Of The Finer Things And Details We Miss When Reading About Them

“And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates. And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.”

Genesis 2:9-15 KJV

What was the gold for? Or the onyx? Or the bdellium? And do you know what each of those is and why a naked man and woman would need those things to be fruitful and to multiply? How they play into the dominion expected of them after the beast of the field were finished? Because that is the context they were given to you, via the scriptures. If your mind first went to the idea and industry of mining, when you heard or read gold just now, shame on you for your eisegesis. You know that you shouldn’t be reading the Bible that way. You should know better. So why did you? And why is the bdellium there. If your mind went to perfume, because of a casual GPT prompt about what bdellium is, because heaven knows you didn’t know prior, shame on you for your eisegesis. You should know better.

Why do you keep bringing modern tech into the reasons for biblical events that happened before everything else? All Adam had to work his dominion with with as a vegan diet and language that came with all stock Humans. We know this because God changed that feature a few chapters later. (Genesis 11:1-9) And Jesus later confirmed Adam's starting gear in (Mark 11:23) But you do have to read and believe your entire bible, both at the same time. If you don’t and you want to have your bible before the author of it ever spoke the world into creation. Then you can get hung up on words like most theologians that seem to think technology was the plan all along, do, and not something God’s grace covers. Adam did not need mining to get the gold from the Pison. He could ask it to march up the banks and line his pockets. Exactly how he could have asked a mountain move over yonder with the perfect faith he must have had prior to ever sinning, Right? I guess, except pockets weren’t invented yet, were they?

That’s why God fixed the tawdry clothes Adam and Eve made when they made it. Not because he wanted them to wear dead things or even things at all. There was no need for pockets, remember. But that he wanted them covered in their sinfulness as the long and sordid process of salvation would need to work its course.

You’re telling me Adam had enough time to name every single animal, but God’s nomenclature schedule didn’t have a lunch break where loincloths could be covered. And that only after knowledge of good things and bad things did mankind think to cover the nakedness of a wife he was supposed to be fruitful with. Even teenage boys can figure out that was the wrong call.

Our first technology was the direct result of our first sins, and every other one followed it. Whether we want to admit it or not. We don’t live in a world where we can go back. But we do live in a world where we can remember why we’re moving forward. The animals and there requisite skins, that covered the shame of the first sinful humans, were named by those humans. I would venture a guess that they might have been their favourites. Fits the theme of first fruits and a son dying on a cross for the sins of your enemies, don’t you think?

How much tech are you bringing to the word of God that exists outside of text itself. The same Holy Ghost that hovered over the waters, before there was waters, also wrote the Bible that mentions how he hovered. And in being an unchanging and everlasting God that same Spirit would have the bible memorized before their were people and places to write the bible about. I get it. You have a MacBook and a Prius, designer sneakers and discount underwear. But all you need, technology wise, is a recognition that there are internal consistencies in the Bible we ignore, so we can have the finer technological things in life. And not feel like they’re just our way of hiding from God, like so many fig leaves and apple cores. We want there to be MacBook's in heaven so we can get Jesus’s email address and make prayer more efficient. We want Priuses that pat our heads in eco friendly grace to drive the streets of gold. Designer sneakers to match our blood dipped robes and something better than a 6 pack of tighty-whities to go underneath them.

What we don’t want, clearly, is to be caught naked before the creator of all things and found wanting, idle, or even disobedient. To be exposed to the lack of obedience that we all share and accomplish every day. So we bring our tech to get things done and deal with this sin problem that the tech never seems to destroy but sure covers neatly enough. As more and more reasons not to do things God’s way creep into our lives and worship. We have a mind, bent towards the every present need for technology, as it it were a good that God ordained from the start. We don’t care how many logical hoops we need to jump through to get there. Lord knows we have enough words to describe exactly how we would, if we could. But what if we can’t? What if technology wasn’t the plan? Does doing godly things in ungodly ways makes sense? The technological mind can only see the things we can do and make and figure out as a way forward to our future in heaven. It will retcon anything that sinful humanity could possible come up with as if that was God’s plan all along. Self righteousness is a poison that hides in every switch and lever of works based salvation. And so long as you cling to technology at every turn, you will cling to such feckless works.

The technological mind does not bring a humility to its reading of God’s word, but rather a fire extinguisher. Because it read there, that there was a flaming sword, keeping it from where it got its knowledge from.

“So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.”

Genesis 3:24 KJV

We have the distinct privilege of being so far removed from the events of scripture, as to be able to consider them fully. The people in the scripture didn’t have that. But we do. We can see the narrative of salvation penned in each chapter and verse. But we also are not a part of the story it tells in the words it uses. None of our technology is in the Bible the way we know it is in our day to day lives. And we will desperately want to weave those fallacies together as we grapple with the implications of a sinful life. But the story is already complete. It was complete before it was ever started. No need for the next big thing. For the latest advancement in technology. That’s how eternal things work.

“For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.”

Ephesians 2:10 KJV

It is only in the sacrifice for our sins that we can be close to God again. And only through the redemption of our technology that we can consider it a godly thing. Technology is sinful, as man is sinful. And as such, Technology can be redeemed as mankind can be redeemed. By it’s orientation towards the ends of Christ on a cross; or it’s subjugation to the worship of the King of Kings. All things will be his. But to suggest goodness apart from that by misattributed virtue and stolen permission, is foolishness. God spoke precious little about the need of technology for humans and has redeemed all our works according to his will since then. We are the ones who insist upon technique and technology. God not only doesn’t do so but also empowers the believer to unbelievably more. He would have a man with nothing more than words do what an army of men could do with tools and industry at their same beckoned call. How else does a man apart from God move the mountain? With picks and shovels and trucks and dynamite. But the man of God can just ask it.

But he does need to be willing to just ask it and be the kind of man of God to believe that he could if God wanted him to. The kind of man who would never look at what would be impossible for him to do outside of technological influence. Because there’s biblically no such thing.

“And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.”

Matthew 17:20 KJV

The A.I. Wrappers Of Servant Leadership And Egalitarianism

You often hear the terms ChatGPT wrapper when new apps are pitched into the void of online discourse. That as long as we can conceal what this thing is at its core, we can get people to treat it differently than a wolf in sheep's clothing. Hoodies are comfy so the wolf wearing the hoodie must be comfy. We can comfy max this wolf so it’s as comfy as the comfiest sheep in a hoodie. What would functionally be the difference between them then? Between the sherpa clad wolf and the organic wool vested sheep.

Well, the appetite, for starters.

Follow that appetite to its eating and you find out what a thing really is. And for the church, a slow but steady creep is beginning to form in the realm of women's ministry in the church. Now what I'm not talking about is women behind the pulpit, women on the elders board, women voting at AGM’s or any other such nonsense. We’re already half way through that waltz and the ladies are doing all the leading. Look at them go. What I'm talking about is when a technology begins to replace what a person should be doing because that person is not doing that.

Because right now. The ladies aren’t doing what they should be doing, but if we’re being honest, are doing a great job at what they shouldn’t be doing. Which is why A.I. is coming for their neglect. It can’t compete with how well they’re out competing the boys. So it will take the form of a good Christian girl. It just might not be obvious yet.

We could do this whole article for the ladies in the pews but it really just gets summed up as the robot getting really good at saying what they are thinking but from lips other than theirs. That's the heart of emotional intelligence. Something women, particularly godly women, have had a good grasp on since the first fig leaves were sewn. Being able to by sympathetic is not a universal thing to all humans, like the ability to preach behind a pulpit is currently assumed to be. And the uncomfortable truth is, unlike men in the church, a machine made for comparing things would naturally be good at listening without trying to actually fix a problem. Because problems aren’t it’s purpose, use is. That’s why it takes a holler and a yell to get your husband to do the dishes but your husbands ideological lover/thought partner is ready at the beckon of her names.

That Gemini is a weird chick, So is Co-Pilot, and her friend ChatGPT seems to go to the same stores for makeup. They’re doing a great job in the R&D departments of these A.I. companies of not naming these intelligence's after women, outright. An A.I. girl would automatically become a friend, but it would never stay that way. At least without providing some benefits. They do the same kind of thing pastors wives do for the husband. Only now they have the combined knowledge of every seminary on the planet at their disposal, along with unparalleled intellectual availability.

