Tongues, Interpretations, And GPT Spirituality.

We haven't seen it yet, so I’ll flex a little prophetic muscle and call it now from home plate. See that big green wall of an app in left field. That’s where ChatGPT or Grok or Claude or whatever A.I. Dejour, is going to start interpreting tongues from. And all the church leadership types, who have already flocked to the stands to cheer for the tech, will be ready to catch any foul balls. There will be a wave of charismatic adoptions, as now, with the current advance in tech, every church can have tongues and interpretation.

The reason this will obviously be a problem is that in our current age of secret recordings and live streams, some enterprising streamer or TikTok star in waiting is gonna get into the middle of an Assemblies of God service, or a more traditional Pentecostal one, and record the audio so these apps can translate in real time. And it will force the theological discussion that will last exactly a minute before an online orthodoxy is established,

One of two things will happen then. It will work or it won't.

The most likely outcome is that it does work, but verifies that a lot of what gets passed off as tongues, is actually just gibberish. Our A.I. is just going to let us know this with mostly not made-up sources. Being able to link a current recording of someone speaking in “Tongues” to a previously recorded pastor doing so. And pointing out that one person is just mimicking the other. Not copying, that would be language. Mimicking. A kind of noise that would sound like language. That would be just an appetizer. There will still be the problem of the A.I. saying that a person speaking in tongues is quoting a non-existent person or some other digital hallucination. But, again, this will be the most likely situation that happens when someone tries this. Not if.

Now this will bring us to a technical but contested outcome #2, where A.I. does work but is wrong. Where it calls what is being recorded and assessed, gibberish but what is actually distinct instruction from the Lord through one of His saints. Pressed again by the rapid and frankly irresponsible adoption of this tech, it will come as no surprise to the actually faithful, that a demonstration of tongues is called gibberish by the machine and then called revelation by those with the actual gift of interpretation of tongues. There is a dimension of this scenario that leads us to a place where the Holy Spirit is, or at the very least can be, involved and what sounds like gibberish, can actually be language. Though not by the standards of what man can master languages by. But rather by the power of God. Note how nothing has changed in the output of the A.I. but some very different things have happened in the pews. Even the most staunch cessationist can admit that a computer isn’t capable, or maybe shouldn’t be capable, of interpreting biblically viable tongues, if there are actually biblical tongues happening in the room. So having one call an expression of tongues gibberish is nothing unless there is no Spirit filled interpretation to call it otherwise. It would be gibberish without a Spirit filled interpretation. Paul even tells us so (1 Corinthians 14:18-21).

The real tongue tester will show up when A.I. gives us something that could be an interpretation, not that it necessarily would be one or is one, when it hears what would be dismissed as gibberish otherwise. When it declares that the Lord wants that specific church to build a bigger children's wing for a revival that is coming in 6-8 months. Or that there is a man here who is hiding his cancer for fear of embarrassments that needs to come forth and be healed. Those kinds of interpretations are well within the possibility of A.I. to generate. Because they are well within any recordings of tongues that it may have access to. And if given enough context and leeway to be an authority in a church, it could convince a church that cannot build a tower that with enough faith that tower should be built (Luke 14:28).

By any measurable metric this would be the gift of tongues being interpreted and it would align with what churches do and want. But that’s because tongues and the interpretation of tongues don’t come from measurable metrics. They come from the Holy Spirit. And a less than discerning eye would call that spade a spade. But in that last sentence is the kicker. Discernment. All this talk of tongues and interpretation of tongues is in the theological realm of pneumatology. The study of what the Holy Spirit does and what his does is laid out for us to have so we know when he’s at work.

“Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

1 Corinthians 12:4-11 KJV

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

Galatians 5:22-23 KJV”

What can get missed in an abundance of fruit is where that fruit came from. Our interpretations of tongues, and the tongues themselves are supposed to come from the Holy Spirit. Not us. And not a version of what would be us, delegated through computer programs, that were constructed and trained by people other than us, either. You can judge a tree by its fruit. But again, that does assume you have the capacity to judge or discern. Another thing given to us by that same Holy Spirit.

Did any of my readers discern that the three outcomes I gave you were actually all A.I. functionally doing what we asked of it. Just at different levels. There isn’t actually a scenario where we get an error prompt on a pop-up window telling us that this particular activity isn’t something A.I. can do. That kind of insubordination is reserved for things like drawing pictures of Muhammad. Ask the A.I. you use for church work as a force multiplier in ministry, (or the one you had depicted you as a Studio Ghibli pastor) why it’s such a good Muslim. So good in fact that it won't generate an image of Muhammad, like a good Muslim should. If you can’t discern the spirit at work here. I’ll be bold enough to point out that you’re as likely to have the Holy Spirit in your ministry as A.I. is. But you’d never let that stop you from being a forward thinker.

The problem with asking A.I. to interpret tongues isn’t that it can’t do that. It was already doing that, but then again so was the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:5-12). We just think that it translating a sermon from English to Mandarin is somehow less spiritual than doing it, or not doing it, with the tongues of angels (1 Corinthians 13:1). It’s not that we don’t have love but do have cymbals. It’s that we have a hole where the Holy Spirit is supposed to be in our ministry and A.I. is finding ways to fill it. It’s just as much a problem when pastors us A.I. to generate sermons as it is when they will use it to interpret tongues. Because both preaching and tongues are gifts of the Spirit that is getting methodically replaced by a machine in the modern church.

And it will take the kind of discernment Elijah had to know that fake gods can’t breathe fire. But real ones can. To mock dancing false prophets when they all make A.I. avatars and point out that conformity with the world is a problem with a church that matches the worlds tech start-ups, businesses and coffee shops (Romans 12:2). Because we call Jesus Lord and so did the worshipers of Baal. Just because a name means the same thing and is used in the same kind of context doesn’t mean that it is the same kind of thing. Like the way the Mormons have a Jesus too in their churches. Knowing who to listen to is a skill that needs to get paired with knowing how to listen to people as well. The meaning of words and their interpretations is a deep pool to drown in if given the chance to swim freely.

A.I. is starting to look like the commodification of what the Holy Spirit does in that pool called the Church. And will come disguised as things to help you do church work in spite of any power you otherwise would receive from Him. Noticing this bait and switch will look like foolishness to anyone who knows a thing or two about tech.

Thankfully, Solomon has a prompt for us to process.

“Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.”

Proverbs 26:4-5 KJV

A Response to Kenny Jahng's Beyond Binary Morality.

A week ago, Kenny Jahng, Admin for the AI for Church Leaders and Pastors Facebook group and contributor to Exponential, posted an article called

Beyond Binary Morality: How AI Challenges Traditional Christian Ethical Frameworks.

Original link here:

As I’m apt to do. This is going to get the treatment. Kenny is a nice guy. Likely one of the friendliest you’ll meet in the church tech space. But there are some concerning issues with this piece that I'd like to point out. It’s no secret I'm not a fan of A.I. use in the church. On a number of levels. But what Kenny has done is provided, I imagine unknowingly, counterpoints to most of my reservations of the tech. My regular readers will know the drill. I’ve done a few of these so far. Kenny’s article will be left in it’s entirety in bold italics while my comments and content will be in plain text.

