Book REview God and the Machine: Navigating Faith in the Age of AI

 

God and the Machine:Navigating Faith in the Age of AI By Nathan Webb ©2026 Abingdon Press

From the bio on the Abingdon Press page for this book: “Nathan Webb is an ordained elder in the United Methodist Church and the founding pastor of Checkpoint Church, a digital-first United Methodist community”. In this book he takes on questions around the use of AI in the church.

Webb encourages us to look at these questions through the lens of the Great Commandment, which makes sense given that some would insist that all parts of the Christian life need to be viewed through that lens. He also holds the view that the choice to not discuss the role of AI in our life as a church is not tenable. AI is now a part of the world, and increasingly so (the growth since 2020 is astounding) and while the church, or at least parts of the church, have traditionally been slow to adopt new technology we risk being left behind if we do not engage. At the same time we have to admit that every new technology has two edges so what are the two edges that AI brings? He continually reminds us that just because we CAN do something does not necessarily mean that we should.

Webb starts with defining technology in general and AI specifically. He posits that as a tool we need to ask things like: who created/builds this, who uses it, who controls it, who benefits from it, and who does it serve. These are good questions for a variety of tech tools as we work out the best/most ethical way forward. Among the notes I took I jotted down the idea that if we are not intentional about our discernment we might not keep the ability to control how AI becomes a part of our lives. He also notes that because AI chatbots seem so human-like people have had a tendency to anthropomorphize AI. We need to resist and speak against that temptation. This is a theme he carries forward throughout the book – AI is not human, does not have human feelings, can not replace human caring and love.

In Chapter 3 Webb takes on the question of “Does God Use Technology?”. Maybe God, through human creativity is giving us the tech tools for us to use as part of how we serve God. In this case we need to discern how best to use those tools. This leads into Chapter 4 which looks at ethics around the use of AI.

Later in the book Webb raises the question of ecclesiology. In that chapter he discusses how Checkpoint Church operates and what the ecclesiology of that congregation is. He makes the very valid point that most of our congregations need to be more intentional about our ecclesiological assumptions.

The final chapter talks about what Webb refers to as “human forward thinking”. Here he talks about embodiment. He starts with talking about whether online interactions can be thought of as being embodies. HE said this is one of the criticisms he has frequently met when people ask if an online church can truly be seen as a church. It reminded me of a time 20 years ago when people wondered if digital community could truly be called community, or the early resistance to online dating. Later in the chapter he returns to the idea that AI is not embodied.

This was a good book. There is also a study guide available so it might be a good discussion group resource. Webb pushes us to consider how to move forward into a world where AI is a reality. He reminds us that AI should be seen as providing augmentation rather than replacement. As Christians we need to use whatever tools we us to build love and justice, as leaders we have to model healthy and ethical practices what ever we do. This is true whatever choices we make about AI.

Book Review: iJesus: The Culture of God in a Digital World

 

iJesus: The Culture of God in a Digital World By Nadim Nassar ©2023 Sacristy Press (153 pages)

Last fall I went looking for a book I heard referenced in a podcast. Because I wanted to reach the free shipping threshold I needed to buy a second book and this title seemed like something that would fit my Sabbatical plan. Ironically I have yet to read the book I originally went looking for.

Nadim Nassar has written a previous book called The Culture of God to which this is a bit of a follow up. There were times, particularly early in the book, when it might have been helpful to have read that first one to know what Nassar means by the phrase “Culture of God” as he tends to use it assuming that foreknowledge. But with time I was able to pick up where he was going with it.

The book as a whole is, as one might expect from the title, very Christ-centered. Nassar is pushing the reader to find how we can best share the encounter with Jesus on a digital world. Within that discussion he talks about the centrality of communication as a building block of community. He also takes time to talk about the cultural clash we find in a digital world. I found his suggestion that the onset of digital globalization has brought about culture clash at a speed that was not known with slower, and earlier, forms of communication and cultural change quite intriguing Still the reality that how we communicate the old story in a new world is a central point of being the church in a digital world is inescapable. As he says at one point: “...because Christianity is about knowing the risen, living Christ, the Church has the responsibility in every generation and in different cultures to reinterpret the timeless revelation in Christ for its time and place” (p.30) [this quote reminds me if the United Church of Canada understanding that each generation needs to restate the Gospel which is why we have a succession of statements of faith].

I found that Nassar does a good job of naming both the positive possibilities and the negative possibilities of technology as we move into the new world. Over and over he talks about what new communications are available to us but also that we can not let the technological relationship replace ‘IRL’ relationships. This is important but at the same time I have to wonder at his suggestion later in the book that online relationships lack a reality that can only be found in person. I wonder how this might sit with the debate during Covid (and following) if online worship/online church was ‘real” or just a stand in.