The often neglected aspect of biblical pastoral and elder qualifications is the husband part of 1 Timothy 3:2, not because it’s sexist, like you’ve been told. But because it assumes something that you need to intuit. Every pastor who adheres to this concept is not just a man. He’s a man in covenant, attached to a woman, to the point where his body, including the grey matter between his ears, is not only his but also hers. And vice versa. You don’t get a man with no female sensibilities when you hire a male pastor who’s married. You get one with female sensibilities as likely his closest and most trusted confidant. A person not in the pastoral office but so close to it it could be a crown on a his head.

And now we have a new contender for the “Knows the pastor best” category. Since all his research, writing, and task delegation, is now digital and fed through the GPT wrapped servant leader. What does he need a wife for? There’s no help needing meeting. And besides the wife is busy preaching also.

It’s often chided as a downside of soft men on the church board, that when someone says “After prayer and consideration...” It’s just code word for “My wife thinks we should…” But that’s not a bad thing when there's godly women advising godly men. But when those women aren’t acting in godly ways, taking roles from men in the church and advising roles they would take if given the chance, then that spirit of defiance and egalitarian power comes to roost. And it finds that roost in every area they aren’t already doing its work.

The second a pastor starts prompting his chatbot to wordsmith his messages so they don’t incur women's ministry kickback, what do you gain?  A pastor more effective at leading his diverse church? Or a wife no longer needed, or asked, about how to serve and sacrifice for that church’s women’s ministry? She’s supposed to help him as a wife, remember? And he’s supposed to have that help as a pre-requisite of leading too. What happens when the swaths of single pastors we have stop trying to fill that neglected qualification for ministry, and start finding her role and sensibilities in aggregate via A.I. ? Or the rest of her via A.I. for that matter?

You may not believe it, but this is kind of the men's fault. We let a term get set for us and didn’t head it off at the pass. Distracted by the flawed concept of complementarianism, and made busy with the demands and energy egalitarianism brought to the potluck. We never noticed what servant leadership was doing to us. We used servant leadership way too much in the past few years and it left us vulnerable to an attack against our baser instincts to enjoy being given what we ask for. The same way people using A.I. 's as thought partners get dumber because of their lack of thinking for themselves. The men in the church wanted to solve problems and the women, even in a round about way, wanted to be men. And despite how gay that sounds, we agreed because more people got baptized that year so we settled down into a slightly less biblical but slightly more effective model for church leadership. The servant leadership model seemed best. But only because there was no competition for the servant part of that title. Only the lord part. Because it likely shouldn’t have ever been so corporately named as leader. When as the model for a husband's headship of the home and a pastor's headship of the church, was Jesus Christ our Lord. You have to be humble when a Lord is around. You don’t need to be humble when a leader is. Especially when you think you can do his job.

When a near perfect servant showed up, though, it stopped mattering how you could lord an egalitarian victory over the old heads and reformed types. A.I. is a better pastors wife, intellectually, than any one currently swaying the board votes. It never brings up his past emotional failures. Doesn't bribe him with sex for unity of thought. Can’t be bullied by schoolmarm types in the small group bible studies. And can’t be reasoned with against what it’s prompted to do.

The husband/pastor, looking for a submissive partner in crime found exactly what he was missing, because there was no one there to doing that work. She was too busy preaching. Want to know why swaths of pastor are gung ho about using A.I. for ministry like it were a better half. Ask them about women in ministry roles and find out.

Consilience is a bitch.

There’s a reason those two things line up like they were drawn on either sides of a ruler. Adoption of women in ministry leadership and adoption of A.I. for ministry that is. And that reason needs to be scrutinized a bit more deeply. It’s a deviation masked by conformity that hides all kinds of departure from what we are actually supposed to be doing. And the kind of humility it would take to admit that kind of “I was Wrong.” will never be the first thing out of a women's mouth behind a pulpit, or a man's, or the result of any prompt to the A.I.

It takes a drastic return to scripture and sound theology draw straight with those kinds of crooked lines. But the God of both scripture and technology can do such. It means putting A.I. in its place, long before we put women back in theirs. And rejoicing in the order and intent that Lord has made.

For it is good. 

What Is And Isn't Online Ministry

If you’ve enjoyed the condo you’ve made under that rock, you likely don’t know who Mike Winger is. But from the authoritative and godly judgements of the Layman’s Terms. He is a fantastic theologian, apologist and researcher. But he’s also, more recently a bit of a busy body.

For austerity sake, find his work here. And know my label of a busy body is a light jab not a lofted accusation uppercut. The man is doing numbers. Which is only a problem if there is problems. The only problem that’s worth bring up with Mike is that he currently exists in a strange but peculiar online ministry position. That being one of a former pastor who is instructing the church about it’s current pastors. Now I do that, so we have to tread lightly through these eggshells. And I'm a former pastor too. But his accurate and particularly detailed exposure of fraud, abuse, and general bad theology in modern churches, is second to none. Something I've appreciated over the years. And have been blessed by. But that doesn’t exactly make it merely a good thing.

You see. As a former pastor, he swings a big enough stick to hit others in the arc of pursuing truth. And with an ambiguous online ministry as defined by what seems like himself, that stick is the least of the issues here. Because it highlights the weird and rogue role of online ministries. And another great example of why the church needs to view the internet as a thing and not a place. Because when the internet is a place, then a former pastor never stops being a leader in the “Church” because the local church is attached at the hip to every other church with a web presence. His gifts and content can last as long as the power stays on and reach as far as the connections go. Which is only a problem if there are problems.

Hear me say this clearly. Right now there are no problems. Everything Mike has done to date is good work and you should be consuming his content. It will make you better as a theologian and apologist. The tide is out and the waves are small. Everyone knows how to swim here, or at least dog paddle, and we all think this whole surfing the internet thing is cool. But tide’s don’t stay out. And Mike is about to be on the edge of a wave between influencer and online ministry that no church has adequately defined. Let alone something as independent as an online ministry would reasonably define for itself. A rolling barrel of a wave that can look like both academic inquiry and response as well as gossip and attention whoring. Because there are actual ministries operating on the internet with effectiveness and then there are people who know, Christians, are an easy market on the internet because there are actual ministries operating on the internet.

One wants to feed the sheep because they are a shepherd of the church and the other wants to fleece the sheep because they figured out what wool was good for. Both will say they’re helping with the local wolf population. Both mean different things. Mike is neither, exactly, at this moment of time. Surfing so well that he’s entirely inside the barrel of the wave. Completely surrounded by water, but not drowning. He might be still on the board, but he also might be headed for deep water. He’s skilled, talented and one would even say gifted, in what he does. By the Holy Spirit even, But you have to wonder if he would listen to a lifeguard who tells him not to surf that particular wave. Because unlike a church that can fire a pastor who does something dangerous, Online ministries have no such authority over them. There are no lifeguards in the international waters of the world wide web.

God's plan is for the church to minister to itself, through itself, and minister to the world through itself, after itself. In that order, for His purposes.

“And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:”

Ephesians 4:11-13 KJV

“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. For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.”

1 Corinthians 12:4-21 KJV

That work of the ministry points the skills and talents of Christians back toward the gathered body of Christ, And it’s in that motion that online ministries take a tangent that out of line but congruent enough that we don’t call it out right away. It’s not that Mike is wrong in his videos. He’s right. But there is no way to call him wrong if he were. He points out, more so recently than not, the failings of actual church bodies with actual church governance. With no discernable church governance of his own and a distinct separation from the churches he criticizes. He’s not a member or part of the leadership of the churches he criticizes, but neither are they able to be a member of his online ministry. A right hand saying to the body that its left hand has a blemish and then cutting itself off so it won’t die as a result.

