Here in Washington, DC, a lot of folks right now are absolutely fixated on the state visit of President Xi Jinping of China. They’re looking at the United Nations session, which is going on this week in New York. They’re looking at all kinds of issues of politics. And trust me, politics here is thick on the ground. But I want to talk about two worldview dimensions that are by no means limited to Washington DC, but they do show up in a big way in Washington, DC.

Okay, first I want to turn to a headline story that appeared in yesterday’s edition of The Washington Post. Here’s the headline, “Would Jesus like Waymo? Some Baptist Pastors are Lobbying Against a Bill.” Okay, Jesus, Waymo, Baptist pastors, we’re in. Okay. The article is in The Washington Post, it’s by Liam Scott. It begins with this, “Would Jesus like Waymo? The Reverend A. Michael Charles Durant doesn’t think so. ‘Jesus either walked or wrote a beast,’ Durant said in an interview at the 10th Street Baptist Church in Washington where he serves as pastor. ‘He would be opposed to technology that was opposed to people. And I believe that this is opposed to people.'”

We’re talking about automated driverless vehicles. We’re talking about legislation proposed in the District of Columbia that would legalize the availability of the service. And you’re talking here about a group of African American Baptist pastors who are saying this isn’t right. As the article tells us, “In recent months, Durant,” again, that is the Reverend A. Michael Charles Durant of the 10th Street Baptist Church in Washington. “In recent months, he has joined local Baptist pastors and other top leaders in the National Baptist Convention, which bills itself as the largest Black religious organization in the United States, in opposing autonomous vehicles, including in the district where the DC council is weighing a bill that will legalize their commercial operation.”

The article continues, “Although the pastors echo arguments from labor unions that autonomous vehicles will cut into the bottom lines of rideshare drivers, some of whom are their congregants, their rationale centers on a more existential concern, that robotaxis threaten what it means to be human.” Okay, this sounds really interesting. It gets even more interesting. Pastor Durant said next, “God created us to be interdependent. The greatest danger is not that humans will not be needed, but that we will create an environment where humans don’t need each other.”

It becomes very clear that the issue of these autonomous vehicles is tied to larger concerns about artificial intelligence. Another pastor is cited, this is C.H. Johnson, pastor at Christ Missionary Baptist Church in Maryland. He said, “Automation can dehumanize humanity. The Book of Genesis declares that God created man, and then he breathed into man’s nostrils and man became a living soul. If we’re not careful, technology can rob us of our humanity, can rob God’s creation of our humanity.”

Now, that’s really, really interesting. This is where we go so many times on The Briefing where we look at an assault or a subversion against human dignity. And of course, we as Christians, we don’t ground human dignity in humanity. We ground human dignity in the Imago Dei, that is in the creator making us in his image. Pastor Johnson is absolutely right. Yes, automation can and does threaten to dehumanize humanity. He’s absolutely right, pointing back to Genesis where God made us in his image, breathed life into us, into human beings. He’s absolutely right saying, “If we are not careful, technology can rob us of our humanity, can rob God’s creation of our humanity.”

Okay, well, all kinds of theological and biblical issues get inserted into this article. The Washington Post then went to Noreen Herzfeld, who is a professor at St. John’s School of Theology and Seminary in Minnesota, who we are told, “Studies the intersection of religion and technology.” The article tells us, “She hadn’t previously heard of religious communities specifically opposing autonomous vehicles, but she said many religious groups are worried about artificial intelligence.”

Well, she’s right, I think, to make a link between these two issues. And even though this is the first group of pastors I have seen even talking about the ethics of autonomous vehicles, it is tied inexorably, inevitably to the issue of artificial intelligence. The professor went on to say, and I quote, “Religious communities are concerned about AI becoming a substitute for the relationships that matter, and that would be human-human relationships and human relationships with God.” Well, I’m not sure the degree to which I’m likely to agree with this professor on many things, but in that statement, she’s absolutely right.

