• Web: where you can switch to “you guys” or “yinz” and search visually
• App: YouVersion’s Bible App for plans, references, and comparisons
• Print: the whole Bible in black and white or the OT and NT which have colored titles and y’alls
• Swag: including shirts, mugs, and planners to show your love for the second person plural

Print Versions

After many request, Y’all Version is now available in print version through Amazon!

The whole Bible is 800 pages and black and white, while the separate OT and NT versions are smaller and have color text headings with “y’all” highlighted in green.

One day, I’d like to be able to offer a traditional leather bound version with thin Bible paper, but these are a nice start.

Merch for All Y’all

My kids encouraged me to create some shirts, hats, and other items that you can share with friends and family. These are now available at yallversion.etsy.com. Let me know if you have an idea for something that might help spread the word!

What is Y’all Version?

The short story is that Y’all Version is a Bible translation with the distinct feature of using “y’all” when the Hebrew or Greek has a plural second person pronoun or verb. In contrast, modern English translations use “you” for both singular and plural forms, which I think enables more individualistic readings.

For I know the plans I have for y’all,” declares YHWH, “plans for prosperity not disaster, to give y’all hope and a future.

Jeremiah 29:11 (YALL)

Don’t y’all know that y’all are God’s temple and that the Spirit of God dwells in y’all?

1 Corinthians 3:16 (YALL)

In addition, Y’all Version renders the divine name as “YHWH” rather than “the LORD.”

God also said to Moses, “You are to tell the children of Israel this, ‘YHWH, the God of y’all’s ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to y’all.’ This is my name forever, and this is my memorial to all generations.

Exodus 3:15 (YALL)

Put together, these key features help readers clearly see God and God’s people, or YHWH and y’all.

Y’all Version Features

Here is some additional details of the key features of YALL is adapted from yallversion.com. The About Page and the printed versions of the text have more detail, including a breakdown on the number of second person plurals in each book of the Bible.

1. The Name of God (YHWH)

YALL renders the divine name of God as YHWH, representing the four consonants of the Hebrew word (יהוה). In addition, YALL renders pronouns for God with small caps (Hᴇ, ʜᴇ, ʜɪᴍ, ʜɪꜱ) and pronouns for Jesus with masculine pronouns (he, him, his). The goal is to expose readers to God’s name, while also preserving the reverence in the LORD tradition, but instead of using small caps for the divine name, small caps are used on divine pronouns to indicate the creator/creature distinction.

2. The People of God (y’all)

YALL uses “you” and “y’all” to represent the distinction between singular and plural forms in Hebrew and Greek. Most languages preserve this clarity, but modern English does not indicate when a passage addresses an individual or a community, which allows for an individualistic reading of scripture. Y’all used to be limited to the Southern US, but has since grown to be used throughout the world (The Atlantic, BBC, How Stuff Works, etc.).

3. The Word of God

Although one might associate “y’all” with more informal speech, making the distinction between “you” and “y’all” is a very literal way of translating Greek and Hebrew. Because of this, I tended to stick with that approach throughout the text. In other words, YALL attempts to balance readable English word order with a word-for-word approach that works to highlight patterns in the underlying vocabulary as much as possible. For example, Hebrew infinitive absolutes are rendered “literally” as “die-die” rather than “surely die” (Gen 2:17). In Greek, some words are translated in an alternative way than most popular versions: kalos (καλός) as “beautiful” or “excellent” rather simply “good,” adelphoi (ἀδελφοὶ) as “siblings” instead of “brethren” or “brothers and sisters,” anthropos (ἄνθρωπος) as “human” when not referring to a specific male person, and ethnos (ἔθνος) as “ethnic group” rather than alternating between “Gentile” and “nation.”

How Did Y’all Version Come About?

