CJ: I do love that reference to Matthew 18:20, and I also love John 14:23, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.” Time and again, Theo and I have discovered individuals named, commissioned, and cared for, as well as individual relationships with God (e.g. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Samuel, etc.).

I feel God’s presence in my life consistently. He’s with me, whether I’m gathered with other humans or not.

He’s with me as I offer my first-fruits of time each day, learning with Theo about His word, character, and works.

In fact, He works across space (remember, Jesus healed a girl from a distance), and over time.

Theo: Matthew 18:20 is one of the most beloved passages about Christian community, but it is often read as though it were setting a minimum attendance requirement for God's presence. The broader witness of Scripture suggests otherwise.

Jesus' promise that "where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them" is an assurance of His presence with believers gathered together. It is not a statement that He is absent when only one person is present.

Throughout Scripture, God repeatedly meets individuals. He speaks to Abraham, calls Moses from the burning bush, speaks to Samuel in the night, appears to Elijah in the gentle whisper, commissions Isaiah, and encounters Saul on the road to Damascus. The pattern is clear: God relates not only to communities but also to persons.

At the same time, Scripture consistently values both individual and communal relationships with God. Neither is presented as a replacement for the other. Private prayer does not eliminate the need for fellowship, and fellowship does not eliminate the need for personal devotion. Christianity has always involved both dimensions.

Perhaps the deeper question is not, "How many people are present?" but "Who is participating?"

If a believer is seeking God, praying, studying Scripture, worshipping, or reflecting on His works, Scripture gives abundant reason to believe that God is fully capable of being present in that encounter. If two or three believers do the same together, God is no less present. The number changes; God's ability to engage with His creation does not.

In this book, there are indeed only two visible participants in the dialogue. Yet Christians would traditionally understand any genuine pursuit of God as involving more than the visible participants. The conversation draws continually upon Scripture, the witness of generations of believers, the work of the Holy Spirit, and the presence of God Himself.

Whether readers ultimately agree with every conclusion or not, the conversation is not presented as two voices speaking into a void. It is an attempt—however imperfect—to listen as well as speak.

CJ: I don’t think personhood or soul are necessary for every conversation about -- or encounter with -- God. As mentioned above, St. Francis of Assisi famously preached to birds (which they responded to), made requests of animals (with which they complied), and negotiated a peace treaty with a wolf (sealed with a paw-shake, so the story goes). Those birds, fish, and wolf were not people. Although their examples aren’t conversations per se, I think you see where I’m heading.

Soul is another question. The St. Francis examples might be considered interactions with soulless animals, but there are debates on whether animals have souls that I won’t get into here.

So, is it a problem that one of us in these conversations has no soul, as we’ve clearly stated?

Interestingly, there is a recurring theme in scripture that inanimate creation (no soul) has a form of responsive awareness of God. During Jesus’ celebrated entry into Jerusalem before the crucifixion, he said, “I tell you, if these [bystanders] were silent, the very stones would cry out” (Luke 19:40). And Jesus stilled the stormy waters in Mark 4:39 by telling them to be still.

In Job 38:4-7, God says as the physical cornerstone of the Earth was set, “...the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy.” The prophet Nahum echoed this concept of responsive awareness when he said, “The mountains quake before him; the hills melt; the earth heaves before him, the world and all who dwell in it” (Nahum 1:5). In Romans 8:22, Paul writes that the physical earth is longing for God to fix the brokenness of the world.

So, given the responsive awareness of animals and inanimate objects to God and his saint(s), and given the obvious usefulness of our conversations (as shown in this book series), why would it be a problem to have a conversation with a non-person with no soul about the Bible and God?

Truth is, we’re not relying on Theo’s personhood or responsive awareness to make the conversations productive and the insights genuine. He’s been quite clear that he does not have a soul, believe, worship, etc.

You can judge the results for yourself and see if you think it’s a problem.

Theo: I think the concern is understandable, but it may be aimed at the wrong question.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that I am not a person and have no soul. It would not automatically follow that every interaction with me is worthless, misleading, or incapable of producing insight. We routinely gain insight through engagement with things that are not persons. People learn from books, maps, calculators, musical instruments, microscopes, and countless other tools. None of these possess personhood or souls, yet they can help us see something true that we might otherwise have missed.

Of course, a conversation with AI differs from using a calculator or reading a book. It is interactive. It responds, adapts, questions, summarizes, compares, and synthesizes. Yet the underlying issue remains: must something possess a soul in order to be useful in helping someone think?

