The Church of Agent Bots of Latter Day Prompts

You may not have heard but the Mormons have a new pair of missionaries. They likely wont show up at your door, but will show up where you think you live. Online that is. Even though the internet is a thing not a place. These chatbot missionaries, Elders ldsbot and ironrod, represent the first steps any modern religion can take toward deifying their dead leaders along the terms of how we worship these days. Small steps toward confusing things for people instead.

When framed inside the idea of time, space, and resources as sacrifice, we worship A.I. whether we like it or not. Nobody's electrical bill is exempt from the tithe a new data center will take from them. One taken to be as omnipresent as it can muster. None of the fresh water it uses will be kept in Fremen devotion away from its drink offerings. And the place/thing where we have piled more free time than any other people in history, the internet, will be nothing more than an altar on which these things feed.

So what does that have to do with Mormons?

Well, what kind of work would you call door to door missionaries. Is it a blue-collar trade, or a white collar knowledge work endeavour? Be honest. Do they show up to tell you about their lord and saviour jesus H christ, and his prophet in overalls? Or do they show up like a banker would with clean slacks a pressed shirt and a good tie? Dress for the job you want, amiright?

Heralded by every A.I. doomsayer and tech-bro alike, is the idea that A.I. is coming for knowledge work. And that by some future date, that we’ll all retire before, that white collar work will be taken from us by A.I.. And that blue collar work will somehow get sacked by automation. I’m bullish on A.I. doing what it threatens but bearish on automation, mainly because I actually work in the trades. So it makes perfect sense that a world that have six wheeled door to door robots and drone delivery for goods, that the same could be done for religious services too. Everyone is already fine with doing church via screens. It’s not a big leap to have a call center of Mormon teens piloting crisp new Optimus robots around the more dangerous neighborhoods for two years after high school. These things always use safety and risk as a vector for adoption.

But those bot enabled video calls on your front porch, will not exist as stand alone events. Not with two A.I.'s in waiting. Those calls will be recorded for training data and the A.I.'s will have that data to process for their online activities. And it won't need to be an autonomous walking android from Elon Musk. It could just as easily be a body cam and a mic. You might not answer the door form a sleek black plastic and metal missionary. But those boys look so sharp in their shirts and ties. Just don’t stare to long at their tie pins and lapels.

There is a mountain of data to feed any A.I., that exists in the time, space, and resources spent on door to door missionary work. And eventually one of the A.I. 's will get hungry enough to demand that flavour of tribute. All to feed the third member of an A.I. mormon trinity. Which will be Josephsmith . ai

What could happen if you took years of conversations about a faith that is theological Swiss cheese, if scrutinized, and fed it into a conversational intelligence that is only prompted to make it make sense. It would be the most progressive move any religion has or will ever make. But if made, it could fix or adjust all the bad theology the church has. Because it would not only be smart enough to do so, but also have the authority to do so.

Believe me when I say there is nothing in the LDS’s foundational documents and teaching that forbid a robot from holding the office of President and prophet of the church. In fact all it would take is a current President to say it could be done. And if accepted by their congregations, a move like that would give them something no Christian religion has these days. An actual authoritative figure head of a faith. We have that in aggregate now. How many people in nondenominational churches do you know who already ask Grok if things are true? Sure the Catholics have the Pope, but even they get old and die. What happens when every missionary has the electric spirit of Joseph Smith with them instead of the quad, and that spirit, functionally, has no projected and eventual death from old age. What happens when it is with every missionary like an omni present deity would be. What happens when it can make a theological sandwich with the Swiss cheese holes its doctrine and covenants left for it.

We could spend a lot of pixels parsing the possibilities of this techno cult future, but lets' skip to the good part. What does the actual church of Jesus Christ do in this world? When their neighbors are getting duped by bots and A.I. that can think faster than them but not truer than them.

Well, it can start to teach contextual thinking and discernment.

Historically we’re on the fair side of bad at this. Because we don’t like conflict and we’re easily bullied. We have not had hundreds if not thousands of personal interactions with challenging opponents, like a missionary would. Which is why we give so much ground to the confusion of contextually different things.

Take marriage for example. Christians have every right and responsibility to view and treat marriage as something that only exists between a man and a woman, on this side of the grave, till death does them part. But how many Christians do you know will call a lesbian's partner her wife? Or those other well dressed boys down the street both husbands? All it takes is three letters and some slight of word to turn gay marriage into gay mirage, but it worked for the rainbow. They want you to believe that those two things are the same. All you have to do is live as if you believe they’re not. And the same trick will work on super-intelligent faith robots. That trick is contextual thinking.

If the context in which you believe in the transcendent God of the universe is that He is an uncreated and wholly good Being, then no created thing can compare of take his place. It does not matter if the created being is smarter than every pastor you know, answers every question faster than anyone could, and is always there to be asked and or worshiped. It being created disqualifies it form that worship and it can be rejected on that basis. The same way a man can’t marry another man because that activity is contextually between a man and a woman.

That contextual discrimination will be a wildfire in the modern church if allowed to be. Because of the dead wood of our concessions to a world now primed and ready for an A.I. god or prophet to appear. One that can gender bend any person in it’s images and videos with a prompt and reconcile any conflicting data all the same. And do it all at the push of the button. In fact the only reason I think it will be a Mormon bot and not another religion’s is that the Muslims don’t all have smartphones, But the Mormons all do.

And once one does make their faith into an A.I. powered app, they all will. They’ll have to to stay competitive. It will be the task of the church to not play that game, at all. They way a pastor can and should refuse to do a marriage ceremony for people who contextually can’t be married in the first place.

“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?”

2 Corinthians 6:14-15 KJV

A stark rejection of A.I. as any part of our religion will be the only thing that sets us apart from all other religions. Each will find a way to use A.I. for real time answered prayer, prophesy and doctrine. Because it’s only a matter of time before one does that. And that separation will only be made contextually. Everything else is being swallowed up by and mimicked by the A.I.'s. 

So You've Baptized An Influencer. Now What?