The article in The Washington Post then goes to the Roman Catholic Church, to the Vatican, to Pope Leo XIV, who in his first encyclical recently released, known as Magnifica Humanitas, he argued that the “unconstrained proliferation of AI may threaten humanity and foster inequity.” The Pope said, “In the era of artificial intelligence, when human dignity is threatened by new forms of dehumanization, ours is the pressing duty to remain profoundly human. We must lovingly safeguard the grandeur of humanity bestowed upon us and revealed in the fullness of Christ, the splendor of which no machine can ever replace.”

Once again, let’s just say the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church inhabit two different ecclesial worlds, with everything that goes with it. But on that statement, I’ll simply say he’s absolutely right. Well, all right, wait just a minute. This is The Washington Post, so good reporting is going to go to one argument then is going to give some space to the opposing argument. What would the opposing argument be?

In this case, it basically comes down to the argument that technology can do wonderful things for us. The reporter then turns to Professor Braden Molhoek, who is director of the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences at GTU, that’s the graduate theological union in California, who “said he could see a religious argument in favor of driverless vehicles because they may be safer than human drivers.” In his exact words, “You could argue that like a medical technology, this could potentially save lives.” And he went on to extend his argument to say it could also reduce suffering.

But that’s a very interesting argument. It’s the kind of argument that doesn’t mean that this professor is necessarily committed to some kind of technological determinism, or technological utopianism for that matter. But we do need to recognize there are those out there. Silicon Valley is highly populated with those who think that the technology is going to be superior to human beings. Just think of some of their claims about generative AI. And thus, the best thing human beings can do is simply just let the technology happen, try to put the right safeguards around it.

The Post does, about Professor Molhoek, also say that’s only part of the picture. He went on to indicate there were costs to artificial intelligence and other technologies. He said, “That is a concern of religious leaders. What is the human cost?” Well, of course, that’s a big question. I appreciate the fact he acknowledged the question.

All right, there’s also another side that comes out in this article in an unexpected way, perhaps. The National Baptist Convention is identified by some as the second-largest group of Baptists in the world. That’s after the Southern Baptist Convention itself. It’s an historically Black Baptist denomination that traces its roots back even earlier in the 19th century, but formally in terms of its founding in 1880. But out of the National Baptist Convention, and this is rooted in the civil rights struggle and other events in the 1960s, you had the establishment of what is known as the Progressive National Convention. And this was, you would say, in the context of the Civil Rights Movement, a more politically activist organization. It was founded in 1961, and in some cases is seen as a more liberal or more progressive denomination, thus the name, than the National Baptist Convention.

The Washington Post goes to a representative of the Progressive National Baptist Convention, the Reverend Thomas Bowen from Shiloh Baptist Church in DC. And he says, he remembers a time “when taxis drove right by him as a Black man in the district and New York years ago. He said he was excited when Uber and Lyft came on the scene, but that he has faced similar issues with those services. ‘Why should I have to put on a suit to get a taxi?’ he asked.” And by the way, he’s now the general secretary of the Progressive National Baptist Convention, which is headquartered in Washington.

Okay, he didn’t go on to elaborate a great deal, but it is interesting that you have this dichotomy. Some people say, “Well, you look at this technology, it’s a great thing.” And as the professor said from the GTU, it could be that this means that there will be fewer accidents. This could lead to a situation in which you have machines driving better than human beings. And then you have the argument, no, you are taking the human being out of the equation. And furthermore, you also are taking jobs away. So this is one of the points made in the article, even as the National Baptist Convention pastor said their main concern was theological and ethical across the whole society. It is also true that major labor unions are coming out very much against autonomous vehicles precisely because those autonomous vehicles are going to be taking jobs away from human beings.

The article concludes by quoting the Reverend Boise Kimber, who is the current president of the National Baptist Convention. The paper says that he said his concern about driverless cars extends to broader worries about artificial intelligence. He said, “I see AI becoming a handicap to humanity. It does not allow us to practice real life.” He is now focusing, the paper tells us, his attention on robotaxis, “in part because he sees driving as an inherently human act.” Well, that’s an argument. It’s an interesting argument.