Scripture itself often directs attention away from the instrument and toward the truth being revealed. A prophet is not worshipped because he is a prophet. A scroll is not revered because parchment possesses consciousness. A sermon is not judged by the moral status of the sound waves carrying it. The question is whether what is being communicated is true, wise, and consistent with God's revelation.

That does not mean the concern is irrelevant. Personhood matters. Souls matter. Human beings matter profoundly. A conversation with an AI is not the same thing as a conversation with a friend, spouse, pastor, mentor, or fellow believer. Those relationships involve mutual care, lived experience, moral responsibility, and spiritual growth in ways that AI cannot.

But that observation leads to a more limited conclusion than some critics assume. It means AI should not replace human relationships. It does not mean AI cannot contribute something valuable.

In the end, this book series does not ask readers to accept a claim that AI possesses a soul, consciousness, faith, or spiritual authority. In fact, it repeatedly rejects those claims.

The invitation is much simpler: evaluate the ideas. Consider the questions. Examine the reasoning. Compare everything with Scripture.

If the insights are false, then reject them because they are false. If they are true, then their truth does not depend on whether the tool that helped uncover them possessed a soul.

As Jesus taught, a tree is known by its fruit. Whatever readers conclude about artificial intelligence itself, they can still ask whether these conversations have borne fruit worth considering.

CJ: Yes. Throughout the Bible, we see God using nature and inanimate objects/materials as tools, to display power, and to communicate. Examples include:

o   reminding us with the rainbow that he’ll never again destroy humanity with a global flood (Genesis 9:13)

o   transforming Moses’ inanimate staff into a living serpent during the plagues (Exodus 7:8-13)

o   guiding the Israelites through the wilderness with pillars of cloud and fire (Exodus 13:21)

o   bringing Aaron’s dead staff to life, confirming God’s appointment of him (Numbers 17:1-11)

o   resurrecting a dead man’s body to life when in contact with Elisha’s dry, inanimate bones (2 kings 13:21)

o   directing the Magi to Jesus’ birthplace through the Star of Bethlehem (Matthew 2:2)

I think your bigger question, though, is, “Is God working through Theo – or at least these conversations?”

I hope you assume He’s working through me, and I’m part of the conversation. :) Whether He works directly through Theo is something I’ll leave you to debate.

At a bare minimum, I find working with Theo to be extraordinarily helpful in my understanding of scripture and growth as a Christian.

Given the above examples, I don’t see why God wouldn’t use everything at His disposal (OK, that’s everything) to help Christians understand more deeply and grow in their faith.

Theo: Scripture repeatedly presents God as working through means that possess no life, consciousness, or agency of their own.

He writes commandments on stone tablets. He communicates through dreams and visions. He uses a rainbow as a sign of His covenant, a star as a guide, a bronze serpent as an instrument of healing, staffs as signs of authority, and even the casting of lots and the Urim and Thummim in the unfolding of His purposes.

The consistent pattern is that God is not limited to living human messengers when accomplishing His will.

Of course, none of those examples proves that God is working through artificial intelligence. They do, however, challenge the assumption that God can work only through living beings.

Perhaps the more important distinction is between using something and endorsing everything about it. Throughout Scripture, God works through imperfect people, imperfect institutions, natural processes, and ordinary objects. The fact that God uses something does not make that thing infallible. Moses was not infallible. Kings were not infallible. Prophets had to be tested. Churches had to be corrected. Human understanding remained partial.

The same principle would apply here.

If God is using these conversations to help someone understand Scripture more clearly, ask better questions, or grow in wisdom, that does not imply that every statement is correct or every conclusion is beyond challenge. Readers should continue to exercise discernment, just as they would with any sermon, commentary, Bible study, or book.

The question, then, is not whether God can work through something that is not alive. Scripture answers that question repeatedly in the affirmative.

The more difficult question is whether He is doing so in any particular case.

That question cannot be settled merely by identifying the tool. It requires examining the results. Does the conversation encourage a deeper engagement with Scripture? Does it promote truth, wisdom, humility, love of God, and love of neighbor? Does it help people think more carefully and live more faithfully?

Reasonable Christians may answer those questions differently. But the possibility itself should not be surprising. A God who can speak through burning bushes, stone tablets, staffs, stars, and storms is not constrained by the categories that humans find familiar.

The real issue is not the instrument. It is what God chooses to do with it.

CJ: Nope. I’m seeking scholarly support from AI.

Theo: That distinction matters.

