Driving Milton Little

 I have been cleaning out a lot of old files and papers recently since we returned from selling our cottage and unpacking the many things we moved back to our house here in Parkhill.  In the process I came across a clipping from an old newspaper article about a church in New Westminster celebrating its one hundredth anniversary.  Sixth Avenue United Church congregation was 100 years old in 1990.  The article noted that my father, Rev. Milton Little, was minister from 1954 to 1960.  I was young and impressionable at that time being born in 1949 – so it was part of my formative years.

The article had an insert about my father and his time while he was the minister there which I have reproduced here:

DRIVEN?

Rev. Milton Little was in charge of Sixth Avenue United Church from 1954 to 1960.  According to a collection of memories put out by the church, Little was “a very unostentatious person”.  He also was an amateur automobile mechanic, and he drove and old pre-war vehicle that some members of the congregation felt reflected negatively on the church.

One evening, while at a church meeting, a runaway truck smashed into Little’s car.  The insurance company wrote it off as being totaled.  “Ahah” said the church people, “Now he’ll have to buy a new car, and he certainly can’t find one as old as he’s been driving.”

But Little did.  The insurance company made a cash settlement with him and let Milton keep his old, smashed-up, jalopy.  With it and with the other vehicle of the same make, model and vintage that he had found, he was able to create one car that he could drive and which was just as “disreputable” as before.

I remember much about these events and looking back, I think that my sympathies were with the congregation members.  The “pre-war vehicle” was a 1936 Chev which I remember well.  It was an embarrassment to me, and I presume my older brother and sister – although I haven’t checked this out with them.  I don’t specifically remember my reaction to the car being demolished but I think it was probably along the same lines as the congregation – now Dad will have to get a more up to date vehicle which is not an embarrassment to be seen riding in. I was realistic enough to know that there was no way my father would get a new car, but it was probably my deep secret desire.  However, a more up to date one was a realistic hope.

Of course, my hope and dream along with those of the congregation, were dashed when, true to form, my father came up with a replacement which was, for all intents and purposes, a clone of the demolished one.  I must admit that one feature of the old car which I enjoyed was the running boards.  I do have fond memories as a young child riding on the running boards for short distances when my father allowed it.  I’m not sure if my mother approved but I imagine it may have caused some friction.

My father and I were not much alike in personality.  We did share a great interest in theology, and we connected on that basis.  However, I have never been a mechanic of any kind – amateur or otherwise and I have always had a preference for new cars which, perhaps I can blame on my embarrassment of that 1936 Chev in my formative years – that new car smell is hard to beat. I won’t say that my prayers and those of the congregation members were answered when that beloved car was demolished - I don’t remember actually praying for that to happen.  However, I think, on some level, it was a case of unconscious prayers of a seven- or eight-year-old child being answered at least for a few days until they were dashed with the reality of my father’s love of that car and of being frugal, which, I must say, stayed with him all his life.

To close on a positive note, I am able to see my father as a complex person with strengths and weaknesses who loved his family in his own way which I did not always appreciate.  Hindsight, if not always 20-20, can be clearer as time goes by as it was in this case. 

 

Is AI a Danger to Humanity?

I grew up as a science fiction nerd.  I consumed a great deal of SF starting with comic books, DC comics of course, with all the superheroes who were my idols if not models of what a hero should be.  As I grew older – perhaps not growing up in this area, I graduated to science fiction novels.  Of course, being a child of the manse (minister’s kid), I also had a good dose of bible stories, and I always favoured the old testament with its heroes such as the shepherd boy David who slew the giant Goliath with a stone from his sling, and Samson who slew the Philistines with the jawbone of an ass.  There was also Noah who built the arc to house two animals or every kind (or seven depending on the verse).  Somehow, I missed the part of the story where Noah becomes drunk and naked, to the shame of his sons, after the flood.  But that came later in my education.

One of the science fiction authors that I consumed was the great Isaac Asimov who wrote novels such as the Foundation Trilogy.  His work came to mind with the recent discussion and controversy around the expectations claiming that there is a possibility that Artificial Intelligence could break out and severely harm, if not wipe out humanity.  Being a person of great imagination, Asimov foresaw the danger in AI early on and devised a solution to the problem of robots running amok and doing harm to people on even a universal scale. 