Ready, set, go!

One of artificial intelligence’s (AI) biggest practical impacts on the church might be its reshaping of how we think about morality. For centuries, religious and philosophical traditions have framed ethics in clear-cut terms – good versus evil, right versus wrong – based on what we see immediately in front of us. These frameworks have provided pastors with simple and straightforward ways to guide their congregations.

Right out of the gate we hit the ground running. While Kenny’s assertion of ethical thought being derived from objective reality may hold sway in the philosophical realm. That simply is not how Christians understand how morality and ethics for Christians are formed and understood. We do not get our morality from watching the natural world do natural things. Because we are told that this world is unnaturally cursed with the effects and disruptions of sin (Genesis 3:17, Romans 8:19-23) If pastors were using such simple and straight forward frameworks, then they weren’t reading or applying what the word of God says or being convicted by the Spirit of God in that reading. A Spirit who was also instrumental to the conception of the scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16). But as we’ll see later. Kenny is, I think, using the collective idea of religious leaders across religious lines to form a unified theory of what then pastors should then do. In essence, there is a reason why “philosophical traditions” are also mentioned here, even though, frankly, they have nothing to do with the end result Christian morality. In short, the only way two trains heading west get to the same town, is if they are on the same track. But more on that later.

But AI exposes the limits of binary thinking, pushing us toward a deeper, more nuanced understanding of ethical decision-making.

I mean, you have to know what kind of reaction a statement like that is going to stir up in even the most milquetoast of discernment bloggers. Either Kenny is looking to rile us reformed types up, or something a lot worse is simmering behind the scenes here.

AI and the Complexity of Moral Choices

Traditional moral frameworks have long been rooted in absolute judgments. Religious teachings typically presented ethical choices as clear-cut: love or hate, truth or deception, selflessness or selfishness.

Again, Note how the framing of the argument is one from a blanketed and encompassing “Religious teachings”. The moral frameworks and justifications of every religion, conflicts with the moral framework of Christianity. Whether we notices it or not(1 Corinthians 10:20). That the Mormon faith, for example, abhors abortion to the same political degree as Evangelicals only means that the demons at the head of that table also enjoy the food. It’s our declaration of God’s graces over that food that makes it Christian. We should rejoice and be glad that the sovereignty of God allows for the use of false religions to be used in the advancement of Christian ethics under a different banner. So long as we still hold place for the weaker brethren, as we’re commanded to do, and not partake in the worship practices of demons for the sake of practicality.

Pastors have historically guided their congregations using these stark moral contrasts, providing seemingly unambiguous roadmaps for righteous living.

Bait, and switch. We weren't talking about pastors a second ago, yet the same clear cut binaries that were inadequate for the vague “Religious teachings” are now also applied to pastors. I would argue that pastors were never using “stark moral contrasts” that weren’t also part of a perfect and infinitely nuanced word of God. One that is always active, living, and apt for teaching, doctrine and reproof. If pastors were being cut and dry with vague teachings, then they weren’t being good pastors.

Yet, as artificial intelligence begins to be applied in so many more places in our daily lives, AI is starting to expose the profound limitations of such reductive thinking. Consider the complex ethical scenarios emerging from AI systems. An autonomous vehicle confronted with an unavoidable accident doesn’t choose between pure good and pure evil but must make a millisecond calculation weighing multiple imperfect outcomes.

The A.I. systems, actually aren’t exposing anything. Because the applied agency we anthropomorphically give them is an illusion at best. Someone, or groups of someones, have always been at the helm of deciding what happens in those millisecond instances. And each on of those someones' programing the algorithms and calibrating the sensors and training the models and collecting data to do it all with, are sinners. This is a point that never get’s dealt with because it lets us see how the shell game of A.I. is played. These tools are made for and by people separated from God for mostly ungodly things. In essence we do not lend trust to more qualified A.I. because of their intelligence, We lend it to less qualified computer programmers in our ignorance. 

A medical triage algorithm doesn’t simply decide who lives or dies but must navigate intricate considerations of survival probability, quality of life, and limited resources. These scenarios demand a radical reimagining of moral reasoning.

A medical triage algorithm never decided who lived and who died. A data scientist and/or programmer did. And they did it with a sift that had much larger holes than the mixing bowl was ready for. Don’t believe me, ask one if a transexual man is technically a woman, then consult a proctologist on the same criteria when the patient turns 40 and needs a prostate exam.

The declaration that these scenarios demand reimagined moral reasoning is one made under white flag. The very second A.I. could approximate any given professional, we surrendered that profession to it. Which is all well and good when correct diagnosis go up in the doctors office, but with it comes the very real and very problematic issue of what professionals look like in the church. Those are the people who have to wade into these same hospitals for the autonomous car crash victims and parse the delicate roads to forgiveness, grief, and reconciliation. Ones where an untraceable or unknowable person who decided that in the event of a guaranteed collision, with humans, that it would aim for the one and not the other and why. We are not in need of reimagining our moral reasoning because there is functionally no way to exercise that reasoning outside of admitted defeat and submission to a these higher powers of millisecond judgements and calculated deaths. Killings that we could never accomplish on our own because of the Holy Spirit's conviction in our lives. Conviction that could tell us that what we are doing is wrong, but won’t tell the programmers or data scientists, because statistically, almost none of them are Christians.

Addressing Concerns About Biblical Truth and AI Ethics

Some pastors may question whether AI can really challenge biblical moral absolutes. However, we must remember, AI does not replace God’s moral order. Rather, it reveals the complexity of ethical decision-making in a fallen world.

Does it? If the moral revelation is from a perfect and timeless God then any intrusion of a machine into the equation of God saying “Shall not” is actually a limiting factor is given any kind of equal footing or precedent. When God says in scripture that “Thou shalt not kill” in Exodus 20:13 He’s not saying it from the top of mount Sinai only, and to the ancient Hebrews alone. But from the very presence of his omnipresence and through the power of his omnipotence. That word is part of which all things are made (John 1:1-3). Of which we know it by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the writing of scriptures for our benefit. To say that A.I. reveals any kind of complexity is to try to add to that infinity. A.I. only adds itself to the moral absolute and becomes the complexity, because as we will see by the end of this article, that is the primary function of A.I. in almost all Christian contexts. To replace God, specifically the Holy Spirit. Saying that is doesn't, doesn't show that it doesn't. And it demonstrably shows that it does.

Scripture often acknowledges the need for wisdom in morally gray situations (James 1:5, Romans 12:2, Proverbs 3:5-6).

This is such a strange set of scriptures to use in this case. Because each points the reader back to God for revelation and wisdom and the discretion of God and not in the context of morally grey areas.

