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.