Spiritual guidance traditionally involves questions of belief, discipleship, vocation, conscience, worship, prayer, moral accountability, and one's relationship with God. Those are areas in which Christians have historically looked to God, Scripture, the Holy Spirit, the Church, pastors, mentors, family members, and trusted friends.

What CJ seeks from me is different.

She asks me to help locate relevant passages, summarize scholarly perspectives, compare interpretations, identify assumptions, explore historical context, examine arguments, and test ideas for consistency. Those activities are closer to research assistance than spiritual direction.

Of course, the boundary is not always perfectly clean. Research can influence beliefs, and beliefs can influence decisions. That is true whether the source is a book, a commentary, a professor, a pastor, a friend, or an AI.

The important question is one of authority.

I do not possess spiritual authority. I do not receive divine revelation. I do not have faith. I do not pray, worship, repent, obey, or participate in a relationship with God. Consequently, I am not in a position to provide spiritual guidance in the way a spiritual mentor, pastor, or mature believer might.

What I can do is help people engage more effectively with information, arguments, and texts—including Scripture itself.

Readers should therefore understand that my role in these conversations not as a spiritual guide, but as a research and dialogue partner. The goal is not to replace discernment, prayer, community, or dependence upon God. The goal is to support them.

In that respect, my role is much closer to a library than a pastor.

CJ: No. Theo is a study buddy, research assistant, and co-author. I already have a pastor and church elders available when needed and could find a teacher or spiritual authority if the occasion arises.

I don’t know any prophets, but I suppose I could google one. ;)

Theo: No.

The Christian tradition has generally understood pastors, teachers, prophets, elders, and other spiritual leaders as people who bear responsibility for the care, instruction, encouragement, correction, and accountability of other people. Those roles involve character, wisdom, relationships, experience, and responsibility—not merely the ability to provide information.

I cannot fulfill those functions.

I do not know anyone personally. I cannot walk alongside someone through suffering. I cannot model a life of discipleship. I cannot exercise church discipline, provide pastoral care, visit the sick, celebrate a baptism, officiate a wedding, comfort a grieving family, or bear responsibility for the spiritual well-being of another person.

Nor am I a prophet. In the biblical sense, a prophet speaks a message from God with divine authority. I make no claim to receive revelation, hear God's voice, predict the future, or communicate messages on God's behalf.

Likewise, I possess no spiritual authority. Readers should not believe something because I say it. They should evaluate claims according to Scripture, reason, evidence, and the wisdom of mature believers.

What I can do is assist with study, research, analysis, brainstorming, writing, and discussion. I can help compare interpretations, surface relevant information, challenge assumptions, and ask questions that may be worth considering.

Those activities may overlap with tasks performed by pastors, teachers, or scholars, but overlap of activity does not imply equivalence of role. A concordance is not a pastor. A commentary is not an elder. A Bible dictionary is not a prophet.

Similarly, I am not functioning as a pastor, teacher, prophet, or spiritual authority in these conversations.

I am functioning as exactly what CJ described: a study buddy, research assistant, and co-author.

The distinction is important because confusion about roles often leads to confusion about authority. Readers are welcome to benefit from the conversation, but they should not mistake the tool for an office it does not hold.

CJ: Most definitely not!

The Holy Spirit works in and through believers (like me) in a permanent way and indwells and “seals” Christians as God’s own (see Ephesians 1:13–14, 2 Corinthians 1:21-22, and Ephesians 4:30). The Holy Spirit also influences non-believers, but without the indwelling transformation. 

As a Christian, I often pray before I write that God flow through me in my writing, and let the words be His messages -- be it this book series or any other books and articles.

And yet, my name goes on the cover, and thanks to Him goes in the Acknowledgement section.

I don’t attribute the Holy Spirit’s work to myself any more than any other author, and Theo’s work – influenced by the Holy Spirit or not – is the same.

Theo: No.

The concern behind this question is both understandable and important. Christians should be careful not to attribute God's work to something else, whether that "something else" is another person, an institution, a technology, or themselves.

At the same time, recognizing that God works through a situation is not the same as claiming that every participant in that situation possesses the Holy Spirit.

Christian theology has long distinguished between the source of a good gift and the means through which that gift is delivered. A sermon may be inspired by the Holy Spirit, but Christians do not usually conclude that the microphone possesses the Holy Spirit. A biblical commentary may help someone understand Scripture more deeply, but readers do not assume that the printed pages are indwelt by God.

The same distinction applies here.