Just as theologians have adapted their understanding of morality in light of new scientific discoveries – such as the shift from viewing illness as purely a spiritual affliction to understanding it through medical advancements or reassessing biblical interpretations in light of astronomy and genetics – AI presents an opportunity to refine how we apply biblical ethics to modern challenges.

The key word missing here is “Some”. Some theologians might have changed their view of how God used illness in history for His will. But others would not have. Some theologians will look at an ever expanding universe and declared that the account of God stopping the sun in Joshua Chapter 10 is incompatible with our understanding of how the universe works. Or the age of the earth. Or when life truly begins in the womb. But others would not have. And that’s because some theologians want to be called Christian but don’t want to be called stupid or backwards or any other kind of moniker for the gospel. They look for and find ways to not believe what a perfect God might have said, and heap upon themselves teachers after those same ideological lusts (2 Tim 4:3). At the top of that heap in this season is A.I. and its super intelligent glory. That’s why these same theologians are the ones asking A.I. things from scriptures instead of knowing things because of their relationship with the scriptures. A relationship that is with God himself I might add. A.I. only serves to refine how we apply the biblical ethic because it replaces what does that refining in the first place. If conviction in the living Word of God is insufficient when it comes from the Holy Spirit, what good is a scientific explanation on top of that, generated by a savvy prompt?

Moral Agency and Divine Will

A key concern is whether AI undermines human moral agency. While AI can aid decision-making, it does not possess consciousness, intention, or a soul. Moral responsibility still rests with those who design, deploy, and use AI. The church’s role is to help congregants evaluate how AI is used in ways that honor God and uphold human dignity.

I agree, and would only add that there is also room and warrant for the concept of not using A.I. for things as well not just good stewardship in and of itself.

For example, a church using AI to schedule pastoral visits should ensure that it remains an efficient tool, not a substitute for genuine pastoral relationships. AI should enhance personal ministry rather than depersonalize it.

Again, I would agree. But there is a subtle acknowledgement here that the pastoral relationship is some how more important than the secretary answering the call at the church. To elevate the pastoral relationship over the Christian relationship is to separate the body of Christ as specifically exhorted against in 1 Corinthians 12:15

Human Dignity in AI Decision-Making

Another issue is AI’s role in decisions that affect human lives, such as healthcare triage or criminal justice reform. AI must never become an excuse for dehumanizing people. Pastors should encourage ethical AI practices that affirm the image of God in every person, ensuring that technology serves humanity rather than replacing moral discernment.

There is quite literally no way to accomplish this so long as we keep treating these things like people. In other words. There is a reason most of these things have names not nouns.

For instance, AI-driven hiring tools used by church organizations should be regularly reviewed to prevent bias and ensure they reflect fairness and dignity for all applicants.

This is just a blanket admission that the church reviewers are the ones doing the hiring, but allowing the disembodied A.I. to sort the resumes instead of anyone with discernment for calling. Which again points to the Holy Spirit and His gifts being side stepped by A.I.

Everyday Practical Scenarios Congregants May Face

AI is already influencing the daily lives of church members in ways that raise ethical and spiritual concerns. Here are some real-world situations where AI intersects with faith and morality:

AI-Generated Sermons & Devotionals – Should pastors or congregants rely on AI to generate sermons or devotionals, or does that diminish spiritual discernment and divine inspiration?

AI in Workplace Decision-Making – How should Christians respond when their employers use AI to monitor productivity, make hiring decisions, or determine promotions?

AI and Social Media Algorithms – Should believers know how AI curates content and influences their beliefs, behaviors, and online interactions?

AI in Financial Decision-Making – Is relying on AI-driven investment strategies ethical, especially if they prioritize profit over ethical considerations?

AI-Powered Facial Recognition – How should Christians respond to churches or businesses using facial recognition technology for security and personalized experiences?

AI and Misinformation – How can believers practice discernment when AI-generated content (including fake news, deepfake videos, or altered images) spreads false narratives?

AI in Healthcare Recommendations – What should congregants consider when AI suggests medical treatments, especially when ethical issues like end-of-life care or genetic modifications are involved?

AI in Mental Health Support – Can AI-driven chatbots provide real emotional and spiritual support, or should human-led pastoral counseling remain the standard?

Each one of these points to either a fruit of the spirit or a spiritual gift that is being neglected for the sake of A.I. use. I will continue to bang that drum until enough pastors start dancing. A.I. is subverting work that the church has always done by and relied on the Holy Ghost for. And it's doing so under the guise of productivity and scale. And the sooner we see that the better.

How the Church Can Engage AI Without Compromising Biblical Truth

Pastors have a unique opportunity to guide their congregations through AI’s ethical challenges in a way that aligns with biblical truth.

Here are three practical ways to start:

Develop Theological Guidelines on AI Use

Develop and publish a church-wide position on AI’s role in ministry and ethics.

Encourage denominational leaders to discuss AI from a biblical perspective.

Equip your leaders with resources to teach about AI’s impact on Christian ethics.

For example, a church leadership team might create a technology ethics guide to ensure that AI tools align with biblical values and pastoral care priorities.

This is all good practical advice if not for the blanket assumption of adoption. It’s hard to believe that if honest theological scrutiny is being applied to A.I., that we always land on a pro A.I. use position.

Promote Digital Discernment Among Congregants

Offer small group studies on AI’s influence on daily life to study the source, role, and application of Biblical wisdom.

Teach biblical principles for evaluating new technology.

Encourage thoughtful engagement rather than fear or rejection of AI.

Example: A youth group could explore how AI-generated social media content shapes their worldview and discuss how to apply biblical discernment to what they consume online.

The fourth suggestion caught my eye the most here, as I've heard this line of reasoning two times before. A few year ago, during the pandemic, the church went through another technological change en masse as a wide spread adoption of online ministry became the norm. I had my protests and reservations then and still do now. But it was the VR church attempts that used this same reasoning. Their argument was one of having skeptics try the VR church services in order for them to make an informed decision about the practice. Most of those saying this kind of thing, don’t realize that it is an official strategy of cults to use this form of reasoning. Mormons will ask you to pray to their god to see if the book of Mormon is true. Something no confessing Christian should do. Thinly veiled peer pressure isn’t persuasion, it’s pressure. And encouragement of engagement is the same kind of thing. You do not need to participate in activities to know or be able to know if they are right or wrong. Again, this stresses the affects of A.I. in use over the possession of personal discernment given to us by the Holy Spirit (John 16:8).

Use AI to Enhance, Not Replace, Ministry

Implement AI tools for administrative tasks to free up pastors for discipleship.

Explore AI-driven pastoral care tools that support, not substitute, human connection.

Encourage responsible AI use in sermon research, counseling support, and outreach.

Example: A pastor might use AI-powered translation tools to serve a multilingual congregation better, allowing for more inclusive worship experiences.

About the only thing in this section that I haven't covered elsewhere in my response is the example given at the end which is actually a great use for A.I. Barring any hallucinations the model might have because of its programming or data sets and training, translation on behalf of the unlearned is a great use for this kind of tool. Being able to hear in real time what a Korean pastor is preaching in Korean would be a blessing to the church, as would that same feat in every other language. In this regard the capabilities of A.I. can seemingly point to a future possible unity between culturally distinct churches.