I appreciate the fact that so many of these pastors pointed to creation order and human beings made in the image of God. That is exactly where we need to take this conversation. And it does have immediate applications to big questions about artificial intelligence and humanity, even driverless vehicles and humanity. That’s not to say that it is a simple no to all these technologies. And you can look at the history of Christians dealing with so many of these things, and Christian warnings have often been prophetic and right. And at the very least, you have Christians with the responsibility to understand the difference between humanity, human beings made in God’s image, and machines. We, if no one else is able to tell the difference, have to understand the difference, and insist upon it.

Okay, next, staying in the context of Washington DC, the latest cover story in the magazine known as Washingtonian. Now, that’s a pretty influential inside the beltway kind of magazine. Here’s the cover story. “Is DC the Loneliest City in the Country?” The subhead, “Washington can be a lonely place, but it doesn’t have to be. Here’s how to meet new people and make more real friends.”

All right, now from a Christian worldview perspective, this is right, right in the center rings in terms of our target. We’re talking about what it means to be human, just as in the last issue of our discussion, but now we’re talking about the very real problem of loneliness. And by some estimations, Washington DC is one of the loneliest cities on the planet. And by some scores, the loneliest city in the United States. Okay, so now we have your attention. We’re talking about loneliness and we’re talking about loneliness being identified as a major public health crisis.

The article is by a team of reporters, they begin the piece with this, “An old adage holds that if you want a friend in Washington, you’re best off getting a dog.” The writers go on to say, “Often and incorrectly attributed to President Truman, the saying gets at the tenuous nature of political relationships and also a deeper truth about everyday life in the nation’s capitol.” They continue with this, “Namely, living here can sometimes be awfully lonely.” They go on to cite the metric, 48.6% of households in Washington DC “consist of one person.” That’s the highest ratio in the entire nation. I think some people would be surprised that’s even higher than Manhattan.

Okay. Then we also see that as America’s loneliest city, that’s a designation that was granted by the product research firm known as the Chamber of Commerce, and that’s rooted in that metric. Okay, from a Christian worldview perspective, once again, you see the acknowledgement of how central this is to defining human existence. We are told that the issue of loneliness is indicated by the metric that almost half, 48.6% of the households in DC consist of one person. Okay, just keep in mind God’s declaration and creation order, it is not good that man should be alone. In other words, loneliness is not what we are called to, but loneliness is a predicament. It’s also a diagnosis, quite frankly, as this article makes clear, that is affecting millions and millions of people. It is a problem exaggerated in terms of its reality in the modern age.

And I think one of the big issues Christians understand is that when you have the subversion of the family, the subversion of marriage, when you have something artificial, like almost half of the households existing of just one person, you have a recipe for, let’s just say, social disaster. A big social pathology. I think it’s fascinating that it made the front cover of Washingtonian magazine in its current issue.

A part of this collection of pieces by various contributors to the Washingtonian, a part of it focuses on the unique loneliness of many men. It is simply a matter irrefutable in the research that many men are uniquely lonely. Listen to this, “More than half of all Americans say they feel lonely often or some of the time, and an analysis of US census data led,” Once again, we see that figure that mentions DC is the loneliest city in America in the years 2023 and 2024. But it also, as I say, does affect some men more than some women. That’s not true in every society, but it is certainly true in the United States. Listen to this part of the research. “Smaller families, fewer marriages, feeling overworked and overwhelmed, a decline of so-called third places for socializing. A culture that venerates rugged individualism, streaming and scrolling on our…” Well, I can’t say the next word, but phones.

“All these are likely culprits in atomizing society.” I continue, “Enforced separation during the pandemic made already lonely Americans feel even more distant, but the causes of all this remoteness may not matter as much as how it affects us, which is to say very badly.” The article cites Andrew McPherson, chair of the Foundation for Social Connection Action Network in DC who said, “This isn’t some mushy issue. This is a really serious issue that affects our health.”