The longer story goes something like this

• 2002 – When I took Greek in seminary, I learned that the original languages of the Bible have distinct forms for singular and plural second person pronouns and verbs.
• 2013 – I created something called the “Texas Bible Plugin” for Google Chrome, which would convert “you” to “y’all” in verses with a second person plural when you visited biblegateway.com and bible.com. It also had an option to convert the divine name from “the LORD” to “Yahweh.” KERA, Dallas’s NPR affiliate, did a little story on the project.
• 2014 – CNN also wanted to write about the Texas Bible, but the reporter I spoke to thought the browser plugin was too complicated to explain to their audience. This made me want to shift to putting it on a separate website and, at the same time, rename it something broader than “Texas.” So I bought the domain name yallversion.com as a play on YouVersion and set it up as a website with the core software from https://biblewebapp.com/ (which I developed in part for underground distribution in closed countries).
• 2021 – Over the years, people have asked about a printed version of Y’all Version, but I couldn’t do this since I didn’t have the copyright to the underlying translations that my site was altering. So sometime around the pandemic, I decided to start working on a distinct translation that I could distribute and print. I started with the ASV (1901 now in the public domain), made a series of global changes (e.g., runneth to runs), then incorporated many of the updates from the WEB, then worked verse by verse through the Hebrew and Greek, adding headings (over 2000!), reworking vocabulary and syntax, updating imperatives, and so on.
• 2024 – After about four years of working on the text, the text was ready for an initial release in November 2024. Thankfully, the Digital Bible Library (DBL) accepted YALL an an official version, which led the way to its inclusion in YouVersion in December 2024, around the same time I was able to get a print version into Amazon.

I really hope this project is a helpful resource for Christians and enables them to read the Bible in a way that connects them with God (YHWH) as well as their community of faith (y’all).

The post Y’all Version Bible: Available in Print, App, and Shirts! appeared first on John Dyer.

Now, after driving it 2 months and 2500 miles, I wanted to offer some reflections and analysis as the year closes out.

My Old Gas Car

For the past decade, I’ve been driving a 2007 mid-sized SUV made by Toyota. It has over 210,000 miles and now has some mechanical issues, and we thought it could transition to be a starter car for my kids, the oldest of whom just turned 16. Now, because my older car was built before iPhones even existed, it doesn’t have any of the features most cars have today like: Bluetooth, speakerphone, backup camera, blind spot warnings, etc. So just about any newer car feels like a spaceship to me!

Jumping to an EV, then, is several leaps in technology for me. Below, I’ll walk through my thought process on choosing an EV, but just in case you’re wondering, I settled on a used Ford Lightning XLT, and so far I love it!

The EV vs. ICE Debate

As someone who enjoys using technology and thinking about its impact on society and people, I’ve long been intrigued by electric vehicles (EVs).

Early on, EVs seemed to carry the promise of an overall cleaner, more sustainable method of driving. They release fewer emissions which reduces smog, and they can be powered by renewable sources like solar and wind rather than oil and gas. Theoretically, this appears to align with the theological vision of Genesis 1-2 where God commands humanity to make things from what he has made, while also caring for and preserving his creation.

However, as you are no doubt aware, EVs have become a political minefield. The further left one goes, green ideas are sometimes spoken of in quasi-religious terms. Instead of a Christian doctrine of creation care, one often finds an unhealthy type of earth worship. Thankfully most people appropriately reject those more extreme ideas. However, for some on the right, EVs get lumped in with a lot of radical ideas and then rejected without much deeper thought. Beyond this simple left/right debate, there are the genuine concerns on both sides that EVs may not be as “green” or sustainable as first thought because of their batteries and the precious metals they consume. Ironically, blue-leaning states that are more favorable to EVs generally having higher electricity rates, while red-leaning states have lower prices which make EVs more affordable to operate. Finally, Tesla owner Elon Musk’s recent behavior has disrupted these ideological fault lines even more.

I wish I could avoid this debate, but since my old car now has over 200,000 miles and needs repairs beyond its value, I have to make a choice. And that choice, whatever it is, comes with social and theological implications. Given all the trade-offs, it seemed to me that having one EV and one ICE car is a good balance that allows our family to work toward reducing energy usage, while also being realistic about the world we live in and our family’s current needs.

Below are some of the questions I considered as I went:

The Range Question: How Much Do I Need? (Not Much)

In almost any conversation about EVs, someone will ask, “How far can it go?” At first this was a big question for me as well, but the more I worked on it, I realized that range isn’t really a big factor for me in considering an EV.

Of course, the reason people ask this question is that for ICE cars, we know there will always a gas station nearby that can refill it quickly, while EV chargers are less common, and they take much longer to “fill up” the battery. The good news is that while the earliest EVs like the Nissan Leaf could only go 60-80 miles (in 2009), today’s EVs often have around 300 miles of range and the charging infrastructure has vastly improved.