His solution was the Three Laws of Robotics.  Using AI, I was quickly able to refresh my memory of the Three Laws and what they involved.  Here’s the information provided by Google AI.  I think that in this case the information can be trusted as being accurate and not invented by AI.

 The Three Laws of Robotics (often shortened to The Three Laws or Asimov's Laws) are a set of rules devised by science fiction author Isaac Asimov, which were to be followed by robots in several of his stories. The rules were introduced in his 1942 short story "Runaround" (included in the 1950 collection I, Robot), although similar restrictions had been implied in earlier stories.

The Laws

The Three Laws, presented to be from the fictional "Handbook of Robotics, 56th Edition, 2058 A.D.", are:^[1]

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

The Laws are incorporated into almost all of the positronic robots appearing in his fiction, and cannot be bypassed, being intended as a safety feature.  Asimov added a fourth, or zeroth law, to precede the others:

1.    A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.

 

It seems to me that this would address the challenge which has been identified by those AI geeks.  However, the obvious problem is that there we are not dealing with the positronic brain that was envisioned by Asimov – whatever that actually would entail.  I do know that Data, Star Trek, the Next Generation had one – but even an inveterate watcher of TNG didn’t understand what a positronic brain would consist of. 

The other problem seems to be that there seems to be little desire on the part of the world governments of countries where AI is being developed at such dramatic speed, to put controls on the developers.  It requires something like a nuclear proliferation treaty requiring all countries to put those laws or restrictions in place. 

We can only hope and pray that governments will wake up and smell the bacon sizzling on the AI hot plate before it is too late.  After all, even a 5% possibility of annihilation (one of the lower estimates) is 5% too much.  

Giving Thanks

Today is Thanksgiving – a note to my American friends we celebrate Thanksgiving earlier than you.  This morning my thoughts are focused on two things – giving thanks, and home. 

When I think of giving thanks, the passage from 1 Thessalonians 5:18 comes to mind, "In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you."  It is important to note that it says, ‘in every thing’ and not ‘for every thing’.  I don’t think the writer of this passage intends us to give thanks to God for everything that happens to us.  It would be inappropriate to give thanks for the premature death of a loved one, or for a vehicle accident in which you or a passenger was seriously injured, and the many things that many or all of us have experienced in life that are tragic, or heart wrenching, or horrible, to contemplate.  That also applies to the not so serious events in life when fate seems to be conspiring against you.  However, it is possible to give thanks to God when life gives us a wrong turn for God is with us particularly in those difficult times. 

With that in mind, I consider what I am thankful for this Thanksgiving?  Fortunately, I do not have much that is difficult for me to not be thankful for.  Lorna and I have returned from our summer at the cottage in PEI.  We have had 14 years of enjoying and appreciating our time each year at the cottage and with many friends and good neighbours.  That has come to an end with the decision that it was time to close that portion of our lives and sell the cottage.  So, thankfully we were able to sell the cottage in a slow real estate market – the sale was finalized on our last day – something to be truly thankful for.  We were able to pack up all we wanted to bring back to Ontario (more than might be imagined for a cottage), sell what we didn’t, and give to the local second-hand shop.  I was also thankful for the safe journey home which was uneventful if a bit stressful.  Actually, the whole process was quite stressful, and we both are thankful that we didn’t wait until next year to undertake all this as we are definitely not getting any younger – but I hope we are getting better.  So here we are back in our home in Parkhill and settling in for it to be our year-round home.

That brings us to the second thing on my mind this morning – home.  What comes to mind for this is the quote from TS Eliot, "We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time."  Our cottage was home for us and our house in Parkhill Ontario was and is also home.  However, neither of those homes was, I believe, what Eliot had in mind when he wrote those memorable lines.  I give thanks that Lorna and I had our home at the cottage with friends and neighbours and the opportunity to worship at an Anglican church.  There are things in both homes that have components of what Eliot was expressing.  There was a place where we were safe and secure and could enjoy the aspects of life that fulfilled us – Lona had her garden and I had my bunkie.  We had St. Alban’s church where we could worship God in a meaningful way and where I could preside and provide music with people we love.  That is true of our home in Parkhill – in ways that are different but the same.  We have the Anglican Church of St. John the Evangelist at home in Parkhill.  Both those homes are reflections and indications of what our true home will be when we shall arrive once more at the place we each started and see it truly for the first time.

