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.