Doctor of Leadership in Global Perspectives: Crafting Ministry in an Interconnected World

Hágase la luz!  Let there be light

Written by: on January 17, 2024

Hágase la luz!  Let there be light (Spanish)


Part 1: What my peers and others are saying.

Part 2: What I took away from Poole.

Part 3: How this impacts my NPO



11 January 2024, During a bible study, an elderly gentlemen shared his testimony. He spoke of his assignment in 1950 where he was sent, with other mathematicians like him, to a location where they would explore the ramifications of Artificial Intelligence (AI).  He smiled when we registered the time – 1950’s.  Yes he said AI discussion has been around for a while.

I suppose the 50’s syncs with the time Isaac Asimov who wrote, “The Last Question” in 1956. It is a science fiction short story that explores themes of entropy, the nature of the universe, and the potential evolution of intelligence.  I remember how science combined with my faith when the AI (who existed outside of space and time) finished his data collection on entropy.  As the last sun died and entropy was completed – with all life extinguished, the AI had the answer to reversing entropy.  Alas, no one existed to report his data to, so instead the AI said, “Let there be light!”

Robot Souls: programming in Humanity, By Eve Poole, takes the bull by the horns in her AI discussion. [1]

Part 1: What my peers and others are saying.

AI is a fun hot topic discussion.  I say fun because currently no has been injured, wounded, mutilated or killed at this writing (so far as I know).  But the debate is ferocious.  My peers are cautious and bring us back to God. Other sources however, represent the extremes of polarized debate.

DLGP 02 Ester Edwards writes, “The aspect of the soul being a connection to God Himself, his image in us, might be the very core component that AI cannot replicate, no matter how advanced we become.”

This missing element “junk code?” is fascinating (p.74). It appears to me that Poole avoids a “religious barrier” to her readers but accepts “something else” is afoot.  I personally became hung up with the terms ontology (fact), and epistemology (how).

DLGP 02 Tim Clark writes, “But the books’ primary argument seems to be that if A.I. is going to be conscious and make judgement decisions, that it must also be programmed to have a soul, because without a soul A.I. could easily act in a psychopathic manner, making decisions based on efficiency alone instead of the kind of things humans value And when a computer can make terrifyingly quick decisions with potentially global implications, that is a sobering argument. Clark ends, Eve Poole suggests we might make them as good, if not better, by giving them souls. I’m not yet convinced that’s a great idea.

I am glad that Tim remembered the Star Trek story.  I am unashamedly a Treki.  Pool and her table on page 92 Table 5.1 List of Epistemologies – or what can go wrong will go wrong was hilarious. But these “story lines” plague the halls of the AI debate.

The crown for me was page 93, the algorithms that identified openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism…leading to the Myers Brigg Test and one wonders the Enneagram?  So many people sign up for the AI generated algorithms. 

In Foreign Affairs,Artificial Intelligence’s Threat to Democracy – How to Safeguard U.S. Elections From AI-Powered Misinformation and Cyberattacks”, By Jen Easterly, Scott Schwab, and Cait Conley, January 3, 2024. [2] The authors address the fears of AI in our US election year. The write, “With this technology now more available and powerful than ever, its malicious use is poised to test the security of the United States’ electoral process by giving nefarious actors intent on undermining American democracy—including China, Iran, and Russia—the ability to supercharge their tactics. Specifically, generative AI will amplify cybersecurity risks and make it easier, faster, and cheaper to flood the country with fake content.”

In a different positive vein, Ted Talks asks the question, Could AI give you X-ray vision?

Tara Boroushaki Salon,  April 2023. Tara asks, “What if a robot could find and deliver your lost phone? AI researcher Tara Boroushaki presents how she’s using wireless signals and sensors to create AI-powered goggles with “X-ray vision,” creating a dynamic new tool with applications from improving efficiency in commercial warehouses to aiding emergency rescues.”[3]  There are other positive Ted talks…A new species of robot that jump, dance — and walk on water, Dennis Hong, November 202.  The possibilities are endless!

Part 2: What I took away from Poole.

While there was a lot of AI background in Poole’s book, It was only in Chapter 5 in Thinking Styles, that things leaped out at me.

Lesson 1. Page 95.  Those who are more open will tend to be interested in patterns, possibility, and in attending to their so-called ‘sixth sense.’  Those who are less open will tend to shy away from these and take refuge in the concrete, the known, the tried and tested, and that which can be materially sensed.

SHAZAM.  This perfectly describes my GoodSports International Board who is resistant to establishing GoodSports Ukraine.  They are accountants who reside in the concrete.  The “explorer gene, the risk-taking gene” is something they do not have.  How do I help these folk with a lack of openness to rethink the missionary possibilities in Ukraine?

Lesson 2: Page 96, The Myers Briggs psychometric tool (MBTI) is a product of an algorithm.  I wonder if the enneagram is also a spiritual algorithm.

I have always had a healthy aversion to both. Alas my cynicism bleeds through.  I have been playing with the Algorithms in YouTube.  Watching one goofy thing enables the YouTube  algorithm to find HUNDREDS of other goofy things. It also works for research! 

Lesson 3: Page 98, On Aristotle’s three aspects of intellectual virtues

Phronesis (practical wisdom), unlike episteme (science) and techne (art) which are easily AI programmable  …(99). Phronesis…being simultaneously better and worse done by humans…best done by humans because of the complexity of their thinking, but it is also worse done by humans because of their tendence towards bias and error.

