Ian Kirk

  • Contending For The Truth In Love

    I was recently watching Gavin Ortland’s “Are Catholics Christians? Why Protestants Can Say Yes.” Setting aside the point of his video, and even (mostly) his ministry and conclusions, there was something he said that really resonated with me.

    …let’s conduct our disagreement going forward in a way that honors Christ where we contend for the truth, and we do so in love.

    Gavin Ortland

    Contend for the truth…in love. It seems so simple. Orland acknowledges that he falls short, as do we all.

    I’m part of a number of groups and people that stretch, shall we say, me. Okay, I flat out disagree with much of the content they share and propound. Yet, I have found it to be critical to my growth as a person, Christian, father, husband, and pastor.

    The language seen is “sinner”, “sin-lover”, “heretic”, “bigot”, “hater”, “hate-filled”, and most of this is from purported Christians to purported Christians. The presupposition of so many is that who ever the target of the person’s words are is coming from a morally or theologically wrong position. By wrong, I don’t mean in error or differing of opinion. By wrong, they put themselves in a place of condemnation and judgement of the other.

    The Hard Part

    By my words before, I could easily be accused of putting myself in the same place of condemning and judging others. I recognize that, but I’m also not sure what else I am supposed to do. Do I think any of these people will themselves be condemned to Hell (whatever iteration you presuppose)? Not because of their words, necessarily. It is still about their heart and their relationship with God.

    While I am glad, on one hand, that the church universal (dare I say, the church catholic) is publically discussion theology and ethics, I think we have neglected to contend for the truth in love.

    This is far more than LGBTQ+. There is MAGA and Trump, politics in general, Christians behaving badly (take that however you want).

    In my denomination, there has been public trials in regard to LGBTQ+ (granted, being publicized by the person on trial kind of minimized the publicization). There are ongoing issues with misuse of Pentecostalic gifts while condemning non-problematic ones (in other words, throwing the baby out with the bathwater). There are issues about how we view the Scriptures.

    My denomination long called itself a “big tent” denomination, but there are multiple camps trying to shrink the tent. My heart aches because too many are not contending for the truth in love, they condemn.

    I am currently in a space where I wonder if our denomination can get to a point of discussion without declaration. We are in danger of abandoning,

    Iron sharpens iron, and one person sharpens the wits of another.

    Proverbs 27:17 NRSVue

    Via Media

    My denomination draws heavily from John Wesley. One of Wesley’s phrases was via media. In other words, the middle way.

    Let’s set this in its proper context, and that is the Church of England. The Church of England had a philosophy of via media. It was walking the line between the Roman Catholic Church and many of the offshoots of Protestantism. As it became the official church of England, in many ways it ceased being the via media by the very nature of its societal and governmental (the CoE has ex officio seats in Parliament) position. It’s hard for many of my Church of the Nazarene friends to see that the Church of England used to be the via media. Granted, in many respects, the transformation of the Protestant Christian landscape, it seems kind of odd that the Church of the Nazarene is in any way a via media denomination.

    Yet, if we really want to hold onto via media as core to our identity as a denomination, then we need to relearn contending for the truth in love.

    Loving Contention

    How do we contend for the truth in love? First, remember Proverbs 27:17. That’s a good starting point. Some translations of this verse use friend as the sharpener. While that might not be accurate insofar as the Greek is concerned, perhaps that ought to be the place we begin our contention.

    The starting point of love, however, isn’t our fellow man, it’s God. Some argue, with good reason, that if we love our fellow man, we are loving God. When one holds onto an imago dei concept (that each person has the image of God in them), this makes good sense, except when it doesn’t.

    Except When it Doesn’t

    When doesn’t it make sense that loving a person is equal to loving God? When loving that person allows, permits, or (especially) endorses behavior that appears contrary to the Scriptures. Depending on who you are that reads that, you will come up with an issue that I must be implying. You’re probably right, as long as you recognize that whatever that one issue you inferred is one of many I implied. I won’t put any issues here, because there are far more than even the issues I’ve stated elsewhere.

    This continues to be the hard part for me, as it is for many pastors I know. We love our people. We see the many places their lives do not conform with the Scriptures. It’s not as if we are perfect, either. We, too, have aspects of our lives that need to be further conformed to Jesus, sometimes more desperately than our people.

