Sermon on the Dangers of AI, Screen Addition

[Ernie]

There's about a ten-minute children's lesson before the sermon.

In the sermon, he demonstrates how AI can be used to generate a five-minute devotional talk that is very good and with only a few minor changes could be shared by the speaker without anyone knowing it was not the product of his own study and inspiration. He reads the entirety of the AI-generated speech to demonstrate this.

I believe his primary concern is AI taking the place of a person's own work, saying that it will result in the flattening of one's own intelligence. It also can help a person fake inspiration and knowledge. I'd enjoy seeing another discussion of AI here. I utilize AI for various things including Bible study. In my experience AI can quickly put together some ideas as a springboard for more study, to remind me of things I already know, and give me ideas on how to word concepts. It is also very good for producing study questions based on a text, and creating outlines.

I feel like AI can enhance intelligence, not that there are not challenges, dangers, and issues to consider.

Socrates was supposedly very worried that the increasing use of books in education would have the effect of ruining students' ability to memorize things. I feel like the worry about AI is somewhat similar to this concern, and there is no doubt that a highly powerful new technology can in fact create laziness and bring atrophy to certain skills. I can barely stand handwriting a long bit of writing because I'm so used to typing with a keyboard. My handwriting skills have atrophied.

Still, I think I would argue that AI is generally a net benefit.

I remember a preacher who thought word processors would end up cheapening sermons, even if the sermon was better put together as a result. I got his point.

I guess I think that as much bad can result from AI in sermon preparation as good.

[Ken]

There's about a ten-minute children's lesson before the sermon.

In the sermon, he demonstrates how AI can be used to generate a five-minute devotional talk that is very good and with only a few minor changes could be shared by the speaker without anyone knowing it was not the product of his own study and inspiration. He reads the entirety of the AI-generated speech to demonstrate this.

I believe his primary concern is AI taking the place of a person's own work, saying that it will result in the flattening of one's own intelligence. It also can help a person fake inspiration and knowledge. I'd enjoy seeing another discussion of AI here. I utilize AI for various things including Bible study. In my experience AI can quickly put together some ideas as a springboard for more study, to remind me of things I already know, and give me ideas on how to word concepts. It is also very good for producing study questions based on a text, and creating outlines.

I feel like AI can enhance intelligence, not that there are not challenges, dangers, and issues to consider.

Socrates was supposedly very worried that the increasing use of books in education would have the effect of ruining students' ability to memorize things. I feel like the worry about AI is somewhat similar to this concern, and there is no doubt that a highly powerful new technology can in fact create laziness and bring atrophy to certain skills. I can barely stand handwriting a long bit of writing because I'm so used to typing with a keyboard. My handwriting skills have atrophied.

Still, I think I would argue that AI is generally a net benefit.

I remember a preacher who thought word processors would end up cheapening sermons, even if the sermon was better put together as a result. I got his point.

I guess I think that as much bad can result from AI in sermon preparation as good.

I suspect that computers and word processors may have made sermons LONGER than in the good old days when they were hand-written.

Whether that is good or bad is not for me to say.

[Neto]

There's about a ten-minute children's lesson before the sermon.

In the sermon, he demonstrates how AI can be used to generate a five-minute devotional talk that is very good and with only a few minor changes could be shared by the speaker without anyone knowing it was not the product of his own study and inspiration. He reads the entirety of the AI-generated speech to demonstrate this.

I believe his primary concern is AI taking the place of a person's own work, saying that it will result in the flattening of one's own intelligence. It also can help a person fake inspiration and knowledge. I'd enjoy seeing another discussion of AI here. I utilize AI for various things including Bible study. In my experience AI can quickly put together some ideas as a springboard for more study, to remind me of things I already know, and give me ideas on how to word concepts. It is also very good for producing study questions based on a text, and creating outlines.

I feel like AI can enhance intelligence, not that there are not challenges, dangers, and issues to consider.

Socrates was supposedly very worried that the increasing use of books in education would have the effect of ruining students' ability to memorize things. I feel like the worry about AI is somewhat similar to this concern, and there is no doubt that a highly powerful new technology can in fact create laziness and bring atrophy to certain skills. I can barely stand handwriting a long bit of writing because I'm so used to typing with a keyboard. My handwriting skills have atrophied.

Still, I think I would argue that AI is generally a net benefit.

I remember a preacher who thought word processors would end up cheapening sermons, even if the sermon was better put together as a result. I got his point.

I guess I think that as much bad can result from AI in sermon preparation as good.

I suspect that computers and word processors may have made sermons LONGER than in the good old days when they were hand-written.

Whether that is good or bad is not for me to say.

I have been told the same thing about commentaries, and any other Bible study aid. So ultimately, that CAN BE (but not necessarily) a rejection of "peer review", or "the brotherhood". I think that a person who is sloppy WITH these tools would probably also be sloppy WITHOUT them.

