Brian Sigmon, Author at AI Theology

Working for a Better Future: Sustainable AI and Gender Equality

At our February AI Theology Advisory Board meeting, Ana Catarina De Alencar joined us to discuss her research on sustainable AI and gender equality, as well as how she integrates her faith and work as a lawyer specializing in data protection. In Part 1 below, she describes her research on the importance of gender equality as we strive for AI sustainability.

Elias: Ana, thank you for joining us today. Why don’t you start by telling us a little about yourself and about your involvement with law and AI.

Ana: Thank you, Elias, for the invitation. It’s very nice to be with you today. I am a lawyer in a big law firm here in Brazil. I work with many startups on topics related to technology. Today I specialize in data protection law. This is a very recent topic for corporations in Brazil. They are learning how to adjust and adapt to these new laws designed to protect people’s data. We consult with them and provide legal opinions about these kinds of topics. I’m also a professor. I have a master’s degree in philosophy of law, and I teach in this field.

Photo by Sora Shimazaki on Pexels.com

In my legal work, I engage many controversial topics involving data protection and AI ethics. For example, I have a client who wants to implement a facial recognition system that can be used for children and teenagers. From the legal point of view, it can be a considerable risk to privacy even when we see a lot of favorable points that this type of technology can provide. It also can be very challenging to balance the ethical perspective with the benefits that our clients see in certain technologies.

Gender Equality and Sustainable AI

Elias: Thank you. There’s so much already in what you shared. We could have a lot to talk about with facial recognition, but we’ll hold off on that for now. I’d like to talk first about the paper you presented at the conference where we met. It was a virtual conference on sustainable AI, and you presented a paper on gender equality. Can you summarize that paper and add anything else you want to say about that connection between gender equality and sustainable AI?

Ana: This paper came out of research I was doing for Women’s Day, which is celebrated internationally. I was thinking about how I could build something uniting this day specifically and the topic of AI, and the research became broader and broader. I realized that it had something to do with the sustainability issue.

Sustainability and A Trans-Generational Point of View

When we think of AI and gender, often we don’t think with a trans-generational point of view. We fail to realize that interests in the past can impact interests in the future. Yet, that is what is happening with AI when we think about gender. The paper I presented asks how current technology impacts future generations of women.

The technology offered in the market is biased in a way that creates a less favorable context for women in generations to come. For example, when a natural language processing system sorts resumes, often it selects resumes in a way that favors men more than women. Another example is when we personalize AI systems as women or as men, which generates or perpetuates certain ideas about women. Watson from IBM is a powerful tool for business, and we personalize it as a man. Alexa is a tool for helping you out with your day-by-day routine, and we personalize it as a woman. It creates the idea that maybe women are servile, just for supporting society in lower tasks, so to speak. I explored other examples in the paper as well.

All of these things together are making AI technology biased and creating ideas about women that can have a negative impact on future generations. It creates a less favorable situation for women in the future.

Reinforcing and Amplifying Bias

Levi: I’m curious if you could give an example of what the intergenerational impact looks like specifically. In the United States, racial disparities persist across generations. Often it is because, for instance, if you’re a Black American, you have a harder time getting high-paying jobs. Then your children won’t be able to go to the best schools, and they will also have a harder time getting high-paying jobs. But it seems to be different with women, because their children may be women or men. So I wonder if you can give an example of what you mean with this intergenerational bias.

Ana: We don’t have concrete examples yet to show that future impact. However, we can imagine how it would shape future generations. Say we use some kind of technology now that reinforces biases–for example, a system for recruiting people that lowers resumes mentioning the word ‘women,’ ‘women’s college,’ or something feminine. Or a system which includes characterization of words related to women–for instance, the word ‘cook’ is related to women, ‘children’ is related to women. If we use these technologies in a broad sense, we are going to reinforce some biases already existing in our society, and we are going to amplify them for future generations. These biases become normal for everybody now and into the future. It becomes more systemic.

Racial Bias

You can use this same thinking for the racial bias, too. When you use these apps and collect data, it reinforces systemic biases about race. That’s why we have to think ethically about AI, not only legally, because we have to build some kind of control in these applications to be sure they do not reinforce and amplify what is already really bad in our society for the future.

Levi: There’s actually a really famous case that illustrates this from Harvard Business students. Black students and Asian students sent their applications out for job interviews, and then they sent out a second application where they had whitewashed it. They removed things on their CV that were coded with with their race–for instance, being the president of the Chinese Student Association or president of the Black Student Union, or even specific sports that are racially coded. They found that when they whitewashed their applications, even though they removed all of these accomplishments, they got significantly higher callbacks.

Elias: I have two daughters, ages 12 and 10. If AI tells them that they’re going to be more like Alexa, not Watson, it influences their possibilities. That is intergenerational, because we are building a society for them. I appreciated the paper you presented, Ana, because AI does have an intergenerational impact.

In Part 2 we will continue the conversation with Ana Catarina De Alencar and explore the way she thinks about faith and her work.