However, that “300 miles” number is somewhat complex (or even misleading). I live in Dallas, and I have family in San Antonio, which is around 270 miles away. One night think that I could make that trip with a full battery, just like I can with a full tank of gas. But where ICE cars get better gas milage on the highway (see graph), BEVs are less efficient on the highway at higher speeds. Driving 75 mph on a highway, might reduce the EV’s range to 220 miles, which for my family visit, would mean I’d need a stop and recharge somewhere along the way.

Most people make a stop every few hours anyway, so in my case, a 270 miles trip with a 30-minute stop for lunch and charging wouldn’t be a big problem. But over the course of a longer road trip, an EV’s range and charging needs can significantly add to the overall trip time. At first, this prospect really worried me and turned me off to EVs.

But then, I analyzed my own driving patterns, and realized that on a daily basis, I only need 50-60 miles of range per day for work commute (30), kids pickup (15), and grocery run (8). In my case, even a Nissan Leaf’s 73 miles would work for me. Now, we do take 2-3 road trips a year, but they are almost always under 300 miles. Then, on the rare year where we needed to go longer, we could take my wife’s ICE vehicle.

So for me, the main consideration is daily range, not overall range. Put another way, range is not an issue for me 363 days out of the year.

The Energy Question: How Much Will I Save? (About 66%)

Once I realized I only needed 50-60 miles a day, and overall range wouldn’t affect me, I wanted to learn about charging. Everyone says that EVs save money, but how do I calculate that?

The first thing to know that is that while ICE cars are understood in terms of miles per gallon (MPG), EVs are ranked miles per kilowatt hour (m/kWh). A “kilowatt hour” is a unit of power that a battery can store just like a gallon of gas is a unit of power a tank can hold. So how do those compare? The EPA determined 1 gallon of gas is equivalent to 33.7 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity, and they use that to calculate something called MPGe (the ‘e’ is ‘equivalent’). If an average EV gets 3.0 m/kWh, the EPA sticker on the car will say it gets 101.1 MPGe.

100 MPG sounds amazing! And truthfully, it is amazing in that an EV is using far less resources to move around than gas. This is especially true if the power is renewable (like solar), but also true even if when using renewable sources because more of the energy can be used for moving the vehicle and less is lost overall (see graph).

However, that still doesn’t give you an easy way to tell you what it costs to run an ICE car verses an EV.

I found that best way to make the ICE vs. EV comparison clear is calculate the cost per mile. For example, if a gas car gets 20 mpg and gas costs $3.00, that means it costs $0.15 per mile. By comparison, is an EV gets 3.0 miles per kilowatt hour and electricity costs $0.15 per kWh, then it costs $0.05 per mile.

Of course, all four of these numbers can vary. Gas and electric vehicles can be much more efficient than 20 and 3.0 respectively, and gas and electricity prices vary over time and by location. In general, though, this shows that most EVs are going to be more efficient (using less energy) and more cost effective (about 1/3 the cost) than gas.

However, this a big catch.

This savings is dependent on cheap electricity, which you can only get at home.

The Charging Question: Where to? (Home)

So how and where do you charge an EV? There are three levels of charging

• Level 1: Traditional plug outlet (120v)
• Level 2: Dryer outlet (240v) – 6-8 times faster than Level 1
• Level 3: DC fast charger – much faster, but varies by location and car

Level 1 charging only adds a few miles of range to a battery for every hour it’s plugged in, so it’s not practical for daily use. Level 2 is great if your home is already wired with a second dryer plug. This allows you to charge overnight using your home’s lower electricity rate.

Level 3 chargers are very fast and make road trips with an EV possible with a little bit of planning. But the catch is that, at charging stations like Electrify America or Telsa, electricity costs between $0.30 and $0.50 per kWh. That means that if you only “fill up” at DC fast charging stations, you could pay rates that are comparable to gas.

As I mentioned above, these prices this can vary by location. EVs are still more efficient (use less overall energy) and better for emissions, but the price on public charging can be comparable to gas. That means home charging is the only way to save money, but that may mean an initial investment in a new outlet depending on your home’s wiring. I was fortunate in that that previous home owner had installed a level 2 outlet, which meant we didn’t need to spend any additional dollars on wiring, making our transition much easier and more straightforward.