In the end this book did not quite fit my Sabbatical goals quite as well as I thought it might. But that does not mean it was not an important read in the topic area. A big takeaway from it was the insistence that the way we measure our actions, the thing that we allow to shape our actions needs to be the Culture of God/Culture of Trinity (which is inherently relational)/Culture of Love. Technology may be one of the tools but it should not be the primary force that shapes us – even if it can be a powerful force to shape us. At a number of points I found myself thinking “I need to remember this for a sermon” even when the sermon was not going to be about the Digital world – for example Creation Time this fall.

Book Review: Tweet if you ❤ Jesus: Practicing Church in the Digital Reformation

Tweet if you ❤ Jesus: Practicing Church in the Digital Reformation By Elizabeth Drescher ©2011 Morehouse Publishing (190 pages)

Fourteen years ago standing at a Presbytery book display I saw this book and picked it up. Never really got into it at the time but gave it another crack this month.

Drescher uses this book to both explain what she sees happening in this new Reformation and share thoughts about how the mainline church might be best able to move into the new way of being. Based on her understanding of how social media works she suggests that the mainline Protestant church is better able to adapt to new communication patterns in the Digital Reformation Social Media than other forms of church.

The model that Drescher starts with is to talk about what she terms habitus, a term used to describe a model of understanding and being in the world. This is similar to a rule of life but a more complete thing than that. Early in the book she talks about how this habitus has changed from medieval to modern to current eras. Habitus, she says, is resistant to change but also evolves over time. One of the questions she raises pushes us to look closely at what our habitus is. As habitus evolves and a new paradigm takes over it raises questions about authority, something we can see happening in the development of the Digital age.

One of the things Dresher seems to see in this new paradigm is the idea that some of the ancient, pre-modern ways of approaching storytelling and h ma become more relevant in the new Social Media age. She talks about interactivity and visual imagery as examples. She suggests that Boradcast media (particularly in the last half of the 20^th Century) was much more spectator based than the new way of corresponding. She suggests that mainline churches, being less focussed on a charismatic leader ove the community as a whole, may be well suited to make use of those ideas.

All of what Drescher has to say in this book really is about communication and how we do it well (or poorly). How we mightdo it well using new tools and models is the discussion churches need to have. It is not about the technology, it is not about making use of all the flashy bells and whistles. It is the how rather than the what that takes precedence. At one point she does lead the reader to ponder “what might Jesus tweet?”, pointing out that Jesus makes use of the communication styles of his day. She also discusses more than once the challenge that the Digital Reformation might encourage more vicarious participation and lessen incentive of IRL participation. This certainly has been a discussion as more churches have moved to streaming worship services.

Drescher raises some very good points about how life in the church might look in what she terms the Digital Reformation. She raises the image of dispersed authority and less reliance on charismatic leaders repeatedly. This brought to mind Phyllis Tickle’s book The Great Emergence and made me ponder of maybe the Digital Reformation is part of what Tickle would call the church’s next great rummage sale.

At the same time Drescher seems more optimistic about how the Digital Reformation and Social Media in general will play out in society. Looking at how things like Facebook and Twitter/X have actually developed over the last 15 years makes me wonder if that optimism was accurate. Social Media has indeed democratized sources of authority and information but has that really been a good thing? Has it diminished the role of the charismatic voice or emboldened and empowered it?

This is a good read. Drescher raises important questions (each chapter ends with some questions for reflection). She challenges the church to seriously engage in this new world. It is not a book of how to use specific tools, it is a book calling us to reflect on how we will be in the new world and the last chapter does include some suggestions for building a digital rule of life.

The church, perhaps especially the mainline Protestant, Roman Catholic and Orthodox branches of it, does not have a great history of adapting to new ways of being church. But when the world changes we have no choice. I close with two things from the conclusion of the book. One is this quote:

“if we update practices that have served us reasonably well for some two thousand years, i do believe we will be able to enrich relationships and build communities that will allow us to more generously live out the commitments of our faith” (p.181)

The other is this question asked almost at the end of the book: Is the Digital Reformation the end of the church? The beginning of a new way of being the church? Both? (p.181). Only time will tell, and the answer will in part depend on us.

How I hope to Spend my Summer...

As part of marking 25 years of Ordained ministry this year I am taking a Sabbatical leave. When I requested the time I said this:

...plan to take the time to look into newer ways of being the church in an increasingly digital world. This would include some reading (starting with David Lochhead’s ahead-of-its-time book Theology in a Digital World if I can get my hands on a copy) and interviewing people who have/are been involved in online work within the church...This investigation can include looking at both “how can we be a hybrid church” and different ministry models in a world where more places can not afford full-time ministry. Obviously this is an area that could quickly become a D.Min level project so some paring down of ideas will have to happen.