Creators, Stewards and the Telos of Technology

This is the fourth and final part of our excellent discussion from the January Advisory Board meeting, where we explored the question of whether we live in a technological age. In Part 1 we addressed the idea of a technological age, and in Part 2 we discussed the telos of technology and the value of work. In Part 3 we explored the value of play. In Part 4, we continue the conversation by asking how our role as creators and stewards shapes the telos of technology.

Wen: My personal theology of technology is grounded in us being creators. We are made in God’s image, and God is a creator. So we are all mini creators. That kind of echoes what Micah said. I also think we’re commanded to steward our resources. So going back to the original question that you raise – what is the telos of technology – I see us as creators and stewards. That’s one way to frame a telos of technology.

Love of God and Love of Neighbor

Another way to frame it is very idealistic. If you look at the Bible, Jesus actually tells us the greatest commandment. Love of God and love of neighbor (Matthew 22:37-40). So is there a way we could run all types of technology, product, visions, and development, through that filter? Does a certain technology help us to love and serve our neighbor? And does this technology honor God?

I know that’s idealistic. I’m not expecting all of US capitalism, all companies, to adopt that framework. But from a biblical perspective, we can ask about the telos of technology and the human telos. Do all of our actions for creating and stewarding serve our neighbor or honor God?

Connecting Creators and Stewards to Smaller Goals

Maggie: As you described earlier, Elias, I also spent a lot of time wondering, “What am I doing?” I worked for a bank. I worked for Wall Street. I’m working for a management and consulting company now. But one of the things that I do in each job is really focusing on bringing a better world, a better life to my end-user.

A lot of times that comes into some pretty granular metrics. For instance, it used to take you two weeks to have this horrible conversation, because you had to pull data from six different places. Now, it will take you an hour to put the data together, and then whatever time it takes you to have the meeting. That is good stewardship! There is a concrete improvement in time saved.

So yes, there is a certain sense in which a broad biblical goal based on love of God and love of neighbor is idealistic. But people can make it more realistic within their context if they connect it to a smaller goal. If I can make one person’s life better, that does express love of neighbor.

Is Ethical Play Possible?

Elias: I want to raise another question, going back to what Micah said about play and what Wen said about our role as creators and stewards. Can we be both playful and good stewards? In other words, is ethical play possible? Can those things happen together? Usually, they do not go together. Often, playing means not worrying about what will happen. And part of being a good steward is almost like being the adult with a child who’s trying to play. “Think about your actions, stop doing that, don’t be so wasteful.” Is there a place there to engage in ethical play? In other words, can play actually help others?

Ben: I think the answer is “yes”. Going back to what Wen said, part of the great commandment is to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. That contains a foundational construct, which is that we love ourselves. If we draw these things together, we can think of it in terms of stewarding ourselves. By stewarding ourselves, we’re increasing our capacity to love ourselves and therefore raising our capacity to love God and neighbor. And I would argue that we increase our capacity by allowing ourselves to play.

Stewardship, Play, and the Church

We can apply this to the life of the church. I rail against cultural co-opting. That is, with every new technology, every new movement, the church asks how we can make it ours. That is really a dishonest conversation because we don’t really care about human flourishing so much as we care about butts in pews and dollars in plates. There’s a lot of focus on the institution of the church. So instead of increasing human flourishing, and increasing the stewardship of ourselves and others, we spend a lot of time trying to make sure that there’s institutional survival.

That’s the capitalist mindset. How do we maximize profit for our investors? In doing that, we iterate for the good of the institution, rather than the good of humanity.

To get away from that mindset, the church must ask: is this about human flourishing or about institutional flourishing? And that’s where I think the value of play is critical because it cuts across institutions. Organizations don’t play. People do. So if we can maintain the vignette of human flourishing through play, then it’s sort of a safeguard. Play helps us focus on human flourishing rather than on institutional survival.

Technology and the Modern Individual

Elias: Isabelle, do you have anything to add? We’d love to hear from you.

Isabelle: Well, from my perspective, as a humanities student, I’m studying a lot about the modern world and how the model modern individual is portrayed inside this world. You could say that the value of play is missing. The individual constantly needs to be efficient, constantly needs to be kind of like a machine. The individual can’t get it wrong. When he feels wrong, he can’t express it. And when he expresses, he’s shut down. And it’s really interesting to see how modernity is embedded in this discussion about technology.

Elias: Thank you, that’s great. I love when you bring something in because your perspective is so unique, and we need that in these conversations. That’s what I love about this group, so many different perspectives coming together.

Unfortunately, our time is up. This does feel like play to me, and I’m going to have to end our ability to play right now, which makes me sad. But thanks, everybody for being here. I look forward to next time.

The Value of Play and the Telos of Technology

We want to create things, and we want to create them with other people. And we want to connect over that. That’s the value of play.
Micah Redding

At our January Advisory Board meeting, we explored the question of whether we live in a technological age. In Part 1 we addressed the idea of a technological age, and in Part 2 we discussed the telos of technology and the value of work. In Part 3 below, we continue the conversation by exploring the telos of technology and the value of play.

