ex. 33:20-23

^[15] 1 Cor. 13:12

^[16] 2 Cor. 3:15-18

^[17] Gal. 2:11

^[18] Col. 2:1

^[19] Col. 2:2, 3

^[20] Acts 25:16; fast forward:  the U.S. Constitution’s “confrontation clause” (Amendment VI) embraces the same rationale – an accused holds a right to confront his accusers face-to-face.  Coy v. Iowa 487 U.S. 1012, 1015-16 (1988) cited to Paul’s appeal before Festus (Acts 25:16) in explicating this constitutionally protected right.

^[21] 1 Tim 3:14-15

^[22] 1 Thess 3:9-10

^[23] 2 John 12

^[24] 3 John 13, 14

^[25] Rev. 7:17

^[26] Rev. 21:4

^[27] Rev. 22:3, 4

^[28] Athanasius, On the Incarnation, 54 – following Irenaeus, Jesus did “become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself.”  Against Heresies, Book 5, Preface.  This points to our redemption via adoption, not a conversion of the created into the Creator.

^[29] O. Carter Snead, What it Means to be Human:  The Case for the Body  in Public Bioethics (2020)

^[30] Gen. 4:6

^[31]“’You are what you think’ is a motto that reduces human beings to brains-on-a stick.”  James K. A. Smith, You Are What You Love, (2016), 3

^[32] The Triune God is an eternal society – the perichoresis – those creatures made in His image are thus inherently social.

^[33] The effect of masks on cognitive performance, [capitalization in the original] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2206528119

^[34] Face Masks Protect from Infection but May impair Social Cognition in Older Adults  and People with Dementia, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.640548/full

^[35] Face masks disrupt holistic processing and face perception in school-age children, [capitalization in the original] https://cognitiveresearchjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41235-022-00360-2

^[36] Even the mind-numbing work conducted in call centers – boiler room phone banks – measured higher productively if the phone callers worked in the same proximity: “A study of telephone call centers found that the ones where workers had more in-person interactions with their coworkers were twice as productive as those who did not.”  Christine Rosen, The Extinction of Experience – Being Human in a Disembodied World (2024), 48.

^[37] Christine Rosen, The Extinction of Experience – Being Human in a Disembodied World (2024), 4.

^[38] It is ironic that one of the most popular technologies that pre-empts face to face proximate interaction is called “Facetime”

^[39] Zoom conversations suppress brain activity, Yale study finds, [capitalization in the original] https://www.news-medical.net/news/20231025/Zoom-conversations-suppress-brain-activity-Yale-study-finds.aspx#:~:text=They%20found%20that%20the%20strength,arousal%20in%20the%20two%20brains.

^[40]Remote Workers’ Careers May Be on the Chopping Block, According to Recent Report,https://www.forbes.com/sites/bryanrobinson/2024/02/07/remote-workers-careers-may-be-on-the-chopping-block-according-to-recent-report/

^[41] Christine Rosen, The Extinction of Experience – Being Human in a Disembodied World (2024), 43

^[42] Allie Griffin, Elon Musk unveils surprise “robovan” at flashy Telsa event, says Optimus humanoid robots will cost less than a car, [capitalization in the original], https://nypost.com/2024/10/11/business/elon-musk-unveils-surprise-robovan-at-flashy-tesla-event-says-optimus-humanoid-robots-will-cost-less-than-a-car/

^[43] Arvid Kappas and Nicole C. Kramer, eds., Face-to-Face Communication over the Internet:  Emotions in a Web of Culture, Language and Technology, (2011), 8

^[44] Christine Rosen, The Extinction of Experience – Being Human in a Disembodied World (2024), 48

^[45] Christine Rosen, The Extinction of Experience – Being Human in a Disembodied World (2024), 44

^[46] Id.

^[47] Id.

^[48] Christine Rosen, The Extinction of Experience – Being Human in a Disembodied World (2024), 53.

^[49] Heb. 10:24, 25; Paul frequently instructs congregations about their conduct when they “come together” – 1 Cor. 11:18, 20, 34; 1 Cor. 14:23, 26. 

^[50] A quick Boolean search discloses 54 verses from the NT epistles and Revelation containing “one another” references; these are familiar and include “loving,” “bearing” “waiting,” “addressing,” “submitting” “teaching,” “admonishing,” “encouraging,” “doing good,” “exhorting,” “confessing,” “not hating,” “not grumbling,” “showing hospitality,” “serving,” and “greeting,” one another.

^[51] C. S. Lewis, The Weight and the Glory and Other Addresses (1941), 25, 26