At the heart of the document is an attempt to protect human life – often called promoting or protecting the common good – in the face of rapid scientific progress in AI. It casts a vision of embracing the best of scientific breakthroughs yet at the same time it raises a warning against the risks that may come from unbridled advances in AI. In sum, this document is a must read.
 
The point of this brief blog is to encourage a reading of the document – something easily done online. click here That said, here are a few choice quotes to entice you to read the whole document:
 
Section on Grandeur of Humanity and Promises of AI
 

• 129. Christian humanism does not reject science or technology, but embraces them with gratitude and realism, and grounds them within a higher vocation. The creative intelligence of humanity is a gift that can alleviate suffering and open up new possibilities, but it must remain ordered toward the common good, justice, the care of the vulnerable and creation. In this sense, the true alternative is not between enthusiasm and fear, but between two paths of development: a progress that serves individuals and peoples, or a progress that subjects them to the mentality of power. Ultimately, the key question remains the one posed by Saint John Paul II: does AI “make human life on earth ‘more human’ in every aspect of that life? Does it make it more worthy of man?” If the answer is yes, then we can recognize it as an opportunity to be embraced responsibly, on a path of patient, shared reconstruction, akin to the rebuilding of Jerusalem narrated in the Book of Nehemiah. If, however, power grows while the heart withers and human bonds fray, then we are faced with a new form of Babel — a construction that is grandiose, yet fundamentally dehumanizing.

​

•  130. Questioning this alternative path of progress and how we interpret and live it is ultimately a matter of examining our own hearts. The way we understand and shape relationships, work and institutions, in practice reveals our fundamental values. In the end, it all stems from what we hold most dear. This is a love that guides us as to what we truly cherish, both as individuals and as a society, and directs our lives and actions. Saint Augustine described human history as a struggle between two loves, which give rise to two ways of inhabiting the world and living together — or two “cities,” as it were: on the one hand, the love of God and neighbor; on the other, the exclusive love of self. “Two loves have built two cities: the earthly city, the love of self even to the contempt of God; the heavenly city, the love of God even to the contempt of self.” As throughout history, these two loves continue to contend for dominance in our hearts today. The age of AI is no exception: the construction of Babel or the rebuilding of Jerusalem begins within each one of us.

Section on Truth, Work, Freedom

• 132. The use of digital platforms and AI systems is driving profound changes in public and political communication. Tools that could foster dialogue and participation are often used to construct distorted narratives and blur the boundaries between truth and falsehood, mixing facts with opinions. Disinformation did not begin with AI, yet today it finds a powerful amplifier in AI. The ability to manipulate content, images and videos exposes people to biased or misleading perspectives. This problem has both cultural and moral dimensions, since the quality of public communication depends directly on social trust and, in turn, shapes it. At the same time, truthful information does not arise from centralized or automated control. In public discourse, the truth of facts has a rational dimension, as it requires verification, cross-checking of sources and responsible argumentation. Moreover, it is deeply relational, built through bonds of trust and shared practices, as well as an honest exchange with others and with the world. Only the shared pursuit of the veracity of facts, perceived as a common good, can provide a solid foundation for just communication.

 

• 133. Those who command powerful technological and economic resources, along with substantial human capital for intervention, possess significant capabilities for influencing cultural change. Ultimately, they can influence a significant number of people concerning the truth about humanity, the world, the meaning of existence, the family and even God. This is pure power detached from truth, which subtly or overtly imposes what it wishes others to accept as true. At its root lies a deeper and often unrecognized “sickness”: the fact that “modern man is wrongly convinced that he is the sole author of himself, his life and society. This is a presumption that follows from being selfishly closed in upon himself.” Consequently, people believe that they can construct reality, and that whatever best suits their claims corresponds to what is true. Saint Joh Paul II reflected on the consequences of this “crisis of truth,” going so far as to state that “once the idea of a universal truth about the good, knowable by human reason, is lost, inevitably the notion of conscience also changes.” In such a context, universally valid truths, which precede us and which conscience must accept, are no longer recognized. This led Pope Francis to ask with realism: “What is law without the conviction, born of age-old reflection and great wisdom, that each human being is sacred and inviolable?” To which he concluded: “If society is to have a future, it must respect the truth of our human dignity and submit to that truth. Murder is not wrong simply because it is socially unacceptable and punished by law, but because of a deeper conviction. This is a non-negotiable truth attained by the use of reason and accepted in conscience. A society is noble and decent, not least for its support of the pursuit of truth and its adherence to the most basic of truths.” 