Now as I find myself 2 months away I find I should maybe give some thought to what this might look like. When I was ordained in 2001 there was not much talk about how the internet might change how we do church. It was still really Internet 1.0 at the time. There were some websites starting to pop up sharing prayers and sermons, some churches were experimenting with webpages. 3 years earlier Wood Lake Books had published a book called Get Me to the Church Online which was a listing of churchy websites -- I am sure many of the websites in the book are now defunct, I think I left my copy in Atikokan when we moved in 2010. Social Media and widespread online video conferencing were a few years in the future. I have no memory of any discussions at seminary about how the internet might impact our ministries.

Leap forward 25 years and the reality is soooooooo different. Through things like Zoom and Google Meets and Microsoft Teams (and Skype before them) many of us attend meetings virtually rather than by driving to the location, a real boon for those serving outside major centers. Those same technologies allow for Bible Studies where people out of town can take part. Particularly since COVID many churches now livestream their worship services thereby increasing the number of people who can take part in those experiences. Some do this simply with a stream on YouTube, FacebookLive, or Vimeo, others have chosen something like Zoom where there is more opportunity to be interactive. There are, or at least were, arrangements made where multiple churches can worship together with different spots doing different parts of the service. There was (I think still is) an entirely online congregation within the United Church. I know of one place where the minister alternates between a period onsite and a period at home but interacts with the church digitally. As it has in many parts of our culture, the Internet has transformed the ways we can do church.

I think the church uses online community in at least a couple of ways. One is marketing. Facebook pages, Instagram feeds, TikTok, websites... all are ways of getting our name and image out there. We need to explore how best to make use of these tools. That might be part of what I explore this summer

The other way we can use the online reality is to make it part of how we are a community of faith. How do these tools help us build community? As I look at that questions I am wondering how to fit the answers into a couple of frameworks. One is the 5 marks (or Core Ministries) of the church: Liturgia, Koinonia, Didache, Diakonia, and Kerygma. How does/can online community work with offline community to feed each of those? The other is the framework laid out by Janet Gear in Undivided Love. Gear talks about the different tables that are gathered at the Banquet of faith: Evangelical, Ecclesial, Missional, Ecumenical, and Spiritual. How can online community work with offline community to feed each of them?

Hmm still sounds a bit too broad. We will see what comes of it. Because the purpose of Sabbatical is not just to find work.

AS one of my colleagues said to me, Sabbatical is also about Sabbath. So part of the time will be finding other, non-church, things in life. This should include trying to improve my physical shape (otherwise I have to start replacing wardrobe). It might include relearning what I once knew about piano and guitar. It will include some family time. Maybe even getting a chance to visit camp again????

SO that is the hope/plan/dream for four months this year. I wonder what it will end up being in reality???

The Future is...

Like many faith traditions, the United Church of Canada is, well, struggling.  Not all of a sudden, the first signs of the trends that led to where we are now were visible decades ago (as a percentage of the Canadian population the UCCan has been declining since World War 2, only the baby boom bulge allowed our gross numbers to continue to swell until the early 1960's).

Like many faith traditions, changing the culture and structure of the UCCan to meet these changes has been roughly akin to the captain of the Titanic trying to back up when the iceberg was sighted--with about as much success.

It is very easy to argue that the UCCan as we have known it is not only dying, it is essentially dead, with even life support no longer being a viable option.

As a denomination our latest attempt to plot a new path forward was formed at the 41st General Council Meeting in 2012.  That gathering authorized the creation of the Comprehensive Review Task Group, and said that "everything is on the table".  The CRTG will bring forward recommendation to GC42 in 2015.

I'll admit to being more than a little bit skeptical about this work, particularly the "everything is on the table" line. Call me cynical but I truly expected something along the lines of deck chair shuffling.  Or possibly a revisit of an idea from 12 years ago that would have us move from a 4 court (Pastoral Charge, Presbytery, Conference, General Council) to a 3 court model that essentially combined the 2 middle courts and divided the church into a number (40 was one of the numbers suggested) of districts.  That proposal went to a remit, a poll of presbyteries and (in this case) congregations where it failed to garner enough support [this was the first time I had to explain a remit to a congregation--I fear I did not do a great job of doing so without influencing the vote].

Lately the CRTG has released 2 documents.  One was a summary of results from the congregational consultations they held Spring-Fall of 2013. I scanned that one but it was really a "what we heard was" type of report with some analysis.  I should probably find time to read it (very dry reading) more carefully.  The second was far more important and thought provoking.