My EV Choice Process

Once, I understood the efficiencies of EVs, as well as the charging process and cost, I needed to consider an EV that I could afford in both in the short and long term.

Many EVs are well over $50,000 new which I can’t afford in the short term. Thankfully, there are some new lower cost models like the Chevy Equinox that are under $40,000, but those are untested over the longer term, so it’s hard to know their overall reliability. So I wanted to find a gently used EV that I could afford, but that also had been around for a few years with people taking them well over 100,000 miles.

Choice #1: Tesla Model Y

Like most people, my first knowledge of EVs came from Tesla. They are ubiquitous where I live, and so earlier this year, I did what they call a “demo drive” to get the feel of it. From an engineering perspective, I really appreciate what Telsa has done, but also like many people, I initially found all the places where Telsa did things differently to be somewhat off-putting. I was certainly willing to try, but I also wanted something my wife or kids could drive without a lot of adjustments. The pros are that it’s a well-tested vehicle, it has the best internal tech, and that it’s very efficient for a mid-sized SUV. The cons were its austere style and that, personally, I wanted to try something non-Tesla.

Choice #2: Hyundai Ioniq 5

On a work trip, I was offered a “upgrade” to a Hyundai Ioniq 5, and because I didn’t need to go far enough to worry about charging, I took it. I was instantly hooked. It has a retro future feel, including several nice 8-bit looking design elements, and all the the crazy acceleration of an EV. However, unlike a Telsa, it feels and drives more like a normal car inside (even supporting Apple CarPlay) which was a plus for me. Another benefit of the Ioniq 5 is that it has a faster charging framework than most other EVs out there. All these pros made it Car and Driver’s EV of the Year for 2023 and a strong contender. One catch for me was that I’ve been doing more home repair work recently and the hatchback has less room than my current SUV, so I wanted to consider something else.

Choice #3: Ford Lightning

As a person living in Texas who likes to do home projects, I’ve always wanted to get a truck (just finished: learning to tile on our half-bath; next up: turf for the back yard). In the past, I’ve avoided looking at trucks because they are “gas guzzlers,” and not worth it for daily use. However, back when the Cybertruck was announced (2019, what a different time), I was intrigued by the idea of an EV pickup, because I could get the usability of a truck bed but the efficiency of an EV. But Ford ended up beating Tesla to the release, and Ford also managed to offer the F-150 Lightning at nearly half the price with a more traditional vehicle feel and look. I love the smaller size of the Rivian, but it along with the Cybertruck and Chevrolet trucks are much more expensive than Ford’s offering. Now that several Ford owners have driven over 150,000 miles with minimal battery degradation, it gave me more confidence in its reliability.

Reviewing the Ford Lightning EV Truck

Ultimately, I went with a gently used, base model Ford Lightning to fulfill my need/desire for a truck along with the hope of a cleaner driving experience with an EV.

Overall, I absolutely love it. Now, after a few months, here are some specific reflections:

Pros

• Charging: I love never having to go to a gas station. I just plug it in a few days a week, and it’s always ready to go. My base model only has a range of 230 miles, but the most I’ve needed to drive in a day was about 200, so that hasn’t been a worry.
• Truck stuff: I love getting to do things like hauling tools and materials to update an old bathroom or dirt for the yard is fun.
• Frunk: One downside to trucks is not having a trunk for things that need to stay dry or not get jostled around. The Lightning frunk (front trunk) is almost comically big and always enough from our weekend grocery runs. I was even able to get fit two suitcases of family who flew in for the holidays.
• New Tech: All the new technology that I’ve never had like a backup camera is all really fun to finally experience, even if it’s not unique to an EV. One nice thing is that the Lightning has a 360 camera even on the base model which makes parking it much easier.
• Pro Power: This is what Ford labels the outlets that are in the bed and frunk. These can be used for job site tools, camping equipment, or as a backup when the power goes out. This happened to us recently, and I pulled out some extension cords to keep our refrigerator going. Ford also has a way to power your entire house, but that requires an expensive update, so I’ll stick with the essentials for now.
• Tesla Chargers: Ford now has access to the Telsa network, so that will make the eventual longer trip much easier. It requires an adapter, but that isn’t much trouble other than that.
• Car Play: Ford supports Car Play and has good integration with it, meaning I can use Apple Maps or Google Maps for routing and those apps know about the charging state. Most other EVs I tried either didn’t support Car Play or didn’t support sharing charging data
• Normal Car: I personally like that the Lightning functions mostly like a traditional vehicle with knobs and controls. I do use 1-pedal driving, but the rest feels very normal. Also, Telsas and other EVs really stand out as EVs in their looks, but I’d like to be as modest as possible with my vehicle, so I appreciate that the truck looks like most other trucks except for the light bar on the front.