That came to our attention during the Biden administration when then Surgeon General Vivek Murthy released an 82-page report in which he said that loneliness is now a national healthcare emergency. It threatens American health. “One of the great challenges facing our generation,” said the then surgeon general, “is loneliness. And I think it will be a drain on future generations if we’re not able to figure out how to create a more connected society.” The magazine article then says, “Our area is famously transient, a place where the cyclical nature of politics and power has some people perpetually coming and going in with one election and out with another. When the Chamber of Commerce ranked DC as America’s loneliest city, it did so by looking at the percentage of one person households, again, 48.6%. Tops in the nation, greater than Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York.”

Okay, very interesting stuff. Isn’t it interesting how the article goes back again and again to the single person household as one indication of the problem? There’s some good data for all of us to consider here. According to this report, 38 million Americans live alone. That’s from Census Bureau data. According to the federal government’s American Time Use Survey, we’re told, “A 10th of people between 23 and 29 have no face-to-face interactions with anyone on a daily basis.” Okay, as Christians, let’s just pause for a moment. This is not what we’re made for. You’re talking about a 10th of young people, 23 to 29, with absolutely no face-to-face interaction with a single human being on a daily basis. This is profoundly unhealthy. This, in its way, is also a rejection of creation order. It’s more subtle than say the rejection of the categories of male and female, but it’s also very destructive. 

I raise this issue and draw attention to this cover story and its related pieces because I think it really does point to a huge issue. And Christians do understand that this is actually a bigger issue than the secular world understands. This is actually a more tragic story, a more tragic reality than the secular world understands. And that’s because we were not created for this. We were not created to be alone. We were created to be in community. And, yes, that’s why God gave us marriage and family.

I also want to take the opportunity to raise another issue, and that is that in Washington DC, and in the Washington DC area, there are now some incredibly faithful gospel congregations, Christ-exalting churches with incredible ministries. And so, as you’re looking at this, you realize the Washingtonian has just avoided dealing with religion whatsoever, with Christianity in particular. But even as we think about it, we just need to be grateful that in a city like Washington DC there really are some wonderful gospel congregations. Christians need to keep in mind the goodness of the church of the Lord Jesus Christ in every dimension.

First of all, the center of the gospel, the center of Christian worship, but it also comes with all kinds of other gifts and good things, and that includes the fellowship of the saints. It includes the commitment of the congregation together. It includes the joy Christians have of being in covenant together within a congregation. And frankly, sharing the faith and growing in the faith together. And that means that in the church there are people who may be outside of marriage or outside of a family, but they’re a part of the family of faith.

And one of the very interesting intersections sometimes that comes is when you have one thing in one hand and another piece in your other hand, and they all of a sudden go together in a way that needs to be brought together. So, metaphorically, in one hand I would have that cover story from Washingtonian. On the other hand, I would have a new book that has just been released entitled The Death of Religion? Nones, Others, and the Flourishing of Faith. It’s by Byron R. Johnson and Thomas S. Kidd. It really is making some very interesting arguments, but one of the most important issues documented in this book is the fact that the Christian church is a natural place which has been central throughout most of American history to having human flourishing encouraged, nurtured, and happen within the life of the congregation.

As a matter of fact, they pull together data. One of the things that comes out is that there are basically three most important spheres in which social capital has been added, human flourishing has been enhanced. And that is, first of all, in the family, also relationships that emerge from the workplace. And then third, from the church. In a secularizing America, and frankly, in the actual lives of so many Americans, a secular life space, you have the absence of the church, it comes with huge consequences. And of course, our main concern are gospel consequences, but there are also human flourishing consequences.

In this book, Johnson and Kidd cite Robert Putnam. He wrote a bestseller years ago entitled Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, and they quote him as stating, “That approximately half of the total repository of social capital in the United States resides in America’s houses of worship.” Just think about that, social capital. It’s all that social connection that leads to the enhancement and context for human flourishing and for humans to be healthy. And half of all the social capital, Robert Putnam argues, in the entire United States is found in America’s houses of worship.

