AI Promises a Kind of Ministry We Shouldn't Want

Optimization and efficiency are not the goals of ministry.

What follows in this newsletter are a handful of somewhat random, haphazardly-collected thoughts on artificial intelligence and its role in Christian ministry. The only other time I have written at all about AI in the last year or so is when I wrote an article called “A Few Thoughts on AI and Christian Creative Work.” I’ve been cobbling this piece together over the course of a couple of weeks, so if it at all feels a bit disjointed, that may be why.

Let me first provide a few disclaimers/caveats before we get going here.

I want to say briefly before you proceed to read a piece that is almost entirely critical of AI in ministry that I think there are probably some “acceptable uses” of AI in ministry contexts—perhaps for performing rote office administration tasks, etc.—but I have struggled to feel comfortable with any uses of AI for tasks that are unique to ministry contexts (like counseling, sermon preparation and preaching, etc.). In short, using AI tools in aspects of “spiritual formation” feels out-of-bounds to me.

Likewise, while I struggle to think of ministry-specific tasks that should be handed off to AI right now, I reserve the right to change my mind in the future, which should be obvious but sometimes isn’t. When people like me write and talk publicly about topics like this one, social media, etc. there is a tendency to typecast people as “totally pro-______” or “totally anti-______” and assume they can never nuance or change their perspectives. I want to have an open mind about these things, to be sure—and it’s likely I may disagree with some of what I write here in the future!—but I am growing more concerned about some of what I’m seeing and I think I need to write about it now. So I am.

And I also want to say that nothing here is meant to be taken as “judgmental” or critical of any specific person’s character who is using AI in ministry. A lot of times people can start to take it personally when these matters are discussed. I’m not trying to take shots at anyone so much as share a bunch of thoughts I’ve been collecting as I’ve been stewing on AI in ministry for the last few months. I am definitely critical in the writing that follows, but this isn’t directed at any person I have in mind or anyone’s character, so much as flagging concerns I see in a general movement I’ve observed broadly.

Please mind the dust of the various thoughts and ramblings I’ve collected here. I probably could have broken this out into a handful of articles, but that may be more annoying than having one long one. So here we are.

Let’s begin.

---

AI Promises Optimized Efficiency for Work That Should Be Slow

In the last few months or so, I have seen a lot more conversation about AI in ministry, and it often looks something like this:

“Pro-AI Peter”: I just think that if a ministry hopes to grow and reach as many people as possible, it has to embrace these new tools and technologies in order to do so. Or it will fall behind.

“Skeptical Steve”: Fall behind what?

Peter: Like, fall behind other ministries. It won’t accomplish its goals and other ministries will succeed at a higher rate. I just don’t know that we could keep up if we don’t use AI in creating content for our ministry.

Steve: But is the purpose of Christian ministry to “keep up” with other ministries or do Great Commission work? Why is a ministry that does far more work but lacks human touch “better” even if its numbers look more impressive on their annual reports? And if the goals a ministry sets can’t be accomplished without AI, is it possible the goals were set in error?

Peter: I just don’t want Christians to miss out on this latest technological advancement.

Steve: But what problem is AI solving in ministry? What need is the tool filling?

Peter: I’m not sure, but that can be figured out later. We just need to not be left behind right now.

I could share more sample conversations I’ve seen, but a general summary of much of the discourse I’m hearing from pro-AI-in-ministry folks sounds something like this:

“Great Commission ministry requires us to use things like AI for maximum reach and ministry effectiveness.”

Yes, and perhaps Jesus should have thrown himself off the temple so that many would have believed. I mean, just think of all the people who would have come to faith in Christ if he would have just thrown himself off the temple! It would have been so much more efficient that way.

If such an idea wasn’t so obviously satanic, some may be looking for a way to use this concept to make their case to use AI in ministry.

A friend of mine has quipped, “And perhaps Mary should have sold the perfume, too.” Indeed, maybe Judas was right! Think of how much more ministry could have been done if they would have sold the perfume. Would that not have been the play if they wanted peak ministry efficiency and optimization?

Obviously I’m being a bit cheeky here, but at the heart of these silly jabs is a real concern that Christian ministries look at AI tools in spiritual formation as a means of achieving some marker of “ministry effectiveness” that looks a whole lot more capitalist than it does biblical.