Micah: I’ve been thinking about this in terms of our earlier discussion about the nature of technology. I kind of go with Andy Clark and David Chalmers, with the extended mind, extended cognition thesis. Technology, everything in our environment, we make it part of ourselves. An analogy is in the way birds use their environment to make nests. We all wrap our environment around us in some ways. Humans do this in a way that’s incredibly fluid and open-ended and flexible. And what are we doing? What is our telos for that? I think what we ultimately want is that we want to play. We want to create things, and we want to create them with other people. And we want to connect over that. That’s the value of play.

The Impulse to Play

You can look at all the negative impulses and drives in our society as sublimated versions of that impulse to play. We’re all trying to play some kind of game, and maybe we don’t allow ourselves to do that. So we twist it in some way to convince ourselves it’s serious. I think you see this, particularly in edge technological communities like those around web3 and NFTs. These kinds of spaces are heavily reviled right now in the larger culture, and they feel like they are essentially playing with friends. They’re creating something with friends, and they’re trying to connect with people.

We see the value of play across human history. Early humans were trying to survive, trying to overcome starvation, and so forth. But we didn’t just do that. We also made cave paintings. We also told stories and we put ourselves into those stories. And that’s increasingly what we’ve done through history. As soon as we create virtual worlds, we want to put ourselves in those worlds, because this is what it is to play. We keep putting ourselves into stories and pulling in people and our environment into them.

So I think that’s what we’re doing, ultimately. We play. That can be a good, healthy, and productive thing. From a Christian perspective, I would say we’re children of God, and children are made to play. That’s what we’re supposed to be doing. The value of play is central to the human telos. So one step toward a telos of technology is to just be more aware of the way play makes up the human telos.

Rock paintings from the Cave of Beasts (Gilf Kebir, Libyan Desert)
By Clemens Schmillen – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=31399425

Free Play versus Structured Play

František: Is there a difference between game and play? Because for me, it appears that a game has some rules. Play itself doesn’t have to have rules. I’m just playing with something. But a game, if you want to take part in the game, you have to follow the rules. Like with traffic. The rules of traffic are basically the rules of a game. And if you want to play the game–be part of the traffic–you have to follow the rules. If you don’t follow them, you aren’t allowed to drive. You must leave the game. And we can extend this example to anything else.

Elias: I think we can talk about this as free play versus structured play. Free play or unstructured play is like a toddler just imagining his or her world. You try to make them play a game and they’re like, no, no, I’m going to change the rules. Gaming is a little more structured. It has rules. I think there’s room for both.

Wen: We can see a spectrum or a continuum of how much rigidity and structure and rules there are. But even when there are certain rules and constraints, they can still enhance the joy and flourishing of play. One example of that is when you let little kids play in a park. You don’t want them to run into the street, so you set boundaries. Putting rules or boundaries in place can enhance safety and creativity and the joy within play. I’ve done a lot of movement and improv games with adults in very rigid corporate organizations, trying to get them to play. You create boundaries, but then you say, within those boundaries, you can do or explore whatever you want, and express yourself however you feel.

The Infinite Game

Photo by freddie marriage on Unsplash

Micah: James Carse describes the concept of finite versus infinite games. In finite games, you play to win. Infinite games, you play to keep playing. And finite games are the kind we think of as rule-based. Infinite games are like what children play where now they’re playing house, now they’re pretending to be dogs, now they’re magicians. The play is constantly mutating and fluid.

The infinite game doesn’t have a rule set in the same way that the finite game does. But it does have a condition, which is that you don’t destroy the ability to keep playing. The value of play forms the basis of it. So when people get kicked out of the game, you find a way to bring them back in. You continually wrap people back in, you continually ensure that the basis of gameplay, the basis of play itself, remains. So there is no strict rule. But there is this premise, that we are all trying to keep playing, we’re going to make sure we don’t destroy the ability to play as we go.

The Telos of Technology and the Value of Work

At our January Advisory Board meeting, we explored the question of whether we live in a technological age. You can find Part 1 of our conversation in this post. In Part 2 below, we discuss a new telos of technology.

Elias: I think we established, for the most part, that this is a technological age. Maybe we always have been in a technological age, but technology is definitely part of our lives now. Some of you started hinting at the idea that technology is pointing towards something. It is teleological, from the Greek word telos, meaning goal. Technology leads toward something. And I think Chardin saw technology leading into the Omega point, while Ellul saw it more as a perversion of a Christian eschaton. In his view, the Christian position was to resist and subvert it.

The question I have now is very broad. How do we forge a new vision, a new telos, for technology? Or maybe even, what would that telos be? We talked earlier about technology for the sake of capitalism or consumption. What would be a new telos for technology, and how would we forge this new vision?