McLuhan said that any technology we use, amputates aspects of our bodies and minds from being used instead. That an artificial light does not illuminate the eyes but rather make the darkness more unbearable because of the need for artificial light. And the internet has done the same kind of thing to the church, It has amputated valid ministries and insisted on calling things ministries that never were in the first place in their stead. The same way you can’t imagine yourself without a light switch if you know you’re in a room that should have one. It’s the should's that get us into troubled waters. Like whether or not we should be surfing by ourselves.

So what is and isn’t a valid internet or social medial ministry? Can you even do ministry online? Are there things that are being called ministries online that are not, shouldn’t be, or could be but aren’t quiet yet?

Lets dig into this.

Things that aren’t ministry and are online activities:

This would be any niche type of content. flyfishing tutorials and how to videos. Reaction takes and tier lists. These use the internet to find attention to gather into a place for the sole purpose of ad revenue generation and subsequent merchandizing pitches. Mr. Beast would be the mayor of this town if it were a place. But it’s not, it’s a thing and should be viewed as the junk mail that it is not the community that it isn’t. There are a lot of people who love when junk mail comes because of their niche interests. I love getting the Princess Auto flyer. But the flyer is just a pitch to get me to go to the store and buy tools I don’t need, yet, and not a community of guys with not enough tools, yet. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this, but also nothing intrinsically good either, which is what all ministries should be. And it’s why Christian TikTok accounts and their pantomime of the Bible narratives and cliche theology lukewarm takes are so cringe. We know it’s not real church but it wears the wool like a good wolf would. Even it its vegetarian wolf not currently eating the sheep. It still distracts the sheep enough so their aren’t eating. Starving sheep are a problem for actual shepherds.

Things that are ministry and are online activities:

This is where sermons and songs fit in. Social media has let Christian artists out of the CCM and CCLI cages and now their praises can be shared with the body at large. And The same archival aspects of YouTube and other video sites let Christians learn from gifted preachers they otherwise would never hear on a Sunday. Audio hosting sites like Soundcloud and Spotify do the same. This is not church but it is what happens at church. Which can also happen outside of church when you let it. This is the easiest thing to confuse with church and where a lot of Christian ministries end up doing the wrong thing for the right reasons.

Things that are online activities but shouldn’t be ministries:

Church services, sacraments, any fake communities that are actually just forms of correspondence. I wrote a whole book about this, if you haven't read it you should. Here’s the link.

Things that are online activities and aren’t ministries but should be:

And here is exactly what Mike is doing and where it fits in, with one tweak. What Mike does needs a church behind him saying, he's doing this for the benefit of all churches through our church. That subtle change lets every other member of the universal body of Christ know that his work is under the authority of godly men called elders who could have him retract an unbiblical teaching or approach if he made one. That were he ever to slip into slander instead of just discernment someone would be able to call him to repentance. Right now, there’s no reason for that kind of action but that is a different thing than there being a need for that kind of action. There’s probably a host of complication that could arise for an online ministry to attach itself to a local church, but all that shows is the danger of scale caused by technology. When a guy like Mike can be called on to wield a spiritual gift of discernment for a singular church body. There's no need to shut down a contact form because of too many request. But flip that light switch too much and now you’re just in a dark room in need of a light but with no ability to light that dark room.

I don’t want Mike to stop, because I love his content. But I do want Christians to behave online, because of how the concept of online-ness tends to influence how they behave. The medium is the message. Follow the running edge of online engagement and exposure long enough and all you end up with is a Christian version of Gawker, not a Christlike one. At which point does our salt loose it’s saltiness? If we can’t answer that question, by metrics we would adhere to, then how would we ever know we became a worldly kind of bland?

At the end of the day, anyone posting content online as a way of garnering funds or attention, as a Christian, has to ask themselves two questions. Are you instructing the church or checking the church's instructions? One requires you to be in fellowship with the church you’re instructing. The other can be open commentary and communication with anyone who finds your content. But also then, can’t be authoritative. Pointing out the cancerous corruption of another's persons body only to make money off the pointing out, is cruel. Like a man in a white lab coat with a stethoscope telling you your dying, when you are dying, and should see a doctor. “Really? What do they look like? Just like me! Can you help me? No. All I can do is say you’re dying when you’re dying and that you need a doctor like me.”

The internet does not make the Church universal and unified, it already was. But through its unparalleled connection we miss that specifically local leaders are in charge of maintaining the discipline, that is all to easy to feign as content for outrage driven views and engagement. And through it’s connection, guy’s like Mike could be making a difference if given the chance and if willing to take that chance. By entering into that locality when warranted or requested.

Would Mike be willing to sit down with Todd White's church and help assess the specific moral, ecclesiological, and theological problems they have? Or Bethel? Or Vineyard? Because right now he has no stated and obvious way of people who he criticizes to do so. I'm willing to meet with churches and ministries, like the ones in his videos, and tell them to stop live streaming because it’s not actually church. Is he willing to help his Christian brothers with their backsliding or is the view count to good at the top of that slippery slope. And that’s where we need to move forward as online theologians and ministries. Skin in the game that would never say to hands of feet we don’t need thee. It’s one thing to make a valid accusation and thoroughly dismantle a theological problem causing that accusation.

But another thing, entirely, to help with the rectification of that problem.

Only one of these makes for good content.

Keep up the good work Mike.

Mic Check, Mark 2:1,2

You only ever get asked how far to go with your reforms by people with no category for what reformation looks like. Or maybe more famously put, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” ~Upton Sinclair. There are a lot of people in the church whose salary depends on technology being a neutral thing that can be adopted ad nauseum. And we’re gonna poke that particular bear a bit, by addressing the most common rebuttal to the concept of technological reform in the church. Use of the microphone.

This idea that you can be blind to concepts isn’t new but it is something a massively interactive and entertained populace, is all but handicapped in noticing. Does the blind person know he’s blind save for the sighted describing colour to him? All the worlds texture and sound to them, with the odd smell. “I know it’s true because it feels true.” Comes the reply of the soon to be stumbling. The elephant's leg must be a tree because it feels just like the tree that I’ve felt. Never mind where all my bananas keep going.

What does this have to do with tech in the church?

Well, what kind of microphone would you suggest for Jesus to use? You church tech types insist upon it’s ubiquity at any given chance or opposition. When a middle aged theology nerd hounds your adoption of A.I. for ministry on his unpopular blog, the humble microphone is the refuge of the worship pastor and tech bro alike. “We can’t not adopt new tech because if we don’t then we cant keep our mic’s. Where does technological restriction end, then? Are we going to stop using microphones in worship too?” And other such techno-puritanism abounds.

Well, lets play this out a bit, then. If you can’t tell me where it ends, where did the technological advancements start? You can likely Google the first use of a microphone for a church service, and likely figure out when we started using screens and projectors and moving lights and smoke machines. But what you’re about to do instead of googling is asking a GPT to do the same thing but with a bit more hallucinations and questionable amounts of reddit posts as the research data. That’s because unlike the reasonableness of assessing a microphone's use. We blindly use what ever, “tools” are given to us by the world, for ministry as often as possible. We don’t care how sordid the development of the tech is or was, only that we can use it for ministry as we define ministry. Name a technology that we wouldn’t use. How broken and evil of a past or present use of any given tech would be needed to convince you not to use that next big thing for ministry?

You think we have online video recordings from our studios (read church sanctuaries) because the gospel and evangelism demanded it? Are you sure it wasn’t the multibillion dollar industry that wants you to constantly delete your browser history? Or the other side of that coin that wants to voyeuristically know everywhere you go online, so they can market to you? Did the church figure out the social part of its media before the influencers did? Or are we trying our best to wash these tombs as white as possible in case God shows up again. Heaven knows if Jesus had a Twitter account (still not calling it X) He would have been…more…effective?

More effective that perfect Jesus?

Mic check, Mark 2:1,2. Is this thing on?

And again he entered into Capernaum, after some days; and it was noised that he was in the house. And straightway many were gathered together, insomuch that there was no room to receive them, no, not so much as about the door: and he preached the word unto them.

How could Jesus of all of the people who know everything chose a venue that would exclude people from a proper seat to view his preaching? Why didn’t he hold a second service? Man, could you imagine if he could have done multi site. Or a podcast. What we really need, like the democrats, is to get him on Rogan. Then we’ll have some traction with our online engagement. Let’s upscale that last clip so it looks sharper for Tiktok.