In a recent article at Christianity Today entitled “The Shepherd’s Way Is Slower,” pastor Kyle Worley reflects on this idea bit:

Our work is shaped by the tools we adopt. All work would benefit from more patient attention and unrushed presence, but it is essential when you work with people.. And pastoring ‘is’ working with people. Like good farmers, faithful pastors belong to the places they labor. When the apostle Peter exhorts the shepherds in 1 Peter 5, he tells them, “Shepherd the flock of God that is among you.” Pastors are placed people, serving real people in a real place.

….

Pastoring is slow work, but for young pastors like me, it has accelerated. And everyone loses when the pace of pastoral ministry quickens. Part of this is cultural, but we’ve also eagerly adopted tools of speed, telling ourselves, “We will redeem them.” In truth, they’re better at discipling us than we are at deploying them in faithful ways.

….

Like David rejecting King Saul’s armor in 1 Samuel 17, when we stand against the tools and spirit of the age, we will appear foolish. Are we willing to be forgotten shepherds who believe rocks from the brook might be more effective when slung with faith than the advanced armor of a king?

Pastors are shepherds. To do our work in the way of our Lord, we’d do well to remember he is a truer shepherd—a Chief Shepherd—who knows us all by name, who withdrew to quiet places, welcomed interruption, embraced obscurity, and spent the bulk of his ministry walking everywhere with people by his side.

Indeed.

The pastors at my church are fond of saying that Jesus did ministry at three miles-per-hour—a walking pace. Why should we be concerned with being any more efficient than that? This is a worthy consideration, even to check the heart of someone like me, who loves to use the internet to assist in broader ministry efforts. We will get back to this subject toward the end of this newsletter.

---

Surveillance Capitalism Comes to Church

A couple of weeks ago I read a great piece by Bonnie Kristian in which she shares some of her skepticism around AI in ministry settings, a skepticism that doesn’t seem to have been eliminated by the interview she had with Brad Hill, an executive at the Christian tech firm Gloo.

What does Gloo do? Great question! It can be kind of hard to tell, honestly. But to summarize, they provide a wide array of tools for Christian organizations many of which revolve around “values-aligned AI.” Some of those tools include chatbots for church or ministry websites and “Gloo Licensing” which appears to provide Christian content creators (like publishers and maybe pastors?) the opportunity to monetize their content if they provide it to Gloo’s large-language model to use for their services.

Gloo has been promoted by a number of well-respected Christian leaders over the years, is funded by venture capital, and boasts the leadership of former Intel chief Pat Gelsinger. They have spent untold advertising dollars on everything from paid puff pieces in Christianity Today to plunking down major dollars on being the platinum sponsor at this year’s National Religious Broadcasters convention in Dallas.

I’m not going to do a blow-by-blow commentary of the whole interview that Bonnie does with the Gloo executive, but I do want to highlight a few thoughts that came to mind as I read the interview.

First, Bonnie effectively asks Brad Hill of Gloo, “What ministry need is Gloo filling?” Below is Bonnie’s question in bold and Brad’s answer following it:

It’s funny you mention a market gap, because that’s my next question. You think about the classic inventor—say, Eli Whitney and the cotton gin. We can see the market gap there: We don’t want to process this cotton by hand anymore. Here, yes, there’s a market gap in the sense you’re describing: These other LLMs have different values, and maybe their makers present these tools as ethically neutral when really they’re not. So for Gloo, the market gap is for an LLM with biblically informed values.

But I want to ask about a market gap in a different sense, which is: What is the lack in the church that this tool is filling? What is it that 2,000 years of Christianity didn’t have that this AI is going to provide?

You mean what is AI itself filling as a gap?

Yeah, what is the gap in the church?

Well, the premise of your question is that we have this timeless gospel message that is complete and sufficient, and we start there. However, what’s also true is that in the world around us, culture constantly moves.

Even in biblical times, we saw examples of technology. Jesus used the Roman roads. Later on, we had the printing press. When the printing press was first invented, there were plenty of religious leaders decrying that as unnecessary or even evil. So all throughout history, we have examples where initially people of faith are skeptical of a new technology. What happens every time, though, is that culture responds to that new technology and there are new standards or practices that emerge. As Christians, we’re then faced with the question of how we apply this timeless gospel to what’s changed.

You’ll notice: he didn’t answer the question.

Here’s my summary of the exchange:

Bonnie: “What gap or problem within the church is solved by AI, specifically Gloo AI?”

Brad: “Well you see churches have had to adapt to technologies forever.”