Cons

• Size: The Lightning is a very big vehicle. I wish Ford made a more mid-sized EV truck like the Ranger or even the smaller Maverick. It’s great for hauling kids and stuff, but I don’t need that much all the time. Still, given what I could afford and what’s on the market, and how it’s almost “normal” in Texas, it still seems like a good choice.
• Efficiency: The Lightning averages around 2.3 miles per kWh which is on the low end for EVs. The EPA sticker says that converts to gets 76 MPGe in the city and 61 MPGe on the highway. That’s significantly better than even the best hybrid gas car, meaning it’s using less energy overall even for its size, and is saving us money, though not as much as a smaller vehicle.
• Price: I was able to get a good deal on a used XLT model, but it still feels like EVs need to come down a bit more before more people can afford them and all the tradeoffs they come with.
• Battery/Electricity: Even though EVs are far more efficient than ICE cars and they emit far less emissions, their power still comes from somewhere and the long-term recycling of EV batteries is still unclear. So although I’m glad to be spending less on gas and driving a more efficient vehicle (especially for a truck), I admit I’m not certain of the exact net benefit to God’s good world.

Conclusion

It’s an incredible privilege to be at a place where we could even consider affording an EV. Now, after a few months of adjusting, I’ve can say that I’m really impressed with the Ford Lightning and very grateful to be driving it. It’s probably not the best option for everyone, but so far I haven’t had any issues with it. Our family loves getting around in it and trying to maximize what we’ve been given.

Interestingly, a few friends and family who were formerly anti-EV have said something like, “When I heard you were getting an EV, I though ‘Oooh man, that’s a bad idea.’ But now that you showed it to me, I really get it. This is amazing.”

As amazing as it is, I still hope the technology continues to improve and that it becomes a clearer path for human flourishing in the future.

For now, I’m grateful to get to experience the transition.

The post Shifting to an Electric Vehicle (EV) appeared first on John Dyer.

Why Another Screen?

I’m at the point where I’ve generally realized that I need fewer screens and less connectivity, not more. I need to get work done and have a portable device, so I have a laptop and phone. But I don’t have a smart watch, partly because I don’t like the feel of a watch, but also because I worry I would be even more distracted, and I rarely use a tablet sized device (though I always find myself reconsidering a Kindle), because it’s just one more thing.

But the Tidbyt intrigued me because I don’t have to carry it around and because it doesn’t have any notifications or alerts. I thought it would be fun to play around with to see if it was useful, and even if I didn’t find a killer use for it, it would still be a fun, passive display that wouldn’t take me away from important things like work or people.

Review Notes

Looks: My first generation Tidbyt has a walnut border which really nails the retro vibe. The v2 Tidbyt has a plastic frame and, while it looks useful, I’m really glad I got the wood model, because that the natural element seems to reinforce their tag line: “Spend Less Time Checking Your Phone and More Time Doing What Matters.” In any case, the 64×32 screen is the real standout, and its lack of real estate and resolution is what makes it so powerful. Most of our screens and user interfaces have menu bars and other extraneous elements, but the Tidbyt can’t afford that, making it pure content with minimal distractions. I really appreciate this design and how it intentionally offers something high-powered screens like Google Home cannot.

Connectivity: Tidbyt has a phone app that makes setup easy. Just connect to wifi and begin setting up apps. However, I had one problem—my workplace wifi requires a browser-based login which Tidbyt doesn’t support. I tried spoofing the MAC address with my laptop, which worked initially, but then our network detected the switch and kicked the Tidbyt off. Thankfully, our IT department said we also have another wifi network with a hidden SSID for such devices. But sadly, Tidbyt doesn’t let you use hidden SSIDs. So, I enabled my phone hotspot with the same SSID name and password, connected the Tidbyt to my phone, and then turned off the hotspot. The Tidbyt reconnected to the hidden network, and voila, I was in business!

