How are we using AI?

After seeing the umpteenth AI generated profile pic that was cartoonish or pop art, I am beginning to wonder about all of the promises the proponents of AI have made.  We have been told that artificial intelligence will relieve the workers of mind numbing repetitive tasks of assembly lines and manufacturing.  We have been told that AI will drive trucks more safely than people and transport people better than the cabs and ubers we have depended upon for a long time.  We have been told that AI will be able to do the dull tasks of computer data entry and routine evaluation to allow the people the freedom to do more (what that more is, we do not exactly know).  We have been given so many promises that this thinking technology will do for us but so far it has not exactly delivered on those promises.

We can use it to create cute memes and profile pics to make us look cool or better than real life.  We can use it to create research papers we either forgot to do or never intended to do for ourselves.  We can use it to manufacture pictures and videos of nature and events which seem to be real but we all know are not.  We can adjust the records of reality to suit our politics or to insulate us from liability.  We can do all of these things but in the end we find ourselves struggling to know what was AI and what was real.  It has left us with a great question mark over things that were once rather easy to count upon as real -- whether we like that reality or not.

I am reminded of the great promises of the internet and social media.  And of the disappointments that have accompanied each.  All the power and possibility of the world wide web has been squandered on porn and scam artists.  In the same way, the hopes and dreams of social media have been dashed on the rocks of bigotry, hate, bullying, and predatory behaviors that now make us want to protect our children from it all and somehow figure out how we can survey it all without being hurt.  Yes.  There was a time when we thought it would help our isolation and call us out of our depression or ease the ever present fears.  So much for that.  Instead we have seen all of these increase with every advance of the platforms designed to relieve the problems.

In the Church what began as a curiosity has probably developed into a bad habit.  We use AI to invent reviews to make us look better than we are, to create sermons and Bible studies when we were pressed for time, and to figure out what the nones and unchurched are looking for in a congregation.  Is AI helping or hurting the Church and her mission?  These are the questions we ought to be asking of ourselves and of the way we have been so quick to think that technology has answers to the problems we face as Church.  

There are great questions for the world outside the Church as well.  What about the tremendous demands laid upon our power grid or the data centers being planned for across the nation?  How many windmills does it take to plug in all the drives and fuel the memory modules that AI will require of us?  Sadly, there is probably more interest in this side of things than the morality of it all or the confusion that has left us unable to decide what is created and what is real.  The Church ought to have a voice in this conversation.  What is moral and right and salutary about the use of AI is precisely our realm -- if we can back away from it all enough to think about it.  Under all of the moral challenges is the question of how we use our time and whether AI helps us to do something more noble with our time or squander it before the broken promises of screens.  Until this happens, I fear we will waste more time on AI generated goofiness.   

A lifetime ago, my small town in Nebraska was filled with business and farms and kids and life.  Today the main drag is a ghost town.  There will come a time when you will not be able to buy a gallon of milk in town much less the groceries, clothing, lumber, hardware, produce, meat, paint, tackle, cars, farm implements, and everything else needed for everyday life then and now.  Amazon has replaced the local businesses and the big chains now provide what we need -- albeit 30-50 miles away from where folks live.  Is it better?  Has life improved?  I fear that one day we will awaken and what big box chains and delivery to the door has done to small towns will happen when AI takes control.  I am not trying to be prophetic but to suggest that we ought to be more concerned about this side of things and not just if it works.  

Tears win the day. . .

A little over a year ago, the then first female Bishop of London broke down in tears at the Church of England's General Synod, describing the 'micro-aggressions' and institutional barriers women face in the Church of England.  It is noteworthy, of course, because she is no longer the Bishop of London.  Sarah Mullally is the Archbishop of Canterbury.  She was addressing her contention that two of the six people from each local bishop recruitment committee responsible for choosing the Archbishops of Canterbury and York need to be women.  At that point she said: 'I would love to trust people to do the right thing but the truth is that women continue to be underrepresented.'   And, 'I would love to encourage women, which I do all the time, but there continues to be institutional barriers, we continue to experience microaggressions.'  Mullally had to pause and turn away from the podium twice to recover herself as she was overcome with tears.  She received a standing ovation from mostly women, joined by a few men. 