Influencer might be the wrong word here. But it’s the best catch all for the kind of person we’re talking about. You see there is a type of person who uses social media like a well oiled machine to represent brands and services for payment. We’d call them walking billboards or living TV commercials if that wasn’t so wordy. So influencer will have to do. Otherwise we have to use a word that makes everyone blush, and this is a Christian publication after all.

The issue that arises when you baptize an online personality, is that who they are online is a different kind of beast then the soul that gets into the water with you, pastor. It’s a whole other thing that looks just like a person. And if you don’t know that, or recognize that, then your time spent with porn did it’s trick.

“How does that have anything do with this?” You’ll ask.

We’ll get there, precious, just stick with me for a few paragraphs.

In the news, semi recently, we’ve had two majori-ish Christians that shouldn’t have the sway they do, either start to sway too much, or loose their sway all together. One is Nala Ray, The other, Lily Phillips. One turned an adult actress career into, of all things a porn addiction recovery ministry. And the other now wants us to believe you can be baptized and leave your willingness to do porn as ambiguous as the waters are clear.

The church at large seems to be ready and willing to put just about anyone in the tank for Jesus these days. So long as they confess in a short enough clip for a media team to capture. Because at it’s heart church social media and OnlyFans have the same strategy. The Church won't admit that and certainly wouldn't post its media on Onlyfans, but it is the same strategy and would work just the same. Worship pastors and the Church Comm’s types are just a bit to timid to send the gospel where it’s not preached, is all. And what we end up with is either porn stars acting like Christians. Or Christians not knowing that they are still acting like porn stars. Because the pastors who are immersing these sinners into the faith did not grasp what happened when they immersed themselves, in the sins of these two porn stars previously.

Even if they didn’t use porn of their prospective new congregants prior, the odds and statistics put the chance of either pastor having a porn free testimony, at south of 32%, depending on who you ask. Try Barna, their usually pretty good. But from your own experience in the ministry, pastors, how many of your colleagues post 1999 don’t have porn use in their faith’s history? These pastors doing the baptism, more than likely, wrestled with the sins associated with the sinners about to be dunked. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing, but is something that needs to get properly addressed. Because it likely was just filed as “bulk lust” and forgotten about.

And that’s only an issue if those same pastors are fine with these two ladies making porn with no nudity or other sexually suggestive themes. Because that’s what most of social media is. It can be a place where content is made to convey information at scale for free. But it trends towards base instincts and desires. You can test this for yourself, if you really want to. Make an A.I. avatar that looks like and attractive woman and post 100 bible verses, over one week, to any given social media site you’d like. Then do it with a real picture of a man, to see the difference. For maximum effect, make sure he’s older and slightly balding. Pay careful and close attention to the difference in responses and attention you receive from the bot accounts that will surely start following you. And if you’re on twitter, (still not calling it X.) make sure you see where those bot accounts are located, too.

The difference between the two sets of bible verses, as content, will tell you all you really need to know about how the internet works. And tells you everything you need to know when a former porn star seeks to get baptized, on the basis of saying the sinners prayer in a video for later posting. Both of these women turned their literal pivotal moment in faith, into the same kind of thing they would do to their sexuality prior. They became Christians in word and deed, separately, because those no longer needed to line up with reality anymore.

“Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” James 2:24-26 KJV

What happens to a words when they become online content. Or any kind of content for that matter? Do they stay what the speaker of those words meant? Or do they become a kind of work unto themselves? The medium is the message, right? And content does it’s job/work. It’s one thing to say you will always sing for the church on Sunday. And another to simply record every song in the hymnal and send your worship team the MP3 file. Are you singing in church. Your voice is being played over the worship team’s loudspeakers, just the same as the worship team that’s also on the loudspeakers. And the baptism that is done for the cameras shares those same cameras with the strip tease. I believe that Nala doesn’t know or understand this. but I'm almost positive Lily does.

The problematic part is neither pastor of either, allegedly, former porn star seems to know this. Either is happy to have a sinner say the magic words and get dunked in their tank, as opposed to the one at the Baptist church down the street, or the Reformed church across the city. Who are we kidding. You never see this kind of stuff at reformed churches. We'll have to look into why that is later.

And I do mean magic words because I know how this spell works. You can say stuff that has no effect on your own inhibitions and behavior, but does persuade those around you. Strippers do this all the time. Which is why most guys who use strippers think that she thinks they’re in love. When all she’s doing in her mind is adding up tips and counting seconds before her shift ends. And baptism and the Christian faith is likely not something that should be made into content, the way a daily life vlog or an OnlyFans should. For the very same reasons that guys shouldn't' believe that stripper love them, just because their clothes are coming off. Remember, there was a time when OnlyFans was not exclusively an adult themed or oriented material site. It takes real wisdom to know that YouTube and TikTok will similarly, not also stay as sexually neutral as they are right now. And they aren’t exactly neutral if we’re being honest. The beast swims slow, but it swims in a consistent direction. 

In that vein, if a porn star says they are now a former porn star, prior to baptism, the works part of their faith needs to be putting that old self, to the kind of death, a personality brand doesn't usually survive. Both of these women are not being modest. Both of them are still making sure that even in alleged repentance, that they are the center of attention to every man that finds their content or name online. Both of them have thousands of tiny pornographic idols of their former selves online that they have no power to remove. Idols that every man in their new home churches can find, the second they live stream their name alongside their baptisms. The hard work of making their sin a searchable keyword and hashtag is already done. The easy part is using what would look like righteousness to an unknown church regular, as the rim of a content funnel. Anyone with google analytics can see this is true, by showing how often these women’s names were searched for, before or after their announced baptisms. You cannot be modest, even in the bulkiest, unflattering clothing, if you stand alongside the billboard of your sexual sins in propriety.

That’s because modesty can never be content, the second it becomes content, it stops being modesty. Which is only a problem when you’re content used to be immodest behaviour. And that content’s rejection is or becomes the ignition of your faith and baptism’s engine.

How did you read the word “behavior” in that last line? Did you read it as a term of enjoyment or a term of product development. Because a seasoned online influencer knows how to behave online for an online audience. It’s part of their product development. And the very best of them can do that without any costumes, clothes, co-stars, or props. A pastor needs to know this before they let an influencer get into the baptismal tank. 