Apps: Tidbyt has a huge collection of apps from stock tickers and sports scores to weather and YouTube counters. I tried all kinds of things including a few fun animations, a verse of the day Bible app, and photo of my family converted to the screen’s 64×32 resolution which makes us look somewhat like a LEGO family portrait. They were all fun, but I found over time that the novelty of things like animations gets old after a while, while things like weather or calendar continue to be helpful because I can glance over at them without needing to pull up an app on another device. The only bummer I found is just that some apps like Outlook calendar are limited by security restrictions, but that’s not Tidbyt’s fault.

Placement: Originally, I thought having the Tidbyt right on my desk would be ideal. But again, I quickly realized that the rotating apps became more of a distraction while I worked than a help. So I moved it to my bookcase just behind my monitor, putting it just outside my line of site. This way, when I want to know the weather, I can just lean over, and it’s right there on the Tidbyt. I also think it looks great on the bookcase and is a fun conversation piece when someone comes to my office.

Final Thoughts

Overall, I love the Tidbyt for its retro look and “lotech” functionality. The intentionally limited screen resolution and app functionality are precisely what make it so great. One thing that normally separates tools (like a hammer) from devices (like a phone) is that tool has a single clear purpose while phones have many uses, but also many ways to distract.

Even though the Tidbyt feels very device-like with its screen and internet connectivity, and even though it passively does something for you (like a Roomba) rather than helping you do something (like a shovel), its design helps remove some of the worst aspects of devices, allowing it to function in a more tool-like manner.

In summary, the Tidbyt is a screen that is useful without being distracting, and that makes it a worthy addition to my office.

The post Tidbyt: Favorite Gadget of 2024 appeared first on John Dyer.

I put together a talk for Dallas Theological Seminary’s faculty workshop and later recorded it. I hope this is helpful to those looking for resources!

Original post: June 19, 2024

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been around in many forms for decades, but since the public launch of ChatGPT in November 2022, “generative AI” has exploded both in terms of the development of new tools and in the discussion around AI and humanity. There are several good books and many excellent articles on AI, but rather than write a general account of AI and faith, below is my attempt to create a set of statements and applications directed at a specific field—theological education—where there is much concern that generative AI will bring ruin. The statements begins with some general ideas of about education and technology and then narrows into specific issues introduced in the first statement. The first draft had only the individual statements, but I was encouraged to use a format such as “affirmations and denials” which I modified to be “we believe, and yet, therefore.” The idea is to affirm a general principle, to recognize its limits, and then provide concrete direction. This is far from exhaustive, but I hope provides a starting point for consideration and discussion. (note: header image generated with DALL-E)

Theological Education Overview

• We believe that theological education involves ancient, timeless practices of information acquisition, theological maturation, and spiritual formation.
• And yet, we also believe that theological education must equip current and future ministry leaders to operate within the cultural situation to which God has called them.
• Therefore, our institutions, programs, classes, and assignments should be optimized for both deep change in the totality of a person and for addressing the concerns of the present age.

Technology as God-given Good in a Sinful World

• We believe that the ability to create and use technology is a good gift from our creator God and a fundamental part of human existence now and in the eschaton.
• And yet, we also believe that the evil present in the world and within us affects the development of technology and influences the ends to which it is put.
• Therefore, regarding the power of technology, we strive to honor the brilliance of God’s image in each person, while being attentive to the reality of our sinful state.

Technology as Formative and Deformative

• We believe that technology is one of the means by which we transform the world as it is into the world as it should be, fulfilling God’s command to cultivate and have dominion over creation.
• And yet, we acknowledge that tools and devices also form us as we use them, such as the blisters we receive from shovels and the new sense of space we receive from GPS routing.
• Therefore, we will be attentive to not only the morally good and evil uses of any technology, but also to its more subtle formative power in reshaping our body and mind as well as our expectations and desires.