Tears won that day and, as evidenced by her choice as Archbishop of Canterbury. tears have continued to win.  Her argument did not have to stand up to scrutiny.  Her point did not have to be won on the ground of reason or truth.  It won on emotion alone.  Tears have the power to overcome nearly everything.  I am not at all suggesting that this is a female problem or one exclusive to the Church of England.  Just the opposite.  Tears come from all sides but especially from those who have no argument worth winning the day  It has become a new form of bullying.  We have cyber bullying but we also have the bullying of tears, of pure emotion and sentiment.  Tears, accompanied with a righteous outrage, have become a powerful tool in winning the day over a host of issues.  Anger and tears seem to be the currency of the liberal and progressive wing of things in particular.  When you cannot triumph on the basis of ideas alone, tears and righteous anger have the power to sway the people when your ideas and reason have failed you.

The danger here is that arguments and debates should be realms in which reason and fact have all the power.  Such sentimentality is a particular problem because it does not need truth or fact to win the hearts of the hearers.  Such sentimentality has the power to change not only society but the basis on which anything and everything is decided.  Victimization is adept at using tools that triumph over fact and truth and reason and there is no better victim than a tearful one.  Emotion has become the primary argument and the basis for deciding things that were once determined on the basis of truth and fact -- even when decided wrongly.   Emotion has become the ultimate good and final distinction on which all judgment is based.  Even gender is about how we feel and about our righteous indignation over those who would deny us.  But not all emotions are good.  When did we forget this?  Resentment against the injustices we feel were done to us has become the ultimate motivation in nearly every realm.  

Science refuses the inconvenient facts which contradict the narrative that has been adopted.  The need for justice or, better, revenge clouds nearly every purpose and want.  We seem to respect and reward those who are angry, who express their loud resentment of injustice, and who scatter their words with raw emotion most of all.  Passion is a wonderful thing but it does not redeem arguments without basis in fact or truth.  Indeed, it is the height of the new bullying that is happening on university campuses and even in religions today.  It is certainly this that is helping to unravel the common life of our culture and society and it has already done a very fine job of defining our political views and voting habits.  It has also worked very hard to afflict the Church and to create a way in which some Christians can without hesitation effectively overrule the truth of Scriptures and the consistent doctrine of the faithful from the get go.  Passion is not a bad thing but it cannot be a good thing when it robs truth and reason and fact from having their own stature and authority within the conflicts and disputes of Christianity.  When and where that happens, we have already begun to lose the Scriptures and silence the real voice of God.

Who said it first?

St. Pius X (born June 2, 1835, Riese, Venetia, then of the Austrian Empire now in Italy—died August 20, 1914, Rome, Italy; canonized May 29, 1954; feast day August 21) was the Italian pope who reigned from 1903 to 1914.  Known for his staunch political and religious conservatism, he was ordained in 1858, made bishop in 1884, cardinal and patriarch of Venice in 1893, and pope in 1902.  His eucharistic decrees eased the regulations governing daily communion, and his revival of the Gregorian plainsong and his recasting of the breviary and of the missal were important liturgical reforms. His decision to adapt and systematize canon law led to the publication of the new code in 1917, effective in 1918. His reorganization of the Curia modernized the church’s central administration, including a codification of the conclave.  He advanced the Liturgical Movement by formulating the principle of participatio actuosa (active participation of the faithful) in his motu proprio, Tra le sollecitudini (1903).  In his illuminating document, Tra le Sollecitudini, Pope Pius X writes, “Sacred music, being an integral part of the solemn liturgy, participates in its general scope… but its purpose is to add greater efficacy to the text… music is merely a part of the liturgy and its humble handmaid.” (TLS 23) 

However, coming 350 years before Pius X, there was another voice speaking similarly of music.  Instead of merely accentuating the role of music to the liturgy, this individual insisted that music was a servant of God's Word and theology.  In his profound remark, Martin Luther emphasizes the immense value of music, stating, "Next to the Word of God, the noble art of music is the greatest treasure in the world." This quote encapsulates Luther's profound appreciation for the power and significance of music in society.  Even more profound, however, is Luther's other quote.  "Music is a handmaid of theology."  Luther's Latin preface is in some respects an expanded version of his "Frau Musica" poem, in prose rather than verse. Of the Protestant reformers around his time, it is only Luther unhesitatingly commended the use of music in the life and worship of the church and who articulates something that might be presumed from some in Rome but had not been addressed in such way before.