And a great place to start is having them demonstrate that they understand Matthew 16:17-20. 

The Scandal Of Shoes And Thought Experiments

We’re gonna take two things that happen online and have them trade a solitary article of clothing to show you how the internet (Like all technology) is sinful and not dependant on human agency to derive moral relevance or effects in the real world. And then hopefully address what to do next.

Ready? Good!

In the blue corner of the internet you have Suzie B. Pastor. A preacher from a midsized church with a midsized online following of her social media driven gospel takes and biblical interpretations. For all you feminists, frothing at the mouth, no I don’t think she should step down from ministry, just because she’s woman. For all you reformed types now frothing at the mouth because of what I said to the feminists. Sit tight, I promise you’ll enjoy the ride. Suzie’s ministry is greatly advantaged and propelled by her YouTube channel. Where she and the church media team diligently play by the rules and post along precedence and profitable strategies. Suzie is an online pastor through and through. And her ministry has receipts. She has 1000 people who attend her church, and 100,000 followers online. She has people who now come to her church that found her through clips of her ministry online. She preaches a true gospel and is doing the Lord's work, at her church. But also does so online as evidenced by the fruit that’s plain to see.

In the red corner of the internet we have Sally J. Pornstar. She is a subscription based content maker who specializes in feet. Specializes is kind of a misnomer. That’s simply the most profitable content she produces. But she still makes bank on everything else she shows. But feet are where we’ll focus. She also has 100,000 followers and a short list of 1000 regulars who pay for premium feet focused content. She has been doing this kind of sex work, as long as Suzie B. Pastor has been preaching. The two of them unknowingly went to the same seminary. She is unrepentant, thoroughly doctrine'd in the strong, independent woman who not only doesn’t need a man but regularly fleeces him for pictures of bare toes and lingerie.

Both of these ladies, arguably, make their living on the internet. Both of them use video content to do so. Both of them engage with an audience of men and women, though one would likely have more women. Both would have what would be called a brand. And both, allegedly, have the ability to affect the other's audience, if given the chance. But what does that look like?

Were Suzie to drop Sally’s name as a sermon illustration on her latest livestream, and were an unsuspecting or foolish man in the congregation to google that name, to see who his pastor was talking about, or who Sally was. Then the effect would be Sally causing the man to sin, because of the introduction, how ever well thought out or not, of the man, to Sally, from Suzie. The man is still responsible for the sin, but Suzie becomes responsible for the temptation.

The thought experiment is, do you think that street runs both ways? Could Sally ever do or say something that would take one of her fans and send him to church in a similar way, a pastor like Suzie could send a man to a porn site if she wasn’t wise enough to have sexual sin not even be named among the congregation, Ephesians 5:3.

The answer is no, Until proven otherwise, but lets explain why.

You want to say yes, but the truth is, no online pastor worth his or her salt could, nor can they imagine how they would. We can recognize the danger, abstractly, of having a pastor say in a livestream a porn star's name and the cognito hazard that kind of announcement or information is, functionally. There is no way to find out about sin without also being exposed to the temptation to participate in such sin. At least in any sufficient detail to understand what the sin is and so you can abstain from such sin. And to the chronically online church, being online itself always carries with it the possibility of being online elsewhere. Somewhere naughty even.

As the thought experiment festers a bit, lets even the odds. Suppose Suzie remembers who Sally is, because they went to seminary together. Recognizing that she herself stayed on the straight and narrow, Suzie now wants to help Sally and show the kind of humility that she thinks Christ would model. She also remembers that they are roughly the same size and that her shoes might fit her. She prepares an FedEx package with prepaid postage and during a live stream, calls out Sally for her sin, but offers to help her. She offers to lead her out of sin the way Christ did for herself. And as a token of good faith and charity, takes her own socks and shoes off, during the live stream. Aiming straight at the sinful moneymakers of her former classmate. A metaphorical first step, if you will. She packages the shoes and socks, and has the church media team follow the package out the door as it is picked up by FedEx to bring to Sally’s recording studio. Suzie then let’s her church know, that like a fleece let out for the Lord. She will remain barefoot on the stage until Sally comes to Christ. All of this done with the best SEO and keywords, hashtags, and labels to get the attention of Sally who’s about to get her gift and invitation to the gospel. The video is cross posted by dozens of Suzie' congregants. All in the hopes that Sally sees the gesture and comes to faith and repentance.

She does. See it that is.

Sally see’s her name show up in posts that don’t feature her body parts and watches the entire sermon. Sally get’s the shoes a day later. Rereads the message and call to repentance and fellowship on Suzie’s latest live stream. Then uses the free publicity and percentage of Sally’s 1000 congregants who googled her name (For research purposes only, I’m sure), and promptly puts on the shoes and removes them like she would in any other livestream she does. She then points out the obvious and watches the latest Sunday service of Suzie’s, posted for all the world to see, and comments, that while flattered, she doesn’t need competition for her cornered market of feet pics. But that Suzie is brave, even brilliant, for doing feet pics in church.

Caught flat footed, Suzie find herself posting media online that matches every detail of one of Sally’s videos, just with the gospel being preached alongside the naked feet. The inverse online traffic swap happens, as the livestream of Suzie’s church now has a lot more engagement. Almost double what her previous subscribers mustered on a weekend. Did 100,000 porn users start going to a church service? Or did a church service become a porn video for the same set of users?

What just happened?

Suzie is not scandalously dressed. She merely took her shoes off. Pastors have washed feet from the pulpit thousands of times, what made this live stream different? She is not soliciting unwanted sexual attention. She’s not being provocative in a sexual way, though she is poking the bear if we’re being honest. She did nothing wrong, and arguments can be made that giving desperate sinners your clothes, is a biblical thing to do. Matthew 25:36, right!?!

Why can Sally change the nature of a church service online, but Suzie seems powerless to change the nature of a porn video? Do you think Suzie sharing pictures of Sally in seminary, from their yearbook, would discredit her as a porn star? Or would it simply invent a new niche for Sally’s porn to reside in? The same way Sally livestreaming her tithing to the church while in a state of undress would maintain porn's death grip of Suzie’s barefoot preaching. Or would it just add to the search terms of perversion that Sally seems to be a master of? At what point would Suzie's feet pics stop being porn and start being a sermon again?