Artificial Intelligence in Theological Education

• We believe that generative artificial intelligence tools provide incredible opportunities for creativity and learning within the context of theological education.
• And yet, we also believe that the human tendency to intentionally misuse and be unintentionally formed by technology is ever present, however noble the intentions.
• Therefore, we will seek to explore the unknown ways AI will alter how we conceive of time and creativity, persons and communities, and work and rest.

AI Generation and Educational Ethics

• We believe that presenting the output of generative AI as one’s own work without acknowledgment is ethically wrong.
• And yet, we also believe that an equal or greater concern is allowing students to use generative AI in ways that impede their formation as whole human persons.
• Therefore, we will create and maintain clear policies around the ethical use and citation of AI in the context of theological education including examples for professors and students.

AI Generation and Information Acquisition

• We believe that theological education may sometimes involve recitation of facts such as historical events and the words of holy scripture.
• And yet, we recognize the goal is never regurgitation itself but creating a deep wellspring of truth that shapes the student’s soul and opens them to the Spirit’s guidance.
• Therefore, theological education must continue include a place for memorization that is designed to saturate the student’s mind with what is true, good, and beautiful.

AI Generation and Theological Summarization

• We believe that generative AI tools have an uncanny capacity for summarizing and synthesizing complex thoughts and ideas.
• And yet we recognize that overreliance on AI summarization may inhibit student from developing their own God-given creativity and making a unique contribution to the body of Christ.
• Therefore, we must adjust the educational process to continue developing students with the internal capacity to understand, evaluate, and create theological language in reliance on the Spirit and within an orthodox frame.

AI Generation and Formational Assignments

• We believe that professors can create learning activities and assignments that incorporate generative AI as part of the experience.
• And yet, we also believe that theological education experiences should be varied and complex such that not all assignments should lend themselves toward AI.
• Therefore, we will design assignments where generative AI would not likely be usable such as working with a group, revising a paper with direction, spiritual disciplines with reflection, practices of counseling, and live preaching.

AI Conversation Systems and Human Relationships

• We believe that conversational AI systems may be helpful for forms of asynchronous learning or simulating likely conversations with people in a student’s future care.
• And yet, we recognize that despite our intentions, our tendency is to adopt new technology in ways that replace and diminish important aspects of our humanity.
• Therefore, we will always clearly disclose any use of AI chatbots, while also continuing to affirm that theological education and the Christian life should take place within the context of a physically present spiritual community.

Special thanks to Adam Graber for help feedback on many of these statements.

The post Generative Artificial Intelligence in Theological Education appeared first on John Dyer.

But when I began studying it, I realized 2 John also touches on several other important issues, including the relationship of the Father and Son and Christological heresies, and that it most likely the only epistle that directly addresses a female recipient.

The Addressee(s) of 2 John

2 John begins with the words ἐκλεκτῇ κυρίᾳ καὶ τοῖς τέκνοις αὐτῆς meaning “to the chosen lady and her children.”

In the video, I outline 6 potential view and walk through the pros and cons of them, but here I will just mention the most common three views.

1. The Lady is a Local Church

This is probably the most common view, and there are internal and external reasons to hold it.

Within the book itself, the use of the term “lady” (2 Jn 1:1, 5) and a “sister” (2 Jn 1:13) could be understood as two different local churches, where John is writing from one (the sister) and to another (the lady). Such feminine language would appear to fit with other feminine terms used for the people of God in the Bible, including Jerusalem (Lam 1:1-7; Ezek 16:8; Hos 7:4; Rev 19:7–9; 21:1-2), as well as Paul’s metaphors of marriage (Eph 5:22–33; 2 Cor. 11:2–4). One might also point out that 3 John is structured very similarly, but names a single recipient, Gaius, and uses singular pronouns (you) throughout, while 2 John uses some plural pronouns (y’all) indicating the audience is a group, not an individual.

However, there are several reasons why this view is difficult to support: The elder opens the letter to “the lady” and “her children” (2 Jn 1:1). Later, he directly addresses the “lady” and speaks to her about “your children” (2 Jn 1:4-5) indicating those are not synonymous ideas, but two different referents. Also, it seems strange to write directly to an inanimate thing (a church) and then speak to it about its children. This distinction becomes clearer when considering the pronouns. 2 John begins with singular pronouns (you) when speaking to the lady about “your (singular) children,” and then switches to the second person plural (y’all) in verse 6 on and onward (compare 2 John and 3 John). Also, the term “lady” (kuria, the female form of kurios, or Lord) isn’t used anywhere else in the New Testament, and so there is no other parallel where it means “church”. In fact, the closest parallel, 3 John, uses the ekklesia to refer to those under Gaius’s care.