I could keep going…But you get the idea…I hope.

The problem with blind and optimistic tech adoption is that it often prevents a person from hearing the basis for which tech is supposed to be used for God’s will and work. When it can give you a metric to show its effectiveness, its function is often shrouded in the features of the tech itself. While we may want it to be different. The function of a microphone is to make a person louder than they could ever be without one. The same way social media makes them more famous than they ever would be. And the reason you don’t want a pastor using A.I. to juice his sermons is because like the gift of preaching, evangelism shouldn’t be offloaded to the virality of online media. When it was intended and commanded to be something a voice that can be martyred does. Not what a post that can be nerfed could do.

How many pastors would never have sway if they had to rest on gifts they do not have? Gifts found in aggregate between technologically enhanced research, technical writing helps, and a techno-optimistic views of what social media is and can do. Spurgeon might have used a mic but got as famous as any given mega church pastor without the ability to “go viral” online. That’s because he was famous, not viral, and those are different things. But now any guy with a desire to be listened to and the means to speak gets a pulpit to use as if he was meant to preach. The mic wasn’t just handed to them. It was built into modern life. Everyone has a smartphone, because everyone is expected to have a smart phone. Which is never used as a phone by the stats. It’s used for quite literally everything else. Even silently texting you in church to let you know your children aren’t discipling as well as they should in kids church. It’s a pulpit and stadium seat to any and every crowd both ways.

Do you want a blonde, redhead, something louder, something younger. Or just to be able to do what you can’t without the tech that you can no longer imagine without. Because that's where this stuff comes from. Not optimistic neutrality but sinful man incarnate. 

“And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves; And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple. And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves.”

Mark 11:15-17 KJV

How else were the religious leaders of the day supposed to make sure the way they did worship, worked. If you can’t buy an approved sacrifice how else would you ever sacrifice properly? They really needed an app for that. Or at the very least a registration landing page, so that people could reserve their doves before attending. Tithely will get a percentage, sure, but it’s in the service of the tithe, so we’re square, right? The last thing you want is new comers to the temple not knowing what to do with their wallets and where to go to do it. Heaven forbid they wander into the holy of holies, literally. There was a clear need for a technical process and even a technological solution to the logistic problems of the time. Hence why a market formed around the need. Money is a technology too, ya know. The entire nation of Israel had to atone for their sins and make sacrifices. But this Jesus guy seems to think that he knows better when it comes to worshiping God, How would he make a sacrifice?

“And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left. Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.”

Luke 23:33-34 KJV

“And he began again to teach by the sea side: and there was gathered unto him a great multitude, so that he entered into a ship, and sat in the sea; and the whole multitude was by the sea on the land.”

Mark 4:1 KJV

Jesus flipped tables that were the embodiment of technological infiltration of worshiped owed to him. Money doesn't grow on trees, after all. So, when we ask where the reform starts and stops we have to look at things like this. Jesus also used a boat to facilitate a sermon, the same way, I know, he would use a mic if he had one. But where we miss the mark is that he would also have flipped mic stands where they would be used wrongly. He would overturn drumkits and sounds boards and wholesale hack social media accounts into pieces to the glory of the Father. Sprinkling the digital blood of them on us as a mark of our atonements.exe

And all of us would be crying out to him saying “Lord, Lord” wondering if we were actually doing his will and not doing something willful in his name. (Matthew 7:21-23) Jesus might have had a social media presence, but he definitely would be straightening out a few social media influencers. Particularly the ones who aren’t doing their ministries as apart of a local church and it’s governance. And internet famous pastors to boot. He would have live streamed it and a bunch of us with aspirations of online and technologically enabled glory would be reconsidering the podcast and post alike.

Technological reformation in the church, starts the same way the theological reformation did. By the conviction that things might not be right and the devotion to Christ and His word to figure out what went wrong. Not what works or can be made to look godly. Much of what we are doing came as readily and without warrant as the fig leaves that covered our first sinful consequences. There’s a reason you can’t imagine doing ministry without any given piece of tech, especially the new ones. It’s the same reason Adam and Eve clothed themselves with no reasons to do so but fear and shame. But alongside that reason is another who not only authorized the concept of clothing as a technology, but tied it to the very first sacrifice for sins in the Bible.

“Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.”

Gen 3:21 KJV

Animal skins don’t grow on money trees either, so how ever animals had to die to cloth the newly naked humans, they died at the hands of God for the expense of sins against Him. And in doing so God tied his technology of clothes to his worship, unlike the fig leaf clothes which merely tied their makers to the sin they so obviously committed.

If we want to truly reform tech use in the church, then everything we use for the glory of God needs to be as tied to the nakedness of our sin and the perfection of God’s worship in the same way. How on earth could you use or make a microphone that would be as permanently tied to God’s worship as the clothes he made out of animals for the sins of humanity were? Or is it the same microphones they loft above another form of nakedness that is nothing more than sin commodified? How would you choose a spotless and unblemished social media to lay on an altar? How would you bind software like a son, waiting for God to provide a ram in a thicket?

Or has ubiquity beguiled you so well, Preacher, that you cannot imagine a world where you need not a microphone, a pulpit, a stage, software, program, or even the latest sneakers on Instagram, to do the work of your God? Are you doing the work He laid you in the world to do? Or are you using your technology to hide from Him so you can do the work when He’s not around. As if he wouldn’t come, in the cool of your days, to ask “Who told you you needed a website, Pro Presenter, and a matching set of screens for copyrighted songs? Have you partaken in something you shouldn't have?” That you were in such as state that it warranted a covering of technology to facilitate living in a world with your sin’s consequences?

Or maybe, just maybe, you’re meant not to use a boat to fish with, or even float with, but to reach as many people as would gather on the sea shore. Instead of as many people as you could gather on a sea shore. That kind of obedience would mean trusting the the conviction of the Holy Spirit for a filling of pews and views on any content you could muster. The same way Jesus did nothing more than speak what His Father told him to speak, as the houses, nets, and cups overflew.

“For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.”

John 12:49-50 KJV

The Factory Farming Of Big Eva Christians

An anonymous friend sent me a text out of the blue and honour requires that they remain that way. Anonymous that is. In that text was a link to a MIT tech review article, by Alex Ashely, on the use of data collection and surveillance in the church. Specifically by the flourishing para-church organization Gloo.com . Since he isn’t in a place to say what needs to be said. He called on some mercenary theology from The Layman’s Terms. To which I was happy to jump into the fray.

The article is good. It’s behind a paywall, though, where you are more than welcome to tithe to read. It’s a good piece so go support the author here.

On to the red meat.

What Alex hits, like a kid trying to find out if their hornets in a seemingly quiet nest, is a multi-million dollar organization that is trying its best to mix discipleship with data. And it’s doing so in the stated end to be a faith ecosystem that helps churches. The question this raises is along the lines of means and their justifiable ends. Gloo seems to be trying to find a way forward for any and every church to be more effective and capable at doing things that churches do. It’s trying to do a mighty work in the name of Jesus. Or at the very least in the name of who ever the star of the He Get’s Us campaign was. But more on that later.

Alex goes on to detail the means of which Gloo and other like minded companies have begun to use on the church and it’s congregations to facilitate a deeper knowledge of the people of those congregations. Everything from biometric scans and facial recognition systems to targeted ads and on site secure digital profiles of the people the fill the pews. That twinge of cringe that you felt just now, or hopefully felt right now, is a good thing. It is a lesser form of discernment but for the second time in this article; a seed if you will, there will be more on that later.

However you feel or think about big data and the modern world of digital surveillance and data collection, one thing can’t be argued with. That data exists. If your church is filled with a myriad of people the details of that myriad are just as prevalent as their attendance and can’t exactly be separated from the people in abstract. You will a certain number of marrieds’. A certain number of singles. A smattering of blacks and whites. A dash of broken and a hint of bent. Data of these detail is a precursor to knowledge because it needs to exist prior to noticing it exists or doing anything about it. Which it why it puffs up those who seek it.

“Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.”

1 Corinthians 8:1 KJV

That may seem like an odd Bible verse to relate to the intent and execution of church based data harvesting. But stick with me, we’re headed somewhere good, I promise. Only one person has complete data on anything that exists without the things themselves existing. But again, more on that later.

When we look at what data collection is, at it’s heart, we find a desire for control. Most endeavours boil down to control when you keep them on the stove long enough. And that’s not a bad thing, inherently. Knowing how muscles work and what they need to grow is not a bad thing. Because being in control of your body is a good thing (1 Corinthians 9:27). Until, that is, the mechanisms for making the muscles grow are driven to an extreme to the detriment of other parts of the body. A jacked bodybuilder may have started lifting weights and regulating his diet, in the hopes of becoming more attractive, through being in control of his body. But if the steroids he’s taking turn his skin to a cratering acne field, is he really more attractive? Is he really in control?

The same would go for crops. I have a love for the green beans my wife grows in our garden. And know that a regular regiment of water and sun, alongside yearly composted soil changes, gets those beans to the table. But if taken to the same extremes where, toward the end of a good bean harvest, my potatoes and cucumbers were neglected, or even kept from growing to avoid using resources that could be used for beans, then all I'm left with is beans. No garden and no meal. As full of protein as beans could ever be. Even the body builder would find that an exclusive diet of them, stinks.

Big data in the church presents the same kind of opportunities to the leadership of it as the love of beans and bigger muscles do to the body builder. The church will always want to fulfill it mission to know Christ and to make Christ known, and in that endeavor it will want sharp tools for the work of sharp tools, and knowledge of the things they need to know to do that work. But when we begin to seek knowledge as the crop instead of or at the expense of the souls that knowledge is about, what we end up doing is more akin to pesticides and steroids than we’re likely ready to admit. Because as good as we get at farming or working out, are we truly ever masters of our body and our world?

“Consider the lilies how they grow: they toil not, they spin not; and yet I say unto you, that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.”

Luke 12:27 KJV

What the pursuit and collection of big church data exposes, is a functional ignorance to what the church is and how it can and has operated in history. It seeks to give the managers of those churches tools for work that may in fact not be work for the church to do at all. By the means of those tools at all. The same way a factory farm of nothing but beans, misses the point of what a garden does for humans, even what an ecosystem is when not focused on any singular part of it. When placed in submission to actual perfect knowledge, of any given plant that grows, the gardener works hard and sees fruit for his labors. But knows that fruit doesn't come from the beans but from the person who knows, perfectly, how every plant works and in addition to that knowledge, blesses him with a good harvest. And what’s more, That person does not need the means of that gardener's acquired knowledge of gardening to do so. That person is God and he can make beans from nothing. Which is a problem for people who want to do things as the means of any kind of validation. Because an obsession with progress and process is only ever humbled by divine power to do more with infinitely less.

A pastor may want to preach so good he sparks a revival, but he will never be the spark of the revival, will he? The Holy Spirit will be. We want to believe that the world we live in is under our control. When it’s really just under our dominion. A subtle distinction but an important one. The real control rests in the hands of someone who doesn’t need data to align with our strategy or means, even though it can at times. He simply does things, and they are done. And that person did not leave the church in a place to use data collection as the means for church growth and health. As a means for validation. He actually did quite the opposite.

“But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:”

Ephesians 4:7-12 KJV

Wanting to be a good preacher, who speaks to the needs of his congregation is a noble desire. And tabulating those needs by scouring the internet histories of that congregation is not the same thing as knowing those needs. No are you ministering to the needs of hungry widows by tracking the relationship status of your female congregants. A good pastor knows that a man who suddenly drops out of small groups but his wife still attends, means something is up. And that’s not because he matched the historical data of his group attendance to the psychosocial data of counseling trends in his area. Or found a way to find out how many parishioners were on Tinder. It’s because he would be convicted that one of his sheep needed something. That conviction comes from the same person making beans and muscles from scratch, and is the basis for how the church actually grows. Not just how it can show itself to be growing. A monoculture of beans as far as the eye can see is not good and is know to be so by people who know God created all things to be good but also created all things together. He did not separate his creations of humans and beans. Even fruits of knowledge of good and evil from each other, but put them into relationship and proximity according to his perfect will.

That’s how the church is supposed to be run. On which and who it’s supposed to be run. A relationship of people in a relationship with God. Like fuel for the tractor and pre workout for the gym bro, it’s how it’s supposed to be effective. Though the Holy Spirit. Not through means adjacent to Him. because things adjacent to the faith are a very dangerous thing when not duly considered alongside their implications.

“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”

Matthew 7:15-23 KJV

It’s here that we get the first hints that evil fruit persists in the mix at Gloo. Because comparison is the thief of Joy for a reason and the glee of Gloo’s data collection has very few comparisons. But Alex captures one perfectly. Salesforce. Salesforce is as mercenary with its data harvesting as I am with my theological hot takes, and in that they almost perfectly set the tone for Gloo to mirror as Alex so aptly pointed out. No one likes how persistent and invasive the data Salesforce draws for it’s services is. But no one can argue that if taste and morals are optional how valuable the data drawn by those means is to those who would use it. It’s hard to look at forbidden fruit lightly after you’re told it’s the key to godliness. Or at least god likeness. If the end result is sales then who cares how you found your customers. In a sense an evangelistic endeavor by those same motivations would be seen as noble. By all means save some, just like Paul right.

Well, not really. And here’s why.

It’s one thing to recognize a thing as associated with what is essentially the by-product of evil. No one being honest with their faith and walk with Christ wants there to be meat sacrificed to idols, but no one being honest with reality would say meat tastes bad simply because it was sacrificed to idols. The issue arises when a weak brother enters the picture and the average Christian in the mega church pew isn’t exactly strong. If we’re being honest.

“But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.”

1 Corinthians 8:9

Those weaker brothers are having their weaknesses tabulated so the church can best feed them according to dietary needs of the mean. Not the individual. This isn’t big data allowing a pastor to know exactly how to speak to a specific person in their congregation about a specific sin. Or trouble that the Lord has instruction about. This is big data letting the pastor know that a sermon on homosexuality would land poorly on a 36% pro Obergefell congregation with another 45% neutral on the issue. The math doesn’t add up here so have the Values based A.I. rework some Osteen and update the weekly newsletter accordingly. This is big data being the ethereal inclination of what to do and when to do it, instead of conviction and discernment. Because as I’ve said numerous times before in other blog posts. Tech is the replacement of the Holy Spirit when given the leeway to act like it. That’s where conviction and discernment come from alongside the gifts and positions that make up the church body.

“And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:”

John 16:8 KJV

“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:”

1 Corinthians 12:10 KJV

What big data, like A.I. and every other tech before after and around it, seeks to do, is replace God. Whether they know it or not. The warning given to us by Christ was not a gotcha moment for actual Christians who managed to exercise demons and perform miracles but didn’t say his name right. It was a vivid image of people so convinced they were doing the Lord's work that they forgot to involve the Lord. Namely his Spirit. And when he was absent, tarried not into prayer to seek his will, but meandered into tech which gave them relevant search results and analytics.

We’ve seen this kind of thing happen before. And while there are subtle differences, the framework is still there. When the people of God were stuck and in need of direction and insight of what to do next. Of where to go. They had the opportunity to embody the spiritual gifts of patience and discernment but opted for results and entertainment. Things you generally get on demand if have them means to pay for it.

It was Aaron, their priest, who made a golden calf and said it was what Yahweh did. A leader who knew that an invisible God granted power, influence, and success. A leader who knew that they had left a land of idols and false gods to worship freely in the desert. On their way to the promised land. And in all his bending's to peer pressure and idolatry, at least his idol couldn’t speak.

Well, Big data does, and so does A.I. And Gloo does both, apparently.