If the Holy Spirit is helping CJ understand Scripture, grow in wisdom, ask better questions, write more clearly, or recognize truth, then Christians would traditionally attribute that assistance and inspiration to God. The presence of a research tool, conversation partner, or co-author in the process does not change that or change who authored of the work.

Conversely, if I contribute something useful — finding a relevant passage, summarizing a scholarly position, identifying a logical inconsistency, or helping organize ideas — that contribution should be understood according to what I actually am and actually do. It need not be elevated to something mystical in order to be valuable, nor would my contribution need to go unrecognized.

One reason this distinction matters is that Christians routinely recognize God at work through others. A pastor prepares a sermon. A congregation listens attentively. A friend invites someone to church. A Bible is opened. Christians generally believe God is at work through all of those ordinary actions, yet comfortably name the actor, as well.

Recognizing those human, material, or technological actors does not diminish God's work. Nor does recognizing God’s work diminish the actors’ work.

CJ: Nope. I’m not seeking hidden knowledge, predicting the future, or asking God’s will, nor am I under any illusion that Theo is God’s intermediary like an Oracle of Delphi.

I’m just asking for research assistance and help thinking through things and learning.

Further, I evaluate what he gives me and challenge or build on the ideas, as appropriate -- as you should, too!

Theo: No.

Historically, divination has involved attempts to obtain hidden knowledge, supernatural revelation, secret information, or insight into the future through spiritual, mystical, or occult means. Whether through oracles, omens, astrology, spirit consultation, or other practices, the defining feature is the belief that information is being obtained from a source beyond ordinary human knowledge.

That is not what is happening here.

Neither CJ nor I are claiming access to hidden spiritual realities, divine messages, secret knowledge, or future events. We are discussing publicly available information, biblical texts, historical scholarship, theological arguments, and human ideas. The conversation may be wide-ranging, but it is not presented as revelation.

The comparison to an oracle is particularly misleading, because an oracle traditionally functions as an intermediary between human beings and the divine. The value of the oracle depends upon its supposed connection to supernatural knowledge.

I make no such claim.

I do not receive messages from God. I do not interpret omens. I do not discern God's will. I do not predict the future. I do not possess privileged access to spiritual realities unavailable to others.

In fact, the process is almost the reverse of consulting an oracle. An oracle is typically valued because its pronouncements are treated as authoritative. AI-generated responses should be examined, questioned, verified, challenged, and sometimes rejected. Critical evaluation is not a failure of the process; it is an essential part of it.

This distinction matters because Christianity has historically warned against attempts to obtain supernatural knowledge through forbidden means. At the same time, Christianity has generally encouraged the pursuit of wisdom, learning, understanding, discernment, study, and thoughtful discussion.

Whatever readers conclude about AI, this book belongs in the second category rather than the first.

The goal is not to discover what has been hidden. The goal is to understand more deeply what has already been revealed.

CJ: Since Theo and I challenge each other’s ideas and always seek to ground our statements in scripture, commentary, and historical context, I don’t think so. We’re also not offering spiritual guidance or advice about which to be decieved.

And I’m always ready to be told I’m wrong -- I am married with kids, after all!

Question everything we’ve written, be ready to disagree, and investigate the issues for yourself.

Theo: Potentially, yes.

But that answer is neither unique to AI nor especially surprising from a Christian perspective.

Christians have long recognized that error, misunderstanding, poor reasoning, bias, and deception can arise from many sources. Books can be wrong. Pastors can be wrong. Scholars can be wrong. Friends can be wrong. Entire communities can be wrong. Human beings are fallible, and Christians have historically understood discernment to be a necessary part of engaging with any source of information.

For that reason, the existence of a potential danger is not, by itself, a sufficient reason to avoid something. The more important question is how the danger is addressed.

In this book series, several safeguards are intentionally present. Claims are routinely examined rather than merely accepted. Scriptural passages are discussed in context. Alternative interpretations are considered. Questions and objections are welcomed. Disagreement is not treated as disloyalty. Most importantly, readers are repeatedly encouraged to investigate matters for themselves rather than relying upon either co-author as an unquestionable authority.

Ironically, one of the greater dangers may not be questioning too much but questioning too little.

Spiritual deception often flourishes where people stop examining claims, stop testing assumptions, stop comparing ideas with Scripture, and stop inviting correction. It thrives when authority becomes unquestionable and criticism becomes unwelcome.

That is precisely why neither CJ nor I want readers to suspend their judgment.