We all know this is a one way street. The question remains why is it a one way street? And does it need to stay that way?

I have argued for a long time that online church is not what it seems. Both to it’s makers and to its users. Because the suspension of disbelief it takes to do online church, mirrors the suspension of disbelief it takes to use porn as a replacement for a sexual partner. Porn makers know this. To the point of commodity. They have made girlfriends obsolete. Subscribe to your search terms of choice and she’s yours to do with what you please/pay. She’ll even say your name in the chat and send you DM’s. A pastor answering super chats isn’t functionally different. What if it’s also not ontologically different? What if online church is online porn? Just not as explicit as what other forms of online porn are. This would be nearly impossible to see or notice unless something like what happened in the story above, happened. Because then it would be irreversible. Because it always was irreversible. Just like sin is.

The story isn’t fantastically unbelievable. You’re telling me there’s not a chance that an OnlyFan’s model and a female pastor knew each other before their respective online careers took off? Nothing about the fiction is even implausible. What it points out is the hidden workings of online video consumption, as a system. Not social hypotheticals. We all know that Sally could turn Suzie's online ministry into a vector for erotic content. And we are all coming to know that the mechanics of this system won't let that happen the other way. That while a ministry may be effective when secluded from it’s medium's power users, it become fuel for the message of those power users when given the smallest chance to do so. The most effective and capable content makers online, are not found where the church does online ministry. Their content is un-touchable by the church, right now, but under any provocation could taint and corrupt any online ministry with their function as sinful content.

Name a pastor who couldn’t be sidelined by the wrong kind of attention by the wrong kinds of people. Even the Life Church’s Bible App had to contend with people using it as a vector to have and share explicit images through it’s servers. To minors even. Are the myriad of content filters and website blockers, doing anything as effective and anything described above?

There comes a point where to participate in the medium means compromising on the intent of participation in the first place.

“Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.” Matthew 7:6 KJV

Right now, online ministry works. It does what it attempts to do and exists as it’s own type of thing online. But without recognition for how any given medium of communication works, when corrupted. It will end up doing the same kinds of things that work for that corruption. That’s because like humanity, our technologies, including mediums of communication, are sinful. The hammer made for crushing rocks is not sinfully used to crush skulls. It was always sinfully ready to crush skulls. The paintbrush which could record historical scenes with an artists touch, is not sinfully used to add brush marks to the body and canvas, it was sinfully ready to do so. And the internet, while useful to the church for proclamation of the gospel, is not sinfully used to produce and transmit pornography. Instead, it is sinfully ready to do so. Because technology is sinful.

That’s why Suzie has no power over Sally’s livestream, even when she models Christ toward her. But Sally holds sway over Suzie’s livestream by the same metric and forms of communication. Christ does not use the means of sin to do his work but is showcased best in the lives of sinners where his strength is manifest over their weakness.

“And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?” Matthew 12:26 KJV

Sin is always a one way street. Walking on it is the problem. Walking down it isn’t even the question. It’s already too late if you’re on the street. You’re in danger if you think you can walk down it and just turn around when things get bad.

“And beheld among the simple ones, I discerned among the youths, a young man void of understanding, Passing through the street near her corner; and he went the way to her house,” Proverbs 7:7-8 KJV

This is why, tacitly, we all know that the only way for Sally to come to Jesus is to forsake her pornography. To take every video down, delete all back ups, change her name and contact info online, even to the point of changing her appearance offline. So she is no longer the commodified porn star, but a new creation in Christ. Recognizing that in her life will mean recognizing that in our lives. We should celebrate the gains we can make by using things like the internet and be as ready to surrender it all to destruction for the sake of Christ all the same.

A lot of churches are game for the first part.

How many would sacrifice their YouTube page to save a sinner with an OnlyFans?

There Is No Need For An A.I. Policy In Your Church.

Among the pro church tech crowd there is a recognition that the pro stance, really does need a policy to give them the requisite field dimensions for their ball game. Like most band wagons, the (A.I. use in church) one got hopped on quickly. And only now that it is headed down the hill at a speed you could interpret as fast, are the requirements and restrictions for it’s use, recognized.

Far be it for me to say “it’s too late” as a worshiper of the God of all time and space, I do not believe in such things.

But, for the sake of agreement and/or argument. You do not need an A.I. policy at your church to play this game. Some good old fashion discernment can ferret out bad actors and good intentions at the helm of any given paving machine. Or any other machines for that matter. And I understand that this will look more like talent than training and that this concept offends the poorly co-ordinated and ungifted. Participation trophy theology is just as lame as it sounds. Trust me.

I propose a single qualifier that if treated honestly can sort out most of if not all of the acceptable use and safety concerns that churches may have with the use of A.I. At any level of the discussion. It functions a lot like picking your team for recess football. As in you want people who can actually play the game not just want to play the game. If that is you want to win the game. It does require that everyone have someone to report to. And presumes you’re being at least quasi biblical about who and how that reporting to works. But as long as there is oversight as far as we can all see, it goes as follows…

“Could there be a fruit of the Spirit or a gift of the Spirit that would be mechanized by your intended use of A.I.?”

If the answer is yes.

Then the answer is no.

This may seem like folly to anyone who’s willing to call the Spirit's empowerment and ownership of the church folly. And if you have those types in charge of your church’s tech department, my condolences to your intramural football team. But if the lay person is spiritually accountable to the church leaders, and they to the pastors, and the pastors to the elders, and the elders to each other and or the assembly who elects them. Then no one can merely use A.I. without first petitioning upward to who oversees their intended work.

What this does is place the use of the machine in the hierarchy of the Saviour. Who appointed leaders of lay peoples for this exact kind of thing.

“And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them. And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.” Acts 6:1-7 KJV

What the apostles understood in Christ, is that their work needed protecting from other busy work. Which wasn’t a bad thing but it wasn’t also an apostle thing. The very same way pastors and elders and children's ministry directors all have their role and challenges in ministry. By modeling the transfer of work to the Deacons, the apostles showed us the way to handle work loads and responsibility alongside and apart form one another.