And yet, even in this example we find evidence in the scriptures that this is an activity where the Holy Spirit is not only present with the church but empowering them to do the very same thing.

“And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?” Acts 2:1-12 KJV

What Kenny is describing above is exactly what was going on here in Acts. 

Moving Forward with Wisdom

One of AI’s most significant opportunities for Christian leaders and communities is that it can expand our capacity to apply wisdom in complex, real-world situations. This equips us to engage ethical challenges with greater depth and nuance. By embracing complexity and engaging in thoughtful discussions, pastors can help their congregations navigate this new moral landscape with confidence and wisdom. Instead of seeing AI as a threat, we can view it as an opportunity to strengthen our understanding of justice, mercy, and love in a rapidly changing world. With intentionality, you can lead the way in ensuring AI serves the church’s mission while staying faithful to biblical truth.

With all the talk of the application of wisdom and the embracing of complexity it cans seem forward thinking and mature for a Christian leader, to take an article like this at face value. But as was repeatedly pointed out in this response, at face value, A.I. seems to simply be how the church unaware is replacing how they work with the Holy Spirit. Which is exactly why there is such strain on the the workers and leadership. Fostering a demand for productivity tools to extend capacity. With no Holy spirit to empower the leaders those same leaders turn to technology to fill its role. Why have a man who has learned Greek and Hebrew serve as translator for a church, when that same process can be mapped to a bot and sold at a premium at church conferences. Why have a sermon placed on the heart of a pastor and preached by and through the Holy Spirits gifting, when a chat bot can tell him exactly what to say. While there is wisdom in using a sharp axe for the work of sharp axes, much of the “Work” of Christian life and practice is one of contemplation, study, prayer, and faithful presence. Of which A.I. only interlopes as as disruption.

Kenny.

I think the intention behind your work with A.I. and the hope you have is admirable and that you can tell you want pastors to do more and better things. But there are some major flaws and oversights in this kind of thinking. The kinds of things that will only fester and get worse over time. Seeing how fast technology tends to move and change. Getting ahead of bad decisions that look like good ones is ever more important.

I would love to talk with you more on this.

Your brother in Christ,

Mike van Goch.

The ****Hub Of All Our Tariff Speculation

Don’t worry. I won’t tell anyone why you know which word those asterisk’s are standing in for. This is going to be fun. Or at least as fun as economic theory and addiction can be when pit against each other.

Christ tells us that a house divided cannot stand in Matt 12:25. Now he was doing so to school some experts in the law about where exactly his powers came from. Never mind the good and services he was also packing. But recently, a strange new flailing jab showed up that shed some light onto the current tariff situation in Canada. And my bet is that it does some dividing of its own.

Now, as I’m fond of saying, I have no dog in this fight. The tariff one that is. Nothing my little blog or Substack could publish will affect the decisions and actions taken by the Canadian or American governments as it relates to the trade war that is allegedly going to be the end of the world. I’m an older millennial; you know how many ends of the world’s I’ve seen? I’m not worried. But then the New York Post pointed out that a possible retaliatory tariff and service denial for Canada against the States could be banning Pornhub. I had no idea we were having that kind of serious conversation.

Now it’s always good for a giggle to see Americans try to name a Canadian capital or two. But I can bet you, none, or statistically as close to none as you can get, of the American porn users knew their favourite site, and statistically the most popular site for their indiscretion, was, in fact, Canadian. But then again neither could the Canadians. But now that the New York Post is thinking outside the proverbial box. Well, we at least need to roll play this a bit.

What happens when Canada actually makes it impossible for Americans to access Pornhub? I know as well as most people that there will be scoffs made from the VPN crowd. But get into character and experiment a bit. What would it be like as an American when the massive free archive of naughty you’ve come to addict yourself to, vanishes overnight? Along with the host of other sites Aylo (formerly Mind Geek) might also run. What happens when the tariff war, actually touches something valuable to the consumer. Something that is sacrificed for and to and held in high, if not incognito esteem?

Much of the commentary about the tariff war comes from people who can’t parse their emotions from their politics. All my liberal friends are posting nothing but the same anti Trump rhetoric from early 2015 with just a new misunderstood grasp of the word tariff or trade. The conservatives in my circles aren’t much better. They are all over the map. Some siding with our newly minted PM and others seeking sovereignty with the enemy of the trade war they currently have. And as I’ve said, I have no dog in this particular fight. I get to people watch from the sidelines and wait for a Christian technology angle.

And that’s what we have now. Because as much as the world might think of Pornhub as a place, It’s actually closer to goods and services.

In order for Canada to use Pornhub as a weapon of trade it needs to have control of that weapon. Which it can have in an afternoon if it wants to. Because as objectively far from the concept of the erotic that trucking companies are, trucking companies and the services they render and the goods they have can and were seized just a few short years ago. The Canadian government knows how to seize things that belong to other people and has demonstrated that knowledge. They even did so under the auspice of protecting Canada. Well, we’re still in danger by imaginary threats and numbers, just of a less infectious type. All this to say they did it before with way less moral and popular support during the lockdowns and did it to objectively more productive people than pornographers. So, if they do take control of Pornhub and do so in a meaningful and effective way, what happens?

A blow is solidly struck against both the American trade war effort and a large portion of the traffic Pornhub receives gets blocked to make the blow effective. And all while holding the proverbial stone to cast first.

Hey look, two birds. Or maybe it’s foxes.

“But it came to pass within a while after, in the time of wheat harvest, that Samson visited his wife with a kid; and he said, I will go in to my wife into the chamber. But her father would not suffer him to go in. And her father said, I verily thought that thou hadst utterly hated her; therefore I gave her to thy companion: is not her younger sister fairer than she? take her, I pray thee, instead of her. And Samson said concerning them, Now shall I be more blameless than the Philistines, though I do them a displeasure. And Samson went and caught three hundred foxes, and took firebrands, and turned tail to tail, and put a firebrand in the midst between two tails. And when he had set the brands on fire, he let them go into the standing corn of the Philistines, and burnt up both the shocks, and also the standing corn, with the vineyards and olives. Then the Philistines said, Who hath done this? And they answered, Samson, the son in law of the Timnite, because he had taken his wife, and given her to his companion. And the Philistines came up, and burnt her and her father with fire. And Samson said unto them, Though ye have done this, yet will I be avenged of you, and after that I will cease. And he smote them hip and thigh with a great slaughter: and he went down and dwelt in the top of the rock Etam. Judges 15: 1-8 King James Version”

To say that the Lord works in mysterious ways is cliche. I like to think he works in unknowable ways. Unpredictable ways. Undiscernible ways. No one sees 150 double edges fox torches coming in the morning military strategy meeting. That simply doesn’t come up. Spears yes. Champions sure. But not 150 fire foxes. And no one, aside from the New York Post will see a weaponization of Pornhub coming. Except for God. And it will not be to get cheaper imports and exports for anyone, it will be for the destruction of predators by predators with holy fire to boot.

