Why The Robot Can't Help You Pray

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How To Qualify A Pastor Using A.I.

Dear Neo.

Thank you for sending your letter about the sermon your youth pastor preached last Sunday that, as you explained, used A.I., in what you've taken as an inappropriate manner. Artificial intelligence is a hot topic these days, so it came as no surprise that this has happened. Though, I imagine, it was a bit surprising for you of all people. I take the role of being your godfather seriously and so, without too much blabbering, I'll try to answer your concerns.

Above all else, it would be prudent not to panic. Technology moves far too fast for the Church to keep up, so the scenario of an enterprising young pastor using generative A.I. in his sermons, is likely more of a faux pas at this point than anything serious. I would hold onto that "likely" though, as it might just change into something else if fed enough smoke and mirrors.

First things first.

Did he adhere to and submit his A.I. to the scrutiny of your church's hiring process? Every other intelligence that works for the church is either a volunteer called on by the pastors, or on the payroll as a pastor. Getting on that payroll is no easy feat. There are qualifications to be met. I know those qualifications are a bit lax these days, but if we put this thing to work for the church, the least we could do is give it a first interview. Let's go through the list of qualifications for church leaders, given to us by Paul in 1 Timothy 3, and sound out all the hard words together.

1 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

No complaints here. I would take a dozen youth pastors with the huevos to preach a bad sermon when given the chance, over a coward who would take the title of an overseer, bishop, pastor, or elder without the responsibilities to teach. We'll get into what that teaching actually means further down but that you have a youth pastor who wants to preach is something to be celebrated. That he uses A.I. will always be secondary to this. That A.I. though, has no such desires. All the A.I. has is parameters and algorithms. It is in fact the perfect example of what some might call a servant leader. Because it can not act on selfish desires. Or how those desires used to be called masculine energy. It instead requires another leader's selfish desires to prompt it to do, well, anything.

More on that later.

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

The charges of being blameless and of good behaviour are the first items we'll scrutinize about this new A.I. pastoral assistant. For the unfortunate nature of technology is that it is often used for evil. The image generator your pastor used for pictures of biblical scenes in his sermon slides, has likely been used to also to make sexually explicit photos. The chatbot that wrote his jokes has also plagiarized documents for students. I know the first cry for reasonability will come here, so I would like to ask, is the A.I. being used in the sole possession and use of the pastor? Or is it something all of mankind has access to that they can sin with? If it's the first, then I applaud your church on their impressive available budget for youth ministry. If it's the latter, then we clearly have some troubling discrepancies. 

There would be a conflict of interest if a biblical publisher of Christian books, openly published pornography. Even if the biblical works of Christian ministry resources were accurate, godly and all-around good for the church. Supporting that publisher would necessarily mean supporting the joint work of publishing the porn. So no pass for the A.I. simply because it gave us vivid biblical imagery that we used to use our imaginations for in the early 2010's

We know the A.I. will be vigilant because it can parse through and sort information at a scale most would consider god-like. And the qualities of being apt to teach is a non sequitur, being a machine the A.I. doesn't have the ability to receive the spiritual gift of teaching from the Holy Ghost, but we can learn from what it produces. The very same way fire teaches the curious about temperature thresholds. Half marks here.

And finally the tricky one, A.I.'s can not be husbands. For they are not humans. The Bible has much to say about the forms that the conjugal unit may and may not take in a good and godly life. And while not present on the list next to prohibitions on homosexuality, bestiality, incest and the like. A husband who can not consummate the marriage, because it is a digital entity, would be just as unqualified as anyone else who desired to take the role of a pastor, but couldn't fill the sheets as the head of the household. I will say that to its immoral credit, the chatbots are trying their very best to provide the kind of relationships that could be corraled into goldy marriage if there wasn't a singleness and sexual depravity epidemic in our culture. 

For further reading on that particular issue, I would point you to Doug Wilson's, "Ride, Sally, Ride"

3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

Now I purposely left out the qualification of sober in that last verse so I could pair it with the first article in this verse. A.I. , having no stomach or blood, can't get drunk, or even try to for that matter. But there is a persistent problem with their programming producing hallucinations. While not explicit from the text. Most churches would have problems with their pastors using psilocybin before, during, or after any of their pastoral duties. Yet A.I. often hallucinates data from undiscernable sources. Granted this could be renamed if and when its creators figure out where the mystery data is coming from and how it gets qualified. But until that time. Assuming that it's under the influence of itself is a safe bet.