No Overall Goal for Technology

František: I have a great colleague with a technical background and a longtime friend. I studied with him in Amsterdam. He’s now sort of an important person in a company developing AI. He’s a member of the team which programmed the AI to play poker. So he’s quite skillful in programming, and actually working on the development of AI. He’s developing amazing things.

I spoke with him about this telos question, “What is the aim of technology?” He said, “Well, there is no such thing as an overall goal.” The goal is to improve our program to be able to fight more sophisticated threats to our system. That’s what we are developing. So basically, there is no general telos of technology. There is only a narrow focus. There is just the goal to improve technology, that it gets better, and serves better the concrete purpose for which is built. It’s a very particular focus.

A Clash of Mentalities

I was very unhappy with this answer. After all, there must be some goal. And he said, “Well, that’s the business of theologians.” My friend said he doesn’t believe in anything. Not in theism, not even in atheism, he just doesn’t bother discussing it. So for him, there is no God, no goal, nothing. We’re just living our life. And we’re improving it. We are improving it step by step. He’s a well-studied, learned person, and he sees it like that. I’ve experienced the same thing during conversations with many of my friends who are working in technology on the technical or the business side.

So they would say, perhaps, there is no goal. That’s a clash of mentalities. We are trying to build a bridge between this technological type of thinking and the theological, philosophical perspective which intends to see the higher goal.

I don’t have a good argument. You can try to convince him that there is a higher goal, but he doesn’t believe in a higher goal. So I’m afraid that a lot of people developing technology do not see further than the next step of a particular piece of technology. And I’m afraid that here we are, getting close to the vision of the Brave New World, you know, the novel. People are improving technology on a particular stage, but they do not see the full picture. It is all about improving technology to the next step. There is no long-term thinking. Perhaps there are some visionaries, but this is at least my experience, which I’m afraid is quite broad in the field of technology.

The Human Telos of Technology

Maggie: I feel like that happens a lot from the developer side of technology. But at least the import within technology should be that you have some sort of product owner or product manager, that’s supposed to be supplying a vision. That person could start thinking about the goal of technology. I know a lot of times within technology, the product manager draws out the user story. So, “I’m a user. I want to ______, so that ______.” And it’s the so that which becomes the bigger element that’s drawn out. But that’s still at a very microscopic level. So yeah, there might be an intersection with the larger goal of technology, but I don’t think it really is used there very well.

Elias: Some of you who have known me for a long time know how much I have struggled with my job and finding meaning in what I do. And a lot of times it was exactly like you described, František. It was like, What am I doing here? What is this for? And I found, at least recently, this sweet spot where I found a lot of meaning in what I was doing. It wasn’t like I was changing people’s lives. But I found this passion to make things better and more efficient. When you are in a large corporation things can be so bureaucratic. And we were able to come in and say, I don’t care how you do it, we’re gonna accomplish this thing. And then you actually get it done. There is a sense of purpose and satisfaction in that alone.

The Creative Value of Work

I would venture to say that your friend, František, is actually doing creative work, co-creative work with God. He may not call it that. But there is something about bringing order out of chaos. I think even in a situation where the user or the developer is not aware, there might be goals happening there that we could appreciate and describe theologically.

For instance, going back to my experience, it might just be the phase that I’m in at work. But I’m feeling a lot of satisfaction in getting things done nowadays. Just simply getting things done. How can I put that theologically? I don’t know. Is that how God felt after creation? But there is something about accomplishing things. Now, if that’s all you do, obviously, eventually it just becomes meaningless. But there is something meaningful in the act of accomplishing a task.

Maggie: And just the sanctity of work too. Your friend, he’s working, he’s doing something. And in that type of work, even though it’s labor, I think it’s still a part of the human telos.

František: Yeah, I think so, even though he thinks that there is no human telos as such. And we keep having conversations, and he still sees something important in the conversations. So that means he still keeps coming to the conversation with philosophers and theologians, even though he sort of disregards their work because he sees it as not relevant to his work. But I think that’s a sign of hope in his heart.

Do We Live in a Technological Age?

Are we living in a technological age? A brief answer is that we have always lived in a technological age.

The danger we see is that technology is a product from ourselves. This brings fear and hope, both. We fear ourselves and have hope in ourselves.

At our January meeting, the AI Theology Advisory Board discussed the idea that we are living in a technological age. Understanding our time and context is an important step for our discussions and everything we do in AI Theology. Our exploration of AI and theology will be most fruitful if they are connected to the time in which we live.

We began with a presentation that reviewed the three perspectives outlined in previous blogs: Teilhard, Ellul, and Arthur. Here is a summary of our discussion:

Elias: I want to start with two questions.

1) Are we living in a technological age, and if so, why?

2) If we are living in a technological age, what is the danger of not acknowledging or discussing it? What happens when we take it for granted? In other words, if we are living it, what is the danger of not naming it?