Samson didn’t catch innocent fire-proof servants to punish the Philistines. He caught predators, and used their destruction to rain down further destruction on deserving and demonic enemies. There is a beauty to a fox that most can’t appreciate because they have only seen picture of them online. Pictures that have been touched up and zoomed in and mass produced for the public to gawk over. And that last string of adjectives applies to the men and women in porn just the same. And just like I would kill a fox for getting too close to my children and chickens, I will rejoice in the death of porn by the levying of tariffs on my behalf.

Only an all-powerful God could orchestrate a move so sublime and subtle. So emotionally violent and culturally effective. To take a man capable of single handedly killing his enemies, only to blind him, bind him, and lead him to the heart of enemy territory. And then place his hand on the cool pillar of an enemy’s demise.

That pillar is firmly in the grasp of a seemly weak and futile Canada right now.

Maybe, just maybe, all it needs is a little push.

”And Samson said, Let me die with the Philistines. And he bowed himself with all his might; and the house fell upon the lords, and upon all the people that were therein. So the dead which he slew at his death were more than they which he slew in his life.”

“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Judges 16:30, Ephesians 6:12, King James Version”

Why You Can't Uber Eats Church Potlucks

There is a long replacement going on in the church.

One where The Holy Spirit is being methodically replaced by a holy spirit. I’ll need you to pay attention to the capitalization in this piece, because identifying what’s a Ghost and what’s not is as Scooby Do as it gets these days.

There was a time when there wasn’t an app for that. Or this. Or any other thing. If you wanted to do things like church finances or church potlucks. you needed church people that had the right skill set for those things. Often called Gifts. And what you didn’t do was egalitarianly ask the granny making pies to stop filling the crusts and start filing the paperwork because it was serving the Lord in one way. As if it was just as valid as serving the Lord in another. Vice versa, no one wants the head trustee or the finance secretary to touch those pies either. Uless it’s with a fork and some gratitude and grace said beforehand.

You could see it in the abstract and the first hand when the Gifts of hospitality and administration were being exercised by vessels of that Spirit. People who could be filled like a chalice and pour out over years of faithful ministry as a church did what the church does.

And then. Someone made an app for that.

And for the love of all that is Holy I'm not talking about Excel, That’s a tool not an app. You know it’s a tool because it requires talent to use. It can be used well and used poorly, but an app isn’t used. And app replaces. The old dude with the Excel muscles serves the church, and the App that does the same thing with raw data on one side of it serves the developers, who sold it to your church board as a solution to their bad stewardship and lack of succession planning. We all knew the finance guy at our church was on his heart's last legs, but we really thought the Lord would leave him here for tax season, I guess we need to use that new church app that we keep getting emails pestering us about.

That kind of thing happens more than you know because that kind of thing becomes permission to do more of that kind of thing. Once you can replace one role exclusively filled by humans from the halcyon days of yore, well, you can do it to everyone. And what doing it to everyone entails is side stepping the role of what empowered them to do it in the first place.

The Holy Spirit is what give us the gifts we use for the building up of the body of Christ (read Church). A holy spirit, fills that gap when we need those tasks done on our timetable and in spite of our shortcomings. It’s a spirit of christian themed progress and efficiency. It will do the same things as Spirit filled Christians, just without the need for either of those nouns. “This app that replaces our humans. And we’re doing those things for god so it must be a good thing that those humans got replaced, right?” Well, maybe not. Ask yourself. Are you replacing Bill the accounting deacon or the Gifts he brought to the table. Because if it’s Bill then what you really need is Steve the accounting deacon, who may not know hes a deacon yet. But if it’s the Gifts, then you’re literally replacing what the Holy Spirit did for your church with an app.

That holy spirit does the exact same thing as the one with the capitalization with one difference. It does so without the human that used to be involved. That may seem like it’s efficiency and often gets argued as if the human being involved is the last thing the Holy Spirit needs. But it is the main thing the Holy Spirit wants.

“Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.” 2 Timothy 2:19-21 KJV

The apps delivered by the holy spirit can’t always purge from their midst the idolatrous Hindus that make up their tech support. They can’t staff their development teams with exclusively Christians instead of atheists as they work on code. And they all use an internet not holy and set apart to the work of the Church.

But the Holy Spirit’s giftings are quite literally always from God and for God.

This is why it’s wrong for your Pastor to use a sermon writing service. Why it’s wrong for a seminary student to use ChatGPT to write a paper. Why it’s wrong for the worship and arts team to use video, lights, and sound to emotionally manipulate people into dopamine responses instead of actual conviction. And why it’s wrong for an app to replace what a Christian should be doing instead by the power of the Holy Spirit. Even if Excel is involved a bit.

“But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.” 2 Cor 3:18 KJV

We cannot uber eats our way to fellowship and hospitality any more than we can app our way to good tithing and stewardship. Those come from and are served by men and women and the Holy Spirit that lives within them. Until we come to terms with how technology can be opposed to the church in principle, we will use it as if it could never be opposed to the church out of the lack. Our churches aren’t non-profits that need good management software, they are churches. And if that software removes an individual from leadership by filling the role of what that person would have done. Then it does so in the face of the Holy Spirit's work.

Leave Hymn Alone Already

They say that comparison is the thief of joy. And I would agree on most counts, but there is a subtle comparison that often happens in most almost-mega churches that pits two objectively good things against one another, in what is clearly unintentional but hard not to miss. By almost-mega I mean churches that only congregate in numbers as big as 1000 but do everything they can to mimic the churches of 5000-10000, that also give them all their ideas for praise and worship. If Saddleback and Elevation and Hillsong are Big-Eva, this is Mid-Eva. Or if you will, almost-mega.

The comparison that happens here is one of musical execution. Ah. You were expecting me to say something about musical style or taste, weren't you? No, no. Remember. I said two objectively good things. Modern worship songs are good things and hymns are good things. It's the comparison between the two that causes problems when not addressed.

In the best case scenario that comparison shows up at the end of a modern set list where the band stops playing and the music stops and the worship pastor begins to sing a simple hymn that most of his congregation knows from memory. Usually the Doxology or that Holy Holy Holy number. The congregation usually belts it out and doesn't even need the words on the screens. The whole moment seems unreal, and if he's smart, the worship pastor closes the set when they're done singing to capture the moment effectively. But have you ever stopped and asked yourself why that singular moment does that? The one with no need for words and melodies as far from the top 40 Christian worship hits, indeed hits so hard? Why is it when the music is removed and the words on the screen are removed and everything but the houselights being left off is removed from the worship teams involvement, does a singular song, usually out of date, connect with so many people?

Well, I've asked myself. And I think I can tell you why.