This document is a Discussion Paper that the CRTG wants all 87 Presbyteries to respond to by June (note it is now February, some of us only have one meeting in that interval and have our own business to take care of--the timelines are far from great--especially since they did not even ask for time until January).

Well I take back some of my skepticism.  Everything indeed is on the table.  This discussion paper suggests a move to a 2 court, essentially Congregationalist, non-connectional polity.  (the .pdf of the paper itself is here)

There is some good in here.  There are also a whole lot of questions.  As a discussion paper it is short (very short) on details.  Partly because this is not yet a fully-formed proposal.  This is a "this is where we are thinking of going, tell us what you think" piece.  And I get the logic behind that.  Why go to the effort and time and expense of crafting a full proposal if the constiuency thinks you are heading the wrong direction.  This round of consultations allows the Presbyteries to weigh in, to raise questions, to give some more direction to the CRTG.  Then they can add more flesh and details as they prepare a recommendation that is set to be released with plenty of lead time before GC42.

When I first read the paper (I got a draft a bit earlier than the public release because I have found myself in a position where I will be helping facilitate this Presbytery's review of it) my first reaction was very negative.  As indeed will be/has been the reaction of many.  This paper simply does not describe the United Church as it has been since 1925.  Indeed I suggest our Presbyterian and Methodist forebears would be aghast at this proposal.  With such major changes a strong reactionary response is to be expected.

Then I read it again.  And I considered it.  ANd yes there is good here.  From a survival point of view (and I do believe this is a survival document with the possibility that it will help some thrive) this is the level of change that is needed.  The structure we have inherited is simply unworkable and unsustainable from both a monetary and a labour point of view.  This document takes seriously problems that have been raised over the years.  It tries to find ways to liberate folk to be the church without being handcuffed by rules and policies.  This document tries to find a new way, to be inventive rather than innovative or improving what is already there.  Tweaking (major or minor) the old simply WILL NOT DO ANYTHING.

There are also grave concerns here.  The document, as it stands, puts ministry personnel in a very vulnerable position.  The document, as it stands, removes all ongoing oversight of congregations from the picture.  The document, as it stands, will increase the isolation felt by some Pastoral Charges and some clergy.  It will also increase the chances of Pastoral Charges going "rogue" (which could be a good thing or a bad thing depending what "rogue" is I suppose).

Big picture, I think I support the vision.  I think there are a lot of details that need to be added.  I think there are things that need to be changed.  I think there needs to be more on how we continue to be a denomination in partnership with each other rather than a collection of churches that share the name "United Church of Canada" (even as I acknowledge that the church seems to be moving into a post-denominational reality).  But I think something is missing.

Structural change WILL NOT SAVE THE CHURCH.  At the congregational level, the regional level, or the denominational level structural change will not save the church.  It might help of course but it is not the "solution".  People catching fire is what is needed.  People on fire for the mission and ministry of that part of the Body.  People with a vision.  People ready to be salt and light, ready to love God, Neighbour, and Self in a full and active way.  People who have been infected and are ready to contaminate the world.

Until we can light the fire we are only shifting deck chairs.

And maybe part of the fire-lighting will be to start telling the stories of our successes?  Maybe part of it will be to stop trying to predict the future, to stop blaming ourselves/each other for the past, to stop trying to understand fully and just be the people God has called us to be?

Can we do those things?

Urban Sprawl

Central Alberta has some great farmland.  Rich topsoil, a good mix (on average) of heat and moisture.  So why are we living out Joni Mitchell's song Big Yellow Taxi?

In the 15 years since I last lived in St. Albert several whole new subdivisions (with overly large and over priced houses) have sprung up, with more planned.  The city annexed a huge amount of land to the north a few years back -- I often comment on how much stuff is there that was a LONG way out of town before.  Same to the West of town.  Areas where I once rode my bike along gravel roads with fields beside them are now paved roads with developed lots.

Last week when we were down in the Edmonton area this story hit the paper.  12 000 hectares.  Most of which is currently active farmland.  More area where utilities and water lines and sewer (storm and sanitary) pipes will need to be run.  More area of asphalt and buildings and lawns.  On some high quality farmland.

It happens all over.  Grande Prairie has plans to annex land.  Calgary has done it many times.  ANd even without the annexations by cities the counties and municipal districts are rezoning land to residential and industrial.  And often marginal farmland is also marginal for other uses (poor drainage, swampy, rock outcrops etc) so more farmland gets taken away from the plow or the pasture.  Or more bush land is cleared away and the brush burned...

