Tag: connection

Preaching In The Age Of AI

Brent Pollard

While scrolling through a social media site, I stumbled upon a post by a concerned brother claiming that the latest AI technology would threaten the preaching profession. Although I have heard similar complaints from artists and writers, I was surprised to hear this argument from a preacher.

Artificial intelligence has caused much hysteria; some individuals have even linked its presence to their eschatological beliefs. Others fear Hollywood-like plots of machines subjugating humanity. These responses perplex me, as people will always find a way to misuse technology. Therefore, shouldn’t the same concerns be applied consistently to other tools that improve a preacher’s ability to research and communicate?

For instance, did anyone anticipate preachers becoming lazy once word processors became affordable? Did the brethren scorn those preachers who created books of sermon outlines for other preachers and Bible teachers or innovative creators of computer resources such as Mark Copeland’s “Executable Outlines”? If not, why not?

What makes AI so different from these tools that it would make preachers lazy and turn their preparation into copy-and-paste endeavors? We should not view AI’s potential for automating specific tasks and removing additional steps differently. The hyperbolic language surrounding AI technology is unjustified, and we should not dismiss the potential benefits of AI without proper consideration.

So, how should a minister or Bible school teacher use artificial intelligence ethically? For starters, AI is good at presenting summaries of online articles. If you are researching and unsure whether you can use a specific lengthy article in your preparation, artificial intelligence can quickly provide the “TL;DR version.” This step will tell you whether you should spend time reading an article and gleaning points to use as illustrations or to support your points.

Second, AI is capable of assisting you with grammar and syntax. Though lacking the interface of AIs like Bard or ChatGPT, AI tools like Quillbot can help you paraphrase your sentences in various voices, from fluent to creative. You can use these AIs to make the sentences more concise or straightforward. When combining your writing with Grammarly’s AI, you can correct yourself when you use passive voice or split infinitives.

Third, AI can potentially be a fantastic tool for expository preaching. ChatGPT and Bard are two examples of AI language models. Programmers train these language models using a large corpus of text from various sources. At the moment, ChatGPT is using the GPT-3.5 architecture. Developers train these AI on a vast dataset that includes billions of words from multiple sources, such as books, articles, web pages, and social media. The Bible is one of the texts that programmers use to train AI language models because specific translations, such as the King James Version, are in the public domain.

When you ask ChatGPT to generate an expository outline from a passage, you should double-check the results, but it does an excellent job of clarifying the context in which a Scripture appears. And, if you’re careful with your prompts, you can ask ChatGPT to provide a literal interpretation free of man’s erroneous interpretations. For example, when I inquired about Acts 2.38, it responded that baptism was for the remission of sins. (Had I only asked what Acts 2.38 means, ChatGPT would have provided various ecumenical interpretations.) 

There are other beneficial applications, to be sure, but it would be remiss of me not to include this caveat. If you want to be lazy and have AI do your lesson prep, remember that AI cannot assist you in your most important role. As Paul reminds Titus, “….show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified, sound in speech that is beyond reproach, so that the opponent will be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us” (Titus 2.7-8 NASB1995).

AI lacks emotion and real-world experience. In comparison, preaching is a highly relational profession. As a result, artificial intelligence cannot replace preachers’ personal connection and example to their congregations. Any minister who thinks he can get away with abusing any tool as a shortcut to fulfilling his task will quickly find himself called out on the carpet by those in leadership.

In closing, artificial intelligence is not a threat to the preaching profession but a valuable tool that can enhance a minister’s effectiveness. By using AI ethically to summarize articles, improve grammar and syntax, and assist with expository preaching, ministers can save time and increase the quality of their messages.However, it is essential to remember that AI cannot replace the personal connection and guidance ministers provide to their congregations. Ministers should use AI as a tool to assist and support them rather than as a replacement for the vital human element of ministry. By using AI responsibly, ministers can continue to fulfill their essential role with excellence and effectiveness.

Defeating The Adversity of Loneliness In The Communication Age

Friday’s Column: Supplemental Strength

brent 2020

Brent Pollard

Human connections are necessary. Though stated in the context of needing a mate comparable unto himself, God nevertheless said of man it wasn’t good for him to be alone (Genesis 2.18). Thus, God provided Adam with Eve. Elsewhere, the wise man of God reminds us of the advantages of having companions:

Two are better than one because they have a good return for their labor. For if either of them falls, the one will lift up his companion. But woe to the one who falls when there is not another to lift him up. Furthermore, if two lie down together they keep warm, but how can one be warm alone? And if one can overpower him who is alone, two can resist him. A cord of three strands is not quickly torn apart. (Ecclesiastes 4.9-12 NASB)

Hence, even if being around many people wearies our soul, we admit it’s a blessing to have those precious few upon whom we can depend to be there for us when we emerge from our solitude.
Jesus had His close companions. We don’t doubt He loved all those men He chose to be His apostles, but He singled out Peter, James, and John to be His “inner circle.” They were His confidants. It was to these three alone He shared His true glory (Matthew 17.1ff). Peter, James, and John also went further into the Garden of Gethsemane with Jesus as He prayed (Mark 14.32-35). In addition, John refers to himself throughout the Gospel he was inspired to pen as “the disciple whom the Lord loved” (John 21.20). This same passage also shows us that John leaned against the Lord during the last Passover (Can you imagine?).

