Researching Artificial Intelligence Applications in Evangelical and Pentecostal/Charismatic Churches: Purity, Bible, and Mission as Driving Forces

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A very good article. I was expecting more focus on issues raised in the title: between mission and dystopia. Instead the article tends to offer a standard presentation of AI, some uses of AI in the selected tradition(s), some reflections. There's a lot of theology missing...but, to be fair, this is a digital religion article rather than digital theology article. Could the title be amended to reflect this? I didn't actually notice much about contradicting views about AI in theory or practice. 

I think more work could be done on the opening of the article.

Two issues:

1. You talk about how influence of AI will depend on the beliefs and traditions of the religious body. But there is not discussion of this nor rationale for the statement. It felt like a loose statement at the beginning of an otherwise careful article.

2. The definition of AI is multi-part. You begin with AI as a simulation of human intelligence. I think this is a (mis)leading definition both computationally and theologically. We don't yet understand human intelligence. We do understand computing. So further into your definition section, you make use of computing-led definitions. In the end AI is simply coding and mathematics as Prof Beth Singler in Zurich would say. To push towards the key definition of Ai as a simulation of the human mind seems to be an ideological decision which could impede the reader's assessment of the article as a whole. 

Author Response

List of Reviewers' points addressed in the new version based on Referee 1 revision

1. Title: We have amended the title to reflect better the content of the paper. 
2. Regarding the opening of the article, we have improved and expanded it in several parts. We have explained better our affirmation that the influence of AI will depend on the beliefs and traditions of the religious body, such that it does not seem “like a loose statement at the beginning”.
3. Also, we have expanded and improved our definition of AI. Emphasizes the computational aspect and how it is used to perform tasks that can be done by human intelligence but due to the large volumes of data are simply overwhelming. Since the three cases are more on the algorithmic aspect of AI, the definitions at the beginning provide a starting point.

Reviewer 2 Report

There are several areas that should be relooked at, in order to advance this paper into a publishable format.

a) Disjuncture between the title of the paper and the content. It is unclear how the title relates to the paper. The goals of this paper are also not clearly stated. 

b) Weak conceptual grounding of the paper, and thin support for the focus on EPCCs and the three applications

c) Non-existent discussion of the research methodology of this paper. It is unclear what do the "case studies" entail, and what purposes the discussion in those three sections serve. As such the content appears incoherent across these three sections.

Section 3. appears particularly weak in terms of content, and it is unclear how "Christian AI-based sexual purity applications" work and their relation to AI developments.  Last paragraph of this section is relevant, but riddled with weak claims and thin content. 

e) It is hard for a reader to understand the cases described, and why random theories are woven into the discussion; which do little to advance the loose claims and "findings" being made.  

e) Overall, the academic soundness could be improved in many areas (for example, the top paragraph on page 3) where assertions appear to be made, rather than arguments supported by evidence and citations. 

Given the fundamental weaknesses in this paper, it is difficult to assess the significance of its contributions. There does not appear to be an original or compelling thesis, and it is hard to see support for the strong claim made in the conclusion section (on how EPCCs are "proactively involved" in the ....of AI-based technologies). 

In general, there is no issue with the presentation of this paper in the English language, but there are many areas in which references to published works could be augmented. 

Author Response

List of Reviewers points addressed in the new version

1. Title: We have amended the title to reflect better the content of the paper. 
2. The focus on EPCCs is justified by their worldwide growth, and the choice of three applications is based on the importance of these aspects on the spirituality of these churches. In the new version, we have added a few remarks to emphasize this point. We also have explained better our affirmation that the influence of AI will depend on the beliefs and traditions of the religious body.
3. A full new section on our methodological approach was added. The choice of the three cases is justified based on the framework now presented in the methodology. This is a new field of research, and the paper also serves as a starting point for other researchers. We justify the use of the case study method as a means to find questions that can guide future research in this new field.
4. Section 3 has been expanded. We have added additional technical material to support the AI aspects of the sexual purity applications. One of our critical points has to do with the training of the AI algorithms used. In the previous version, this was an important element, and in this new one, we have kept it. Some additional references were added in the initial paragraph, but this is just a case study and much more research is still needed in this area. In the last paragraph, we have tried to support better the claims showing how these systems are used and why it is important to continue researching their impact in EPCCs. We have pointed out in the discussion the lack of research regarding the usefulness of these solutions and the need to address this point.
5. We have expanded our idea of how EPCCs use technological solutions in their models of encounter with God: Sacramental, Kerygmatic, and Charismatic connecting them with the case studies that will be presented below, such that the idea becomes clearer.
6. The paper has been somewhat expanded with additional clarifications in certain points, and references where needed. The initial word count was below 7000 words as suggested by the editors of the Special Issue. In this new version, some expansions have been made, but we have tried to keep the word count within a reasonable length.

Reviewer 3 Report

This is an interesting article worthy of publication. I would offer the following suggestions for improvement before ultimate publication:

1) the authors begin with an intriguing notion of digital habitus, however the authors do not integrate the notion within the article. I would suggest returning to it and tying it in at the conclusion, or even better integrating it throughout the article. As it stands it seems more a throw away rather than a theoretical foundation which the introduction seems to indicate it will be.

2) The example of YouVerse seems like a stretch to the argument of the paper. The authors do not show clear indicate of the use of A.I. as part of the application. They suggest that A.I. is being used in the background for analysis but with no citation. I think this section needs a greater foundation to fit in the context of the paper. In contrast I think the section dealing with TikTok provides a good example of how this kind of example should be done. I particularly like the idea of machine agent.

3) The references are in no order that I can discern, they should be reorderd. 

The paper seems a little on the short side anyway so I think making the expansions will help. In general, particularly in the sections before the case studies, the authors mention particular phenomena without giving examples. For example, line 99 the authors talk about the sacramental usage of A.I. but no example is given and no citation. It would be worth while to cite examples even if this is just a reference to one of the case studies to come further on in the paper. Likewise in the conclusion for each of your conceptual frameworks you should draw the reader back to your case studies so its clear which of these you think connects to each item.

One final note. Your paper title suggests a contradition between A.I. and EPCCs, yet your paper does not explicitly make this argument. I'd suggest either changing the title, or making clear where the contradiction lies. As I read it, Evangelicals are doing what Evangelicals have historically done (as your Billy Graham quote makes clear), using advances in technology to increase their own reach. 

Author Response

List of points addressed in the new version

1. Title: We have amended the title to reflect better the content of the paper. 
2. The focus on EPCCs is justified by their worldwide growth, and the choice of three applications is based on the importance of these aspects on the spirituality of these churches. In the new version, we have added a few remarks to emphasize this point.
3. We have reviewed and made sure that the concept of digital habitus is mentioned, or used, in every section of the article and in the conclusion.
4. In the case of YouVersion, while it is true that references to the use of AI by the app are difficult to find, except for the Ukrainian language search feature and Bible Lens, the amount of data collected is an indication that big data analysis is part of the application, and this results in the progressive integration of more AI-based features. In this regard, we have added a reference.
5. We have expanded our idea of how EPCCs use technological solutions in their models of encounter with God: Sacramental, Kerygmatic, and Charismatic connecting them with the case studies that will be presented below.
6. The paper has been somewhat expanded. The initial word count was below 7000 words as suggested by the editors of the Special Issue. In this new version, some expansions have been made, but we have tried to keep the word count within a reasonable length.

We have reordered in alphabetical order the references.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Revisions undertaken have improved the paper, thank you for the response.