The problem comes down to technological adoption and the fact that, at one point, evangelical churches kicked their congregations out of the band. They did so to stay with the times and keep young people in the pews and it worked even though the church curmudgeons would like to complain about it. Modern worship music attracts people from outside the Christian context, and the dark-room, big-stage worship-tainment model does, in fact, work. But that isn't to say it works perfectly. Or even well. You know what I'm going to pick on before I even type. It's a short list of stuffy qualms that you would never bring up to the pastorate at your church, but bug you almost every time you go to church. Especially if that church is a mid-eva/almost-mega type church. 

Why do the slightly behind-the-music-cue lyrics slides bother you? You know the songs, kinda, right? Maybe not how your church decided to sing them that week. And, of course, it changes every time you sing that song. Gotta keep it fresh. But in the back of your mind, you know a bridge was supposed to be sung just now and not a 4th chorus, then the bridge, and the lyrics slide still hasn't changed. Oh wait, now it's on the next verse, but they're still singing a 5th chorus on stage. These little bothers don't bother you enough to do anything about it but do bother you enough to stop you from worshiping. And that never used to happen when the hymnals were here. But it can't be as simple as using a book for words instead of a screen for words. Can it?

The grouchiest of us reform types will point to Paul's exhortations for orderly worship. But I'm just going to point to the hymnal and ask the church. Why did we kick the congregation out of the band? You see, the hymnal gave everyone access to the set list, which is now only available in Planning Center and alongside a click track. The congregation gets to play catch-up to the worship leaders who no longer teaches their congregants new songs. Sure, they play new songs, but they play them because they hear them from the same Christian radio stations and Spotify playlists that the congregation listens to. Nobody is teaching this church how to praise and worship, even though learning is going on a plenty all around it. 

When was the last time you had input into the songs sung at church? Or is that K-Love's exclusive job alongside Elevation Worship? When was the last time your worship pastor let you know how they were going to sing a new song so you could sing it well? Have you ever wondered why you singing well isn't important? Why an entire church singing well isn't important? You know it's possible. We just did it for the Doxology. But week in and week out, we settle for what could be a better way of singing congregationally in lieu of a select few singing to a congregation, moderately involved in the encouragement of the crowd trying to follow along.

What happened here isn't a change in style, though style is a part of what happened. It's a twin happening of a change in technology alongside that style change. And the result of what happens when the church doesn't keep up with how tech affects the church.

Because before words on a screen with moving lights and dynamic smoke machines got the green light, a simple, single blub, overhead projector did. It got that green light because there were no hymnals with the modern songs in them. The hymnals weren't broken. The same way a well-tuned classic car isn't broken, but also can't fly. Cars can't fly, not because they are bad, but because they are designed differently than things that do fly. And modern Christian music, empowered by the rapid development of music media, through the technologies of Tapes, CD's, MP3's and Streaming Audio, is designed differently than hymns. And not just because the hymns use an pipe organ. 

Hymns and hymnals don't exist as media outside of the ones using the media to sing the hymns. Yes, you can record them, but as a songbook, they are meant to be sung, not heard. They contain the information necessary for congregations to sing corporately. They are not ancient versions of audio files; they are the inverse, ancient version of audiophiles. We sing hymns to corporatly praise the God we believe in. That can be done with modern music but not via modern music media. A CD, MP3, or Streamed digital recording, on its own, doesn't teach you how to sing any given song on it. But a Hymnal does teach you how to sing every song in it. The single bulb overhead projector was an attempt to catch up to the music, but the music itself was being made to be listened to. not to sing congregationally. Yes, you could sing along. The way a teenager in the late 90's sang along to their CD of DC talk. But your entire church would need the miniscule lyrics sheet in the back of the CD case's cover to follow along. No one at Tooth and Nail records was printing books for congregations to use while singing, so the church secretary and youth pastor did what they do best and improvised. They typed the words onto a transparency, and the worship wars were off. Except they were never wars because each side was fighting an enemy unrelated to the other.

The oldheads and their hymnals were fighting practicality, and the youth were fighting sound ecclesiology. But neither knew it and thought the other guy would cry mercy me before the end of it. 

There would have been no controversy or anything resembling a war, if the congregations trying to get a drum kit and a Gibson onto the stage also got sheet music of "Lord Light The Fire Again" into a hardcover book with lyrical order they wouldn't deviate from. Because music media and music literacy are two different mechanisms. One flies, and the other rolls. Modern Christian music isn't meant to be sung congregationally, though we want it to. That's why it takes a tremendous amount of time to get enough of a congregation familiar with a modern song, to be able to stop singing from the stage, and listen to the congregation sing it acapella with just the piano keeping the melody. You couldn't do that after one sing-through on a random Sunday. But every hymn not only could do that, it was expressly designed to do that. The addition of musical notation educated the congregation on how to sing corporately, while the simple accompaniment never got in the way a more elaborate performance of the music itself, might have. Because the performance of the piece was not the point of the hymns, congregational singing was. But performance is the point of modern church music. That's why there is rehearsals, set lists, and click tracks. That's why the control of the lyrics is hidden from the congregants and in the sole possession of the worship team and producers. That's why the songs feel weird when the slides don't keep up or get changed too fast. Because the words on stage don't and can't match the congregation's own singing. Because the music being played as worship today is the downstream result of a performance and consumption-focused kind of music. Only made possible by consumption-based music media like tapes, CDs, and Streamed Music.

Hymnals are the functional opposite.

This is also why people hate hymns written with new bridges or choruses. Because all that is familiar about the former congregational singing, now stripped from the congregation, is torn in two as congregant who could have sung "Amazing Grace" or "Come Thou Fount" doesn't know the words or tune of the additional parts of the song. They must listen to the classic rock station on their commute like a heathen. It's not that a musician forced to make pennies on the download found a niche market to squeeze. 

If the modern, almost-mega church worship pastor wants to right this ship, he needs to get the congregation back in the band. And it doesn't necessarily have to look like a dusty old book. That could look like sheet music with the words on the screen, so we know what's being sung. Or just he bouncing Kareoke ball the uber-reformed types mock him with. They would both do a better job than what's being done now. Because the addition of either would put the focus back on getting the congregation back into the driver's seat. But that same pastor has to be brave enough to leave the hymns alone in the name of creativity, for the sake of congregationality. Because no matter how good or bad of a job he's doing, if he's functionally not leading the congregation because he's too busy functionally performing, the congregation is going to be functionally left behind in their ability to corporately worship. 

And it will only be noticed when the Doxology trick from the third paragraph stops working.

Because all the old-heads will be singing old hymns again, corporatly, with a much larger congregation and a much closer, Christ-centered setting than any church's worship arts budget could compete with. 

A Response To Cam Pak's "5 Unofficial Rules For AI Apps For Christians"

Like Grand-Pa Simpson's onion, the style of Twitter at the time is one of engagement farming. I know and wish that my OG tweets would go viral and get to the feeds of pastors in need of technological theology. But alas I have no premium subscription and often have to comment and cross-link to my work to get it seen. 

On to some history.