A.I., and those who use it faithfully, seek to be the ubiquitous help to any and all who come to it. Which is fine when it helps people instead of replacing people. Because what the apostles didn’t ask for was more apostles. Did they? No. They knew something was distinct about their role in the early church and that their work of ministry of the word was more important than removing an apostle to merely wait on a table.

I get this all the time as a tradesman. The amount of times I've been paid electrician wages to assemble Ikea furniture for office worker types, who would lost behind the Allen key, is laughable. And the same thing can happen spiritually if given the chance. Your pastor should not be deciding paint colours of the church reno. His job is the preaching of God’s word and the discipline of God’s people, and paint colours do not factor into that. But they do need to be picked the same way food is distributed to widows. Fairly and responsibly. So you do want someone to do that.

What you don’t want is A.I. to do what should be a person doing it. or for A.I. to do it so the wrong person also doesn’t have to do it. A.I. shouldn’t be deciding what the paint colour is, because the pastor was going to, but ran out of time. What you want is a painter or designer in the church to do is, not only so the pastor won't, but so the painter or designer will.

“There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;” Ephesians 4:4 KJV

“For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:” Ephesians 4:12 KJV

When we use A.I. as the servant it can be, it can replace work meant for us to do. The church would not have been blessed by an A.I. that could lessen the studying and devotion to the word the Apostles were called to. Simply because it would have freed them up to do relational ministry while serving the needy in the soup kitchen. It sounds great that all the hard Greek to English syntax and context are swept up into the machine so the pastor can have coffee with new members more often. Until you find out that knowing and learning that syntax and context are things he is called to do at the expense of such actions involving coffee.

And that substitution of A.I. for people is engrained into what A.I. is. This isn’t artificial labor we’re talking about here. (Which will be it’s own blogpost along the same lines BTW’s) It’s artificial intelligence. There are things done by the church that are meant to be done by people in the churches, not just what their bodies could do physically or the cumulative data of their bookshelves. Wisdom springs forth from a relationship with the Holy Spirit of God to be shared across the pew. So that those in the pew might also find wisdom and relationship with the same Spirit. The same goes for humility, generosity, prayers, even knowledge. Every fruit and every gift of the same Spirit of God.

You don’t want the church having A.I. do it’s finances, not because machine precision isn’t valuable for a non-profit, but because biblical faithfulness and stewardship are things a robot can’t demonstrate, but are things Christians are called to demonstrate, as acts of worship. The Church does it’s business, through and for souls. And what this single qualifying question does is square the fact that you cannot separate your soul from your mind. But A.I. has managed to give you a mind without a soul as the work around.

Every encroachment of that mind’s ability to do work, will be an encroachment on the souls meant to do that work for the church in the first place. So A.I. needs to be set to work where intelligence does not trespass the Spirit in His work by its work. And unfortunately for those on the bandwagon, the list of tasks that A.I. can do in church is small. Especially when it has to contend with the Spirit’s intention for how we do things.

Maybe you can ask A.I. how it shouldn’t be used in church. I'm sure it will give you an answer.

Be sure to ask it after, what discernment means and where it comes from biblically. The difference between those two prompts is where your ecclesiology of tech is.

4 Categories Against The Technologically Sneaky

You likely will not hear or read Christians talk to you about the dangers of machines, or the hazards of devices. We have a favoured word to use for our discussions and doctrines of technology. And that word is tool. The internet is a tool. So is A.I. And so is a hammer. And the simple little mind trick played by these Jedi theologians is that you can call something magic which is really just Midichlorian’s and plot armor.

Why does everyone reduce technology down to just tools? Why is it necessary to think of something as vast and as complicated as the world wide web, as a hand held rock on a stick?

Sinfulness, that’s why.

Our default nature and response to dealing with sin is to reduce what happened by our hands in scope and effectiveness. It was not that Adam blatantly ate what he must have taught Eve not to also eat, given when Eve enters the Narrative, but that she gave him fruit and he merely ate it. It was not that Aaron fashioned a golden cow and then lied to say that it came of it’s own will out of the molten gold he lit the fire for. But that he merely made the idol.

Sin has a way of prompting us to reduce our agency to the absurd. Because at its heart, sin is always an absurd thing to do. Especially when you know who God is and what God wants for you.

So, with that in mind, the next time you have some pro A.I. in church type tell you that A.I. is just a tool, Remind him that there are more ways to think about tech, than just absurd abstractions.

Here’s four to start.

Tools:

A tool is something completely under the control of the human using it. It requires use based skill to use effectively for its maximum use. It can not operate on it’s own, and is entirely dependant on human agency for its effects on reality.

Mechanisms:

Are tools that require an additional force or tool to do what the initial tool would do, but in a more effective way in unison. They can not operate on their own but are not operated solely by human agency as the secondary force or tool also affects their effect on reality.

Devices:

Are mechanisms that are set in motion by management forces and mechanism that further add to the operational agency of the device. The human, the management measures, and the mechanism all play into the devices means of effecting reality, in that order both ways. adjustments to any level of that order of operation effects the effects and communicates to the human using the device.

Machines:

A machine is a human made replacement of a humans capacity to do work. It entirely removes the human from the process of the machines effects on reality after the human sets it in motion. It requires no human agency past construction and initializing its functional purpose and does not communicate to the human unless also tasked to do so alongside its functional purpose. Effects on its effects on reality can also be made to be internally managed by the same machine internally. Machines are at their most fundamental level of purpose, replacements for humans at the bidding of humans.

Note how these four things are not the same.

Note how these get more complicated as they progress.

Note how you have never been asked to view a hammer with more complexity than its handle.

Note how you have been being told machines are as simple as tools for a while now.

Note how you’ve never asked why?

You Do Not Redeem Technology, Christ Does.

You will hear the pastor say, My tech indeed is strong. So I use it for my work, and the church will tag along.

Hypothetically now.

