The AI resistance is calling but I'm on the fence
Some preliminary thoughts about AI in the life of the Church
I have always been an early adopter.
At a young age, my father gave me a 486-computer. I haven’t looked back. I took the thing apart. Put it back together. I learned to program. Run a bulletin board system. With each phase of emerging technologies, I’ve tinkered and tried to keep up with the pace.
This early adopter attitude has carried over into the age of Generative AI. While slower on the uptake, I have played with the likes of ChatGPT and Claude. My enthusiasm is tempered and increasingly cautious. Even so, I’ve experimented with them in limited ways, mostly related to teaching, preaching, and writing. I could get into the nitty gritty of where I presently draw the lines in my use, but that’s not the point here.1
Recently, I was invited to talk about theology and AI at conference. Many great thinkers already tackle the topic. I was reluctant. My thoughts are preliminary and underdeveloped at best. But it proved to be a good opportunity for me. A current task on my docket is drafting a policy with guidelines for our church staff. Consolidating resources and my thoughts for this conference allowed me to clarify whatever opinions I do hold, which in turn, helps me develop the aforementioned policy. Nothing like a good ol’ win-win. Thanks, Andy!
As far as I can tell, my talk was well received. You know it’s a good one when the first question in the Q&A is “What do you think about the abomination of desolation?” All I could say is “Let the reader understand.” (True story). My thoughts on AI do not venture into the prophetic literature of the Scriptures. Others have done that. I will concede that should humanity somehow merge with machines due to AI, it would indeed be an abomination that desolates (but likely not what Daniel or the Gospel writers envisioned). Again, let the reader understand. In my talk, all I tried to do is map out AI in a rudimentary landscape: the Inevitablists, the Resistance, and an alternative.
Mapping the Landscape
The Inevitablists are represented by people like Dario Amodei, the CEO of Anthropic, creators of Claude. Basically: AI is inevitable, get on board. Better to use it than get left behind. I used Amodei as an example because his tone has shifted from unbridled optimism to anxious hope. AI may not usher in the utopia of the transhumanists and posthumanists. It could cause a lot of problems. But it can’t be stopped. Might as well be us, the “democratic” society (Shhh, we are not a Techno-Oligarchy) instead of an untrustworthy authoritarian regime. All things considered: we must hope humanity can find the strength and resolve to wield it for good.
The Resistance are represented by people like Paul Kingsnorth. He has written extensively about the myth of Progress, the role of machines, and has formed a guild called Writers Against AI. Obviously, Kingsnorth isn’t a Ludite. He uses a computer, posts on Substack, etc. But he asks critical questions, such as: If AI replaces so much of what humans do, what purpose remains for us? If AI is a tool, what is its actual aim? He clarifies what is sometimes obfuscated in the conversation: AI is not merely a tool or device or technology. It is far more complex and complicated. If the aim is true intelligence? How is that a tool? It’s a good question.2
Prior to my talk, I was a cautious Inevitablist. Whereas Julia was, and remains, part of the resistance—and a very persistent evangelist for the cause. Now? I stand on the edge of casting my lot with the resistance. For a variety of reasons, such as appeasing my lovely bride. But I’m not ready to fly that banner quite yet.
An Alternative
In preparation for my talk I drew on three frameworks to discern the role of AI in the life of the church.
The first is an ethical paradigm from Samuel Well’s book Improvisation. In sum, the church’s responsibility in every age is to deeply inhabit the story of God. As the body of Christ, we discern how to faithfully improvise through the ethical situations we face. It functions like this: offer, block, accept, overaccept.3
Generative AI is an offer. We can block it like the Resistance. Not “No, thank you” but, “No, never!” Or we can accept AI on the terms of its Silicon Valley overlords like the Inevitablists. But the terms and conditions will catch up to us. An alternative is to overaccept the offer: reimagine the offer within the story that God is writing in the world. Overaccepting AI starts by asking (among many more questions): How does it fit into our God-given vocation to steward the earth, care for the oppressed, and use what we make for the common good and the telos of kingdom aims?