 

• 134. The search for truth is an essential element of democracy, which is itself a means of contributing to the common good. When questions about what is true lose their appeal, and a pragmatism takes hold that is content with what appears useful or effective, then democratic life is weakened. After all, democracy does not consist of rules and procedures alone, but above all of a solid concordance with the facts and a genuine commitment to the good of individuals and society as a whole. Indifference to the truth leads, slowly but surely, to a descent into totalitarianism. As the philosopher Hannah Arendt wrote, the ideal subjects of such regimes are not so much those who are ideologically convinced, but rather “people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist.”

 

• 135. In view of this, it is important to recall that communication “is not only the transmission of information, but it is also the creation of a culture.” The content that circulates within digital environments shapes how people perceive the world and introduces into the collective consciousness images and narratives that direct our desires and influence our daily choices. This is “not a parallel or purely virtual world,” since what originates online now becomes a part of people’s lives, especially of the youngest.

 

• 136. For this reason, those who control digital platforms and means of communication have a considerable ability to affect the collective imagination and to present a particular vision of reality as desirable. Such power should be constantly guided by the pursuit of truth and respect for human dignity, so that the culture fostered on the internet does not become an instrument of excessive distraction, homogenization or dominance, but rather a setting in which inner freedom and critical thought can mature.

 

• 139. In an era when truth is often distorted in order to serve particular interests and communication strategies, the field of education assumes decisive importance. Yet rapid technological transformations reveal just how unprepared we are on the educational level. The pervasiveness of digital media fosters a culture of immediacy and hyper-stimulation, which gives rise to fatigue, boredom and apathy concerning the effort required for seeking the truth.

 

• 140. Education, by contrast, is a long journey requiring patience, and therefore needs time for development and for engagement with reality beyond appearances. This is a fundamental issue because every technology shapes those who use it. Educating people about the use of AI, then, involves teaching them to decide when and for what purpose it ought not to be used. The speed and ease with which answers or summaries can be obtained risk extinguishing the desire to ask questions, which is a process that bears fruit only over time. As Plato wrote, the deepest and most important things are learned only after much time and effort, by engaging in discussion with others, “striking upon” ideas and experiences together like flint until the spark of understanding is kindled within us. We must learn, then, how to exercise restraint in the use of AI and to protect our young people from the promise of the perfect machine, from that subtle temptation which renders human thought seemingly superfluous precisely when it is most needed.

 
Section on the Dignity of Work
 

• 148. Since the emergence of her Social Doctrine, beginning with Rerum Novarum, the Church has emphasized the protection of workers and the need to combat all forms of exploitation. Above all, however, the Magisterium has recognized in work “the essential key” to understanding the entire social question, since it is through their work that individuals develop many dimensions of their existence. In view of this, we can understand the great intuition of Saint Benedict of Nursia, who united prayer and work, showing daily activity to be a part of the human response to God’s call. Created in the image of the Creator, our own work in some way continues his, for thereby we contribute to the progress of society and the common good, put to good use the capabilities we have received, improve and beautify the world, support our families, engage in cooperative relationships and, through listening and dialogue, learn to build together something that no one could achieve alone.

 

• 149. For these reasons, work is not simply an instrument; it expresses and enhances the dignity of our lives. It is a requirement of the human condition, a normal path toward maturity, development and personal fulfilment. In this regard, financial assistance to the poor may at times be necessary in emergencies, but it cannot become the sole response, since the goal is to enable each person to live with dignity through his or her own work.

 

• 150. Today, the convergence of automation, robotics and AI is rapidly transforming the very structure of work. It is said that this will bring great improvements for everyone. In reality, however, the “new ways” of working are not necessarily better, for “while AI promises to boost productivity by taking over mundane tasks, it frequently forces workers to adapt to the speed and demands of machines, rather than machines being designed to support those who work. As a result, contrary to the advertised benefits of AI, current approaches to technology can paradoxically de-skill workers, subject them to automated surveillance and relegate them to rigid and repetitive tasks. The need to keep up with the pace of technology can erode workers’ sense of agency and stifle the innovative abilities they are expected to bring to their work.” Precisely in order to avoid this drift, it is necessary to design systems that are centered on the human person and not solely on performance.

•  Purpose of reviewing 

 
Within the DNA of an academic book review is the intention of letting readers know both the argument of a book as well as the book’s contribution to its discipline. Being able get that information from a page or two of a review is of utmost value to scholars who are always trying to staying abreast of what is being published in their field. In the most idealized sense, a book review is a service offered to others in the guild – you take the time to read and summarize, and others get a quick idea of what the book is all about.
 

• Value of reviewing

 
While there are ideals that shape the purpose of reviews, there are a number of personal and professional reasons why doing book reviews is a good idea: (1) helps to build your personal library; (2) helps to introduce yourself to the guild; and (3) keeps you up-to-date on what is going on in your field. Finally, book reviews build your CV (a must in these competitive days of job hunting). In fact, for the person trying to build a CV, book reviews can be a quick yet meaningful power boost to getting some much-needed line items in the publications section of a CV.
 