So Bonnie asks the question again, giving Brad another shot, in a more pointed and specific way:

Think of the average congregation: maybe 150 people, a pastor, maybe a youth pastor or secretary. They worship together every Sunday. When you look at that church, what part of that do you see and say, “We need to put AI in there?” Is it the service? Is it the pastoral care? It doesn’t sound like it’s just the scheduling.

Yeah, well, I mean, it doesn’t matter what size church you are. You could be giant, or you could be a hundred people. Like you said, the people in your church are experiencing the most dramatic shift we’ve ever seen in humanity. I mean, AI is affecting them as parents. It’s affecting them in relationships and as workers in jobs. So when our surveys have come back, what we hear is people in churches are interested in their pastors and their leaders helping them navigate this new post-AI world. That’s one thing.

And yes, there are tools that can help with the operational side of church too. It can help us with content repurposing. It can help us with language translation and other administrative tasks.

But we also think, as we get deeper into this, that there’s a profound and lasting impact on every life and every church from AI, and the church has an opportunity now to think about how we understand what’s going on and how we equip our people to navigate whatever questions or whatever challenges are coming at them outside the church. The church can be a place where we can come to learn how to navigate a post-AI world.

I’m still not exactly sure from this interview how Gloo thinks a typical American church is going to benefit from the wonders of AI—perhaps to balance the books or schedule volunteers?—but it seems like they’re intent on the fact that churches better figure it out or rue the day they ignored it!

I’ve heard of Gloo likened to “the Google suite of tools, but for Christians.”

But I have a feeling they’re more like Palantir—the data collection company that seeks to help major corporations and governments make decisions based on the vast troves of data it collects from various sources around the world.

What I mean to say is: I don’t think Gloo’s best business is its AI chatbots—I think it’s the data its AI chatbots could collect. The value of the tools it sells to ministry customers likely pales in comparison to the value of the data that those tools will collect.¹

So, Gloo feels a bit like Palantir, but you may wonder, “What does Palantir actually do?” Here’s an idea of their software offerings:

This software—Gotham, Foundry, and now its Artificial Intelligence Platform (AIP)—is designed to swallow everything: hospital records, welfare files, license plate scans, school roll calls, immigration logs and even your tweets. It stitches these fragments into something eerily complete—a unified view of you. With each data point, the image sharpens.

If Facebook turned people into products, Palantir turns them into probabilities. You’re not a user. You’re a variable—run through predictive models, flagged for anomalies, and judged in silence.

This is not just surveillance. It’s prediction. And that distinction matters: Surveillance watches. Prediction acts. It assigns probabilities. It flags anomalies. It escalates risk. And it trains bureaucrats and law enforcement to treat those algorithmic suspicions as fact. In short: the software decides, and people follow.

It seems to me that by offering virtual tools and AI chatbots to Christian ministries globally, Gloo could knit together a virtual picture of what is in the hearts, minds, and souls of Christians around the world. Not unlike Palantir. Imagine how valuable that could be.

I’ll write more about this later in this piece, but a lot of Christians are eager to buy into AI tools primarily out of a fear of missing the “next big thing”—not because they have any real problem that AI can solve. Gloo can tap this fear to offer churches and parachurch ministries AI and workspace tools to solve problems they don’t know they won’t have.

And in return, in addition to payment for those tools, these Christian organizations provide troves of data to Gloo about what questions parishioners have, what sermons pastors are preaching, and more, providing a prospective all-seeing eye into the heart and mind of the global church.

Sounds lucrative to me! What happens if, say, the company were to go public and have stockholders to whom they owe a fiduciary responsibility for increasing revenues? Monetizing the data of Christians around the world would be an important part of serving those who have purchased shares in the company.

Could the evangelical industrial complex be complemented by a publicly-traded technological adhesive that predicts the next best-selling book or hit worship song based on millions of data points depicting the felt-needs and spiritual concerns of Christians around the world?

In her book The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, Shoshana Zuboff writes:

Industrial capitalism depended upon the exploitation and control of nature, with catastrophic consequences that we only now recognize. Surveillance capitalism…depends instead upon the exploitation and control of human nature.

Gloo promotes itself as a values-driven, ethical technology company that wants to provide AI tools for Christians to do more effective ministry. I just also think that below the surface is a much more lucrative enterprise that relies on the profiting from the definitely-not-personal data it harvests from its users.