    Just as we are to be held accountable, so too are all who are in the Body of Christ.

    Elevating Sin Over Love?

    There are plenty of issue where this happens. Perhaps elevating is overstating it. Perhaps. Yet, if we all “know” it’s wrong (whatever it may be), but nothing changes, and we continue to say nothing, then where does that leave us?

    We don’t want to talk about a person’s sin publicly (or at least not to identify a sin with a particular sin), which makes sense…except for public sin. We also don’t want to condemn. That’s above our pay grade (so to speak).

    Go and Sin No More

    Does this apply anymore? Do churches care about this? Do the people care about this? I want to say, “yes.”

    Where do toleration, acknowledgment, accepting, admonishing all start and end? Within those, where does love start and end?

    What if every Christian has to account for other people’s sins (in particular Christians) that they did not call out? This might seem extreme hyperbole, yet Ezekiel can be seen as the archetype of a Christian watchman (yes, I’ve seen that many places).

    We are to be a community, and a community holds its people to account.

  • Learning from Scientology

    Learning from Scientology

    My only real regret, is not having achieved what I said I wanted to—ending the abuses of Scientology.

    Mike Rinder (as quoted in One of Scientology’s Top Critics Dies at 69)

    I really know almost nothing about Mike Rinder. I know of his podcast and Emmy. I know of his partnership with Leah Remini and their quest about Scientology’s abuses.

    I say that because I haven’t listened to the podcasts, nor read his books. I skimmed through his blog. I had an inkling of something that seemed to be confirmed via Tony Ortega’s The Underground Bunker.

    …Rinder…as well as others who call …“independent Scientologists” still adhere to Hubbard’s ideas even as they reject Miscavige’s church.

    Mike Rinder on “The Hole” and How He Escaped Scientology, via The Underground Bunker

    From the first quote, I inferred that Rinder didn’t actually stop being a Scientologist. The Underground Bunker seems to confirm that. He was just trying to stop to abuses.

    A Familiar Refrain

    I have to admit, the first quote triggered the beginning of this post. I went looking for Rinder’s denial of Scientology, for that was implied by many of the articles about him, his podcast, and his Emmy.

    Yet, he wasn’t denying Scientology. He was, effectively, denying it’s domineering leader, David Miscavige. In particular, the strongarm controlling tactics that Miscavige, and that Rinder also drove at Miscavige’s behest.

    Those Blasted Deconstructionists

    Deconstructionists of the Christian faith, in particular the so-called Evangelical strain, seem kind of similar. To be clear, I read many of the deconstructionists. Some I agree with, some I don’t. Most of them are trying to faithfully live out a Christian faith, just without much of the non-biblical baggage (much of more cultural than biblical).

    While I do believe that Scientology is a false religion, having a detached view of the person in question (Rinder), helps me see the deconstruction happening in my own faith in a different way.

    Are the deconstructionists going to far? Maybe? Yet, far too many are—just like Rinder—deeply scarred by the emotional and spiritual abuse. It’s even worse that this happened in a faith that believes, “God is love.“

    Who Drives The Conversation

    Reading the media (again, scanning it), it seems a presumption that Rinder was anti-Scientology rather than anti-Miscavige. Scientology and the press both seem to be operated from that perspective. It’s the same with Christian Deconstructionists.

    There is this bizarre trend regarding those speaking of deconstructionists that they are anti-Jesus, anti-Bible, even anti-Church. Yet, most that I’ve read (grated, that could be filtered by algorithm), have not walked away from a (dare I say) saving faith in Jesus Christ.

    What they did walk away from was ongoing hurt.

    Walking Away Vs. Walking Away

    Walking away from a or the church is not the same as walking away from the faith. They can have the same appearance, because often a person’s church experience is singular. In other words, the only church they know (or the one that has been the biggest part of their life whether by time or event) is the one they had to walk away from.

    Even their wider circles (especially in social media) probably revolve around similar behaving churches. In other words, their history is absolutely affecting their perspective of the church! If my only church experience is a bad one (as a long-term person, not a visitor), and it is reinforced when I see the other churches that church is connecting to also have bad behavior, why would I go to church? My assumption (yes, much emotional, but there is logic, too) is that all churches are bad.