The Nature of Technology

Maggie: Technology is such a part of life. The danger is that, if we omit reflection on it, we are suppressing a part of our own lives. If you spend your whole day interacting with the digital world, 40 hours a week, that is going to impact who you are and what the world means to you.

Wen: I see technology not as a part of ourselves, but as something we interact with, either consciously or unconsciously. The third concept, from Arthur, reminded me of “stewardship of resources.” At a broad level, it’s how we steward our natural resources. How do we use our natural resources and make things out of them? I’m thinking here not only of digital technology but various types of technologies that impact the way we use resources.

Elias: This subtle distinction can change how we interact with and discuss technology. One view is that technology is, in some ways, “the other.” We use and interact with it. The other view is that technology is a part of who we are. I’m not saying that either way is right or wrong. But this subtle distinction can change the way we approach technology.

There is fear and hope because technology is on the edge of the transcendental.
Frantisek Stech

Every Age Is Technological

Frantisek: Are we living in a technological age? A brief answer is that we have always lived in a technological age. When human beings started to reflect on themselves, they started organizing their environment–that is using technology. Even language can be considered technology in a sense. We can discuss building a nest as a kind of technology for animals. Since we are able to reflect on our skills, craftsmanship, or any kind of ability, this is technology. It’s the Greek word Téchne, the knowledge of “how to”.

Photo by nastia on Pexels.com

The danger we see is that technology is a product from ourselves. This brings fear and hope, both. We fear ourselves and have hope in ourselves. It is a clash between a Promethean approach to life and a transcendental approach to life. Between our own powers, and transcendental powers. Technology is something you can control. When you try to control the transcendental, it’s called magic. There is fear and hope because technology is on the edge of the transcendental. Everything is assembled like the Jewish story of golem, a creature made to serve the master. Technology has the potential to either serve or destroy the master, and the community it is inserted into.

The larger issue of digital technology today is, it is a kind of development of the ecosystem. We are living in a digital landscape as well as the physical world. We fear that it will destroy us if we use it too much.

Technology and Culture

Frantisek: If we think about theology and AI, then it presupposes theology of technology, and before that, a theology of culture (for context).

Elias: We’ve always had technology, but is there something about the time we are living that makes it the dominant force? And this is where we can agree or disagree. We can say that technology is a reflection of other forces, or that technology itself influences everything. I have the idea that technology is the dominant force, and when we don’t talk about it, it becomes even more powerful.

On the other hand, some people can think differently.

Wen: Technology today is built for automation and speed. So technologies of the past, like a windmill or a hammer, couldn’t do very much in a short time. This technology required more human effort to “make things happen.” A hammer couldn’t do much on its own, but today if you press a single button, many things can happen.

Elias: That’s an interesting point, Wen. Let me build on that a bit. Given the compounding of technologies in our time, not only is technology self-perpetuating but it is doing so with impressive speed. In other words, there is a different level of self-perpetuation that we may no longer be in control of. It is almost as if technology has taken a life of its own.

Religion and Technology

Ben: I think we’ve always lived in a technological age. As it relates to the theological construct, I think religion is technology. It’s meant to codify and systematize entropy and suffering, and explain it in a consistent worldview. That is a technological movement. It is also an attempt to systematize and control.

Is technology a co-creator, or is technology existential? This conversation has roots in incarnation. What does it mean to be enfleshed, a human? The question I come up with is, technology is about automation and efficiency. But for what? For what end, and what is the cost of this efficiency? I wonder if technology is unable to address incarnational needs such as love, truth, beauty, and we hope to automate those things so we can seek the intangibles. So there are now studies to classify the intangible human needs. Technology is becoming part of the intangible of life as well.

Photo by Julia Volk on Pexels.com

Elias: What you are saying connects with what Maggie was talking about, the idea of technique as a way of control. The totality of technique–trying to find the best technique. Trying to find the best way to love or communicate.

Purpose and Reflection

Maggie: One view of technology is that, “now we have more time to be fully human.” I don’t know if that actually happens. We spend more time thinking about what makes a human good than we do spending time with things we enjoy. The iterative nature of technology contains a reductionist assumption that everything that is good can be reduced to a test. There isn’t a lot of stepping back to ask about the larger purpose. For instance, “I’m working to reduce retail prices,” but do the retailers want help setting prices? Is that what is going to save them time? Does this technology improve something, reduce something? Is this really going to help people save time?

Wen: The phone being replaced every two years, I see it more as capitalist behavior than as tech getting better. I think the underlying social context is consumption. This frames how the tech manifests itself. If we changed the cultural context of the world we live in, we would see a very different manifestation of technology. The products would be different. In a world where capitalism wasn’t the center, we would see a different line of technology, both in its tools and its uses.

Technology is trying to be the Tower of Babel or the fountain of youth. I don’t mean just apps, but the broad range of technology and industries strive toward these ends
Wen Dombrowski

The Tower of Babel

Ben: I agree with what you said. Is there a longing aspect? Are we trying to create and advance ourselves to enlightenment? And if it’s true, the kingdom on earth concept becomes more concrete. Or are we iterating because we don’t know what else to do with the opportunity, cost, and time we have lost? Where does this get us any closer to enlightenment?

