Bitter Fruit

This morning in the Wall Street Journal, Andy Crouch's essay, The Secular Prophet, asserts that among Steve Jobs' many qualities was his ability to "articulate a perfectly secular form of hope." Referring to the iconic image of the bitten apple as a sign of "promise and progress," Crouch claims that "all technology implicitly promises to reverse the (Biblical) curse (referring to the Fall of man) easing the burden of creaturely existence." He goes on, "Technology is most celebrated when the machinery is completely hidden combining godlike effortlessness with blissful ignorance about the mechanisms that deliver our disburdened lives."

Crouch takes a critical look at the text of Jobs' now wide-spread Stanford speech referring to it as Gospel of Self Fulfillment requiring stability and privilege. He takes a shot at Jobs' conversion to Zen Buddhism, and with this, the true subtext of his essay bubbles to the surface. By comparing what he claims to be Jobs' brand of evangelism as secular hope to that of Martin Luther King's - whose hope did not rely on self fulfillment, but rather to reach the promised land - Crouch's comparison between the two draws on the idea that one is essentially of a higher call, more noble, and while not overtly stating this, divinely inspired. It is an unfair and inappropriate comparison made through Crouch's use of the word "evangelist." While acknowledging that our troubled world needs hope and the hope that someone like Martin Luther King offered was a hope centered on God while Steve Jobs' hope was one centered on self-fulfillment and the empty promise of technology - the argument is in itself empty . Asking, "Is technology enough?" is a ridiculous question.

The suggestion that listening to one's inner voice or intuition on the quest for self-fulfillment is somehow a rejection of social responsibility and that technology is merely an empty promise of hope in the face of the world's ills, seems to me to be a distortion of Steve Jobs' legacy, words, and creative genius. Compare this essay, to an article in the LA Times quoting Stevie Wonder.

"The one thing people aren't talking about is how he has made his technology accessible to the blind and the deaf and people who are quadriplegics and paraplegics. He has affected not just my world but the world of millions of people who without that technology would not be able to discover the world."

Stevie Wonder sheds light on the immense good that came from Steve Jobs' following his "intuition." Where Andy Crouch calls Steve Jobs' message a "limited gospel of secularism, offering people of a secular age all the hope they need. People of another age would have considered it a set of beautifully empty promises not withstanding all its magical results."

Crouch says that "upon close inspection, this gospel offers no hope that you cannot generate yourself and only the comfort of having been true to yourself. In the face of tragedy and evil this is strangely inert."

Tell that to Stevie Wonder. Empty promises? Inert?

This is where self righteous over simplification cloaked in religious language is not only misleading, but dangerous.

While Jobs' Zen Buddhist beliefs may have kept him from claiming a higher power beyond his own genius, does that change the result of his work? Or lessen the impact? I think not.

I firmly reject the notion that Jobs' speech to those Stanford graduates was full of empty promises - or that by listening to one's inner voice somehow lessens the potential for good. As Stevie Wonder puts it,

" I'm just hoping that his life and what he did in his life will encourage those who are living still and those who will be born, that it will encourage them and challenge them to do what he has done... That will then create a world that will be accessible to anyone with any physical disability..."

So, because Steve Jobs was a Zen Buddhist, does this make his life less meaningful? Was his creative curiosity, iconically captured in the bite of the forbidden fruit, used as an agent of good? Are we as a society - as a world - better for it? I think one must argue that the answer is yes.

Is technology the answer to all of the world's woes? No. But to insinuate that by following what Crouch cynically calls the "gospel of self fulfillment" is an inert and empty promise, is purely religious propaganda and a shameful distortion of the good that comes from what I would assert as God's call for each of us to use our gifts and talents for the greater good.

That's my language, not Steve Jobs'. The fact that death motivated him to make "a dent" in the universe while he was on the earth, is what matters to me - not whether he believed in a heaven or not.

The result of his actions was the same. He made a difference. Crouch can discredit the form of hope Steve Jobs may have provided - but as far as I'm concerned, "Actions speak louder than words." Jobs lifted "the burden of creaturely existence" for many disabled human beings like Stevie Wonder. His technology has brought them more than hope. It has made them part of the conversation and given them unprecedented access.

To some, like Andy Crouch, who cling to a distorted religious rhetoric, the apple continues to be a threat to those who view self fulfillment and following one's intuition as reason to be cast out of the garden.