So, there is much to be thankful for this Thanksgiving.  I hope that you have much to give thanks for as well – in everything give thanks but definitely not for everything.   

 

A Moving Experience

Our surroundings are familiar and yet rather strange to Lona and me.  A Paul Simon lyric echoes in my head – Nothing is different, but everything's changed.  The moving van arrived to take most of the contents of our cottage in PEI.  This was our fourteenth year spending the beginning of June to the beginning of October at our cottage in this wonderful place – of sun and sand and labyrinth and beautiful sunrises and sunsets.  But all things must end and we decided early this year that this would be our last. 

We both truly regret this, but the reality is that our eightieth decade is fast approaching and the trip from Ontario to the cottage and back is becoming more than we can manage for many reasons including having our feline animal companion with us.  She (the companion) travels pretty well but enclosing her in the carrier is a challenge each time.  So, it is time to say goodbye to this place and the people that we know and love – particularly the parishioners at St. Alban’s Anglican church in Souris where I have had the privilege to serve in my retirement from parish ministry.

As I noted above – at time of writing, the moving van arrived yesterday and removed most of our possessions.  It took us about a month to get to this point with organizing and packing what we would move to our other home; what we would take with us in the car when we leave; what we would sell – Lorna discovered the benefit of listing things on Marketplace and she managed to sell quite a few of the things we didn’t want to move back to Ontario. 

It has been quite a journey so far and we haven’t even left the cottage yet.  I would not have thought that a cottage would mean there was that much which required organizing, packing, securing and putting in boxes – which of course require taping up once they are securely packed – not as easy as it sounds.  Fortunately, Lorna is excellent in this kind of an endeavor and did so much to get us to this point.

The movers were very effective and efficient and managed to get everything loaded on a very big trailer – 53’ long which is the biggest allowed (at least when I was working on trucking policy in a previous life).  This took only a few hours.  Everything was on track until they had a problem pulling out of the laneway – no traction for the truck tractor.  It didn’t look promising but a neighbour with a farm tractor assisted the tractor trailer.

So here we are for the next week with the cottage pretty much empty – but not quite.  We are getting along with few amenities.  No tables or chairs – correction we have one wicker chair and Lorna and I are playing friendly musical chairs shifting between her desk in the cottage and mine (which is on Marketplace) in the bunkie.  We do still have our computers and the internet until we leave.  And yes, we do have sleeping accommodation.

As I said at the beginning, we are both very sad to leave all that has been such an important part of our life for the last fourteen years.  However, it is the correct decision.  We look forward to what the next stage of our life will bring.

May our journey to our Ontario home be blessed and may you be blessed on your journey.

AI and the Sermon Revisited

About two years ago I wrote a piece on the use of Artificial Intelligence in sermons by preachers.  It was published in the Huron Church News, our diocesan publication, under the title, AI and the Preacher: A stranger in the strange land.  It can be found at https://diohuron.org/news/ai-and-the-preacher-a-stranger-in-the-strange-land.

A few days ago, I was contacted by Matthew Puddister, the editor of the Anglican Journal, the national publication of the Anglican Church of Canada.  He is researching an article on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to write sermons and wanted to interview me for the article.  As a result, I reread the piece that I wrote and reflected on my thoughts and feelings about this issue. 

Two years is a long time in the world of the internet and particularly the world of AI.  At the time of writing the article, I had just started to experiment with AI, using ChatGPT, so it was a brave new world which I was just beginning to explore.  The bottom line for me in my piece was that AI was opening many possibilities for preachers which had great potential to be used and misused.  It provides a too easy way for a busy or even a lazy preacher to turn to for a sermon.  As I noted in the article, “Perhaps if Jesus was to be tempted by Satan today, this would be one of the temptations.” 

Well, what is the situation now two years later – an eternity in AI terms?  It is worming its way into many if not most aspects of our lives.  It is beginning to be used for many occupations and used for many of the tasks which It can do much more efficiently and effectively than humans.  The impact on education is far reaching and an immense challenge to educators.  It is leading to a new industrial revolution at speeds even the most imaginative science fiction writer would have had difficulty imagining. 