Wen: Technology is trying to be the Tower of Babel or the fountain of youth. I don’t mean just apps, but the broad range of technology and industries strive toward these ends.

Ben: To illustrate this, I’m going to use myself as a negative example. One thing I learned with a neuroscientist is about the correlation of quality of sleep and cognitive issues (like dementia and Alzheimer’s). So I became obsessed with the technology of sleep, looking for technology to help me sleep. And when I lay down, I would get anxious about the fact I wasn’t sleeping. So when technology was supposed to help me sleep better and prevent these diseases, I was actually anxious about the tech. The existential crisis is that technology creates more opportunity for existential non-incarnational presence as we rely on “external transcendent divine,” rather than on our own ability, to track and examine data.

Reshaping Christian Ministry in a Post-Covid World

It’s no secret that the church is changing in the post-Covid world. Ask any church leader and they are likely to tell you the same thing: It’s easy to draw a dividing line between the pre-pandemic world and the one we live in now. Patterns of church attendance and giving are different, as is the nature of Christian spiritual formation, the way we gather with others to learn, fellowship, and pray. As 2020 turned to 2021 and now 2022, it’s become clear that what started as a temporary suspension of life, as usual, has become a drastic shift of the status quo. “Normal” in 2022 means something different than it did in 2019.

It’s also no secret that technology is a major driver of these changes. A slew of platforms facilitate virtual small group meetings, and it’s never been easier to stream and record worship services with devices and software already on hand. The technologies that enable many people to work from home also enable us to “church from home.” Whether that’s a positive or negative shift, we can debate. What’s not debatable is the reality of it. For better or worse, technology is reshaping Christian ministry in the post-Covid world we live in.

Shifting Worship Practices

Shifts in worship and discipleship, two of the most central arenas of Christian ministry, illustrate the increasing influence of technology. Before the onset of the pandemic, in the United States, many churches offered online worship, and the number of churches doing so was increasing steadily each year. But generally, it was reserved for larger churches, usually offered through their own church website, and attendance online was sporadic. In mid-March of 2020, the Barna research group reported that 2 percent of practicing Christians attended a church with a live-streamed or other video sermons, saying “the data suggest these services are still a novelty.” Even in early 2020, streaming your worship service was a luxury for forward-thinking congregations who could afford it. Attending worship online was what you did when you were out of town and couldn’t worship in person, or a way for college students and those who had recently moved away to remain connected to the church.

Photo by Chris Montgomery on Unsplash

This all changed in the spring of 2020 when the coronavirus pandemic forced congregations to suspend in-person gatherings. Almost overnight, nearly every pastor and church leader faced a choice: find a way for the congregation to worship online, or forgo worship altogether. Most chose to establish online worship, and it became a vital link between the congregation and its people when the usual links had been severed. By June of 2020, Barna found that 96 percent of pastors reported they had begun streaming their worship services. The change happened swiftly, and even when a return to in-person worship became possible, churches continued to offer it online as well. They had taken the step, invested in the necessary resources, and seen the expected and unexpected benefits. Today, more congregations than ever offer worship online, many of them using one or more established tools such as Youtube or Facebook live.

Many of the questions regarding online worship have shifted as well, from “whether” to “how.” Before the pandemic, a congregation may have asked about viability and value. “Should we offer online worship? What will it cost, in money, time, and energy, and will it be worth the investment? Will people attend less often if they have the option?” Now that so many churches have taken the step, the sense appears to be that there is no going back. Questions now are geared toward best practices. “How can we offer online worship in the best possible way? What is the right time and format? Where should our cameras be placed? What streaming service(s) should we use to reach the most people?” And perhaps most importantly, “How can we follow up with those who encounter us online?”

Discipleship and Formation

Similar changes are taking place in the realm of discipleship and Christian formation, with the emergence of virtual or hybrid small groups alongside those that meet in person. In my congregation, several adult Sunday school and small groups classes began meeting weekly or bi-weekly by Zoom during the pandemic. A number of new groups began online during this time, with some continuing to gather virtually.

When gathering in person became possible once again, we maintained a way for people to connect virtually. And at least one of our Sunday school classes meets in person but uses Facebook’s Portal to allow people to attend virtually as well. Typically they have 4-8 people participating from home alongside the 20 or more in the classroom each week. Last fall, one Wednesday night class met in person with a computer in the room for people to participate via Zoom. I taught a different class that met in our chapel, but we also streamed it through Facebook Live and allowed people to interact via the comments.

Photo by Sincerely Media on Unsplash

Conversations with leaders and congregants in other churches paint a similar picture elsewhere. There’s a mixture of gathering online and in person. It’s messy, inconsistent from one place to the next as leaders experiment, adapt, and do what’s right in their context. But the big picture is that gathering online has emerged as a viable way to connect with fellow Christians for Bible study and fellowship, and it’s not going away.