    Yes, We Know We Suck

    That’s probably a bit much for some. The reality is that we use phrases such as, “the church is a hospital, not a museum,” because we know we suck. We are all hurt. We all hurt others with our hurt.

    We exacerbate the hurt. We create the hurt. We know this!

    Yet, when it comes to deconstructionists, we seem to deny or minimize it. They walked away. Since they walked away, we can tend to say, they left the faith.

    We can say, and most of them do say, they left the church. There are a lot of people who left the church. The church, for whatever reason, is often brutal.

    Is it because there we have to confront not only our own issues, but have grace toward others and theirs? Yes, we are to be kind, but we don’t seem to like being challenged about being unkind.

    Fallen Is A Reason Not Excuse

    We’re to be better, growing deeper in our relationship with Jesus Christ and as a result becoming more like Jesus through the power of the Holy Spirit.

    I don’t think there is a Christian (I hope) that does not affirm that sentence. Yet, we use our Fallen nature as an excuse for our bad behavior. It’s the reason, no question. It is not, however, an excuse.

  • No More Bringing People to Jesus

    In the evangelical Christian world, there is a common statement, “bringing people to Jesus.”

    Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

    Matthew 28:19-12 NIV

    Go (per Jesus, Matthew 28:19) and bring (evangelical statement) seem a bit different to me.

    That “bringing people to Jesus” usually comes from a missionary perspective, or from those speaking about missions, puzzles me further. The “going” is thus transformed into bringing.

    Bringing Jesus To People

    Why don’t we say, “bringing Jesus to people?” Truly, foreign missions have been doing exactly that for generations, yet we still say, “bringing people to Jesus.”

    Does it matter? I think it does.

    For those entrenched in the four walls of the Western traditional model (of whatever tradition/denomination, not just the evangelicals), bringing implies (or is inferred) to bring people into “the fold”. However, what we are seeing now in the culture is that bringing people in isn’t working so well.

    Instead, we are having to engage people where they’re at. This does include digital (hence Nazarene.Digital), but it also includes Fresh Expressions and a myriad of other initiatives that are seeking to bring people to Jesus.

    As much good as programs such as Upward (soccer, basketball, cheer) have done in much the same vein, there is still more work to be done. Many of the Upward programs are about bringing people into churches, not bringing Jesus to people. A number of Upward programs (granted, this is anecdotal) are successful programs, but are held by churches that are not experiencing growth (numbers and baptisms).

    I have not answers, just an issue with a long-held and long-used phrase that needs to be re-thought and perhaps tossed.

  • No Perfect Witnesses

    No Perfect Witnesses

    In my denomination, there has been a lot of conversation regarding the Last Supper/The Feast of the Gods vignette 2024 Olympics Paris Opening Ceremonies. Perhaps conversation might be overstating it.

    There have been a lot of words, and I’ve shared the words of others.

    What is prompting this particular post is It’s Not What You Think It Is by Andy Lauer on the Holiness Partnership1 website.

    I have to admit that my first response was not overly positive. Lauer’s article kept circling in my brain, however, and I have come to the point of recognition that it is worth reading and pondering.

    Yes, it might be a tad over the top. On the other hand, I think that there was too quick of a response by those against the Opening Ceremonies, and by those (like myself) who felt the need to mitigate the expressed outrage.

    So, we are clear, I do think the Opening Ceremonies were kind of meh. I think it was an overreach that didn’t work out well. I also did find The Last Supper/The Feast of the Gods vignette tasteless, but its entire context within the fashion/catwalk larger vignette had already turned me off.

    Jan Hermansz van Bijlert’s Le Festin des Dieux (The Feast of the Gods ) does seem to be very much based on Leonard da Vinci’s The Last Supper. Van Bijlert is not unique in this as this seach page on Artsy shows. Thus, one of the claims many have made that the vignette wasn’t about The Last Supper might be correct on the surface, yet The Last Supper is very much a part of it.
    In his article, Controversy, Context, and Creativity in the Paris 2024 Olympic Games Opening Ceremony, John Squires preaches (he’s a pastor) about context, context, context. In response to much outrage, I shared his article with others, so that there was indeed some context.