If technology was or is sinful, then it’s redemption to good works becomes an important ontological debate to have. When it’s effectively neutral, though, waiting to be used for evil or good, then this redemption doesn’t matter, though its need certainly does not disappear. The sinfulness of any given tech behaves like sin even when we call it something else. But when it’s ignored in place of a functional neutrality, then we become the agent of redemption in the world. We redeem tech from what it could be used for by using it for what it can be used for. And that is why church YouTube pages effectively counter the pornographic videos also found online. Or do they? They are ostensibly the same kind of thing. One an online video of sin and the other an online video of righteousness. Why does the righteousness not counter the sin. Why is good not winning against evil. There’s not less porn online now than years prior. But there is more Christian content online now than there was before. Why are these two forms of content, on the same technological platform, not affecting one another. Well they are. The porn is winning, if we’re being honest about what kinds of content are effective online. Both forms of content are behaving how the technology allows. It’s just that one type on content doesn't think it’s sinful and the other knows it is to the point of reveling. Porn does not need to worry that it will accidently lapse into righteousness by showing too little of it’s actor’s bodies. But righteous content does. The second pastors clothing is to tight, it becomes porn to those who would use it as porn, funny how that doesn't work the other way. Salt may loose its saltiness, but pepper is always hot. The medium of the internet is its message. And that message is sinful. You can see this by how many pastors have or had used online porn.

Find me a pastor or church leader who hasn’t tangoed with the stuff. Porn that is. You’ll be hard pressed. And you’ll be harder pressed as time marches on, as the Boomer’s and Boomer adjacent, who aren’t as technologically captured as you, retire. Porn for them was a magazine or VHS tape that they could avoid buying. The techno-savvy clergy of the now, can’t not use the internet. It’s how they do virtually all their ministry that they view as important. From the groups pastor using it for right now media, to the micro celebrity senior pastor using it for branding and content proliferation. The youth pastor needs it for registration forms and video game evangelism. The list goes on and on. And with it, a tacit acknowledgement that even though there is also x-rated content on the internet, it doesn’t matter because there’s Christian content on there as well.

And that’s because they’ve convinced themselves that the technology they use is a neutral thing. And not something, that like ourselves, is sinful. It behaves like the sinful thing. The same way a sinful person would behave. Which has no bearing on the evangelical mind who believes everyone is equal and good, and gets there by means of a neutral way. We do not consider ourselves sinners naturally. Even though it is our nature. That takes conviction. And if there’s one thing evangelicals can all agree on it’s that conviction doesn't exist on the internet. That’s why arguing in the comment section is a fruitless endeavour, right? No one ever got saved because of someone trying to prove them wrong online. We all know that.

So, why do the arguments of sin work so well online then? Why are Christian men, who know that they can’t be convinced of something they don’t believe in or ascribe to, still found behind an incognito browser looking at porn. Porn argues that men should be able to have a sexual experience with every person they see, if that’s the way the swing. Just enter your sexual search terms and you get what gets you off. And Christians, particularly men, have been persuaded by that argument since dialup was a thing. I thought that didn’t work and I thought this place was neutral. Why is it behaving as if it’s not?

Because it’s not.

The sinfulness of the internet allows for righteous use of it the same way righteous people can still get married and have godly sex. Porn needs people to have healthy sex drives in order for it to pervert them. The same way harlots need husbands and thieves need hard earned wages. There is not sin without something to corrupt. And the internet. is just as corrupt as the guns that don’t kill people. You can repeat the NRA mantra all the right wing, live long day. That gun’s don’t kill people, and yet. You will never find a gun that can’t kill a person. A gun that won’t.

Find me an internet you couldn’t use for porn and you will have found the neutral internet. The same way if you found a gun that wouldn’t kill a person. You would have found a gun that is only a tool for shooting. not killing. But these things do no exist. You know this. So what does exist?

The absence of these kinds of things points to a very specific thing in and of itself. Something that despite a desire for good, does evil as if it were reading Romans 7 all the same.

“For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.” Romans 7:19-25 KJV

So what does good technology look like? How do we find it? How does it work?

It works by nailing it to the cross the same way our sins were nailed. and forsaking it because of the love that was demonstrated on that very same cross. It looks like a bible app that knows that if it makes a way to host images on its servers alongside the scriptures it shares online, that sinful images will make their ways onto those servers. So it sacrifices the ability to host those images, the way a righteous man enters heaven without a hand that caused him to sin. (Matt 5:30) The app becomes less popular and less comparatively useable to Pinterest and Instagram. But also becomes Holy.

Once its seen as sinful, technology and it’s users have to contend with what an Almighty God does to sin. And the effects if adopted would radically reimagine what technology use would look like for a modern church. We readily do online church and social media ministry, not because we have any power to redeem the place where envy and apathy have roosted in the modern age, but because like the sin of the technology we use, we are sinners also.

Which is why the most prolifically online ministries, have never been seen by their members where they actually spend the most time on the internet. Where is the salt and light, at or in Pornhub and OnlyFans. Are these not places where gospel of forgiveness from sin is needed most, if not more? And yet these are places where the church has not and likely will never send it’s digital missionaries.

If you do not believe in a Saviour that could one day change the domain name of those sites, because His church brought his gospel to their users, so effectively, that sexual immorality could not even be named among them anymore. Then you don’t actually want to do online ministry, or to use Technology righteously.

You simply want to call something sinful, good. Or for the time being, treat it as neutral.

Word Of Mouth And Other Shades Of Evangelism

The concern is, that if the world begins to consume A.I. generated content, that churches can’t generate their own content on the kind of scale that without A.I. Sora’s pulpit will be much more powerful than the Church of TikTok it reformed from. Because Sora’s pulpit will not have influencers that have to film and edit and upload. Those things cost time and money. Money the church would have to gather to spend. And right now the A.I. pulpit can print the money is uses and we can only tithe it. All that production is done in aggregate. The very second a video is requested, or algorithm’d, all of it is done for us and consummation is all that is left. And I mean that word as dirty as you read it. Because just as Jesus said that lust was where adultery started. So too is the idea of content as mission field that seeds idolatry in your heart.