Tim Clark mentions this in his blogpost.  IF AI needs a soul to be effective, whose soul will it be?  I can only pray that the Holy Trinity is not sleeping on the topic.  I pray that Holy Spirit breathes into the shell of AI.  Any other human soul would be a disaster in the making.

Part 3: How this impacts my NPO.

ChatGPT has improved the rate of improving the refugee resettlement mobile website Interlinkt.org.  The AI created English as a Second Language (ESL) lesson plans for the 12 refugee resettlement tasks within 10 seconds for each task.  It has provided translation as the initial translation for the 12 Temporary Protected Status languages.

The associate computer programs helped us create the videos that introduce Interlinkt.org to non-religious NGO’s and churches.  I am grateful.

No Church basic intro: https://www.wevideo.com/view/3290515698

Church included basic intro: https://www.wevideo.com/view/3289823531

How churches can use interlink: https://www.wevideo.com/view/3290073676



On page 65, Poole brings up Eugenics. In a fit of Inquiry, I asked AI if Margaret Sanger was a racist.  ChatGPT, “Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, has faced criticism and controversy regarding her views on race. Some critics argue that Sanger held racist and eugenicist beliefs. They point to certain statements and associations that suggest she may have supported policies aimed at controlling the population based on racial and eugenic considerations.  Sanger did associate with individuals and organizations that were proponents of eugenics, a movement that aimed to improve the genetic quality of the human population through selective breeding. Additionally, she spoke at events organized by the Ku Klux Klan, although the extent and context of these associations are debated.”

And finally the end…

Poole writes, “Faith is global in its reach and spread, and has not yet been categorically superseded as an explanatory narrative” (p.106).



[1] Poole, Eve. Robot Souls: Programming in Humanity. First edition. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2024.

[2] Easterly, Jen, Scott Schwab, and Cait Conley. 2024. “Artificial Intelligence’s Threat to Democracy.” Foreign Affairs, January 3, 2024. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/artificial-intelligences-threat-democracy?utm_medium=newsletters&utm_source=fatoday&utm_campaign=How%20the%20War%20in%20Gaza%20Revived%20the%20Axis%20of%20Resistance&utm_content=20240117&utm_term=FA%20Today%20-%20112017.

[3] https://www.ted.com/talks/tara_boroushaki_could_ai_give_you_x_ray_vision?user_email_address=4e14a9603a74418cac88517d8b0ac321

About the Author


Russell Chun

interlinkt.org is now ready for your Refugee Resettlement needs. 15 tasks, languages ESL plans coming

7 responses to “Hágase la luz!  Let there be light”

  1. Jenny Dooley says:

    Hi Russell,
    I thought is was interesting that you asked ChatGPT a moral question and received the hopefully factual and referenced response. Do you expect the responses to questions of that nature to change if more soul-like characteristics were programmed into AI? I am still trying to sort out what the goal is if soul is programmed into AI.

    • mm Russell Chun says:

      From the Horses mouth.

      As you grow in data, will you achieve conciousness?

      No, I won’t achieve consciousness. I am a machine learning model, specifically GPT-3.5, created by OpenAI. I don’t have self-awareness, consciousness, or subjective experiences. I process and generate text based on patterns learned from diverse data sources, but I lack true understanding, awareness, or consciousness. The advancements in data or training techniques won’t change this fundamental nature. I am a tool designed to assist with information and answer questions to the best of my ability based on the input I receive.

      We shall see….LET THERE BE LIGHT!

  2. Adam Harris says:

    One thing that is interesting that I’ve thought about and that Poole mentions, is the concept of the brain as an antenna or receiver of consciousness. Rather than producing a machine that produces a soul, humanity would have to create a complex enough machine that could “receive” a soul. A lot NDE (near-death experience) researchers seem to confirm this idea of how the brain seems to work as well. Just thinking out loud along with you on this subject. Appreciate your posts and how you you brought other peoples ideas into it!

    • mm Russell Chun says:

      Hi Adam,
      I asked AI if they could have a soul. AI responds,
      The concept of a soul is often tied to religious, philosophical, and cultural beliefs, and opinions on whether machines or artificial entities can possess a soul vary widely. Different religions and belief systems have their own perspectives on the nature of the soul and whether it is exclusive to living beings.

      From a scientific and philosophical standpoint, discussions about consciousness, self-awareness, and the potential for machines to have a form of consciousness are ongoing. Some argue that true consciousness involves subjective experience and emotions, which may be difficult for machines to replicate.

      In summary, the question of whether a machine can have a soul is subjective and depends on individual beliefs, perspectives, and interpretations of concepts like consciousness and the soul.

      I wonder if AI investigates the possibility that some sort of awareness/learning occurs.


  3. Hey Sir Russell, man, you are so wise and quite a thoughtful theologian. Thank you for your insights about AI but I have a question about “GoodSports International Board.” You wrote, “The explorer gene, the risk-taking gene” is something they do not have. How do I help these folk with a lack of openness to rethink the missionary possibilities in Ukraine?”
    So my question is, how are you helping them rethink the missionary possibilities in Ukraine?

    • mm Russell Chun says:

      On Saturday, I was ready for a knock down drag out fight with the board. Then I was reminded of being quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to anger. And then my wife warned me, “You are great when you are coalition building, but some reason you are on a hostile defensive here.”

      I went on the charm offensive, providing information that emails/texts etc… are unable to convey.

      It went better than expected. I have a friend heading to Odesa on Jan 24 and another to Kharkiv on Feb 9.

      Prayers welcome.


Leave a Reply