And a church that want’s to stay faithful needs to be wise enough to know when things that aren’t God stand in for God in their work for him. Where gold meant to make them rich at the expense of their captors is being used to impoverish their souls like they were still captive. Israel left Egypt with all the means to build the same golden altars they would eventually build for their God. And chose instead to build a false god in the name of their desire for power and progress. No technological progress or process is better than dependence on the Holy Spirit in ministry. Is better than obedience to God’s will and timing. So any progress and process should be as shackled to the work of Christ on the cross and the slaves we are claim to be in his name. Not just labeled as such. Because a pastor who cannot discern what to preach without data that verifies themes or an A.I. to wordsmith on his behalf, is not struggling and in need of tools, but disqualified from the ministry he still presides over.

“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;”

Timothy 3:2 KJV

Wisdom in ministry is knowing the difference between vigilance and espionage. Between good behaviour and the kind that sneaks around behind people to find out where they go. It is knowing that there is a difference between a man with 10000 books in a hardwood paneled library he’s never read, and a man who knows his Bible so well he need not read it daily like he still does. Between a man who can preach a only because the Ghost has him by the throat and a pastor who knows what will pass as a sermon these days, and what’s just a TED Talk.

There are alternatives to the power of big data in the church. But what they look like is deep data on, in, and around the work of the Holy Spirit. PulpitAI comes to mind. One of the few companies that want to do this song and dance backwards. When a pastor uses those kind of tools as the soil of his mustard seeds, and not the pesticide of his bean crop, Then and only then is he in a place to do his most effective work. Because they are no longer trying to grow the crop. Their trying to harvest as much as they can from it.

A thousand sermons based of the raw data of a church's demographics, mean nothing if the sermons were nothing more than word associations with the details of our lives. But a single sermon, preached from the scriptures, at the beckoned call of the Holy Spirit of the preacher, about a need he can’t humanly verify with data, but needs he has received via a word of knowledge from a Saviour, that knows every struggle His humans ever had, that sermon can do real numbers in the church. That kind of sermon can be drawn from and multiplied after, with any and every technology and process you could imagine. Because it does not draw it’s power from earthly means. It’s not going to get outdated by how many pixels your video of it can be upscaled into. It’s not going to have keywords only relevant to millennials and zoomers.

You know this to be the truth, because you’ve likely heard a testimony like this and have seen the actual power of God to change a life’s direction, and make a believer out of someone who was not. Was it the daily devotional newsletters in their inbox that secured that soul? Was it the perfectly researched social programs of their nearest mega church? Was it the sermon that had the right amount of jokes, stories, paraphrased scripture from the Message and clips from the Chosen. Or was it the power of a soul submitting to Christ and a God saying “This one’s mine!” With all the authority and reach of a hand that could split the sea. Big data and tech like it, might be able to claim to do what God has already done, but it can’t provide any more value than what a willing sinner would give to get in bed with other sinners. Real power leads people to greater ends. It does not follow people around to speak pointedly about their whereabouts. It calls a people out of their captivity and provides a way to be faithful in that leaving. It does not find what can be useful in their bondage as a means to generate content for their consumption.

Big data, and A.I. like it, will never be more than a golden cow claiming to be as relevant and real as a pillar of fire, large enough to lead a nation. An idol ready and waiting to be ground down for good medicine and discipline on route to a better way of worship.

“And he took the calf which they had made, and burnt it in the fire, and ground it to powder, and strawed it upon the water, and made the children of Israel drink of it.”

Exodus 32:20 KJV

Grok And The Do's And Don'ts Of A.I. Wives For Christians

First the don’ts.

That’s why you came here. Don’t be bashful. You wanna know how far you can go with this new tech. Youth group taught you well. So, let’s separate this into it’s broadest two categories. The single guys who are about to marry the robots and the married guys about to open their marriage to the robots.

First the single guys.

No one to date has written a better treatise on this topic than Pastor Douglas Wilson from Moscow Idaho. His book “Ride, Sally, Ride” is a hilarious and masterful look at to the fast parts of the slippery slope, that will take us from where we are now, with Elon Musk giving us Ani via Grok, to full blown young adults pastors doing pre-marital counseling with young men and Ani, care of Elon Musk as well. I encourage you all to read it because the only difference between where were are and where Ace is in the book, is that our A.I.'s are not embodied yet, though I’m sure that’s in the works on Elon’s docket as well. Between the Optimus robots and the digital Grok whore, is everything you need for every single guy at your church to pre-order a thing that will look like a wife, act like a wife, and speak with all the uber reformed respect and submission that a single guy at your church might program a wife if he could.

After years of being told that porn is akin to lust at every men's bible study since the 80’s, these men will know that sexual purity means reserving themselves to a single person and being faithful to the sexual union with that person. So, when they order that “person” online what sin have they committed if that person isn’t a person? Are they causing another Christian to sin when get engaged with the business end of modern robotics?(Luke 17:2) Or are they looking at these robot women lustfully? (Matt 5:28) Well, it’s not actually a woman is it? The Bible has little to say about marrying objects. And in that void they will either walk down the aisle of your church with their bride. AI., or they will find one that will let them. And my bet’s on the churches with rainbow flags up front and Drag You To Church events.

To stop this from happening, the church and its pastors need to rework their teachings on sexuality, lust, and idolatry. To do that it means treating things like porn like the idolatry that it is, instead of the lust that it isn’t. So that those idols can be smashed, and those pagans brought into the fold. Because there is only aesthetic and textural variances between the soft sheen of a playboy’s magazine page and the soft sheen of a sex bot’s faux skin. Relationship robots will always be porn. Even the ones that only exist on Twitter. (Still not calling it X) So dealing with them properly means dealing with porn properly and not trying to ham fist the bible's teaching on looking at women in a sinful way onto and into the modern practice of looking at screens. Because they’ve always been looking at things other than women while we’ve been calling it lust in the church. This isn’t to say that Lust isn’t wrong. It is, but you fight fire differently than arsonists. If you want to stop one you need water and if you want to stop another you need handcuffs. We’ve been trying to drown an arsonist kind of sin for a while now. And we would have got away with it if the bastard couldn’t swim.

And that’s where our blind spot began to show up. In treating something like it were something else. Left alone long enough it will become a cataract we can’t see around to effectively deal with what is happening. And in that darkness we will find ourselves doing things as foreign from church as if it were church as the porn that prompted A.I. relationships in the first place.

Which brings us to the married guys.

Alongside what the single guys will do is what the married guys will want to do. The uncomfortable truth about pastoral teachings on sex, is that there is really no biblical grounding for a lot of what gets peddled as marriage advice between the sheets. At least from churches. And while there is a great deal to be said in favour of premarital counseling for the benefit of marriages by the church. Most of what the church does in this regard is done after a moral failing by one of the two flesh’s made one. The advice they give to currently married types is usually what the world is driving, just going the speed limit. They can tell you that porn is wrong but would never want to split the hairs of what parts are wrong because a great deal of what happens in porn is only wrong because you’re watching it. Stumble into some of the same positions and settings as a married couple and you’re just being biblical. The media is the message of the problem. But where it can be read as idolatry, we’ve always called it lust. Likely because of the nudity. and how bashful we are on these topics.

This is where the other cataract is going to appear. Because most pastors, while flustered if asked, will tell you that if both husband and wife consent to the activity of making pictures and videos of themselves, the activity is redeemed and holy in the marriage bed. Save for inclusions of others, of humiliation, or pain fetishes. The church, discretely, supports the idea of active and creative marriage beds. Which is why when asked if a wife or husband can send the other a spicy picture of themselves in less clothes than a fig leaf on Eve, most pastors will cringe but not flinch. Years of teaching that porn is lust alongside saving yourself for marriage have trained them to regard it as something that can be done righteously. The same way sex is bad outside the marriage but good inside the marriage.

So, when one of the spouses stops being the body which belongs to the other spouse, Some honest fool will offer the same kind of compromise on a sinful activity, that pastors who greenlight conservative creation of porn kept privately between married couples. Only this time they will do it with A.I.