Do you suppose Pius X read it first in Luther?  Were they both drawing on similar points within the theological and liturgical tradition of the West, each in their own time?  Or could it be that each saw this differently and separately but articulated it in remarkably parallel terms and ways.  In any case, their successor communities of faith seem to have forgotten these words.  For some in Rome, the hymn either does not matter all that much at all and can be disposable song.  The great hymns of Roman tradition and the great hymns of the Christian West overall have been replaced with pop songs and eminently forgettable hymns written not as handmaid to either the liturgy or theology but reflections of the moment which can and probably should be forgotten as time goes on and the song is replaced.  For others in Rome, the congregational hymn has no place at all in the liturgy (Latin Mass folk).  For Lutherans it is not much different.  Those who separate style from substance find cause to introduce pop songs for the moment and musical styles that agitate against their sacred usage because they are not all that important after all and those who insist that only the Lutheran chorale should be used have narrowed their acceptable choice to a very small pool because they are too sacred to be added to in the present day or to borrow from anyone outside the Lutheran tradition.  In either case, both Rome and Wittenberg seem to have forgotten Pius and Luther.  

Looksmaxxing. . .

Do you ever have a day when something comes up in front of your screen and you have never heard of it before but it turns out to be stranger than you could have imagined?  So it was when an article in The Spectator (US edition) came to me with the title The Homoeroticism of Looksmaxxing.  What does that even mean?  Truth is stranger than fiction, as we all know only too well.

Apparently, looksmaxxing has become an online subculture fad that considers itself a form of self-improvement but actually is more like a cult for young, impressionable men still forming their identity and the high chieftain of this cult is a twenty something Tik Tok sensation who has his own oddities and affectation.  Meet Clavicular, real name Braden Peters, who has become the face of “looksmaxxing,” an  internet sensation who seems to have developed it into a religion or at least a belief systems — he teaches boys that their self-worth is about their appearance and that it is visible, measurable, and correctable through altering that physical appearances. Plastic surgery anyone?  So for the novice and those without deep pockets, looksmaxxing might resemble rather conventional self-care: skincare routines, time at the gym with a trainer, grooming helps, and such. But take it further and it enters the dark world of hormone (especially testosterone) injections, unregulated peptides, and pseudosciences such as “bone-smashing,” which is an attempt to shape facial bones by repeatedly striking the face with blunt objects.  I told you truth was stranger than fiction.

Looksmaxxing teaches boys to measure their worth by appearance, to distrust their bodies as they are and to treat them as a canvas for improvement, and to see masculinity as an external self-improvement toward an impossible goal. You want to know what happens when dating, marriage, having children, working to support a family, and providing for those you love at some cost to yourself disappears.  Looksmaxxing.  That is what happens.  In a desperate pursuit of meaning and purpose, our boys are turning inward but only as shallow as appearance.  Are we concerned?  It used to be an unkept boy in sweat pants and a tee shirt living in his parent's basement, stealing their internet, and living for video games but it has become now a crazy pursuit of an aesthetic ideal of appearance without concern for the cost in money or to the body and self-esteem.  Crazy is too small a word for this.  Braden Peters is making something like $100K per month doing content that is not quite erotic but certainly has an erotic sense to it and is cashing in on the move to make yourself the ideal.  But for whom?  Not for wife or children or work or even play.  Not for the greater community but only really for self and those who fawn over your self.  Wow.  That is just plain crazy.

For a generation of men increasingly either disinterest in or disillusioned with dating, status, career, and social mobility, why are we surprised that they are seeking comfort and solace in the mirror?  Can we offer them something more than a Christianized version of their vice?  I hope so.  This is exactly why raising up boys to be men is a cause within the Church but also for the sake of the world.  Think about it.  What can we do to rescue our boys from their worst selves (which was once drugs and alcohol)?  What can we challenge them to become?  