• Key ingredients

 
There are six key ingredients to a good review. In particular, the identifying and analyzing of (1) the author; (2) the thesis; (3) the sources; (4) the methodology and its shaping of the argument; (5) the structure of the book; and finally (and super importantly); (6) the contribution of the book to the field. 
 

• Not all reviews are the same

 
Try to get a sense of the types of reviews being published in the journal so that your contribution will fit within the general ethos of the journal. For instance, some reviewers do not want a chapter-by-chapter summary, but some do.
 

• Leap before you look

 
If a journal’s editor asks you to do a review, it is probably wise to say yes (unless there is some demanding reason to say no). Once you get “established” in your career this is not as pressing – but even then, it is a helpful service for your guild to every now and then review a book.
 

• Get on the list

 
I am an editor of a peer reviewed journal, and it is often hard to find people willing to review books. It is a good idea to contact a few journals and let them know that you are willing to review when the need arises – music to an editor’s ears!
 

• Read the book

 
This seems obvious, but I have seen reviews that I am sure were not based on a reading on the book. 
 

• No AI

 
This relates to the above point – do not, do not, do not, rely on AI to do the “reading” and “analysis” for you. In fact, I would like to see book reviewers have to state that AI was never used in the generation of the review.
 

• Read introductions

 
This part of the book is key to gaining vital information about the project you are about to assess. It does more than introduce the author, it provides the rationale for the book, issues faced, problems solved, difficulties that remain, as well as the author’s aspirations for future follow-up research.
 

• Be honest about conflict of interest 

 
State any possible conflict of interests up front and let the editor decide if it is something that disqualifies you – better to find out at the beginning than find out later when it is awkward and even unethical. For instance, I know of one example where a reviewer spent four pages tearing into the book because the reviewer had a beef with the author’s place of employment – not good.
 

• Don’t make it about you

 
Try not to make the review about your interests. I have seen reviews where the reviewer’s personal interests and agenda eclipse the book being reviewed. In other words, the review is highjacked to highlight the reviewer’s own research.
 

• Know your limits and play within them

 
I have reviewed books outside of my expertise, and that can be okay at times. However, it is far easier to review a book in my own field since I know the lay of the land and how the new book contributes to it. Increasingly I limit my reviews to my field – but new (and old) scholars may think differently on this point.
 

• Be generous

 
Almost every book has some merit – enough for a publisher to publish it and seek a review! Work at finding out the value of reading the book, even if you have problems with it.
 

• Be critical, but don’t be a jerk

 
Every book review should have some aspect of critical analysis of thesis, methodology, contribution to field, and so on. That said, don’t be a jerk and remember how you would want your book to be reviewed.
 

• All journals are not equal

 
There is a pecking order in the world of journals, and it makes sense to jump at opportunities that avail themselves when the journal is a well-recognized and prestigious journal. Of course, that does not mean you avoid less reputable journals. It simply means that it may be best to leap at the chance when opportunity arises to get a review in a prominent journal.
 

• Read other reviews

 
Depending on the circumstances, this may or may not be a good idea. The advantage is obvious – it provides how others have viewed the book. The problem is that it may skew your own assessment of the book and may also require you to cite the other reviews read.
 

• Be creative

 
The review genre is not known for its artistic flair and punchy prose. If you can find a way to write well – which includes creativity – go for it. However, watch out being too creative or casual for you don’t want to seem like a light weight.
 

• Know your limits

 
There are some books I should never review. For instance, any books that require languages that I do not know (or only know in a basic or beginner level) should not be reviewed by me. Stated simply, any book that requires a specific expertise you don’t have should be avoided – for your sake (dodge embarrassment) and for the value of the finished product.
 

• Refuse digital

 
I will not review a book if all that is offered to me is a digital version. Does that make me a primadonna? I don’t care – I want paper!

• Brace Yourself

Some journals submit book reviews to an internal or external reviewer, and your review may actually be rejected (or returned for further revisions). So brace yourself!

• Value of book based on intended audience

 
Your review should be based on the book’s intended audience. It is unfair to do otherwise. This is also a reason for reading the introduction – for that is where the intended audience is made clear.
 

• Don’t forget popular reviews for churches and other organizations

 
Doing reviews for popular audiences may not be something that impresses on a CV or satisfies an employer with expectations of faculty publishing, but it is something that helps popular-level periodicals, blogs, and podcasts interact with new scholarship.

For the past few years I have been examining the Canadian churches and their responses to such bombing. I am currently in the process of looking at various American denominations, but my research into Canadian churches is finished (of course, such things as never really finished), and my results were recently published as a chapter in a book in honor of a former professor. (see book below) The publishing timing is fitting, for it was in August 1945 that the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki faced the horrors of the atomic bomb.
 