A Glimpse of the future

It’s difficult to say much that is specific about the long-term effects of these changes. It’s still relatively new, and churches and their leaders are still finding their way through them. And of course, my experience and observations are limited. I’m speaking primarily about congregations in the United States, while technology is driving other sorts of change in other parts of the world. Even so, I can point to three early patterns that may be trends.

Photo by NASA on Unsplash

The first is a geographical shift. It’s easier than ever before to connect with a church in another city or state, because much of what they do is online now. People who move away can remain involved in the congregation by worshiping online and participating in virtual small groups. If my family member or friend across the country tells me about a positive church experience, I can see it for myself by connecting with that church online. If my favorite Christian author is a pastor, I can begin to attend their church even if I live hundreds of miles away. In this emerging reality, the quality of online worship and small group offerings becomes important, and following up effectively with those who connect online is even more important.

The second is a temporal shift. Streamed worship remains a live event, but if it’s recorded for later viewing, then “attendance” suddenly diffuses over several days instead of a single hour on Sunday. The same is true for some classes and small groups. Last fall I taught an in-person class that was streamed through Facebook Live. During the class, we had a handful of online participants, maybe 4 or 5. But when I went back a week later, I discovered Facebook had recorded more than a hundred views. Now, views alone is an unreliable metric—it may be that someone just paused on it for a few seconds as they scrolled through their feed. But even so, the class was being encountered, even in a small way, for several days after I taught it.

The third is increased recognition among church leaders of the importance and potential of digital connections. More pastors and church leaders are not only paying attention to online offerings but developing the skillsets to use them well. Church staffs and volunteer teams are beginning to include roles specifically focused on digital ministry, especially at larger churches. And forward-thinking church leaders and writers are beginning to look farther ahead, asking what implications things like cryptocurrency and the Metaverse might have for the future of Christian ministry, and what steps congregations need to take today in order to prepare for them.

Emerging technology is reshaping Christian ministry, just as it’s reshaping many aspects of our lives. It is more important than ever for us to pay attention to technology, both the systems and devices that are already well-entrenched and the emerging technology that is going to shape the world tomorrow. As the pandemic made all too clear, the distance between the present and the future is incredibly small. The present is not a static set of circumstances but a constantly evolving, dynamic landscape in which emerging tech is a major driver of change. Looking to the future, and technology’s role within it, is a faithful act in the present.

Brian Sigmon is an acquisitions editor at The United Methodist Publishing House, where he edits books, Bible studies, and official resources for The United Methodist Church. He has a Ph.D. in biblical studies from Marquette University, and has published a number of academic and popular articles on the Bible and Christian theology. Brian loves to teach and to help people of all backgrounds deepen their understanding of Scripture. When he isn’t editing, teaching, or writing about faith and technology, Brian enjoys woodworking and writing science fiction. He lives in Kingston Springs, Tennessee with his wife and their three children.

Alexa Goes to Church: Imagining a Holy AI for Modern Worship

Can artificial intelligence be holy?

The very question of holy AI calls to mind certain images that raise our anxiety: chatbots offering spiritual advice or pastoral care; an artificial minister preaching from the pulpit or presiding at Communion; a highly advanced AI governing our lives with the authority, power, and mystery reserved for God alone.

It’s not surprising that we instinctively shrink back from such images. Artificial intelligence is still so new, and advancing so rapidly, that finding the proper categories to integrate it into our faith can be a major challenge.

But if we’re willing to entertain the idea that AI can be holy, doing so can help us imagine new possibilities for using AI faithfully in our churches and spiritual life. It can show us the potential of AI to be a constructive partner with people of faith in shaping our spiritual lives, bearing witness to God’s grace in the world, and loving one another.

Photo by christian buehner on Unsplash

What Is Holiness?

It’s important to begin with a clear understanding of holiness in the Bible and Christian tradition. Holiness in its most basic sense means set apart for God. The Hebrew word for holy, qadosh, has a root meaning of “separate,” indicating the boundary separating the everyday, the human realm from the sacred, divine realm. To be holy is to be separated—set apart—for God.

Throughout the Bible, we find a broad range of things designated as holy:

Places (the Tabernacle, the Temple, Mount Sinai).
Times (the Sabbat, various holidays and festivals).
People (the people of Israel, the Israelite priests, prophets).
Objects (the Ark of the Covenant, the menorah or lampstand, and the other instruments of worship in the Tabernacle).

These examples are from the Old Testament, but a look at Christian practice today shows that Christians recognize a similar range of holy things, though the specifics vary depending on one’s particular tradition:

Places (sanctuaries, holy sites such as the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem).
Times (Sunday, holidays like Christmas and Easter).
People (ministers, priests, bishops, elders).
Objects (altar, the chalice and patin used in observing Communion).