    Squires is correct, context is key. The context is a broken and fallen world that does not have a functional relationship with God. Sadly, as much of the acrimony surrounding this vignette showed, it seems to apply to Christians, too.

    Many, such as myself, were responding to what was perceived has angry, hurtful, even hateful responses to the vignette. We saw this as damaging our ability to be effective witnesses for Jesus Christ. We understood that the world would first respond to Christian outrage with more outrage and shutting of doors to conversation.

    What we didn’t do, however, is ponder. Honestly, neither did a lot of the outrage against the vignette.

    We have been well trained to react, respond, react, respond. Maybe later we’ll think.

    We are not perfect witnesses. Those that tried to defuse the anger and those that were angry were actually not on opposing sides. That’s the part that really struck me with Lauer’s article.

    It’s not that we all don’t see a fallen world. It’s not that we all don’t see a world that is turned from God.

    Where people, such as myself, got a bit lost, perhaps, was that there is a distinct difference between trying to defuse, trying to understand, and trying to apologize. By apologize, I’m referring to the classic apologia, which seeds to defend or justify.

    It’s that last word, justify, where it seems that Lauer and others are rightly disturbed. Much of the defusing appeared (and may well have been) an attempt to justify the vignette.

    There are a number of conversations in the Christian world, including the Church of the Nazarene, where justification is equated to explaining, seeking to understand. This is vignette was one of them.

    Let’s be clear though. Squires, and many like him, used language that seemed more justifying than explaining.

    It’s not that I don’t understand that, but this impacts our witness.

    I get that there are many disagreements among and within the many Christian traditions (denominations and non-denominationals). I am becoming more convinced that it is not that we disagree, but how we disagree.

    Yes, there will be times where breaking of fellowship will occur, and I hope all parties involved are deeply grieved by that. I hope that the grief and sorrow is far outweighed by the sense of justification and righteousness.

    While I think this vignette is relatively minor, the hubbub that occurred around it is the point of greater reflection.

    We are imperfect witnesses for Christ. How we witness is very important. We may well have the right answers, but the right answers are only heard within relationships, and often not even then.

    As we come to the next outrage, let us think deeply if we are reacting and responding, or thinking, praying, and witnessing.

    1. The Holiness Partnership is a collective dominated by a group of Church of the Nazarene pastors who seem to be of a very traditionalist mindset. This can be good, as it ought to keep a balance to the progressive wing of the Church of the Nazarene. However, there is some concern, that the Holiness Partnership might have too much influence and control within the denomination, outsizing its numbers. ↩︎
  • Touchy VR

    Touchy VR

    I shared this article a number of years ago.

    Virtual reality objects you can FEEL just like on Star Trek’s holodeck move a step closer thanks to new ‘universal law of touch’

    I shared it to a Discord group I’m part of again today. I’ve searched for this article so many times on my own Facebook page, that I knew that it was time to put it here.

    Then there also This VR accessory is designed to make your mouth feel stuff, which uses a different methodology (I also shared it years ago).

    Both technologies have the potential to “dis-embody” us. They also have the potential to embody us in ways we cannot yet see.

    Will this lead us to being pod people of the Matrix? Maybe. Does that invalidate our experiences?

    This is a core question I am trying to resolve.

    As a person who treasures the Eucharist (i.e., Last Supper, Communion, The Lord’s Table), I see a huge win on one hand experiencing the Eucharist in VR (a VR Means of Grace). On the other hand, what does that do to our theology? How does transubstantiation (Roman Catholic view), consubstantiation (Lutheran view), spiritual (Methodist/Anglican), work in VR?

    I’m pretty sure I know where the Roman Catholic church will land (physical), but the rest of us, perhaps not. I have no answer, and I likely won’t until I experience it.

  • The DARVO Christian

    In my social media circles, there is enough commentary, revelation, condemnation, accusation, pain, abuse being revealed and reported, that I really didn’t want to add to it. That was until I saw Tony Ray write, “DARVO is the Christian way“.

    DARVO is the acronym for deny, attack, and reverse victim & offender.

    In what Scriptural universe does DARVO equal Christian?

    The answer should be none. However, as many ministries and ministers have been rightly excoriated as a part of the #metoo movement and also since the modern revelation of predatory priests it sadly does seem to be the way of far too many Christians.