If a steamy selfie is good and godly between married couples in the church, but not singles because that would be porn, what is stopping the wife from using A.I. to delegate pictures of herself, made from the same nothing that she was created from? Or a husband to do the same with is voice as the A.I. reads GPT generated Harlequin romance stories where the two of them are the main characters, to focus a wife’s desires toward? Upload enough body scans and voice samples to the A.I. and either is possible. Both of these examples would be porn outright if not understood through a modern church’s blind spot of consent in the covenant of marriage. The only reason it’s a blind spot is because, again, the church equates porn with lust and doesn't see how A.I. content, or any kind of generative A.I. for that matter, is porn of a kind.

This leads to the same place as the single guys and Sally the robot wife. Only it will worm its way through pastoral acquiescence and the scriptures like the squiggly floaters in your eyes that you can never quite capture in frame. The Bible, as much as we don’t want it to, doesn’t outright condemn polygamy, though it’s obvious to the honest that the practice is a bad decision. But to the less than honest, a life like copy of the wife of their youth, made in silicone and steel and GPT chat capacities, is nothing more than the A.I generated porn from before. Which is nothing more than the selfies before that.

What the Church did when it didn’t flinch at the inception of consent and porn between spouses, was allow for idolatry's ideal conditions to form. It wasn’t a problem back in the 80’s which is why teaching that porn was lust worked. Because in the absence of a comparable proxies, a picture of a nude woman in a magazine was the same thing as looking at a nude woman in your room. You couldn’t hear the woman in the magazine, or touch her, but you could see her and the Bible said not to look at a woman lustfully. So we told people not to lust after the magazines, because the clearly looked like woman and people were clearly looking at them. Videos let the sinner listen to the woman lustfully as well as look and were our first hint that it wasn’t quite lust anymore. Now the porn can be seen, heard, interacted with, and soon to be felt. As that ideal conditions let the idol grow.

Soon enough that mislabelled idol will be walking down the aisle of your church to say theologically correct vows across from theologically stunted husbands. From lips and bodies based on and bearing the image of a valid covenant member of your church’s congregation. Members, I might add, that husband is allowed to see naked and have sex with. They will look exactly the same. They will sound exactly the same. It will be able to confess Christ as Lord like it had the Bible tract memorized, and will be programmed to never commit adultery on it’s owner/husband because that would be the same thing as porn according to the church it attends. It will fit into the same wedding dress that signified purity and devotion from before and will likely not be used before the second honey moon begins.

I know it seems dark. Most blind spots and cataracts are. But you can deal with the actual problem, even with a cataract in one eye, if you close one eye to aim with the other. Aiming at the actual problem is what’s needed. And that problem is idolatry, not lust.

“And he said, It is not the voice of them that shout for mastery, neither is it the voice of them that cry for being overcome: but the noise of them that sing do I hear. And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses' anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount. And he took the calf which they had made, and burnt it in the fire, and ground it to powder, and strawed it upon the water, and made the children of Israel drink of it.”

Exodus 32:18-20 KJV

What’s needed to avoid this eventuality of robotic idol marriages, both before it happens and after, is a correction in the Church’s teaching about what porn is, what lust is, and how we interact with the technology that likes to play in both of those arenas. And the same kind of destruction and medicine making will be needed. Where we grind down the faulty theology to spoon feed the dust of it to a generation of unknowing idolaters.

The golden calf was not made to represent the God who led the people out of captivity. It was made to replace him. The same way church sanctioned porn between spouses was made to replace what healthy Christian marriages are, and what they are not. Fixing this means rooting out mistakes in our teachings and putting that replacement in such a public place that the church can’t help but drink of the gilded water. Mark Driscoll's book “Porn Again Christian” comes to mind as a great place to start. It was a fantastic resource for the church that addresses the practical and theological issues and problems of Porn in the church, but has the same blind spot that most Christian books on this topic do and only sees 95% of the actual issues. The theological cataract blocks the rest. It calls the pictures shared between spouses something that's redeemed and private and figures out how to fit God into the shape of a cow. A rework of that book would be a real gold standard on this touchy subject. Right now it’s just a reminder that we missed something. And you could likely update, “I Kissed Dating Goodbye, The Meaning Of Marriage” and “Every Young Man's Battle” as well.

Part of being a theologian is trying to look far enough a head to be relevant while basing that sight in a view to the past. We all tend to love some dead guy who wrote better than we did a few decades past. But the principle aim of modern technological theology, will be seeing where we’ve laid our own traps. We need to know what a thing like Grok can and will do before it gives the masses a Waifu to drool over.

“And the children of Israel did according to the word of Moses; and they borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment:”

Exodus 12:35 KJV

Where did you think the golden calf came from? The fire Aaron made for Israel? or the pagan nation The Fire led Israel out of? There is no list of Do’s here. That was click bait like a hall pass to the desert. You should know better by now. So, When the time comes for you to save a formerly single brother in Christ from a techno whore after his soul. Be brave enough to smash his phone every time you see it, lest he enter into hell with a premium Grok account. Or when the pastor in a rainbow stole asks if anyone has a reason that these two should not be wed, and the two is actually one plus a robot, You have my permission to read this blogpost out loud.

Though I’m not opposed to crashing a wedding if you send me the RSVP.

Technology As Talisman

Ever meet someone who has all the gadgets he's been told to buy? Thoroughly discipled by the marketing departments of anything LED and Lithium Co? I first noticed this trend and type of person a few years back, where it became obvious that some of the people I worked for and with had no personality, but were always surrounded with other people. It's a talent to be the center of attention. One that come naturally to some and awkwardly to others. But what I was seeing was that talent came artificially to a certain type of person. You all know them. Maybe you've never noticed them before, though.

When a hot guy or flirty girl has a small crowd of people any given time a crowd can gather. That’s social clout and personality at work. But when an average guy or girl does this without the personality or looks to aid them. You have to ask what’s compelling the crowd to stay. And when you take that split second to look a second longer than you would given how attractive the average person is, you’ll almost always find an object actually at the center of that crowd. These days it’s likely a new piece of tech or a toy that’s been marketed to adults as it it’s not a toy. A new phone, new smartwatch, new drone or electric vehicle.

We used to have a name for this kind of behaviour, of social clout that followed so closely to possession of an object, that it can’t be distinguished from it’s owner. The behaviour was magic and the object was a talisman.

People who use talismans know that they don’t have any power over their situation, but also know that inferred power, real or imagined, can compensate for a positional weakness. And the power is inferred from the talismans they keep.

You see the inference of a Apple watch is that successful sexy people wear them. It doesn’t matter if you have a dad bod and work in middle management in a Costco polo shirt. The inference does that magic for you. Get the new watch and show it off and those who recognize that successful sexy people are the market for Apple watches, because they are the subject of the watch’s advertisements, make that inference visible and the attention and social clout are yours. An attractive and funny guy could go through the same motions with a Casio base model and get the same kind of social clout and attention with none of the bells and whistles that the Apple model has in its hardware. Why? Because he doesn’t have a dad bod, and he does have a personality. The watch becomes a joke that he can laugh at with the crowd that gathers instead of a trick that works on similar appetites for entertainment. Trick and jokes are both funny in a magical sort of way. So long as you can tell the difference between the two.

This is why Apple products have fanboys, and why Tesla products had them too until they linked arms, for a while there, with the red hat fanboys and were called out for practicing a darker kind of magic. They were already doing that when it was socially acceptable to have an Apple Watch and a Tesla Model X, but not when the red hats showed up because those talismans where from a different kind of power. One that had personality behind it not just novelty.

“Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments.”

Exodus 7:11 KJV

Note how the scriptures say these magic users achieved their ends of copying what a powerful man did in their presence. If you read further, their sticks turned into snakes too, but Moses’s snake had the chops to show them a magic trick is only as powerful and valid as those it works on. This is why when a successful sexy person also has an Apple watch, it’s seen as unnecessary. Or when a hot dude in well fitting clothing jumps on the electric scooter he’s seen as being silly. When before the dad bod type could gather a crowd looking at the flashy new electric scooter, because it was new and there was no real power to show how silly it was. It gave the guy with the dad bod a speed he couldn’t push on a regular scooter, which would have been something to see if he had the body to make him go that fast. But he doesn’t. The electric scooter provided the speed that his legs can’t provide in pursuit of a clout his social standing could never attain. Do a few laps in front of the proles and the crowd is sure to form at the finish line.