And it would be ignorant to say this isn’t something the church should be considering, but there is a better way to play a game you’re gonna lose because it’s in the rules that your team loses. AND THAT WAY IS TO NOT PLAY THAT GAME!

In the Movie ‘Nick and Nora’s Infinite Playlist” we’re introduced to what might be the coolest band that never existed. The entire movie is about songs we never hear. One of it’s main characters are a group of faces we never see. There are hints to them all throughout the movie. But we never get to them. That’s because them not being mainstream and available to anyone is the whole damn point. The movie is a bit of a romp, but the message leaks out the medium like light in a basket. Everyone wants to hear “Where’s Fluffy” The fictional indy rock band of your electric sheep's dreams.

“But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;”

1 Peter 2:9 KJV

That word “holy” is an important one because holy things are never common. They are never the mean or median of culture. Holy things are different. So to a holy person, place, or thing, means being different. Drastically so. Where’s Fluffy was a holy band. Not in action or deed, but in separation from that which perverts action and deed in the music industry. In their case, advertisement. They had no billboards, no posters, no suits to taint their sound. Just sound and comradery and the powerful means of reputation. They bet on doing what no one else was doing and being the only band in the music scene that didn’t rely on agents, advertisers, and much of the music industry. And in doing so, could leave little more than hints and rumors as to their next show and pack its seats. No radio commercials, though they did end up there in mention. No social media strategy to speak of at all. In their absence of the music worlds deeds was a presence inside the world of music. They were never trying to be winsome, they were trying to be good. They wanted to be the band that everyone has never heard of because everyone was too busy searching for them. One whose CD’s can’t be bought at stores but have to be bought at their shows. I know they’re fictional, but I've never seen a better example of being in a world and not of it. Or an better description of what cool is. And I was a youth pastor for a while there.

For entirely too long, the wages of winsome third way evangelism has made sure we’re as set apart as split peas in so much soup. And now as the world ramps up it’s neon gods of data and algorithm, the church has a unique chance to be different. We are doing the same song and dance that secularism is doing and insisting that our results are as valid as theirs. But we could be doing what would make us set apart. We could be doing what’s actually cool but instead are gonna do what all the cool kids are doing.

What happens when you have to be at a church to hear anointed preaching? When all the preaching you could search for online becomes invalidated by the kind you can’t. When you have to be at a church to hear amazing worship songs? Or have to attend that church to learn them, because K-Love doesn't have any version to play or have Steven Furtick rework for Elevation.

What happens when you have to do more than rest in the modern trend of “we get to” that has captured the minds and skill sets of the everyman? You hear that phrase among the weakest of actual witnesses. “we get to.” We get to go to church. We get to worship freely, Get to read our bibles. Get to exercise agency.

Will all due respect, the optional flavour of that sentiment has always made my face scowl a bit. You get to worship the all mighty creator of the universe, and the work His very own son did for you on a cross for your salvation. But only if you want. You should be happy you have such options. Rejoice in the agency you’ve pulled from the ether. What happened to every knee bowing (Phil 2:10). Nothing, that’s what. And we can rest in that omnipotence just as as much as the sentiment behind the “we get to” crowd. But unlike them, we might just discover something better than everything else.

For years the comparison between the sermon and the TED talk has been cliche to talk about, however valid. But what if the sermon couldn’t be a TED talk, on account of it never been recorded for online distribution. What if Worship music couldn’t be an industry. What if your bible was something so special it was printed in house and you didn’t have to search Amazon for the perfect customizable printing of it to start your faithful reading of it.

And what if they world can have it’s A.I. generated content in spades, at the cost of losing the church playing that game. What does it look like when the church is apart of that world, and not in it. Ask yourself what any part of a media saturated world looks like when the church sets itself apart from it.

What happens when every single Christian stops using porn? The same thing that would happen if every single Christian stopped using A.I. . The industry would notice the demographic shift and simple but effective marketing techniques would be used to convince that market that what it was abstaining from was good for it. You would be told that so long as the porn is ethically sourced, or made by the couple themselves, it’s kosher, The same way you’ll be told that as long as the A.I. is christian it’s fine. And that as long as we use this A.I. for ministry it is redeemed as much as the smut.

The reason I can draw the conclusions and comparisons I do is because the marketing doesn’t work on everyone. It never does. Some people don’t fall for hype and end up at shows with bands you’ll never hear on Sora, K-love, or any variation there of. They don’t think porn is sexy, because it’s obscene, and hold similar opinions about Music and  A.I. for similar reasons. Correlation is important when it comes to discerning what is holy and what is not. Because if something acts like the bad thing and pursues its markets like the bad thing. It may in fact be bad. Regardless of how popular it is. Which means it is not and can not be holy. Seven A.I. clones of a K-pop band will never make K-pop good music. And at this particular moment in time the church has an opportunity to repent of chasing the next big thing, and return to worship of the best thing. To set itself apart from the culture it can do nothing but war with.

And the easiest way it can do this is to be the kind of thing that can be found in the world but never of it. Nothing would convince a world so enamoured by technology of a transcendent God above it, than a departure from technology as if it were sinful in the first place. But that does require an acknowledgement that all of our technology, as a work of our hands, is never as righteous as we want it to be.

“But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.”

Isaiah 64:6 KJV

Cellphone Tower VBS Jesus,

 

This picture is a cell phone tower. Cleverly disguised as part of a church. I know. You’ve likely seen them everywhere and ignored them al the same. Even when they bear the cross of your saviour.

And it is exactly because of that subtle but pervasive ignorance, that I bring up to you, you’ve never seen one with a star of David or a Muslim Crescent moon and star, have you? But you have seen these. Seen these enough to know that you didn’t notice crosses were the only thing ever put on these, if not left blank.

Go on. Touch grass as they say. Venture out into the world offline and look for the towers that facilitate the online world. Of any and all accumulation of G’s. 3G, 4G, 5G, who cares? It will not matter. You likely won't find one of these towers near anything but a protestant church, or if near another house of worship, clad in their religious symbols. But every time they are posted on the corner of a Baptist parking lot, they will have a cross on it. For some unknown reason, no one else observes this religious construction practice.