I wanted it to be true. . .

I will admit a love for books and stories and, when it happens, for movies that demonstrate the same almost mystic invitation into another world and another set of lives.  It is most engaging to read a book of fiction and at the end to regret the final words and period that bring it to a conclusion.  It is most encouraging to the author who has the ability to weave a story in words that we want to be true even if it is not.  Such is the power of imagination.  It leads us beyond ourselves and builds for us a new world in which we can be observers if not participants and it leaves us with a better sense of our selves because we got to know the characters borne of an author's creative skill.  

In the past I have enjoyed the great works of the mighty authors as well as the spy craft of Tom Clancy and the mystery of Agatha Christie along with the imagined world of a Dune planet.  Along with these I have loved the works of Shakespeare, the poetry of Auden, and the complexity of Dostoevsky.  But I can also say I have loved the romance and intricate portrayals of people and places in the Merchant and Ivory films and the great histories re-imagined in such movies as Operation Mincemeat.  We have so enjoyed the small releases such as The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Society along with period pieces such as Cranford.  It is such a wonder to enter into a place and a plot with people you have never met until they become friends you cherish and fierce enemies you must battle.  Such is just a small part of my love for books, for words printed on a page.

While it is certainly not literature in the same sense as these works, Scripture is writing with a compelling story, great characters, and a plot whose resolution awaits an unnamed day when the Savior shall open the clouds and return in His glory.  There is something to be said about an appreciation of this.  No, it does not mean that you treat the Scriptures as any other book or that you discount its story as something less than real history but it does mean that the words are more than merely a set of facts recounted or doctrines unfolding for information.  The Bible is meant to engage the imagination.  There is something wrong with our reading if we do not build in our minds the face of a Moses or a Peter the way we would imagine how a character in fiction looks.  Movies can aid in this or they can disappoint us when they give faces to the people we have learned to know well that do not at all look like the images of our minds.  Perhaps that is why so many Biblical movies seem to fall short -- they make small what the Bible makes grand and so they disappoint us with something that is less than what the words on the page actually say.

In the old TV world of Dragnet, Sergeant Friday is said to have opined, "Just the facts, ma'am.  Just the facts."  I am told he never actually said it or did not say it in those words anyway.  Could it be that we are disappointed by Scripture because we want to distill the book down to quotes or because the stereotype lingers longer in our imagination than its reality?  Could it be that we have rendered the riches of the stories of the Bible into rather wooden accounts that not only lack in faithfulness to the Bible but make the authors and the Word whose words they are into something shallow and one dimensional?  One of the things I have loved doing over the years is to use the stories of the Bible in catechesis -- telling the stories of Scripture and letting the details and the whole landscape of the prose unfold to both engage and inform.  You cannot read the account of the Creation and Fall without being drawn into the story -- unless you are also dull and of single dimension.  You cannot read the stories of Abraham and Sarah or David and his kingly history and family and fail to be drawn into their stories as spectator and even participant.  Or, if you can, you have succeeded in turning God's divine drama into something pedestrian and bland.  If that is the case, it is a shame indeed.

Children's Bibles can sometimes rob the urgent and intricate stories of the Bible of their wit and elegance by presenting them not simply briefly but in the most spartan of prose.  Details matter. The details of the Bible stories matter.  Preaching involves unpacking these stories in such a way that it does not devolve into mere truths postulated so that someone gives ascent to these proof-texted propositions drawn out of context and out of sequence. What a shame when that happens.  A long time ago I got a Bible without verses or chapters and set in single column paragraph form.  It remains my favorite way to read God's Word.  It may not work for study but for the pure enjoyment of reading God's Word it cannot be matched.  This format allows my imagination to work, creating faces to the characters and building scenery for the words of the Lord that are His works as well.  I highly encourage it.  The Bible I use is also a King James version, with an elegance of prose and poetry that too often seems lacking in modern versions that seek to explain God as well as give testimony to His voice.  This has nothing to do with the downplaying of the truth of God's Word and everything to do with the engagement of the mind to assist that Word to make its home in our imagination as well as our hearts.