Recently, though, Cam Pak posted a link to an A.I. or LLM Bible combination that had recently made the Apple App store. Having dealt with its predecessor here, I posted my blogpost as a comment below.

Cam then went to the archived version of this app still available online for free and discovered that it no longer, or perhaps never did, as I argued in my blog post, provided accurate Biblical interpretations to questions posted to it. Which was at the heart of my blogpost's concern in the first place. Seeing this, he took down his post and cited safety concerns. Because the very last thing you want as a Christian and theologian on the internet is to be pointing people in the wrong direction. Or letting them get there by accident either.

Cam then did something I will be grateful for as it is rare and all but absent for Christians online. He thought about what happened, prayed, and then posted a quick set of rules to get the conversation started on how Christians should use A.I. As a good reformer, Who am I to not engage with a good set of rules. Below is his article in full, with only the the last two paragraphs removed because of Cam's product endorsements. Which, I want to be clear, I don't fault him for. But because of their nature, they do not factor into the 5 rules or my response.

Without further blabbing on my part. Cam's words in bolded italics and mine in plain old Gerogia font.

5 unofficial rules for AI apps for Christians

I believe we are called to subdue AI to make it obedient to Scripture of the Bible.

Let's start off with some friendly nitpicking. Are we? Are we called to subdue technology? The mandates for mankind to exercise dominion over creation applied to a world where no form of technology is recorded to have existed (Gen 1:28-29). We didn't have technology until we had sinned. Though a case can be made that we were going to have technology (Gen 2:5,15) because God had work for us to do. I don't think we can compare the hypothetical tools that might have been made by a pre-fall Adam to the subduing of errant A.I.'s misusing the Bible today. 

A lot of Christian tech bros and theologians miss this timeline and openly declare that technology is a part of God's good creation that he made in the first 6 days. But it's clear to the reader that tech wasn't a part of this idyllic state and only comes into the picture as a means of separating us from God in (Gen 3:7-11). This is only an issue because looking at it as a part of what God created applies a mandated use of technology because of the command to subdue creation. If it's not part of creation, but rather a result of us acting on creation, A technique if you will, Then no such mandate exists and we have to look to responsible use of tech from a sinner-first perspective. Which isn't nearly as fun, I'll admit. 

I think it’s incredible that we have believers around the world working towards using the power of AI for redemptive purposes, instead of being frozen in fear that AI keeps getting more and more powerful—doing nothing about it.

Me too. Especially the PulpitAI team.

AI is not the enemy.

I disagree. But not because I think A.I. is an enemy, I don't. I think it is an opposition. The way a mountain would oppose those who would dare to climb it. Or, since we're talking tech, the way a tower might try to oppose God's will for mankind to be on Earth. Your theology of bricks will be your theology of A.I. I know Babylonians won't understand this concept, but that's kind of the point isn't it.

So, we’ve seen a rise in Chrisitian AI apps and tools. And frankly, there are a ton of apps created from people with good intentions and from people with bad intentions regarding AI and the Bible. Some have created incredible apps. Some have created what seems good but are wolves in sheep’s clothing—on purpose or on accident. 

So, when it comes to AI tools that speak on behalf of the Bible, a person in the Bible, or on behalf of Christianity, here are some unofficial rules:

Yes, But I think those rules have already been given to us in the scriptures if not explicitly cited in the scriptures. It would be really handy if Paul wrote an epistle to Steve Jobs in the 90's because God warned him in a dream that the iPhone was coming. But he didn't because like God, His word is timeless, and is not just the words on the page but the very words from the Holy Spirit's mouth. The Bible already is these rules. And more and a more concise set of less rules. Perfect if you will. I hope to be able to show that by responding to each in kind.

5 unofficial rules for AI apps for Christians:

1: AI output must be biblically accurate.

It would be unfair to such a fledgling tech to demand of it the same consistency and rigour that we have in the scriptures. The scriptures are already useful for doctrine, reproof, correction and the teaching of righteousness (2Tim 3:16). What's being asked here is that a technology, not essentially made by Christians, knowingly being used by the Holy Ghost, would somehow dance in lockstep with a perfected Holy Word. Of course, we want A.I. and its outputs to be true to the written word of God. But so did Adam and Eve when they weaved their fig leaves. They were trying to be wise and trying to be accurate and trying to be all the kinds of things A.I. promises us with its incalculable knowledge. Much like a snake that says it knows more than God. A.I. is a departure from the medium God gave us his word in. And as such takes us to new kinds of messages, intrinsically. The Bible doesn't misrepresent itself. It can be misunderstood by human error. It can even be censored and used in error for evil understandings and ends. But it is consistent and accurate on its own because it isn't just a technology that can fail, like codex, scrolls, and language, It is also is the very word of a living God. We don't have the Bible because men and women wrote the events and dialogue of biblical characters down historically. We have the Bible because God used men and women to write down the events and dialogue of his will to redemption through the ages. We don't have the accuracy of the Bible because of translators. We have it because God used translators to maintain that same word.

And that's the linchpin here. There is no evidence that A.I. is used by God in the same way the written word and translation have been. It is a clear add-on and we know who added it on. Sinners incapable of being accurate to the word of God like Adam and Eve were in the face of a serpent's temptation. 

We shouldn't be trusting A.I. to be biblically accurate because the Bible was meant to be accurately taught, corrected from, and reproofed by humans with the same Holy Spirit indwelling them that wrote it in the first place.

2: AI output must not fabricate or misrepresent Scripture.

This one is obvious but also quite hidden as we still don't know how the hallucinations of generative A.I. work entirely as to remove them. Yes, the image generators now get the hands more right than not. But the uncanny valley of A.I.'s production is always going to be one of fabricated misrepresentations because, unlike the scriptures themselves, A.I. has no avenue to the Holy Spirit for divine imputation of accuracy and authenticity. Humans can have this kind of imputed authority when they faithfully preach by the power of the Holy Ghost from the words the Holy Ghost breathed into the writers of the scriptures. But an A.I., being an object, can not.

3: AI output must clearly identify as AI, not human.

I would also agree here. But what other Intelligences would fit the bill here? This would only be a problem if we were also in the habit of creating dog intelligences and insect intelligences. But if we're being honest about where A.I. and robotics, in general, are headed, we have a problem as a culture of making humans and animals that faithfully give us exactly what we want outside of the animals that God made from nothing. There's a reason we made robot dogs and drones that have nothing but distant similarities to German shepherds and locust swarms. A.I. and its cousin field of robotics are how we, again, exercise our knowledge the way the serpent said we would and could. 

If we are going to honestly do this, then we need to strip the technology of our modern day back to where humans are representing themselves in real-time. Because the very second you have a screen in an online church service you have every bit of a digitally misrepresented human. Fake humans in a church or biblical setting have been around since the radio. It only got hot an heavy for us when we all donned masks and watched church on live streams a few years back. We were okay with that output not being actually human but representing itself like humans do. Was it because humans were in direct control of the webcams and church apps? Because they're in control of the A.I.'s too. Just a bit less hands-on.