God never intended us to face life alone. As mentioned previously, God provided the foundation for the family in the very beginning. The family has often been called the “bedrock of society.” Aristotle wrote in Politics that humans organized themselves first in families that birthed villages which, in turn, gave rise to the polis (i.e. city-state).  As we live in a world into which sin was welcomed, we understand people bound to us, even by ties of blood, may betray or abandon us. We see, then, the wisdom of God in giving to us the church.
It’s a sad paradox in a world of virtual, perpetual interconnectedness people feel lonelier than ever. The HRSA reveals that loneliness and social isolation is as bad for one’s health as smoking 15 cigarettes a day! 1 Just type in the words “loneliness epidemic” in a search engine and see what pops up. This isn’t a problem just for our seasoned citizens either. 2 There’s no excuse for the child of God to be lonely, however. Christ instituted the church to be God’s Household on earth (Ephesians 2.19). If we assemble as we ought, we will be stirred to love and the performance of good works (Hebrews 10.24-25). Furthermore, we encourage and build up one another in the church (1 Thessalonians 5.11; Ephesians 4.15-16).
Yes, we’re currently facing a global epidemic not physical in nature. It’s a disease of the heart perpetuated by loneliness, which focuses one’s attention inward on troubles and wants. God didn’t create you to be alone. Dismiss the foolish notion that the church is for the weak and embrace the strength it supplies the lonely heart. You’ll never find an app that can do for you what the church can.

References

1 “The ‘Loneliness Epidemic.’” Health Resources & Services Administration, HRSA.gov, 10 Jan. 2019, www.hrsa.gov/enews/past-issues/2019/january-17/loneliness-epidemic.

 

2 Howe, Neil. “Millennials And The Loneliness Epidemic.” Forbes, Forbes Media LLC, 3 May 2019, 13:21, www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2019/05/03/millennials-and-the-loneliness-epidemic/#77096a8f7676.

 

66176598_10156443546915922_8223081566729928704_o

Why Has There Been A Decline In Public Responses?

Neal Pollard

While I am certain that there are those who will say that they are still seeing as many public responses in their assemblies as ever, most will observe what I have observed.  As I think back to my childhood, public responses to the invitation were commonplace—nearly every service.  When I first began preaching, public responses requesting baptism or public repentance by members very regularly occurred.  Steadily, particularly in the last five to 10 years, such responses have declined. The burning question is, “Why?”

One might point to the growing influence of the world and its impact on the heart of hearers.  One may point to weaker, less distinct preaching.  One could talk about how potential responders will feel judged or condemned by the others present.  One could speak of the philosophies and world views of the age, whether secularism, naturalism, postmodernism, or emergent theology.

Though these are no doubt factors, I am not fully satisfied with them.  Weren’t these stumbling blocks in place in previous generations.  The names of the philosophies may have changed, but they were there. Consider another theory.  Are we losing the traditional, real social connection and fellowship of days gone by as we lose ourselves in the virtual world of social media (some of the same desensitizing factors could apply to TV and movies, too)?  Before you dismiss this theory, consider some reasons why I promulgate it.

  • Some use social media as their “confessional” or front pew, where they confess their failings in marriage, attitude, speech, or actions.
  • On the other hand, social media outlets—particularly those having photos as part of their makeup—create an artificiality.  We don’t post unflattering pictures (and may plead with those that tag us in them to delete them), don’t generally admit to weaknesses of character or anything that may make us seem inferior to others (financially, socially, intellectually, etc.).  Image replaces integrity.
  • Increased time on social media, cultivating that virtual world and its relationships, may be robbing us of real-time, real-life relationships.  We often neglect those in front of us for those we’re “visiting” by phone or tablet.

How might this impact public responses?  Are we meeting the needs of James 5:16 and 1 John 1:9 via the virtual world? Are we afraid to show vulnerability, need, or weakness, lest we be deemed “inferior”?  Have we desensitized ourselves, losing the ability to be “real”?  There may be huge holes in my theory, but I suspect there is at least some truth to it.

What can we do to reverse the trend? Hopefully, giving it some serious thought is a start.  We cannot reduce ourselves to mindless minions who are consumed with the superficial while disconnecting from the authentic.  We must renew a dedication to fellowship and relationship, now more than ever!  The people on Pentecost were disturbed enough by clear, divine teaching to make that known in the clearest terms (Acts 2:37).  Let’s help the church be a place of real connections and relationships so we can help each other when spiritual needs exist.