After what little has been said, why then the above title:
“AI and the Church “?
Until it is settled to us that the only intelligence is that which is in spirit, gleaned of spirit, shown true in spirit, whatever we may “come back with”, if in any doubt otherwise, is both useless to us and counter to growth in Christ. The hard place of knowing (if one is persuaded such a thing as knowing is) never yields to speculation nor supposition. “It” may purify, but truth is not in supposition to anything.
But God forbid any intimation that such does not serve purpose or be unapproved be said. God would have us think about things (meditate) especially of those things we approve as of God. And if we have any persuasion of having found anything in the scriptures that bears our inner testimony of verity (God surely knows!) then let us, by the grace of God, hold fast to whatever kernel brings forth fruit. Surely this bit of exchange between Jesus and certain hearers would not be exempt:
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
(Several other translations precede “search” with “Ye do” or (implied) “You pore over the scriptures…”)
This is rather startling to consider, and I am open to any rebuff in any use of being startled.
We could here suppose many things. Is Jesus not exposing the very thinking of some? Beyond any other matter being said (which do speak of profound matters) are we convinced Jesus knows…what men think…in their doings? Is it presumptuous of Him to claim such knowing, or is such truth of men so plain to Him as to be irrefutable? Does Jesus…know? And even know…what knowing is?
Do not think we ourselves escape this question. Does Jesus know all about men’s thinking as motive for their doings? Am I exempt? Does Jesus know every why of “why I do what I do“? (And how many of the scriptures do testify of Jesus knowing all the thoughts and intents of heart!) Even all inner conversations with our soul.
Does one see? We could easily proceed into several (if not many) matters found in those few words, but already something that might be easily overlooked, or casually confessed (Yes! Of course Jesus knows everything about man!) may have deeper implications for us than just (let’s say) “Jesus is warning against seeking after a thing by means that may not be a fullness, or may even cause one to be blind to the substance of the thing itself….after which one is said to be seeking“.
Stupidly I offer the man who, looking for the forest, says: “I can’t see it with all these trees around blocking my view…but yes…I am looking wholeheartedly for the forest!”
It is more than just not knowing what a forest is (in ignorance), but that standing in one one finds the very things that constitute it…as a hindrance to finding it. Is Jesus really a stumbling block? Even purposed so? Only the man who falls needs help getting up.
But Jesus says “They are that which testify of me…”
And for us, which must come first? Who does come before…the they…the things…that testify? And if what we assume (as we may) of the that that testifies does not lead to a singularity, a proper seeing through which all must and is to be seen…what have we gained? Maybe at best…only a supposing? Speculations? Some bible knowledge…of recollection or only memory? Could we have it…backwards…even often?
And God knows what my confession must be to be found not lying.
These things will either withstand accusation of seeking to add complexity to the simple, (as in some contradiction of the bumper sticker “God said it, I believe it, and that settles it” variety) or some way of putting understanding into either more select hands or minds (which I would confess as contrary to any intent) or placing all matters as always too deep to truly understand…and therefore a throwing up of hands should ensue. God forbid!
But, and because, even if confession is so of intents here, only God knows the heart to its depths. All things are subject to review, correction, revision, and rebuke. Straining at gnats but swallowing camels is always a right warning to any.
Either we accept all as necessarily understood, and our necessity to understand as only through Christ, or we do not. Jesus was not adding to the law, changing the meaning of the law, nor in any way even slightly altering the law when He says:
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
For again, if we take Paul at his word (and words as inspired) the law is spiritual, and therefore only the spiritual man can even begin to understand it. It makes no matter as to how much any might proclaim “But it is there in black and white, plain worded as can be…” (or written in stone)…for what is spiritual is spiritual dependent for any sight or understanding. The weakness of flesh, through which the spiritual matter of law is made weak, is also undeniable. There is no fault in the law, it is perfect to its end. It simply cannot bring about any perfection or perfecting of what abides in flesh. For that the life giving spirit of a man becomes all and sole necessity.
“That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit”
It could take, in truth would take and does take only the Lord’s work in His activity (there could never be enuff books) to show and/or separate by explanation the flesh’s influence upon the soul which is the amplifying organ of man. Our soul is to “magnify the Lord”, have His magnificence as pouring through it in some understanding.
But if the soul is not won, or not yet won to only Christ as life (again and only by the Lord’s work(s) of patience) we easily mistake the soulish matters as fed of spirit. Our carnal dispositions, preferences, biases may present themselves as spiritual in nature, but are only an out working of juvenile estate, presenting such matters as true and eternal. Paul saw what was beginning to happen at Corinth when believers were separating over whom they preferred as spiritual teacher. Is it wrong to have preferences? God forbid! For God knows we do and have. But to then imagine anything of them promotes health to the body by either their proclamation and further worse, by an attachment of our identity to them, is folly. And I am persuaded Paul was no more impressed, nor pleased with the man who says “I am of Christ” in that situation, for the Lord alone will make clear, as it is His alone to make clear…what is of Him, or not. The Lord confirms, not man.
For not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth.
One will cry out “But how then can any know?” A man can say anything! How will any know what is true or not?
Yes…that may be a question that always bears return, even if we do not yet see its primacy in all. It is not enough to say, or even know that AI has long been an issue brothers have dealt with from the beginning. No, it is far more than that, just being able to even see or say that, as all this short writing may only be a presumption to address.
You are born of spirit to know.
Paul did:
“I know whom I have believed and am persuaded…”
israelx7wordpresscom 