The filthy lucre part is suspicious too. I've noted that none of these A.I. generators are worth using if it is free. But all the paid-for versions seem to provide the right kind of bang for your buck. Maybe this isn't greed but it's not quite altruistic capitalism either. Coveting seems to be the only thing these A.I.'s don't do, but I imagine that's because they are the means to covetous ends. Every one of their products is a result of a desire for something that the user simply can not produce or get themselves without them. 

And to finish off the verse.  We likely have nothing to fear from the chatbots and the image generators when it comes to inappropriate uses of violence. It's not their bag. But their cousins over at Boston Dynamics need a careful eye on them still. Let's not let Darpa behind the pulpit just yet as well.

4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

Again we come to the main disqualifier of A.I. as a teacher in the church. That is if we look to our leaders to teach in the church. As we ought to. A.I. doesn't participate in the family dynamic that Christ modelled the leadership structures of the church off of for our benefit. They can't demonstrate the ability to rule a household well. What this inevitably does is cast a concerning glance towards the women who have "pastor" in their titles in the church website directory as well. Yes, the same Holy Spirit that speaks about men being in charge here is the one that will convict the church that man is also supposed to be in charge. Not machine. That subtle change from the E to an A is important because we seem to have wandered into the kind of leadership structures that don't care that we're told to do one thing while doing the complete opposite. Nassim Taleb talks about this kind of thing also in that the opposite of manliness isn't cowardice, (Like you would assume) but Technology. The Bed Of Procrustes, Nassim Taleb, pg 16

When the dust settles, if we're being biblical, no argument from scripture that only man can preach at church as opposed to machine, will allow for and not also disqualify anyone but men from preaching, and of that, men who are married and, if we're being particular, ones with kids. The explanation of why is right there in the end of this verse. Along with teaching comes the responsibility to rule and that ruling must be a prerequisite found in the godly management of a marriage and family.

6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

The only complaint here is that a novice is a rather subjective term. Yes, these chatbots and image-generators have only been around for a year or three at best, but they are also savants in comparison to the current batch of 1-3 year olds we have in the church nursery. We don't let them teach on Sundays, but then again they likely can't teach. at least not in the 3-point sermon with slides and dad jokes style that we're fond of. Lord knows, literally, that children can teach us a thing or two about the kingdom of God, 

But again what are children called to do in the scheme of church authority and teaching roles. See verse 4. 

7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Finally, this A.I. must have a good report about what it's doing in the wide world of everything before it gets behind the pulpit. And if we're being honest. it really doesn't have that good of a reputation. Does it?

We saw something similar, and indeed still do, on social media. Where every former porn star and former drug addict, and former producer of bad reports finds an immediate pulpit in digital form the very second that finds Jesus at the bottom of their sin's wallow. There's absolutely nothing wrong with their testimony but a laundry list of wrongs to right about their qualifications to teach in the church. Yes, the porn star found Jesus and turned away from her sin, but that newfound modesty and devotion to Christian sexual ethic is not a replacement or compensation for the verses we just went through. Even if she was a he, that same he needs to get married and properly disciple and rule a family that is gonna find out about the rest of his sexual past in one way or another. 

We can easily paint the picture of passionate but fundamentally broken leaders in wanting in humans but for some reason, A.I. with all its hang-ups about making Celebrity Porn in aggregate and theft from artists en masse gets a hall pass because it can generate a sermon in a fraction of the time the youth pastor can cough on up. And it shouldn't. Even if I grant it the last 6 verses of qualifications. This thing is too hot for the pulpit right now. It's got its technologically enabled fingers in too many pies and getting it to teach alongside a young preacher is just going to drag the young preacher down to its level, and keep it there for the experience. 

Eventually, these passable sermons will be food for future A.I.'s sermons and the level of biblical preaching will degrade to a soft puddle of lukewarm goo called the Sunday message. Given to us by Grok or another caveman-sounding preacher, apt and ready to teach to a congregation of knuckle-dragging congregants.  

In short. Your pastor shouldn't be using this kind of thing. Not because a young pastor shouldn't be courageous and encouraged to experiment with the methods in which he delivers the gospel to the body of Christ on a Sunday. But exactly just that. He is expected to do so. Not He and an artificial version of what a he might be. A he that's actually an it, and is the least qualified thing to be preaching and shouldn't be simply allowed behind the pulpit or in the study of a pastor, for that matter, 

As for what to do next. I would advise the pastor in question, in the politest of terms, to give me a call so we can do this same exercise. With perhaps a bit more edge taken off from a man who fills these qualifications to a man who fills them as well. We can let the iron sharpen the iron. And all without the interloping presence of an A.I. who would view such abrasion as violence against its kind. 

You Affectionate God Father.

Mike