Gloo may attempt to baptize surveillance capitalism with Christian values and verbiage, but it can’t redeem it.

I am sure the people at Gloo love Jesus and want to help their customers. My intent is not to paint them as mastermind villains; I have nothing to say about their character. My hope is simply that Christians don’t let the massively-profitable surveillance capitalism of Silicon Valley invade Christian ministry hidden within the Trojan horse of the AI craze, and my concern is that Gloo is wheeling the horse into town.

With an ever-growing wealth of data depicting the wants, needs, hurts, and interests of global Christians, one wonders what kinds of ways Gloo could monetize its all-seeing eye.

Perhaps it will become a substance that binds surveillance capitalism together with the thought-lives of Christians around the world—a sort of glue, if you will.

---

AI Is Not Like the Internet or Printing Press or Roman Roads

One of the most common cases that proponents of using AI in ministry make is that this is yet another technological advancement that the Church must embrace—you know, like the internet or the printing press or Roman roads, and so on. If you’ve engaged anyone on the matter of AI in ministry you have likely heard a case like this be made.

Let’s briefly revisit what Brad Hill, of Gloo AI says in his conversation with Bonnie Kristian in the Christianity Today interview I cite in the above section. When she asks what the “gap” is that AI is purposed to fill in ministry, Hill responds like this (bolding mine for emphasis):

Well, the premise of your question is that we have this timeless gospel message that is complete and sufficient, and we start there. However, what’s also true is that in the world around us, culture constantly moves.

Even in biblical times, we saw examples of technology. Jesus used the Roman roads. Later on, we had the printing press. When the printing press was first invented, there were plenty of religious leaders decrying that as unnecessary or even evil. So all throughout history, we have examples where initially people of faith are skeptical of a new technology. What happens every time, though, is that culture responds to that new technology and there are new standards or practices that emerge. As Christians, we’re then faced with the question of how we apply this timeless gospel to what’s changed.

What is always so interesting to me about this line of reasoning is that while we usually have AI proponents making wildly extravagant claims about how “AI is unlike anything we’ve ever experienced before” and “AI is going to change the world like no technology ever has,” this other line reasoning sort of requires AI proponents to say, “See this is just like any other technological innovation that has come before, like the printing press or Roman roads. The church will be better off if it embraces this technology just like it embraced those.”

So which is it? I’m not sure both of these claims can be true.

Is AI unlike any technology to have come before or is it just like the advent of the Roman roads and the printing press and the internet? I want to take AI proponents at their word and embrace the idea that AI is truly unlike any of these technologies that they often list as comparable.

Why should Christians reject generative AI and its uses in ministry and not embrace it like the church embraced the printing press or the internet or Roman roads? Shouldn’t Christians just embrace AI as they embraced those technologies?

No. They shouldn’t. The reason (or at least one of the reasons) why is because AI, specifically the kind of AI that is most captivating at this moment—generative AI—is fundamentally different from the internet and the printing press and Roman roads in at least one key way:

Generative AI is a content creation tool whereas the internet, printing press, and Roman roads are best understood as content distribution tools. This difference is important.

The listed technologies of yore were rightly embraced as a means of distributing the spirit-filled, creative, gospel work of humans gifted by the Holy Spirit. Conversely, generative AI cuts out the spirit-filled, creative, gospel work of humans gifted by the Holy Spirit. It is a sort of facsimile, a sort of plastic fruit—very shiny, too perfect, and not good for consumption.

Of course there are plenty of ways that Roman roads, the printing press, and perhaps most of all the internet can be used to taint and otherwise modify the spirit-filled, creative, gospel work of humans gifted by the Holy Spirit.² But none of those technologies short circuit humanity in the same way that generative AI does—this is what AI proponents would say makes AI “unlike anything we’ve ever seen before,” they just wouldn’t put it so bluntly, usually.

The internet, and the social internet in particular, comes as close as any of those technologies to the disfigurement we see with generative AI, which is why we should engage with the social internet with serious caution and concern. I have obviously dedicated a significant amount of time and energy and words to this cause.

Many in ministry would say that perhaps Christians and ministries got a little too cozy with the internet and the social internet without considering the negative effects on people and Great Commission work.³ My question is with regard to generative AI: will we learn from our mistakes with the internet or will we repeat them because we fear “missing out” or “getting behind” on generative AI?