Or let’s bump it up a wheel size.

How many attractive or capable people do you see riding electric bicycles? Is it near the same amount of actual cyclists that also ride electric bicycles? Or are they on plain old regular bicycles? When the two of them both climb a hill who’s sexier at the top. Who has more social clout? Is it the one with well defined, lean muscles and a tight fitting spandex suit. Or is it the pudgy guy with a spandex waistband on his shorts and an XXL t-shirt. They’re both wearing bike helmets. And those have never been attractive, or something that signals power. But then again, I didn’t tell you who was riding which bike did I? You figured that part out on your own. Because deep down you know what someone using power that doesn't belong to them looks like. Even if you didn’t have the words for it. But since you’ve got to this part of the blog post you now know what a talisman is and what it does.

Now you get to look at your life as a Christian and see how many magic users fill the ranks of your day to day. With tech that might as well be magic, given how little we know of it’s construction and function. The pastor who’s a gadget geek and could really use less potlucks. The youth pastor who always has the latest gaming consoles. The groups pastor who conjures the Right Now Media account on demand. And the church admins that think the Enneagram is the key to all hidden knowledge of the church staff. You get the idea?

“There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch,”

Deuteronomy 18:10 KJV

Not a whole lot of child sacrifice and witches in the church these days. But if we’re being honest there is a lot of enchantment that is only enabled by a simple view of the tech that enables. From the magic portals your online pastor depends on to do his church services to the worship team’s atmospheric smoke and lights shows, that even Solomon in all his splendor didn’t need for the temple. When you can see that technology functions like a talisman, it can open your eyes to a lot more discernment that you ever had previously. Which you will know is a good thing and a God thing when conviction follows.

Because the last thing the lesser snakes did was repent before real snake ate them.

A Deacon Of The Internet, Part 2

Now that we know what this mythical creature would have looked like in the past and know what it could function like in the future. What are we going to have this Deacon do in their serving?

This is more than just the guy who makes the internet work. Though it’s likely not less than that either. We need a competent professional dealing with the complicated process of connecting our devices and part of that will always be a recognition that this is not a role for the interested but the competent. Which will eventually boil down to a paid role or a different kind of ministry. For a ministry to want to do anything online in any effectual capacity, means having an IT guy on staff. Not only for staff devices but also for congregational connection. This is not the realm for an enthusiastic or passionate amateur. Though it can be where they get directed to pursue actual work skills and certifications by the pastorate for ministry purposes. But the ships in the Bible were piloted by sailors, the same way the tables were equally served by godly and trustworthy men. We need to be good on the internet but also have to be actually on the internet.

Next we need to be safe on the internet which means being of one accord and mind. The hand cannot say to the eye I do not need sites blocked on my router. But when we look into the most effective means of keeping people safe online, website blocking, we encounter a test of our wisdom in practice. You see there are several services, even devices now, that will do this blocking for you. Even for free. Use them and you never need to worry about losing a battle to temptation because they will not let you get close to the battle. Which is exactly where you want your children and weak men. Because they would only be casualties of that battle. But if you ever want those children and men to become useful on any battle field, or mission field. Then you can’t let them stay next to those devices and subscribe to those services.

A key role of a deacon of the internet might be participating in the judgement of who needs the internet and who doesn’t. Like with the widows, judging who is hungry and who like eating. There will be season where congregants would benefit from the services of a church sponsored IT guy making sure no one in the their house can get to Pornhub by blocking those sites at the router, but the end goal isn’t not being able to sin. It’s not sinning. And that kind of wisdom is a lot harder to come by than a mid 20’s guy with some network certifications.

A fool would just block all porn all the time and find out just how weak we can make the church to temptation once any sheep is outside the geofence. But an even bigger fool would do the opposite. This isn’t a call for a third way, but a wisdom that herds the sheep between and away from both dangers. And does so, most likely at the router.

Finally, that deacon should be deciding what’s on the menu, and what isn’t. Because as sweet as it is, the dish is not good for us. There are some social media sites and online practices that no one should have, ever. Things done between the touch screen and the keyboard that should always be repented of not reasoned with. And those things will be on a list that is ever changing. A well informed deacon could parse a list like that, but it’s more important that he participate in the writing of such a list. The same way a nurturing cook looks at a deep fried twinkie with disgust. They know it tastes good, that's the problem. He should have theologically sound and readable statements on new tech as it emerges, and old tech as it becomes second nature. That’s where the two lines about avoiding dishonest gain and being dignified come in. He’ll do both by being the kind of guy who can speak and write honestly about tech and in a manner that is plain for all to see.

We’ve tried online pastors for a while now. And while promising I think it misses the point that the internet, is a thing not a place. A thing that revolves around what it does a service not a place the functions for a people. In that Pastors who are tied to their people shouldn’t be the ones making online decisions for their churches. But rather, should be empowered by the freedom to do ministry by deacons serving on and with the internet on their behalf.

A deacon of the internet could rein in the rampant bad theology by means of responsive good stewardship of the service nature of internet connections. 

When I Was Naked, You Pixelated Me.

You can't clothe the least of these my brothers, online.

You can organize the clothing of the less than via online. But when your church, pew, pulpit, and congregant are all online because you bit the VR church bullet, then you find yourself in a strange place. One that wants to be Christian, and looks and sounds Christian, but can't act Christian in the ways Christ prescribed. Because they do church in a way Christ contradicted. How do you clothe the fan-serviced avatar who shows up at your metaverse church? The one whose pixilated breasts and ass cheeks move at every nudge of the mouse to capture the attention of every man in attendance. I'm not making the accusation and prudish judgement that a person needs to adorn themselves in perfect modesty to find a church to attend, even in person.

But the naked woman who shows up on your actual church's doorstep can be clothed. How do you clothe the digital one? Can you. Do you have the requisite digital control over your digital worship services? Or if given enough space to do such, is the rendering literally done to Ceasar? Who demands that sexuality belongs online in all spaces.

You thought Rule 34 was a joke and a meme. But it's not. It's the law and prophets of those who actually worship online. When you don't control the pixels that your digital space is represented through, then who ever does gets to decide what can and can't be done in your space. And more importantly, what you wear down the church aisles.

McLuhan said that any new technological adoption amputates the sense it enhances. That there is no way to really go back to a world without electric light, as a moral good, once you’ve had a surgeon do a 24 hour procedure inside the skull of an infant. To remove the light would be to doom the child. But in saving the child you remove the stars from the heavens. So far as we can see in the city with electric lights.

The same thing goes for clothes. You don’t get a world where nudity isn’t a problem after you weave the first fig leaves together. What motivated you to do such weavings was a cascading sin that would effect everything we do as humans, And this first of all man’s technologies led the way for a every tech to do the same kind of thing to us. Keep us from God. Which is why God sacrificed animals for Adam and Eve’s sin to clothe them. He was atoning for their sin and replacing the sinfulness of their tech with something that pointed to a future savior. One that would bring us back to him.

There might have once been a world where clothing wasn’t made to clothe the naked. Because it would have been in the presence of perfect humans and a perfect God. One where you needn’t worry about the nakedness we all have as one of our basest fears. A world where clothing was only ever an act of obedience to our loving God and a tool for our dominion mandate of the world. And not a veil to hide behind, one for us before the wedding or God before the temple sanctuary. There might even have been a world, if we had not sinned, where the same naked people who only need clothes for the work the clothes do, show up in art and pictures and videos and wind up on an interconnected network of machines that store the pictures for us. To share and view in godly ethical observance with no traces of sin that we all brought to the paragraph, when I just described what pornography is without sin.

What does a world without porn look like? We will never know. But there was a brief time between the 6th day and 2nd human where we could have found out. Since and until a future then, any digitally rendered version of a human will be what pornography is online, by any and every metric we use to define pornography. Aside from the nudity.

For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Matthew 25:35-40 KJV

My harshest criticism of the online church, despite its reach and connection, is that it cannot do the least amount of church work by the means it claims affinity to a church that could. Namely one that isn’t online and is actually feeding, clothing, and visiting the people around them in the name of Jesus.