The second is paradigm is from James Davison Hunter’s To Change The World. Hunter envisions the church as a faithful presence within society: an alternative to the attempts to either control and conquer the outcome through power, or to retreat and disengage from cultural issues. The church that embodies faithful presence discerns what it means to be faithful to the kingdom of Jesus in this age and how to offer our lives and the power we do have for the common good. Overaccepting AI is not an attempt to control its outcome or a retreat from the issue. We meaningfully offer our kingdom-saturated imaginations as we contribute in our spheres of influence.
The third paradigm is James K.A. Smith’s Desiring the Kingdom. Basically, the things we do, within the spaces we exist, shape us on a non-cognitive level. They form our desires and loves. What cultural myths (and idolatries) is AI shaping or reinforcing in us without our awareness? Some Inevitablists would have us accept their transhuman or posthuman aims: maximizing efficiency, transcending our limitations, and even merging (somehow) with machines. How might this compromise our faithful presence, our discipleship, and thereby, our ethical discernment?
How do we overaccept AI as a faithful presence?
It’s the question I’m still asking and not quite ready to answer.
I am lured closer to the Resistance despite my sympathies for the Inevitablists. The sheer cost of resources, deepening of economic disparity, and threat to future generations’ ability to learn and relate to each other: how can this be justified? Yet AI’s use in some fields (such as medicine) opens up seemingly beautiful possibilities. Is there a way to develop and deploy AI in a more ethical fashion?
In the coming months, I’ll refine my thoughts further. I’ll draft that policy for our church. I’ll likely do a few more talks and share more here too. But for now, here is where the plane lands:
We must keep asking the inconvenient questions.
Is generating another image worth the cost? Is handing off this redundant task really for my benefit? What work am I taking away from someone? Will Julia be upset with me?
This is why we need the faithful presence of the church saturated in the gospel: because we can’t answer these questions on our own.
Here are a few resources that have help me thus far. They may be helpful to you.
This conversation between Jay Kim and Andy Crouch covers the basics and asks the right questions.
The article Writers Against AI by Paul Kingsnorth represents the Resistance and is worthwhile.
Two essays by Dario Amodei, one ickier than the other, represent the Inevitablists: Machines of Loving Grace and The Adolesence of Technology.
The usual Protestant-Catholic theological quibbles aside, I was moved by the recent encyclical by Pope Leo XIV. Leo casts a compelling vision for not losing the grandeur of humanity as well as naming some of the more problematic ethical issues of AI. Leonard Sweet’s analysis and extension of the encyclical is provocative as well.
This survey of data from Stanford on Chatbots will open your eyes and make your stomach turn.
Lastly, I am overaccepting Jonathan Haidt’s Techno-skeptic posture: Protect brain development through puberty; prioritize people and books in education, not screens; beware of artificial relationships for minors.
Disclosure: No AI was used in any capacity for the writing of this article. All grammatical errors and incoherence are truly mine.
To easy any fears: I have limited the use of AI in relation to my own preaching to very specific prompts such as “Streamline this paragraph I’ve written” and “Are there any redundancies in this draft that I should refine?” In other words: I do not use AI in such a way that it takes the works out of my hands. I prefer old fashioned study, exegesis, and the inefficient labour of building a sermon (and the sometimes surprising Spirit-induced ease that happens too). But I admit: I have used AI in a way that takes the work out of others hands. What I mean is that the expediency of its results is easier than waiting for someone to be both available and ready to give feedback by the time I need it. I feel great reticence about it too.
I am less and less persuaded by people who say “It’s just another tool” in a reductive and dismissive way. AI is much, much, much more than a tool. To overlook this point is to miss the whole conversation.
If any of you have read Improvisation, I am looking to dialogue with someone about Well’s contention that it’s always a sin to block. That the church must always overaccept an offer. I feel he overstates the point. I can imagine ethical situations where a block is the most faithful action, or where overaccepting requires a partial if not full blocking of some of the terms of merely accepting. Thoughts?
After reading this, I doubt you will ever join the resistance. You are too curious, too interested in positive possibilities and what could be. Which is a good thing. My kids, like your wife, are part of the resistance. Fear often drives those who want to slam on the brakes, but fear should never be in the driver's seat. Having said that, I sympathize with the many concerns that constantly bubble up. An uncertain future is fertile ground for fear, and that is the era we are living through. I feel the fear myself, even still, I inch forward into this mind-blowing new world, questioning, evaluating, and wrestling as I go. Which sounds pretty much like what you are doing.