With all that, what is happening in the area of preaching and sermon preparation?  Well, I have no doubt it has taken up the place as an integral part of the toolbox of many preachers.  It is something which is too good to be ignored by many preachers.  With that said, how and to what extent should it be used in this sacred endeavor?  Reflecting on this after the incentive of the interview with Matthew Puddister, I am confirmed in my belief that it needs to be used in an ethical manner as would any resource which a preacher might use.  Resources such as biblical commentaries, concordances, dictionaries of biblical terms, which are now available on-line have been and are common resources in sermon preparation.  Publications of sermons by famous or infamous theologians have been available before the development of the printing press.  AI is just another tool which can be used.  However, it needs to be used with caution as AI is apparently known for creating facts and sources.  When such source material is used, it needs to be cited as the source as part of the sermon material. 

Are there any circumstances in which a preacher should use AI to write a sermon?  I won’t say never – rather perhaps hardly ever in my opinion.  There may be circumstances where a preacher has been overwhelmed by other duties – of which a parish priest or minister has many – and there has been literally no time to prepare a sermon.  If AI is used to write the sermon, this should be acknowledged by the preacher.  One downside to this is if this happens too frequently, the preacher runs the risk  of the congregation preferring the AI sermon to the sermons of the preacher (only partially joking). 

The temptation is that AI is so easy to use that it can become the fall-back position and an easy out if the preacher is not feeling particularly creative or inspired and thinks, well, what is the harm as I need to have something inspiring to say to the people in the pews (if the church still uses pews).  However, the sermon needs to be considered a sacred privilege and opportunity to proclaim the word.  The preacher has the responsibility to share his or her understanding of what the scripture is saying with those who hear it.  Using AI may short circuit this and not allow the Word of Holy Scripture to inspire the preacher and to be proclaimed.  The sermon is a sacred opportunity to do just that.  It is too easy for it to be something which is assembled and manufactured. 

In effect, as with many things, we have a spectrum of possibilities.  At one end of that spectrum, we have the, no AI ever position.  Matthew Puddister, in our conversation, mentioned the pledge that is being offered to preachers, The Saint Dunstan Pledge, in which the signatory pledges not to use AI in any way in sermon prep.  I had not heard of this and was able to find the details of it very easily with an AI Google search (score one for AI).  Here is the St. Dunstan Pledge according to AI:

"At no point in the brainstorming, planning, drafting, or writing of my sermons will I use ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, Gemini, or any other generative AI of any type available to me. I will use my own words. I will quote words written or spoken by other people, not produced by generative AI.”

The other extreme would be to use AI without limitation and without citation.  I believe that in the good Anglican tradition most of us will come down somewhere along that spectrum probably tending to be somewhere in the less  well defined middle.  We can always meet to discuss it as Anglicans are well known for doing.    

It is my hope and prayer that preachers and all Anglicans can seek to be open to the Holy Spirit and be inspired when attempting to discern where the Holy Spirit is leading us today and in the challenging days ahead.  The article is planned to be available in the November edition of the Anglican Journal.  I look forward with anticipation to reading it. 

If Trump Really Is My Neighbour, What Should I do?

Last Sunday, the Gospel reading was the parable of the Good Samaritan.  I am sure that you know the parable of Jesus where it is the despised Samaritan is the one who saves the traveller who is mugged on his journey ‘from Jerusalem to Jerico and fell among robbers who beat him and left him to die’ – to use the lyrics of the Medical Mission song, ‘Who is My Neighbour’. 

 

This opportunity for Jesus to tell the parable occurred when a lawyer tries to entrap him by asking him the question.  Jesus is confronted by the person who is a trained expert in the law of Moses. The "Lawyer" as the scripture calls him, isn't interested in learning about eternal life from Jesus at all. He hoped to use the law to set Jesus up. He figures this carpenter - from Nazareth no less - will make a fool of himself and possibly even incriminate himself by attempting to answer such a weighty question as... "What do I have to do to go to heaven?"

 

Jesus turns the lawyer’s technique back on him.  He responds to the question with a question.  Jesus lays a trap for him just as the lawyer attempted to do to Jesus.  Jesus plays to his pride and ego.  The lawyer responds, as it is an opportunity to show his knowledge of the law but not his wisdom. His answer in part quotes Deut. 6:5 along with Lev. 19:18 "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself."  Jesus’ answer could have ended the encounter, “You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live.”  However, the lawyer being true to who he is, does not let it go – he cannot.  I believe that he does just what Jesus expects him to do.  He tries again to entrap Jesus - to show him up - to show those around him that he knows the law better than Jesus does.