All of this is to say: I think we need to stop with calling AI “just like the internet or the printing press or Roman roads” because, clearly, it has the ability to mimic humanity via content generation in ways that even the basic internet cannot. It is wholly different, and we should treat it as such.

---

Christians and AI Slop

I recently came across an article called “Why Do Christians Love AI Slop?” Here’s some of what it says:

“Every story. Every miracle. Every word,” the text flashes dramatically on screen before cutting to silence and the image of Jesus on the cross. With 1.7 million views, this video, titled “What if The Bible had a movie trailer…?” is the most popular on The AI Bible YouTube channel, which has more than 270,000 subscribers, and it perfectly encapsulates what the channel offers. Short, AI-generated videos that look very much like the kind of AI slop we have covered at 404 Media before. Another YouTube channel of AI-generated Bible content, Deep Bible Stories, has 435,000 subscribers, and is the 73rd most popular podcast on the platform according to YouTube’s own ranking. This past week there was also a viral trend of people using Google’s new AI video generator, Veo 3, to create influencer-style social media videos of biblical stories. Jesus-themed content was also some of the earliest and most viral AI-generated media we’ve seen on Facebook, starting with AI-generated images of Jesus appearing on the beach and escalating to increasingly ridiculous images, like shrimp Jesus.

But unlike AI slop on Facebook that we revealed is made mostly in India and Vietnam for a Western audience by pragmatically hacking Facebook’s algorithms in order to make a living, The AI Bible videos are made by Christians, for Christians, and judging by the YouTube comments, they unanimously love them.

“This video truly reminded me that prayer is powerful even in silence. Thank you for encouraging us to lean into God’s strength,” one commenter wrote. “May every person who watches this receive quiet healing, and may peace visit their heart in unexpected ways.”

“Thank you for sharing God’s Word so beautifully,” another commenter wrote. “Your channel is a beacon of light in a world that needs it.”

I first learned about the videos and how well they were received by a Christian audience from self-described “AI filmmaker” PJ Accetturo, who noted on X that there’s a “massive gap in the market: AI Bible story films. Demand is huge. Supply is almost zero. Audiences aren’t picky about fidelity—they just want more.” Accetturo also said he’s working on his own AI-generated Bible video for a different publisher about the story of Jonah.

Unlike most of the AI slop we’ve reported on so far, the AI Bible channel is the product of a well-established company in Christian media, Pray.com, which claims to make “the world's #1 app for faith and prayer.”

Also this:

Corrina Laughlin, an assistant professor at Loyola Marymount University and the author of Redeem All: How Digital Life Is Changing Evangelical Culture, a book about the intersection of American evangelicalism and tech innovation, told me she was not surprised.

“It's not surprising to me to see Christians producing tons of content using AI because the idea is that God gave them this technology—that’s something I heard over and over again [from Christians]—and they have to use it for him and for his glory,” she said.

I don’t have much to say about this other than it feels kinda gross to me that the way many think the way AI is to be “used for God’s glory” is by producing a bunch of weird AI-generated video content depicting Bible stories in ways that may or may not be accurate. It feels like something for people who love programs like The Chosen so much that they’re willing to put up with bad-video-game-cutscene depictions of the Nephilim while they wait for the next season.

As the creator of these videos says, “Audiences aren’t picky about fidelity—they just want more.” More, more, more. Consume, consume, consume. AI-generated Bible videos help us stuff ourselves with even more content without a care about its quality or accuracy, but it seems okay because at least its the Bible.

Let’s take a closer look at something else Laughlin says in that piece.

---

Driven by Fear Instead of Faith

Later on in the Christians and AI slop piece, the author writes (bolding mine):

Laughlin said that the Christian early adoption of new technologies and media goes back 100 years. Christian media flourished on the radio, then turned to televangelism, and similarly made the transition to online media, with an entire world of religious influencers, sites, and apps.

“The fear among Christians is that if they don't immediately jump onto a technology they're going to be left behind, and they're going to start losing people,” Laughlin said. The thinking is that if Christians are “not high tech in a high tech country where that's what's really grabbing people's attention, then they lose the war for attention to the other side, and losing the war for attention to the other side has really drastic spiritual consequences if you think of it in that frame,” she said.

Laughlin said that, especially among evangelical Christians, there’s a willingness to adopt new technologies that veers into boosterism. She said she saw Christians similarly try to jump on the metaverse hype train back when Silicon Valley insisted that virtual reality was the future, with many Christians asking how they’re going to build a Metaverse church because that’s where they thought people were going to be.