    I would prefer that Tony Ray would have written, “DARVO is the way of many so-called Christians.” It is more accurate, and for any Christian (including Tony Ray) to say DARVO is the Christian way should be a gut punch.

    That is likely Tony Ray’s point.

    The truth is that we have been trying to protect the image of “the church” and the local (or international) organization. This has actually tarnished our image. It can be reasonably argued that part of Jesus’ ministry was radical candor.

    The Pharisees, Sadducees, and scribes of Jesus’ time seemed to have some issues with that, according to the Gospel accounts. The church has much of the same problem.

    This really does seem to be regardless of tradition. Our Orthodox Ukrainian and Russian siblings argue over the war between Ukraine and Russia, including adding severely religious overtones. We watch the Roman Catholic Church dispute internally (yet, publically) around the words of Pope Francis and the various Cardinal groups. The Protestants with all their varieties argue over theology with some vitriol.

    The church, so to speak, is not perfect. It is the bride of Christ, but that still doesn’t make it perfect. Our veneer of perfection is all too often a lie we tell ourselves. We act as if we know we have the right answers, and then shut down others.

    The DARVO conversation has come up revolving around the SBC (Southern Baptist Convention) and its ongoing issues with moral failures regarding leadership, sexual immorality, financial immorality, plus the reality that many of these failures are more than moral failures, they are criminal.

    I will not list all of the failures that we are seeing in churches, but the reality is that there have been far too many. That there has been so little criminal prosecution is, well, criminal in and of itself.

    The desire to protect the reputation of the church (from local, to regional, to global) is understandable. What we are seeing, however, is not the protection of the church’s reputation, but its destruction.

    From what I have seen, people are behaving as if they are in a cult, rather than the hospital that the church is supposed to be. They are protecting leaders (disguised as protecting the church), rather than the innocent or the victim.

  • A Little Bit of Happiness

    A Little Bit of Happiness

    I was in a class last week about Holiness (John Wesley, American Holiness Movement, Church of Nazarene) taught Dr. Diane Leclerc, and we were reminded (for me, it might be even taught) that a “holiness” people seeking holiness (not in a self-righteous, judgmental, legalistic way FWIW) find happiness through the desire for and pursuit of holiness. It was an awesome class, and I took a way a lot from it. As is my norm, I’m still processing it.

    Then, this morning, I read this in the intro to Gary Thomas’ intro to his post Getting at the Core Message Behind Sacred Marriage’s, “What if God Designed Marriage to Make Us Holy More Than to Make Us Happy?” (I’m a free subscriber, so I only get the intro).

    I don’t mean that happiness and holiness are competitors. On the contrary, I agree with John Wesley that only those who pursue holiness will find true happiness.

    Gary Thomas, Getting at the Core Message Behind Sacred Marriage’s, “What if God Designed Marriage to Make Us Holy More Than to Make Us Happy?”

    Also, this morning (and what ended up driving this), I found this picture of a Bansky installation:

    Artwork by Banksy that reads, "Be with (with is crossed out) someone that makes you (you is underlined to emphasize) happy." Found at: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=970830994687242

    There is some deep truth in Bansky’s art piece, and it is one of the issues that I continue to deal with (I even touched on it during my sermon this past Sunday). However, this also smacks of the “self-improvement” and “self-satisfaction” pursuit that seems to be anything but fulfilling and resulting in fulfilled people.

    In my own self-improvement inner work, I have come to realize that happiness and fulfillment are not necessarily the same.

    I have seen it proposed in non-religious contexts and by non-religious academics, that the current relentless pursuit of happiness is actually driving unhappiness. That doesn’t make sense at first.

    Think about it, though. As one pursues happiness, there is this weird inverse desire for greater happiness. Is happiness pursued ever really found?

  • Your Translation Is Wrong!

    This was originally a Facebook post. I figured I might as well put it here, too.

