CTA’s position: In general, yes. Christianity has strong reasons to oppose unnecessary suffering and death, while still rejecting the concept of self-salvation or immortality limited to the privileged few.
Why CTA leans this way
Scripture treats death as an enemy, not a sacred ideal.
Scripture treats long life, including radically long life, as a blessing, and envisions humans attaining it in cooperation with God (eg, Isaiah 65:20).
Medicine already extends life; longevity research is an extension of that healing impulse.
Longer lives can create more time for love, discipleship, creativity, reconciliation, and service.
Common misunderstandings
Supporting longevity is not the same as denying our finitude or dependence on God.
CTA does not treat mere lifespan as the highest good.
Where Christians may disagree
Some Christians will affirm aggressive anti-aging work, while others will prioritize narrower medical interventions.
Open question
What social structures are needed so longer lives do not deepen inequality or stagnation?
Is resurrection technological, miraculous, or both?
CTA’s position: Resurrection is the work of God. Yet God calls us to participate in that work through Christ, and scripture tells us that Christ calls upon us to offer our minds, bodies, and works to God. Christians should never assume divine action is unrelated to material processes, embodiment, or participation in creation.
Why CTA leans this way
Christian faith centers on bodily resurrection, not escape from embodiment.
The Bible often presents divine action working through created means rather than against them.
Technological imagination can help Christians think more concretely about continuity of personhood and redeemed embodiment.
Common misunderstandings
CTA is not claiming humans can engineer the final resurrection by themselves.
Using technological language is meant to clarify embodied hope, not demystify God.
Where Christians may disagree
Some members use technological analogies cautiously; others see them as central to a renewed apologetic for resurrection, consistent with scripture and the tradition of the church fathers.
Open question
Which models of continuity and identity best fit both theology and future science?
How should Christians think about AI and superintelligence?
CTA’s position: AI should be approached as a powerful tool and a serious moral challenge. CTA’s instinct should be hopeful but disciplined: build, guide, and govern these systems toward human flourishing and creaturely dignity.
Why CTA leans this way
Advanced intelligence can amplify care, discovery, coordination, and stewardship.
The same systems can also centralize power, weaken agency, and obscure responsibility.
Christian ethics insists that intelligence must remain accountable to wisdom, justice, and love.
Common misunderstandings
CTA is not committed to blanket accelerationism.
Concern about AI risk is compatible with positive engagement in AI development.
Where Christians may disagree
Members may diverge on timelines, existential risk, regulation, and whether future AI could count as a neighbor in any meaningful sense.
Open question
What theological language best equips churches to discuss machine agency, responsibility, and moral status?
Does a pro-technology future conflict with creation care?
CTA’s position: It should not. CTA’s best case is that technology must be judged by whether it heals, restores, and enriches creation rather than merely extracting from it.
Why CTA leans this way
Christian stewardship includes both protecting and improving the conditions of life.
Technological capacity can reduce scarcity, clean environments, and repair ecological damage.
A purely anti-technological posture often leaves existing destructive systems untouched.
Common misunderstandings
Techno-optimism is not permission for reckless extraction.
Ecology cannot be treated as secondary to human enhancement.
Where Christians may disagree
Prudential disagreement will center on nuclear power, geoengineering, carbon removal, and the pace of industrial transformation.
Open question
What standards would distinguish faithful management from hubris?
Is Christian transhumanism outside historic orthodoxy?
CTA’s position: CTA is a renewal movement within Christianity, not a replacement religion. Its claims should be tested against Scripture, creed, tradition, and the fruits of discipleship.
Why CTA leans this way
Core CTA themes draw on longstanding Christian doctrines such as resurrection, sanctification, healing, and the renewal of creation.
The movement is ecumenical and expects accountability to the wider church.
Its strongest arguments work by recovering neglected Christian resources, not by discarding them.
Common misunderstandings
Novel language does not automatically imply novel doctrine.
Ecumenical breadth does not mean doctrinal indifference.
Where Christians may disagree
Different traditions will place boundaries in different places, especially around anthropology, eschatology, and sacramental theology.
Open question
Which historic theological frameworks are most generative for a robust theology of technology?
CTA’s position: CTA should default toward broad human flourishing, not elite escape. Technologies that deepen domination, exclusion, or abandonment betray the movement’s moral purpose.
Why CTA leans this way
Christian ethics centers the vulnerable and rejects visions of progress built on sacrificial classes.
Technological power without distributive justice produces backlash and moral corruption.
A credible Christian transhumanism must ask who is included, who is protected, and who is left behind.
Common misunderstandings
Justice concerns are not anti-innovation.
Access alone is not enough if systems undermine dignity or solidarity.
Where Christians may disagree
Members may differ on markets, regulation, public funding, and which technologies should be treated as basic goods.
Open question
What institutional commitments would make Christian transhumanism visibly pro-neighbor rather than merely pro-progress?