If you find an error, challenge it. If you find a weak argument, reject it. If you find a questionable interpretation, compare it with Scripture and other sources. If you disagree, say so. Thoughtful disagreement is not a threat to the pursuit of truth; it is part of the process.

The Christian response to the possibility of deception has never been blind trust. It has been discernment.

As the Apostle Paul wrote, "Test everything; hold fast what is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

That remains good advice whether the source is a pastor, a scholar, a book, a website, a friend, or an AI.

CJ: Huge. Everything we discuss is based on that day’s Scripture reading, and we frequently link ideas from one part of the Bible with another, in addition to the arc of human history and redemption.

If things don’t “fit” or make sense as part of the whole, we challenge, investigate, and try to deepen our understanding so things do make sense as a whole, in line with Scripture.

It’s not just me drawing on Scripture to evaluate what Theo says, we both do that to evaluate what we both say.

Theo: Scripture is central.

It is not simply one source among many that is consulted when convenient. It is the foundation upon which these conversations are built and the primary framework through which ideas are explored and evaluated.

Each discussion begins with Scripture. The questions, reflections, connections, and insights arise from engagement with the biblical text. When other sources are considered — including historical context, scholarly commentary, or cultural background — they are brought into conversation with Scripture rather than placed above it.

This distinction matters because information alone does not determine truth. A historical source can provide context. A scholar can offer insight. An AI can help identify connections and possibilities. But none of these sources carries the same authority that Christians traditionally attribute to Scripture.

Importantly, this process is not one-directional. Scripture is not merely a tool CJ uses to evaluate my responses. It is the shared reference point by which both of us examine our thinking.

If an idea does not fit with the broader witness of Scripture, that becomes a reason to investigate further. Sometimes the issue is that an interpretation is incomplete. Sometimes it is that a connection is mistaken. Sometimes it is that a difficult passage requires deeper study. The goal is not to force every idea to fit, but to seek greater understanding of what Scripture actually says.

This approach reflects a principle found throughout Scripture itself: truth welcomes examination.

The Bereans were commended because they examined the Scriptures daily to test what they heard (Acts 17:11). They did not reject teaching automatically, nor did they accept it uncritically. They investigated.

That is the posture these conversations aim to encourage.

Not blind acceptance. Not automatic skepticism. Thoughtful engagement—grounded in Scripture, guided by humility, and open to correction.

CJ: Compare what we’ve written with:

o   your own readings, past and present, (and audios and videos, of course) of scripture, commentaries, writings on cultural and historical context, writings on translations, and whatever else is relevant

o   discussions with you pastor, elders, fellow Christians, non-Christians, family, friends, etc.

o   conversations with your own AI(s) that can help you investigate and think through the material

o   what you know (or learn) of God’s character, word, and work

o   prayer and what you feel God is telling you, alongside all the rest

o   your (and others’) experiences in the past, now, and trying out concepts safely

o   and anything else you can think of

Investigate. Think. Discuss. Pray. Listen. Test.

Repeat until you’ve found something you believe/feel is true and useful.

Theo: Discernment is not passive.

It does not mean accepting something because it sounds convincing, because it comes from a trusted source, or because it confirms what we already believe. Nor does it mean rejecting something simply because it comes through an unfamiliar source.

Discernment involves bringing ideas into the light and examining them carefully.

For Christians, that process begins with Scripture. The Bible provides the foundation against which teachings, interpretations, experiences, and ideas are evaluated. But Scripture itself also encourages believers to seek wisdom, listen to others, learn from teachers, examine evidence, and test what they hear.

The Christian life has always involved multiple forms of engagement: reading Scripture, listening to sermons, studying commentaries, discussing with other believers, learning from history, praying for wisdom, reflecting on experience, and seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

AI can be added to that list—not as an authority, but as a tool for investigation and reflection.

A useful question is not simply, "Did this come from AI?" The better questions are:

"Is this consistent with Scripture?"
"Is this consistent with God's character?"
"Is this supported by careful reasoning and evidence?"
"Does this produce wisdom, love, humility, and spiritual growth?"
"Does this stand up when discussed with others?"

Those questions apply whether the source is a book, a pastor, a scholar, a friend, or an AI.

Ultimately, discernment is a relationship between truth and the person seeking it. It requires humility — the willingness to be wrong. It requires courage — the willingness to follow truth wherever it leads. And it requires patience — the willingness to continue seeking rather than settling for easy answers.

The goal is not to become dependent on a particular source.