    VERY CRITICAL ALERT!!!
    NIV was published by Zondervan but is now OWNED by Harper Collins, who also publishes the Satanic Bible and The Joy of Gay sex.
    •The NIV and ESV has now removed 64,575 words from the Bible including Jehovah, Calvary, Holy Ghost and omnipotent to name but a few…
    •The NIV and ESV has also now removed 45 complete verses. Most Of us have the Bible on our devices and phones especially OLIVE TREE BIBLE STUDY APP.
    •Try and find these scriptures in NIV and ESV on your computer, phone or device right now if you are in doubt: Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14; Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46; Luke 17:36, 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37…you will not believe your eyes.
    •Refuse to be blinded by Satan, and do not act like you just don’t care, Let’s not forget what the Lord Jesus said in John 10:10 (King James Version). There is a crusade geared towards altering the Bible as we know it; NIV, ESV and many more versions are affected,
    .THE SOLUTION: If you must use the NIV and ESV, BUY and KEEP AN EARLIER VERSION OF the BIBLE. A Hard Copy cannot be updated.
    All these changes occur when they ask you to update the app. On your phone or laptop etc.
    Please spread the word…

    Someone on Facebook who I won’t link to, but others abound with similar accusations.

    With the risk of offending some Facebook friends, I have to finally deal with this one. It keeps coming up in various places, and here, at least, I want to answer it.

    This is a purported “proof” that the NIV is corrupt. Let’s set aside the accusations toward Zondervan (the publisher), as it is Biblica (not Zondervan) that controls the NIV.

    First, let’s recognize that the KJV that most people read is not the original KJV published in 1611. If it does not say, “feede”, “poore”, “bestowe”, for example, it’s not the 1611 “Authorized Version”. There are the 1760, 1769, 1873, 2005 (supposedly returning to the “true” 1611 with modern spelling) versions. If I understand correctly, the 1873 version is the one most people are referring to when they say KJV.

    The KJV New Testament was translated using the 𝑇𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑢𝑠 𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡𝑢𝑠, which was a compilation of texts gathered by Erasmus starting in 1516. This was the text that King James commanded be the only one used for the KJV, even though other manuscripts were out there. Erasmus (then King James) were the gatekeepers of the selection of manuscripts.

    Other translations, not just the NIV or ESV (which is probably the most KJV adherent modern translation out there), use more than 𝑇𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑢𝑠 𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡𝑢𝑠 to compile, compare, select, and then (ultimately) translate. It is this process that provides confidence in the base aspect of the translation. That the 𝑇𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑢𝑠 𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡𝑢𝑠 had a single person decided which manuscript (including the likelihood that he could not get access to some in other countries) is actually one of the huge red flags when it comes to modern translations.
    In the case of Luke 9:56 (chosen because they made a nice graphic about it), here is a short list of translations that match the NIV: the LEB (possibly the most scholarly conservative version), the REB, the CJB, the ASV (ties with LEB), NRSV, NRSVue, the Darby Version (from 1890!), the CSB, the CEV, the Douay-Rheims (from 1790!), ERV (1895).

    The accuracy of the NIV or ESV isn’t really the issue. What we have is, for many, like rock music was in the 80s for certain Christians (I remember seeing album and book burning in the news). This isn’t about wrong translations. It isn’t about the NIV, per se.

    I’m not sure what this person’s intent was (or those like them). I choose to think that they are trying to honor the Scriptures in this way. However, I believe this dishonors the Scriptures.

    As a pastor, I get to wrestle deeply with the Scriptures, understanding that we Christians have many manuscripts that were transcribed with mostly minor differences. While these differences are big when taken by themselves, in the entire context of the Scriptures, they are small. I’m glad when scholars find an obscure manuscript, because it almost always affirms the New Testament that we have. It’s not something of which to be frightened, or to scare other people about.

    My last thought, though, somewhat aligns with their conclusion. If you are a Christian, you should have at least one hard copy of the Bible. Not because the powers that be will change your Bible on the phone (though they can), but because it is a gift of God that is there (when in hard copy). When the power is out, your internet tanks, or should you (gasp) dare to disconnect from the monstrosity that the internet often is, a hard copy is there.

    John 10:10 (KJV 1611) reads, “The theefe commeth not, but for to steale and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might haue life, and that they might haue it more abundantly.”

    The fear that people such as this perpetuate steals and destroys. Fear is not from God.