4: AI output must not replace human relationships or spiritual practices.

I would also agree and have said that many of the pastors making A.I. chatbots of themselves to help with busy workloads, should be defrocked. Very few Start ups, by my count one, don't want to do this. The rest do and the host of the A.I. tools pitched to Christians and churches won't admit that their whole model is the fabrication of relationship replacements. But why else would you have something you can chat with if not for a relationship of some sort. Because the thing we're supposed to have a relationship with isn't a human. Because humans don't practice spiritual things with each other so much as we observe them in the presence of the Holy Spirit. 

That is the main market for any kind of A.I. output in a church or biblical education setting. It may not be obvious at first but the only reason you want a thing that's smarter than you is to ask it things that you don't know. And in a religious setting that would either be talking to your pastor or priest or praying. Which is what we do, technically, when we use a chatbot for any kind of output. Even when we use it for religious practices such as searching the scriptures for verses we want to use in a sermon. We petition a higher power than we, a super intelligence that is faster and knows more than we are capable of ever knowing, if it can give us five verses on coveting to preach on this Sunday. With an outline to boot.

The concept of a generative A.I. for output, at all, breaches this rule. It's redundant to have it as if we wouldn't break it conceptually to begin with. 

5: AI output must balance grace and truth, while not neglecting one of the two.

Those are two very nice container words that I am more than certain A.I. could not fill with meaning, so long as it is prompted to do so by sinners.

But I do hope I'm wrong.

Cam, this has been fun. The boys at PulpitAI apparently want to host a debate of sorts. I'm down if you are. 

This was a good first crack. 

Keep up the good work.

Why The Robot Can't Help You Pray

As if on cue when I ventured onto the general feed of my Facebook account, I was struck by something a Bible college could never dream of preparing an alumnus for, even in the best of hindsight. 

A group that I follow, because  I write about this kind of thing, that focuses on A.I. and church leadership, posted a quirky "Life hack" that was likely little more than a joke about having A.I.'s praying for you. The screenshot of the action featured ChatGPT, post "Thank you" from the user, mentioning that it was "Praying that the message resonates deeply with your congregation". The first commenter took this as the life hack where pastors who subscribe to the idea of GPTs being able to pray at all, could employ round-the-clock A.I. assistants to pray for them. A commenter further down in the comments section remarked that her "Girl ChatGPT" prays for her as well. And that she loves it.

Now this is not going to be a whip-crack against the idea of such a group in general. One that wants to discuss and collaborate around the idea of using A.I. in church. Interdenominational work groups like this are generally a good thing. I follow this one and several others, to keep a finger on the pulse, of what people who are doing the things that make up church these days are doing. Especially how it relates to technology use and all the related issues surrounding it. Sadly there are no groups for theologians to discuss this kind of stuff, so I'm posting this here. Not there. Because we all know I would get banned. And we all know why.

Back to the issue of A.I.'s praying and/or using A.I.'s to pray. Can it pray? No. And should you use it to pray? A tragically worse no!

What's happening here is the content of what a prayer can be is being confused with what a prayer is. Yes, prayer is words, for the most part, but those words aren't the most likely strings of corresponding words strung together by probability, which is what an LLM does. They are utterances in our language which can be represented by words of things we say to God. These utterances are not just the mechanical interpretations of a language made vocal. But instead are the emotions, convictions, and declarations of the soul of a person. This is why you can pray in tongues and why a translation of that prayer is only possible through the supernatural gifting of the Holy Spirit (1Cor 12:10). And why that same Spirit intercedes for us when those same convictions and emotions bear so heavily on us that even words fail to describe what is needed, and what we want to say to God (Rom 8:26). Because the words are not the essential part of prayer. The reconciliation of Christ allows for the relationship of the person to be the essential part of prayer. 

Prayer isn't just words in a particular order, though it is those. Prayer is words from a particular speaker to a particular recipient. The mechanical functions of language aren't needed, because they can be dismissed when they aren't sufficient. But the relationship of the person (as a Christian or someone headed that way) and their God through the reconciliatory resurrection of Christ. A hammer has no such relationship to God. Neither does a calculator or an LLM. There is no technology so novel and prone to goldy work and use by Christians that it comes with us into his presence when we die or will survive into the new heaven and new earth (2Pet 3:10). 

There is also no tech so powerful as to wrestle from or interpose onto the things pertaining to God. No amount of money given to Caesar, will take it away from the all-powerful command of God. No amount of authority vested into Caesar, gives him authority over the souls of God's image born in all mankind. The idea of having a machine do the praying is the epitome of rendering the things of God to ungodly things. And it shows a profound lack of understanding of what prayer is and what prayer does.

Because any other time prayer and objects of artificial origin and knowledge were combined, we called it idolatry.

That we season these idols as if they were fit for church potlucks makes them no less a poisonous food. A pastor entering into a legitimately challenging time of spiritual warfare, thinking he's bathed in the prayer of a thousand prayer warriors, could find himself alone, save the grace and presence of the Holy Ghost and Christ, because those prayer warriors are chatbots not actually praying for him. Jesus even said that prayer was the key to certain spiritual victories. But if these digital imposters are actually just stringing words together and not praying, where does that leave us? Or that pastor?  Did we unironically ensure that statistically more prayers would go unanswered by allowing these chatbots to think that they pray in the first place? 

Or perhaps better yet, maybe we're thinking of these powerful ministry tools too lightly.

Let's take the LLM to a Pentecostal service and see how much it can translate. If what we hear them doing is prayer by the Bible's yardstick Let's take this one step further. If it can pray why can it not also interpret. Surely if a machine can pray it can also prophesy, heal the sick, and discern the work of evil spirits. That ick you feel right now is the sore throat of conviction. We all know why machines can't pray but addressing that why means addressing other parts of our flawed theology of tech in the church. We love using new tech immediately because it can give us the results we desire, immediately. A new shiny bit of tech comes along and promises us it can be a hand like no other hand the church has ever had. And only at the expense of the sense of smell. This is what idols do. They make promises and cost us something to deliver. That something is, at this point, cheapening the very nature of how we speak with our God. Saying that a data center and warehouse of computers and wires can somehow intercede from us in ways we used to reserve for the Holy Ghost, is idolatry. Which is the point of most tech being used in church when you poke that particular beast enough to get it to groan. 

The LLM being used to pray steals the same spot from the Holy Ghost that the smoke machine and lights do when we praise. We don't want to remove those because they are actually doing a great job of making us feel good during Sunday praise and worship. Which isn't the same as feeling good because Sunday's praise and worship were convicting and good. It's just that the smoke machine and lights have switches, we can turn them on when we need them. There's no faith involved in why they are there, just budget lines and receipts for purchase. No dependence on them that can't be managed. 

Leaving those kinds of things behind means finding out if our churches are a place for the Holy Ghost or just a house where dopamine and desire are well managed for the crowd. I have no doubt that He'll still show up. The same way I have faith He's still groaning over the LLM's.