Holiness does not make something inherently better or more worthy in God’s sight. Rather, designating a person or object as holy often signifies and expresses God’s care and claim for all. So, the Temple is a holy place where God’s presence is especially intense and most keenly felt, but this does not mean God is absent everywhere else. On the contrary, at the Temple’s dedication, Solomon says, “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Even heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you, much less this house that I have built!” (1 Kings 8:27). God’s presence at the Temple signifies God’s presence throughout the whole earth. In the same way, God calls the Israelites a holy people, while affirming that all people belong to God: “Indeed, the whole earth is mine, but you shall be for me a priestly kingdom and a holy nation” (Exodus 19:5-6). The designation of the Sabbath as a holy day is a way of ordering all of our time in a way that honors God as the Creator of all that exits.

The existence of a holy artificial intelligence in this sense—that is, set apart for God in a special way—would not mean that only this AI belongs to God or serves God. Rather, a holy artificial intelligence would signify and express that all artificial intelligence belongs to God and finds its proper orientation when directed toward God’s purposes. Seen in this way, recognizing a holy artificial intelligence seems not only permissible but imperative. Identifying an artificial intelligence as holy, and recognizing it as such through specific practices, can teach us to envision how all artificial intelligence—and all the human energies and hopes it represents—belongs to God.

Photo by William Farlow on Unsplash

Holy Artificial Intelligence

One way to think of holy artificial intelligence is as a tool or instrument—in this case, a complex piece of technology—created by humans and used in worship. The Tabernacle and its furnishings described in Exodus 25-40 make for a good comparison: the Ark of the Covenant, the menorah or lampstand, the incense altar, even the curtains and tent posts that served as the Tabernacle’s structural elements and walls.

These items were created by humans, highly skilled at their craft, at God’s initiative and direction. God gave specific instructions to Moses, and the narrative repeatedly tells us that the workers built everything “as the Lord had commanded Moses.” The artisans exercised great care in creating them, expressed in the detailed, step-by-step account of their construction in Exodus 36-39. The Tabernacle signified God’s presence in the midst of the Israelites, and its furnishings and tools facilitated the people’s worship of God.

It requires a bit of imagination to envision ways in which artificial intelligence might serve similar purposes in Christian worship today. A few possibilities present themselves for holy AI:

An automated program to turn on lights, music, or other dimensions of a sanctuary’s atmosphere as a way of preparing the space or guiding the order of worship. The algorithm might work at pre-set times, or in response to other input such as facial recognition, number of people in the sanctuary, or verbal or physical cues from a worship leader. Such a program might tailor the worship atmosphere to feel more intimate for a smaller gathering, or grander and more energetic for a larger body of worshipers.
An automated program might offer a repeated portion of a litany or prayer, responding to specific cues from the congregation or minister. Such cues might be verbal, such as a particular word at the end of the congregation’s part of the litany, or physical, for instance in response to the congregation standing, kneeling, or making a particular gesture. A program used in a digital worship service might collect and respond to input through social media.
A self-driving vehicle might bring people to worship, helping worshipers prepare for the worship experience before arriving at the church. The AI might respond differently to different individuals or to different worship experiences. Upon detecting a family with young children, the vehicle might play kid-friendly worship music with brightly colored lighting, while it would play something quieter and more meditative for an adult individual.

Conclusion

Others will no doubt think of more and different possibilities, or find dilemmas with the possibilities mentioned above.

I will end with a final point of emphasis. Recognizing an AI as holy, something set aside for God, is different from simply using it in a holy or worshipful setting. There should be ways for the worshiping community to recognize its status.

Specific procedures to use during its development or activation, such as prayers or Scripture reading, would be one way to acknowledge its status as holy—for instance, saying a special set of prayers throughout the development or programming of the AI, or using certain programming processes and avoiding others. There might be a liturgy of dedication or short worship service for when the AI is activated or used for the first time in worship. Social media feeds or a virtual environment might allow the congregation to digitally “lay hands” on the AI as a part of the service. Another, similar liturgy or service could accompany its deactivation or replacement.

The key is not reducing the artificial intelligence to a purely functional role, but providing a means for worshipers to recognize and express God’s initiative and their own response in setting it apart for a holy purpose. The means to accomplish this should engage both the congregation and the AI in appropriate ways; should invoke God’s presence and blessing; and should be surrounded by a theological narrative that illuminates how and why it is being set apart for a holy purpose.

Such a way of identifying and acknowledging AI as holy is an invitation for the worshiping community to consider that all AI are a part of God’s creation, and can be directed toward God and God’s purposes in the world.

Brian Sigmon is an acquisitions editor at The United Methodist Publishing House, where he edits books, Bible studies, and official resources for The United Methodist Church. He has a Ph.D. in Old Testament Studies from Marquette University, where he taught courses in the Bible and theology. Brian finds great joy in thinking deeply about the Christian faith and helping people of all backgrounds deepen their understanding of Scripture. He lives in Kingston Springs, Tennessee with his wife Amy and their three children.

Author: Brian Sigmon