    And, finally, for all my non-Christian friends, yes, we Christians don’t agree on all things (think of your own family and friends). We do believe, however, that Jesus is the Promised One, the Messiah. It is through him, and him alone, that we will spend eternity with him, as we (try) to change the world into looking more like Heaven on Earth (though we are, admittedly, not doing well in that area).

  • Father A.I.

    I’m an advocate of tech (shocking, I know). Yet, I’m wary of how AI has been used. The latest use I’ve run across (even with my better than minimal understanding of the Roman Catholic church) is the former Father Justin (now, “just” Justin).

    In her article, The real lesson behind the ‘Father Justin’ AI priest debacle, Delaney Coyne makes some compelling arguments against Father A.I. (and pastor A.I.), while also making unintended arguments validating VR clergy.

    While Justin can provide some basic catechesis, he lacks the human qualities—including faith and reason—necessary for real theological insight.

    The real lesson behind the ‘Father Justin’ AI priest debacle

    I have to agree that, philosophically, an A.I. cannot take the place of a human. I do also wonder if those seeking their A.I. priest are really looking to appease their desire/need for the divine (or transcendence) without the work of human relationship. A.I.’s have taught us about LLMs (Large Language Models) upon which many are based. LLM’s, just like the Google algorithm, don’t teach or reason (or have faith), but they have the veneer.

    The veneer is the real danger of A.I. clergy. If it’s human enough, especially digitally, we are tempted to accept it. We are all clamoring for authenticity, while at the same time elevating A.I. and algorithms.

    Also, whether Roman Catholic or Church of the Nazarene (or whatever Christian tradition), using an A.I. not built using one’s own traditions would seem to invite theological questions, and even create a situation where a catechized person could be mislead into theological error for their tradition.

    “We are confident that our users will not mistake the A.I. for a human being,” Mr. Costello said.

    The real lesson behind the ‘Father Justin’ AI priest debacle

    While I may have some technological positive thinking, I am kind of appalled with this Pollyanna-type thinking. In fact, in VR it would seem to lend itself even more to that situation.

    But Ms. Conrad said it is not so simple: “​​Humans tend to project human qualities onto computer systems when they mirror our behavior in any way…. Even when we know better, we tend to interact with anthropomorphic systems differently than with those that don’t have that kind of interface.” Furthermore, Ms. Conrad said that humans are also likely to grant undue credibility to A.I. thanks to “automation bias, where we are more likely to believe the outputs and decisions of automated systems.” Even if we say we know the limitations of these technologies, we are biased to believe that they are more thoughtful and trustworthy than they really are.

    The real lesson behind the ‘Father Justin’ AI priest debacle

    A recent report support Ms. Conrad. Mashable recently noted that Sprout Social’s 2024 Influencer Marketing Report shows Gen Z mostly doesn’t care if influencers are actual humans.

    Yes, there is something definitely different between an A.I. catechizer and an influencer…as long as one understands that there actually is a difference. Some influencers speak with as much air of authority and certainty as an AI would, and probably more than many (if not most) priests.

    While A.I. has great potential, the reality is that for many, it will be a shortcut in the way Google became, with no requirement for thinking.

  • ZCal for Deputation

    Our District Deputation Manager asked me to setup a way for churches to better directly schedule a missionary speaker. Being the nerd and cheapskate that I am, I decided to use ZCal.co for this project.

    Having already made enough mistakes myself getting this setup, I decided to make some quick and dirty videos covering setup. If you want to do something like this, you will need to have either a Google or Microsoft Account that has email and a calendar (though ZCal does allow you to additional calendars of either type).

    A strong recommendation is that this be setup with an account that can be handed off to another person who might handle deputations (as when one steps down from the NMI Board). In other words, don’t use a personal account of yours, instead setup an account that will handle the deputations. This does mean it needs to be checked, however. So make sure that you access it regularly.

    With that, here we go!

    This video shows how to setup a calendar for a particular missionary. This is a long video (~18min), but is pretty much a step-by-step, including pitfalls (I make them in the video).

    This video shows how modifying invites works. This is an important tool for the deputation manager, as rescheduling might be necessary due to transportation issues (our district is, by car, 8 hours tall x 4 hours wide, for example) or missionary changes.

    This video shows how the user/church/NMI person would get an appointment to have a missionary at their church.

Verified by MonsterInsights