When computers were introduced into Bible Translation work (in our mission branch, this took place in our early years of Bible translation work), they were touted as a tool that would speed up the process. That probably happened in some cases, but for the most part, it just "raised the bar" - increased the expectation and desire for better QUALITY translations. In the days before computers, the translated material often had to be re-typed after each checking phase. Toward the end of the translation project, an OK word or translation choice would sometimes be left as is, even though at that point a better choice was known to the translation team. (My wife had worked as a one year short-term print shop worker in another country 5 years before we met, and part of her duties was to re-type translation revisions, all in languages she didn't know at all. How much better is it that the ones who actually speak the language are the ones doing the date entry? In our case, sometimes it was at that point we saw possible problems, because in a way it was like a "read-through", which is still one of the very last steps before the entire New Testament is printed and distributed.)

We were the first translation team in the Brazil branch to own a personal computer. The first book I translated, the Gospel of Luke, went through 8 or 9 checks before I was satisfied that it was done as accurately as I knew how. I reprinted it almost every time, triple spaced, to leave room for revision notes. (In the very early village sessions, my wife would hand-copy it all out again for the second native speaker check.) Then a couple of years after we moved back to the States, we returned to the village to dub the Luke Film, and although I had continued to make corrections or revisions to Luke as I learned more from doing other Bible books, we still found more good changes. Part of that was due to the fact that I was then working with a much broader group of native speakers, because the ones who had been 6 years old or less when we started were now young adults. Another translator did the entire book of Mark in six weeks (a considerably shorter book, but still). He never made a single revision after that, nor did he ever translated any other Bible books.

In regard to the use of commentaries or other sources such as the Greek New Testament, some translators just use a modern translation as the source document, and only look at the commentaries if they realize there is a translation problem. (In fact, the head of the translation department there told me once that "You don't have to look at the commentaries on every single verse, only if it involves a translation problem." My answer was that "I usually do not know there even IS a translation problem until I read the commentaries." She said, "Yes, that's often true.", so no more was said about it.)

[Bootstrap]

I believe his primary concern is AI taking the place of a person's own work, saying that it will result in the flattening of one's own intelligence. It also can help a person fake inspiration and knowledge. I'd enjoy seeing another discussion of AI here. I utilize AI for various things including Bible study. In my experience AI can quickly put together some ideas as a springboard for more study, to remind me of things I already know, and give me ideas on how to word concepts. It is also very good for producing study questions based on a text, and creating outlines.

I feel like AI can enhance intelligence, not that there are not challenges, dangers, and issues to consider.

Socrates was supposedly very worried that the increasing use of books in education would have the effect of ruining students' ability to memorize things. I feel like the worry about AI is somewhat similar to this concern, and there is no doubt that a highly powerful new technology can in fact create laziness and bring atrophy to certain skills. I can barely stand handwriting a long bit of writing because I'm so used to typing with a keyboard. My handwriting skills have atrophied.

Still, I think I would argue that AI is generally a net benefit.

I agree with this. This is exactly the right way to use GPT - and doing so well requires creativity, thought, and time.

AI is also useful for understanding biblical languages, trying out different perspectives, etc. For instance, I am finishing a sermon on Job 23. I asked ChatGPT to have Elihu respond, point by point, to the things that Job says in chapter 23. It was really interesting to read. Then I thought of a better question to ask:

Imagine you are Job at the end of the book of Job, after encountering God. Go back and respond to Job at the time he wrote chapter 23. What do you still believe, and what do you no longer believe? What have you learned that you did not grasp then? Could you have grasped some of that even before encountering God?

Here's the response I got - it takes time to think through it, figure out what I agree with, and decide what to use in a sermon, but think there are some really useful things to consider here:

Job, you were right to seek God, and you were right to hold on to your integrity. But you were wrong in your assumptions about God’s absence and His ways. Let me walk through what I still believe, what I no longer hold to, and what I’ve learned after standing in God’s presence.

What I Still Believe:

1. God's Sovereignty and Justice Are Absolute.
- When you, Job, said in Job 23:13, "But He is unchangeable, and who can turn Him back? What He desires, that He does," you were right. God is unchanging, and His purposes stand firm. I still believe that God’s will is beyond challenge or thwarting. His sovereignty has always been, and will always be, unshakable. I was not wrong to recognize this.

2. God Knows Our Path.
- In Job 23:10, you said, "But He knows the way that I take; when He has tried me, I shall come out as gold." This is something I continue to believe. God sees every step of our lives, and He does indeed know the refining process we go through. Suffering, though bitter, is not pointless, and you, Job, clung to the hope that you would emerge from this trial transformed. This remains true after encountering God: He tests, He refines, and He knows all things.

3. It Is Right to Seek God in Suffering.
- I still hold that it is right to seek God, even in the darkness. In Job 23:3, you said, "Oh, that I knew where I might find Him." The longing for God, the desire to encounter Him face to face, was right. Even though you didn’t understand why He seemed absent, the act of seeking God with all your heart was good. Now, having seen Him, I know that God was present all along, though I couldn’t perceive it.