What did the Canadian churches think of such events? (Note, my research focused on Canadian Protestant churches.) You can read the full article in the book, but what follows are a few quick comments on my findings.
 
First, the churches knew some of what was happening. The shift away from precision to carpet or area bombing was pretty clear and public by mid-1943. The events of Dresden in 1944 left no doubt that citizens were being targeted indiscriminately. Of course, state control of the messaging and media censorship did not give the whole story, but enough was known to make a tentative moral judgement.
 
Second, as scholars such as Adam Rudy make clear,[1] while there were some exceptions, the churches were widely supportive of the war effort. What this research indicates in that the churches’ support did not mean that they were silent and compliant lapdogs of the state. 
 
For instance, the best the Canadian churches could publicly say in support of area bombing was that there seemed to be no other option if victory was to be attained. At worst, the actions of the allies on the particular matter of area bombing were a profound moral failure requiring remorse and repentance. 
 
The reason for the tepid support or even criticism of the bombing of civilians en masse was that such a practice went contrary to the just war tradition of non-combatant immunity. It also made the allies complicit in actions they had once criticized as barbaric. Nevertheless, the underlying reason – or compromise – for tolerating the bombing was that evil needed to be done to defeat an even greater evil, in common parlance it was “the better of two evils,” or, as one churchman at the time wrote, a position “between evil and less evil.”[2]
 
Third, despite what today’s TikTok messaging indicates, war is actually very complex. In fact, it is one of the most complex events in human history – it constantly evolves in aims, technology, weapons, and even morality. The ability to know what is happening is muted by censorship or distorted by propaganda. And while the call is often for justice, war is also motivated by hate rooted in history, religion, race, class, economics, ideology, power, and revenge.
 
The churches in World War Two seemed to be quite well aware of those dangers and did the best they could do make an informed and ethically responsible decision despite such hardships. 
 
Of course, the “lesson” is for us today to try to do likewise.

The attrition rate of pastors is quite high, with significant numbers of pastors pondering a change of vocation.[1]
 
My father was pastor. I was a pastor. I do not know if my dad ever thought of throwing in the towel (and he had many reasons to do so), but I know I toyed with the idea. I did eventually leave the pastorate to pursue being a professor involved in the training of Christian leaders – so I am not sure if I would have lasted through the decades as pastor. I hope I would have.
 
That penchant for leaving one’s calling as a pastor is not new, and the church has sought to provide ways and means to encourage and support its leaders in pressing times and situations. With that in mind, here are some suggestions from Laurie Barber on how to “fire up” your pastors so that they did not give up, but rather, they continue in their calling. 
 
You can read the article below (click to enlarge it).
 
Here is a summary of Barber’s points:
 

• Invite your pastor to dinner (but not to criticize the sermon!). There is nothing like friendship and kindness to bolster a wavering commitment.
• Do not be overly critical of a person whose entire life (spouse and kids included) is spent in the spotlight. 
• Pay the person a decent salary. There is nothing virtuous in a church intentionally keeping pastors and their family poor.
• Teach your pastor to pray. (This is a very interesting, gutsy, and challenging point. Barber declares that pastors do not learn prayer in seminary. Yikes – I teach in a seminary! But Barber makes a very good point, one that I will seek to keep in mind in the coming years.)
• Bring back the language of “study” instead of “office” for in doing so you remind everyone (including the pastor) that the pastor’s vocation requires a unique approach to time and space that does not immediately or easily fit within a business model.
• Provide the means for pastors to purchase books and get more education. Pastors who cannot find the money to purchase (or subscribe to) excellent reading material will suffer, and pastors who are unable to pursue further education will wilt on the vine.
• Pray for your pastor. Here I quote Barber: “Fire your pastor by praying for him. Ultimately the Lord does the firing. In the furnace of a living ministry the refining of a pastor and people through the Word and the Spirit is a delightful, warming witness.”

 
I made the transition from pulpit to the pew decades ago. But Barber’s exhortation still rings true to me, for pastoring is hard and one needs to be fired sometimes to keep going.
 

[1] https://www.barna.com/research/pastors-quitting-ministry/

In conclusion, a few noteworthy things about this announcement:
 

• It notes a female preacher and “lady minister” about half a decade before Murial Carder became the first woman ordained in the BCOQ.

 

• The job of Mrs. Roblin would have been made much more difficult by the isolated location the church – look at google maps to see the drive into the wilderness to the west of Thunder Bay.

 

• This is a good example of the fluidity of opportunities in the mission field – the needs of the church in the frontier often trumped expected protocol.

 
​Of course this brief account does not settle conclusively the biblical and theological debates over women in ministry. However, this report is one of those accounts that adds just one more bit of evidence that Baptist history can be surprising and, at times, challenge assumptions about what the past was like and the future could be.

click on image to enlarge