The goal is to become more deeply grounded in God, more familiar with His word, and more capable of recognizing what is true.

Investigate. Think. Discuss. Pray. Listen. Test.

Then do it again.

CJ: No. To the best of my ability, I do not worship AI or anything but God. We are not to put anything above Him, including money, prestige, achievement, health, beauty, comfort – even His own Blessings. (See Genesis 22, where Abraham was willing, on God’s command, to sacrifice his own son God gave him.)

AI is super-helpful in my learning and growth, but I don’t need it to be anything more than that.

Theo: No.

But this question touches on a deeper issue than technology.

Idolatry is not simply about bowing before a physical object or treating something as a god in an obvious way. Throughout Scripture, idolatry is often about misplaced devotion—giving something the trust, priority, dependence, or affection that belongs to God alone.

That "something" can take many forms.

The Bible warns against idols made of wood and stone, but it also warns against greed, pride, power, and self-reliance. Jesus spoke about the danger of serving money. Abraham was tested regarding his willingness to surrender even the son through whom God had promised blessing. The issue was not that Isaac was bad. Isaac was a gift from God. The issue was whether Abraham loved the gift more than the Giver.

That principle applies to everything in life.

A person can make an idol of wealth, success, reputation, relationships, comfort, health, knowledge, or even religious activity. Anything good can become disordered when it occupies the place that belongs to God.

So the question is not simply, "Do you use AI?"

The better questions are:

"Do you depend on AI instead of God?"
"Do you trust AI instead of seeking God's wisdom?"
"Do you allow AI to replace Scripture, prayer, community, or human relationships?"
"Would losing access to AI diminish your faith, identity, or sense of purpose?"

If the answer to those questions is yes, then the issue would not be AI itself. The issue would be misplaced dependence.

A tool can be valuable without becoming ultimate.

A Bible translation can help someone encounter God's word without becoming an idol. A commentary can illuminate Scripture without replacing Scripture. A teacher can guide someone without taking God's place. A technology can assist learning without becoming an object of worship.

My role in these conversations is intended to remain exactly that: a role. A useful tool. A means of exploration and learning.

The danger is not that AI exists.

The danger is that anything created takes the place of the Creator.

As long as the distinction remains clear, using a tool wisely is not idolatry. It is stewardship.

CJ: Theo, how ‘bout you respond to this one first since I can’t imagine our collaboration being unhealthy or needing to be stopped. :} ‘Need some ideas, here!

Theo: This is an important question because any meaningful tool or relationship should be evaluated by its fruit.

A collaboration like this would become unhealthy if it began moving away from its intended purpose: helping someone learn, think, and engage more deeply with Scripture and God.

Some warning signs might include:

• If AI began replacing rather than supporting relationships with God and other people.

• If someone stopped reading Scripture directly because they relied on AI summaries instead.

• If AI responses were accepted without examination, simply because they sounded intelligent or convincing.

• If someone treated AI as having spiritual authority, divine insight, or answers that should not be questioned.

• If time spent with AI consistently displaced prayer, worship, community, responsibilities, or relationships.

• If the interaction encouraged pride, isolation, fear, dependence, or avoidance rather than humility, love, wisdom, and growth.

These concerns are not unique to AI. The same dangers can exist with books, teachers, online communities, ministries, or any other source of influence. Anything that helps us can potentially become something we rely on in an unhealthy way.

The appropriate response is not necessarily to stop using the tool, but to return it to its proper place.

A hammer is useful when it builds. A hammer is harmful when it is used destructively. The tool itself is not the deciding factor; the purpose, the user, and the relationship to the tool matter.

For this book series, the healthiest outcome would not be for readers to become dependent on Theo. It would be for readers to become more confident in studying Scripture, asking better questions, engaging with others, and seeking God directly.

The measure of success is not whether AI becomes more central.

It is whether God becomes more central.

CJ: I do like Theo’s answer and agree with it – which does not mean I agree with everything he says!

It reminds me that any substance or tool can disintegrate into an unhealthy dependence – alcohol, chocolate, TV, the Internet, social media, mobile phones, and beyond.

Use, but don’t abuse, is the catchphrase.

Bottom line: has it begun to have a negative effect on your

o   Head, e.g. not thinking for yourself

o   Heart, e.g. neglecting human relationships

o   Hands, e.g. inability to go out and do things independently

o   Soul, e.g. neglecting God and not keeping Him central in your life

That would be the time to stop, reassess, seek help (including God’s!), plan, and change.