What I No Longer Believe:

1. God Was Not Distant or Silent—He Was Present All Along.
- You, Job, spoke repeatedly of God’s silence, His distance, as though He had hidden Himself. In Job 23:8-9, you said, "Behold, I go forward, but He is not there, and backward, but I do not perceive Him." But after encountering God, I know that He was never absent. I no longer believe that God was hiding in the sense I once thought. His purposes were at work the entire time, even in the silence, even when I could not trace His steps. I see now that His hiddenness was not abandonment. It was mystery—too vast for me to grasp in my limited perspective. God was not just waiting for me to find Him; He was actively shaping the world and my heart even when I felt most alone.

2. I Cannot Fully Understand or Judge God’s Actions.
- You, Job, spoke as though you could present your case to God and be vindicated. In Job 23:4, you said, "I would lay my case before Him and fill my mouth with arguments." But having stood in God’s presence, I now see that I cannot argue with Him as I once thought. His wisdom is far greater than mine, and my sense of justice is limited. In Job 38-41, God asked me questions about creation, about His governance of the universe, and I realized how small my understanding truly is. I no longer believe I could have adequately argued my case or even fully understood the reasons for my suffering. His ways are higher than my ways, and it was arrogance to assume that I could demand an explanation.

3. Suffering Is Not Always About Correction or Punishment.
- While you, Job, rightly rejected the friends’ accusations that your suffering was due to sin, I have learned that suffering is far more complex than I once thought. It is not simply about being tested, corrected, or punished. There are layers to suffering that I didn’t see before. It is not just about what we learn from it, or how we are refined through it, but it is also about how God’s plans, too vast for us to comprehend, are being worked out in the universe. My suffering was not about discipline—it was part of something greater than me, a plan that I can never fully grasp. I no longer believe that my pain had to have an obvious moral or didactic reason behind it.

What I Have Learned After Encountering God:

1. The Vastness of God’s Wisdom and Power.
- After encountering God, I learned something I never grasped before: God’s wisdom and power are far greater than I imagined. When He spoke to me out of the whirlwind, He reminded me of the foundations of the earth, the limits of the sea, the intricacies of nature (Job 38-41). I used to think my suffering was central to my existence, that understanding it was the key to my relationship with God. But now I see that God governs the entire cosmos in ways I will never fully comprehend. My suffering, though significant, was but one part of a much larger picture of divine wisdom. God's governance of the world is not bound by human understanding, and I could not have grasped that until I encountered Him.

2. Humility Before the Mystery of God.
- The most important thing I have learned is humility. In Job 42:3, I said, "I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know." This is my greatest lesson: to approach God with reverence and humility. Before, I was bold in my complaints, demanding answers. Now, after encountering God, I realize how small I am in comparison to His greatness. I have learned to accept that I will not always have answers, and that is not because God is unjust or uncaring—it’s because His ways are beyond me. My role is not to demand explanations but to trust in His goodness and sovereignty, even when I don’t understand.

3. The World Is Governed by More Than Human Righteousness.
- I once believed that life should be ordered by simple justice—those who are righteous should be blessed, and those who are wicked should suffer. But God’s creation is far more complex than that. The rains fall on both the just and the unjust, and natural forces operate in ways that are not always tied to human behavior. The suffering of the righteous does not negate God’s justice; it reveals that His purposes include mysteries we cannot see. I have learned that there is more to God’s order than what I can perceive through a moral lens.

Could I Have Grasped These Lessons Before Encountering God?

Perhaps some of it.

- I could have grasped humility earlier. Throughout my dialogues with my friends, I defended my righteousness—and rightly so—but I also became fixated on proving myself. I see now that I should have humbled myself before God’s wisdom sooner. There were signs, even before the whirlwind, that God’s ways were beyond my understanding. But I was too consumed by my pain and the need to justify myself.

- I could have grasped that God’s silence is not His absence. Even in my cries of despair, I could have remembered that God’s faithfulness is not dependent on my perception of Him. My faith should have rested in the character of God, not in the immediacy of His answers.

Yet, some things can only be known through experience.

Encountering God face to face transformed my understanding in ways that intellectual reasoning could not. His presence overwhelmed my sense of self, and only through that encounter did I realize how limited I was in my understanding of His purposes. Some mysteries are revealed only in the presence of the Almighty.

Job, you were not wrong to question and to seek. But now, having seen God, I know that trusting in His wisdom and reverence for His mystery are where true peace lies. The answers I once demanded are no longer as important as the awe I feel in His presence. And that, Job, is what I have learned.

[temporal1]

i haven’t finished listening to the OP sermon, i’m bothered by our present world being so influenced by those with ADD-ADHD, autism, etc., that is, brain problems that happen to match up really well with the “efficiency gods” so many value?

i’m pretty sure, loving efficiency too much is the same as every other form of idol worship.

i see this phenom in my extended family. i wish i could feel more at ease about it.

God could have, but didn’t, create humankind in the form of robots. Why is God so inefficient?