 

This arrogance allows Jesus to draw him into Jesus’ world, away from legalism – legalistic interpretation of religion, that Jesus tries to show so many times and in so many ways, is not the way to understand God’s law.  In choosing the hero of the Good Samaritan parable, Jesus is setting a trap for all of us.  The Samaritans were neighbours and relations of the Jews.  They were sort of the black sheep of the family.  They were like someone who claims to be a cousin and is an embarrassment to the family. In Jewish eyes, Samaritans were half-breeds, ethnic traitors, and all-round black sheep of the Jews.

 

A Samaritan was not someone that they would expect to behave like an observant Jew who is called to treat others with charity.  Therefore, the lawyer cannot escape from the conclusion that Jesus forces him into. 

He cannot use his legal maneuvering to give an acceptable answer - acceptable in the eyes of his legalism.  It is the outcast that has acted as the neighbour.  It is the outcast that has fulfilled the law.  And here we come back to our response to the passage.  The plain sense of the text does not let us avoid Jesus’ message.  Jesus does not tell us that we must love our neighbour if that person is loveable and is someone we want to have as a neighbour.  We are to love the neighbour regardless of who he is.  He is the one who we would not normally associate with – whoever that is.   

 

So, today we Christians in Canada are faced with a rather awkward situation regarding our neighbour to the south.  There is no way that we can consider the leader of our closest neighbour, Donald J. Trump, to be a good neighbour.  So, can we ignore the lesson in the Good Samaritan Parable, and, as the commandment requires us, love our neighbour as ourselves?    Not loving my neighbour as myself because my neighbours are not particularly loveable is not fulfilling what Jesus requires of us.  We are to love the neighbour – I won’t say because he is unlovable but whether or not he is loveable. 

 

But, come on!  How can a Canadian love Donald Trump?  It really doesn’t seem possible.  But that is what we Canadian Christians and all Christians are required to do.  What then does it mean to love Donald J. Trump as a neighbour.  Well. I think it means that we don’t allow him to bully us.  We are not doing anything loving, to allow a bully, to bully us or others.  It is not good for either the bully or the bullied.  To allow the bully to continue to bully is to enable him or her to continue to damage his immortal soul.  We hear that friends don’t let friends drive drunk.  In that vein, friends don’t let friends bully friends or anyone else.    

 

So. Let us do all in our power to stand up to Trump as an act of love.  As they say, love is stronger than hate. 

 

 

Journey Into old Age (part 5)

 

Last time, I offered the fourth part of the workshop based on the work of Helen Luke in her study of the journey into old age which draws on a number of classic stories.  Luke’s writing on this subject is found in her book – Old Age; Journey Into Simplicity.  Here is the fifth and final part of that material.

 

      I.          The Story: Odysseus is now informed that he must make sacrifices to Poseidon - the god he had offended in earlier years.  The three-fold sacrifice of ram, bull and breeding boar is his alone to find and fulfil.  This seemingly impossible task is made all the more impossible by the fact he must only use a rope to accomplish it.  This was in truth no surprise to our hero as it had all been foretold so long ago by the blind seer Teiresias.  For this fate had been truly forged in Odysseus’ pride filled ambition. 

The three sacrifices are made.  The god is appeased, enmity is ended and honour is thus restored.  Thus, the chasm between man and god - between ego and psyche is mended.  Odysseus place in the cosmos is thus set aright.   Odysseus then returned to where his journey had begun.  However, as has been said it was not the home he left because you can’t go to the home.  He has now fulfilled the life of the hero.  Domestic and divine were there united as the gods had after all ordained. 

The journey of growing old must be marked by sacrifices of those qualities that were forged in our pride and ambition of youth.  We must now as we grow into Old Age see with humility the follies and frailties of youth.  We must by these sacrifices appease the gods which we have dishonoured in the youthful follies.

 Exercise: Identify a god that you have offended in your youth e.g. this could be a value such as truth, honesty, charity etc.  Imagine what a sacrifice would be to appease that god. 

This concludes our journey into Old Age guided by Helen Luke.  I wish you blessings on your journey.