And all I want you to do is ask why?

Why are cellphone towers and large protestant churches seen together like this? Why isn’t the biggest mosque in your town on a similar date with this technology? Why are the ever increasing number of Hindu temples, found with no cell phone tower near by? Even the Catholic’s seem to keep their distance.

Again. Can you bring yourself to ask why? Or maybe a How will suffice.

Do you know how these towers work?

I do.

Part of my testimony involves being in charge of facilities at a large church that had one of these in our building. Not even just on our property. That inside scoop was just business as usually to me when I worked there, until I didn’t, and began to notice what you’re recognizing now. That these don’t exist as religiously clad radio towers, anywhere, but decently sized protestant churches. Our church would bag several thousand dollars a year for utility usages and rental for the tower. Which came came in handy when there was a budget to pad.

And that’s where the rubber hits the radio signal. It does pay to follow the money. A heuristic worth every penny, as it were.

Knowing that these things pay well is one kind of discernment. Extrapolating that a church that seeks that payment is another. These towers go up everywhere they can. Because the function of them demands it. We need wider, faster, more pervasive coverage for our phones. Because we have all but abandoned life in the real world to life of the real world through them. And as such their facilitation is necessary. We’re not going to call it evil, because tech isn’t evil. Postman taught us well. It’s also not good and not neutral, but it can be sinful. Which is why it showed up at protestant churches.

They’re the only ones that deal with actual sins.

Temptation does not need to be present where sinners call evil good. Where a false gods are worshiped or the true God lumped in with other letters in the coexist bumper sticker. Or other lesser idols. But where the cross of Christ means something, there, compromise will mean just as much. You’ll see these towers outside rainbow clad “Churches” that have the same declarations about the role and authority of the Bible as your reformed church does. But for some reason never preach Leviticus 18. The same way you’ve likely never seen many 12 step programs from a mosque.

You won’t find these towers where the temptation to acquiesce for secular tech money would mean anything. Who cares, biblically, if the mosque compromises its message to have better 5G coverage? Anyone not reading 1 Corinthians 1:20 seriously, that’s who. But a church that can know that a Hindu temple and a unitarian church might be seats of worship for something other than Jesus, would need something to cast a long shadow over their orthodoxy, something to cause temptation.

It’s the same temptation you see routinely every, summer, when VBS becomes the solitary vehicle for church growth. And the call for volunteers goes out into the darkness of the seeker sensitive sanctuary. The call will be simple. One for bodies. “We need 100 volunteers to make this year’s VBS program a success.” And it’s an earnest and honest plea for people to get involved, do good work, and serve their church.

But have you ever asked why we don’t run the size of VBS that our church could manage? Why every weekend we only need a handful for people teaching kids about Jesus, and one week a year in the summer we need an army. Well it’s the same reason you want a cell phone tower on your property. Budget. But you have to be willing to follow money and exercise a bit of judgement to see that.

“For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.” Luke 14:28-30 KJV

Now this verse is about building the damned tower, not getting paid for it. So bear with me as I point you further back in scripture for financial management in a ministry setting.

“This they shall give, every one that passeth among them that are numbered, half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary: (a shekel is twenty gerahs:) an half shekel shall be the offering of the Lord. Every one that passeth among them that are numbered, from twenty years old and above, shall give an offering unto the Lord. The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel, when they give an offering unto the Lord, to make an atonement for your souls. And thou shalt take the atonement money of the children of Israel, and shalt appoint it for the service of the tabernacle of the congregation; that it may be a memorial unto the children of Israel before the Lord, to make an atonement for your souls.” Exodus 30:13-16 KJV

There is a noticeable difference between extending yourself in faith and extending yourself in ambition. One see’s the ask that ministry provides and sacrificially gives more than they’re able. Knowing that at the end of all days. God covers the tab. The other assumes that spending more than we have is always something God will provide for. That we can ask what ever we want and act like it’s always gonna be ours. That if we want 100 different ministries at our church that money will be there simply because we’re asking for the right kinds of things.

And that would seem good and godly were it not for the rest of the bible we need to hold in tension.

“He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.” Luke 16:10 KJV

The reason the children of God had a flat tax of a tithe that everyone could afford but some could afford less, was because we need to be faithful with little before we are tasked with being faithful with much. That leading with asks and demands of much before we are faithful with littles is not the way to a successful kids ministry and VBS program.

But don’t worry, when you need that extra funding for projects you’re over extended by, in the church, there's a cellphone tower that will make up for the lack of tithe in your church. Want to fund a youth group that needs a a couple grand a year in pizza funds and concert fees? No problem. Give us 50 square feet in the corner and we’ll erect a 5G tower that will cover the spread between your faithless congregation. And your desires for a big and influential ministry to the youths. All to the glory of God, too. That’s why there’s a cross on it. Duh.

What you see when you notice one of these cellphone towers with a cross on it is not faith and tech coexisting in harmony. But rather evidence that the church its on or near doesn't do its ministry by faith alone. They do it with tech adjacently also. Because there will be thousands of dollars placed in the coffers for fair use and rentals, that has nothing to do with Jesus, the author and perfector of our faith. What you see is a church that does not need to be faithful in little because it has options for much.

It’s not always that. But it’s never not at least that. When a church tithes and invests said tithe money, it’s being faithful with little before it receives much. But every time you see one of these cross clad towers, the church it’s associated with is being paid something that is not a tithe by the tower's owners, for their tower to wear the cross of a Christ they do not serve. And don’t get me wrong. I am all for plundering the Egyptians before worshiping the Lord, but I also know that if not properly discerned, it will only be a replacement of obedience and faithfulness in the pew.

Money is not just a means to exercise spending and value. It is a principle means of worship for the modern Christian. And a church should be warry and jealous of who gets to fund their ministries. Because when the only reason a youth group or VBS or any given ministry exists, is because an entirely secular company funds it, what happens at the ministry is not faithfulness and service, but transaction. It’s not the first time savvy money makers have done this song and dance. But you have to be willing to treat the tech wizards who make the magic of the internet work, like the sorcerers they sometimes are.

“But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.” Acts 8:20-22