We need to find a better way.  Maybe higher density neighbourhoods are part of the solution?  Maybe redevelopment of existing neighbourhoods?  Possibly, but before that in politically acceptable we have to change some attitudes about how we live and what we "deserve".  Until then we will continue to "pave paradise and put up a..." [parking lot, mall, subdivision, freeway, school, industrial park...]

SHould I or Should't I?

Last month when I was back at college I took time to talk to one of the professors about further study.  As it happens they have a program which is currently classified as a STM (Master of Sacred Theology) but is being rejigged as a DMin (Doctor of Ministry).  Academically the requirements are the same but the reclassification recognizes that thsi program is intended to be taken while one is in active ministry and to feed on/into that ministry.

I have pondered going for further study at times.   But the standard STM as an academic degree wasn't really what I was loking at (like who really wants to write a thesis?).  I was thinking of something that woudl be a way to make more focussed use of my study leave time and would complement my daily ministry in a congregation.  Mind you I have always known that if I went in for the more Traditional STM I would choose to focus my studies on doctrines of humanity and atonement since that is an area of interest  (and because you simply cannot talk about what understandings of atonement are needed in the world today without talking about the nature of humanity and what is needed to help us re-learn that we are at-one with God).

In this other program I have lots of possible project ideas.  If I were starting now I would like to do something on being the church in a world of social media and multimedia projectors and internet research etc.  ANd that may be one that stays.  In fact I am really tempted to do a paper later this year on the theological implications of using technology to prepare and present worship, with a focus on multi-media projectors --just for the chance to explore the topic.

But do I have the time or the cash at this point in my life cycle?  I would not start for a couple years at any rate.  The program is 3 years and I would time it to be finishing in a year when I am eligible for a sabbatical thus giving me time to finish writing up the results of whatever major project I undertake.  But with 4 girls 10 and under?  ANd a program that would require 2-3 weeks away for intensive courses each year (at a few hundred a pop) plus reading and work in-between?

Still it sounds REALLY tempting

Is there a blessing for...?

In Fiddler on the Roof, when Motel gets his new sewing machine he asks the Rabbi if there is a blessing for a sewing machine.  And the rabbi obliges.

Along the same lines is this story (the link was posted on my FB wall):

The glow of gizmos cut through the darkness of a modest Halifax-area church Sunday as parishioners raised their cellphones, laptops and GPS units toward the heavens for a special prayer.
"Lord God, we thank you for the many gifts and tools you give us, all those electronic gadgets that make our lives easier in so many ways," Rev. Lisa Vaughn said before a small crowd at St. Timothy's Anglican church in Hatchet Lake on the eve of Labour Day.
Vaughn said the idea to hold a blessing of electronics came after hearing about an old English tradition called Plough Monday in which farmers would drag their tools to the church's door to receive a blessing for a good harvest.

Actually I think that the idea has merit.  It also can be a chance to reflect on the role gadgets play in our lives and our addiction to them.

Leadership in the Church

Currently I am reading Seismic Shifts: Leading in time of Change by UCCan clergyperson Christopher White.

One of the statements that caught my eye early in the book is that seminary education in our denomination does not actually grow leaders. ANd that is my experience. LEadership is seen as problematic, instead we should be enablers and facilitators and empowerers. But to take on a role as a leader is portrayed as being to authoritarian, non-communal.

But you need leadership. And good leadership includes all those other things. But you need the leaders in a congregation (both ordered and lay) to lead, to be visionaries/vision-keepers, to state the realities, to lay challenges before the people.

As I think about what we need to look at here (both in congregation and in the town) I keep coming back to the question of leadership. WHat does it really mean?

An Intriguing Possibility

In the mail today was an envelope from the seminary I attended for my MDiv. Half expecting the latest fundraising letter I opened it up.

Instead was an invitation to consider enrolling in a new degree program. The college, in conjunction with two other seminaries on the UofS campus, has long offered an STM degree and I have often wondered about when (if?) I might go back to school to take such a thing.

But now the STU is offering a new STM degree. They have partnered to form an organization looking at issues in rural ministry (the website is still largely under construction) and are offering a STM in Rural Ministry and Community Development. The program description says:

...targeted towards rural clergy...interested in a rigorous program of interdisciplinary theological study aimed at helping rural ministers to lead their congregations in a more effective engagement within their communities.

It would be a 3-year program with 3 week-long intensive courses per year plus either a thesis or two additional courses for the non-thesis option. And it would blend theology with issues like rural health, rural culture, ecology, and community development. It truly sounds intriguing. Costly but intriguing. This will take some thought, and some negotiation with the M&P committee should I want to go forward with it.