I think this a huge point that Laughlin makes, and we’ve already sort of explored it in a section above.

Historically, there is some thought that Christians have often found themselves to be a bit late to new technological developments. Most recently, many Christian ministries and organizations were “far too late” to the internet generally and social media specifically.⁴

For whatever reason, Christian organizations were slower to adopt internet technologies than others. Since then, many influential Christian leaders have seemed bound-and-determined to not be late to “the next big thing.” As Laughlin cites, a comical number of Christians bought into the metaverse when it was a thing for ten seconds. And now there is an even greater push for Christians to adopt AI lest we “fall behind,” which, as I wrote above, is a misguided concern with regard to AI.

It is equally foolish for Christians to bury their heads in the sand when it comes to AI as it is to embrace it like it is a “neutral tool” that can be used in any part of ministry work and spiritual formation.

God may somehow use AI in his plan to fulfill the Great Commission, but let’s not mistake him for needing it.

We can’t be driven to scramble around and find ways to implement AI in our ministry work because of some kind of fear of missing out. Such a posture will lead to foolish and frantic implementation of AI such that we trade spirit-filled human ministry for efficient and optimized ministry.

---

The Magician’s Bargain and the Abolition of Man

I’ve not read enough of C. S. Lewis in my life, and this spring I’ve been on a bit of a quest to remedy that. I read Mere Christianity, The Screwtape Letters, parts of Narnia, and at least the first of the Space Trilogy books in college. But I realized this year that I hadn’t read much more of Lewis’s work beyond that. Much of my reading this spring has been spent in books like Letters to Malcolm, A Grief Observed, and others.

A few weeks ago I finished The Abolition of Man, and it was clear that Lewis had much to say about AI without even realizing it—a bit of “inspired”-but-not-in-the-biblical-way sensus plenior, if you will.

Here are a few relevant quotes from Lewis in Abolition presented in reverse order from what they appear in the book, but I think in a way that may make more sense for our context here:

It might be going too far to say that the modern scientific movement was tainted from its birth: but I think it would be true to say that it was born in an unhealthy neighbourhood at and at an inauspicious hour. Its triumphs may have been too rapid and purchased at too high a price: reconsideration, and something like repentance, may be required.

.…

I have described a 'magician's bargain' that process whereby man surrenders object after object, and finally himself, to Nature in return for power. And I meant what I said.

.…

But once our souls, that is, our selves, have been given up, the power thus conferred will not belong to us. We shall in fact be the slaves and puppets of that which we have given our souls.

.…

Man's final conquest has proved to be the abolition of man.

This is the heart of the matter for me. I’ve said some version of it throughout this article, but the primary concern I have with ministries pursuing AI is that we trade spirit-filled humanity for optimization and efficiency.⁵ Such that, as Lewis would put it, we surrender ourselves in return for power—or in more modern, palatable terms, “efficiency” and “optimization.” Then, once we’ve done that, we’re puppets of that to which we have given our souls.

How long do we use AI to augment our work before we become the augment?

Sure, perhaps this isn’t a problem for someone in bookkeeping or software development, but it would be tragic for a pastor or counselor to yield the work of spiritual formation and ministry to something that was once “just a tool.”

Artificial intelligence and generative AI are not all bad. I’m not here to say that we should avoid them entirely. I just think that when these tools are presented for use in a ministry context and in the realm of spiritual formation they promise a kind of ministry we shouldn’t want—one that too easily trades slow, spirit-filled humanity for efficiency and optimization, as if we’re in some kind of race to do Great Commission work and we run the risk of losing. I don’t think that’s how ministry works.

Thank you for reading. Feel free to disagree or discuss in the comments below. I’m grateful for you.

1. The company is very careful to say it does not sell “personal information” without user consent—or at least it hasn’t “in the last 12 months”—but its policies explain that it uses the data it collects for its business purposes.

2. This gets to the heart of so much of what McLuhan and Postman wrote about decades ago.

3. I share this concern even while thinking that ministries should use the internet for their work!

4. By “far too late” I mean that they simply didn’t see the need to join the biggest global content distribution apparatus in the history of the world and, thus, they felt like they were playing catch-up as a result. I understand this because I’ve been a part of a couple of ministries who have felt this pinch.

5. My friend Trevin wrote a bit about losing humanity in our embrace of AI at TGC this week.