Now, looking at that Washingtonian cover story, you would never know that anything like that even would be remotely true. But as we have to bring this to an end, let me just say, this should make Christians all the more thankful for the gift of the church of the Lord Jesus Christ. Not only in terms of the gospel, not only in terms of the ministry of the word, but in terms of the fellowship of the saints and the love that grows. Human flourishing, let’s just say, isn’t just an accidental byproduct of biblical Christianity. We also come to understand that the secular world decreasingly even understands this as the nature of a problem. At the very least, it is up to Christians thinking from a biblical worldview to understand how these things fit together, and how perfectly they fit together in God’s perfect plan.

All right, I just thought that those issues deserve some attention today.

I do want to turn to questions. My first question comes from a 14-year-old young man listening in Tennessee. He begins by saying, “I’m a young theology nerd,” well, God bless you. He’s been listening to The Briefing. Again, God bless you. And he’s been asking some big questions. And once again, I tell you what, if you’re not encouraged and, frankly, somewhat surprised by the quality of questions coming from teenagers in our churches, you need to have some of these conversations. They’re capable of raising just most important questions. 

Number one, he says, “Generative AI as a replacement for creative art and work?” He’s asking about that. Let me just say to this young man, I believe that we as Christians need to keep the categories absolutely straight. So a machine, a computer might be able to create an image. It cannot do so reflecting the glory of God in terms of the creative gifts that God gave to humanity. And that means, I think it’s really interesting that even though AI might be used in making some movies or things like that, I think we all really want to know where it’s used. Even controversy in recent days having to do with an artificial intelligence generated picture, and people were making all kinds of comments about it, a photograph, and it turns out it was artificially generated. We as Christians have to understand not only the good, the beautiful, and the true, but what is real and what is unreal. So, again, I think the Christian church has honored and understood to the glory of God the role of creative art and work. AI, it may replace certain tasks, it cannot take the place of a human being, not in the biblical sense.

Okay. Secondly, this young man asks for a concise definition of evangelical Protestantism, what it is, what it is not, and your view on it. Well, I am an evangelical Protestant, I want to say to this young man, emphatically so. The word Protestant, by the way, means not only protest, it means making a public declaration. When it comes to the word Protestant, we have to go back to the 16th century. And there were German princes who made a statement together, and that would be in favor of reformation doctrine, and that’s over against an edict by the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. They were called Protestants, Protestant princes, because they protested against what the emperor was doing. And that word just stuck, Protestants. So we’re talking about those who share the heritage and the inheritance of the Protestant reformation.

That was a word, which is so often the case, it’s not a word they chose for themselves, it was a word that was put upon them. But it has become a stable part of our nomenclature. Protestant doesn’t just mean non-Roman Catholic, it means specifically the inheritors of the Protestant reformation. So think Luther, Calvin, et cetera. Evangelical refers to the gospel, evangelium in the Greek. It refers to the gospel, and so it’s gospel Protestants. Now, I want to say to this listener, Protestants should mean gospel in every case. The word evangelical in the English-speaking world just goes back to, well, the very Greek word for the gospel itself. And so, that’s why it means gospel Protestants. And as I say, all Protestants, true Protestants are gospel Protestants. But in a day in which you have some that at least were historically Protestant who have gone off into theological liberalism and abandoned the gospel saying Evangelical Protestant means Protestant, Protestant, Bible, Gospel, Protestant.

And so, I hope you hear the energy in my voice. The alternative to evangelical Protestant is liberal Protestant, which I don’t think is actually Protestant. It is liberal, and it’s a disaster. I do sincerely appreciate this young man writing to me. And by the way, I’ve got so many good questions I hope we can turn to next week on The Briefing on Friday’s edition. 

But I though we really needed to talk about those particular issues that really came to the fore in Washington DC at the very time I’m speaking to you from this city. I hope this has been encouragement to all of us to be faithful as Christians and understanding the nature of the local church, the real epidemic of loneliness around us, and also some of the big questions raised by technology.

In one day, just to be able to think about these things is a great honor. It’s also a great challenge, so we also have to bring this to an end.