2. The Lady is a Mother

Because of the above problems with understanding the word “lady” to be referring to a congregation, many commentators have concluded that 2 John does, in fact, address a woman. This is not a new idea, and it is attested to in the first edition of the King James Version from 1611.

In his 1706 commentary, Matthew Henry’s introduction to 2 John says, “Here we find a canonical epistle inscribed, principally, not only to a single person, but to one also of the softer sex.” He goes on to say this is appropropriate citing Jesus entrusted the message of his resurrection to women and Priscilla’s role. In the notes on verses 1-4, he writes, “It is lovely and beautiful to see ladies, by holy walking, demonstrate their election of God. And her children; probably the lady was a widow; she and her children then are the principal part of the family, and so this may be styled an economical epistle.” This view is echoed at Got Questions which says, “It is better to view this lady as an unnamed friend of John who had actual children who were serving the Lord.”

Although this view makes good sense of the vocabulary and grammar of “lady,” its understanding of “children” (τέκνον) is less defensible. In both John’s gospel and 1 John, phrases like “children of God” always refer to believers. Similarly, 3 John speaks of “my children” (3 John 1:4), but we do not assume that letter is from a father writing to tell Giaus about his kids.

3. The Lady is a Woman Who Hosts a Church

Although there are important debates about how to interpret various passages about the proper relationships of sexed bodies in marriage and ministry, the New Testament is much clearer that first century churches met in people’s homes (1 Corinthians 16:19; Romans 16:3–5; Philemon 1:2) and those homes were often those of women (Acts 12:12; Acts 16:40), such as Nymph’s: “Y’all greet the siblings who are in Laodicea, with Nympha and the church that is in her house.” (Col. 4:15).

There are two potential tensions in this view. First, if one holds a hard complementarian position where the Bible is understood as teaching that only men are assigned any leadership roles in the church, then the idea of the lady having adult “children” under her care could seem to violate that. Second, unlike the Pauline passages above, the lady isn’t named. Some scholars think this is to prevent persecution (perhaps in parallel to the chosen woman in 1 Peter 5:13). Others have suggested the recipient is Martha, because the Aramaic form of that names means “lady” or “mistress” (think Guy Richie or Gal Gadot). And others have suggested that “chosen” or “lady” are names, making the addressee either “To the chosen Kuria” (like Rufus, Romans 16:13) or “To Lady Eklekte.” However, those are not well known names at that time, so one cannot say for certain (see Marg Mowczko for more on the names).

In conclusion, the grammar and vocabulary indicate (1) the elder opens the letter with two recipients: the lady and the children, (2) he addresses them distinctly with singular (you) and plural (y’all), (3) the “children” are adult believers as in the rest of the New Testament, and (4) a woman hosting a church in her home fits within the New Testament pattern.

Trinity and Christology

Now to the main content of the letter!

In the first several verses of 2 John, the elder applauds the lady and her children for “walking in truth” (2 Jn 1:4) and then urges them to follow the command to “walk in love” (2 Jn 1:6). Then he specifically mentions avoiding those who come with a message denying that “Jesus Christ came in the flesh” (2 Jn 1:7).

The Spirit isn’t directly mentioned in 2 John (other than being the one who inspired the words), but I emphasize the trinitarian nature of this text because, unlike Paul, who often emphasize the Jesus as Lord (“God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ”, Eph 1:2), here John goes out of his way to emphasize the relationship of the Father and Son, writing, “from God the Father and from the Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.” Notice that Jesus is here identified primarily by his relationship as “Son of the Father.”

The “command” to love one another is often connected to Jesus’s words in John 15-17, but notice that here that John says “commanded by the Father,” further linking the two persons. Later, in verse 9, John again links “Christ and God” then “Father and the Son.”

Perhaps the sense that John is getting at by connecting “truth and love” (1:3) throughout the text is that the greatest truth we can know (there is one God in three persons, Matt 28:19) is the greatest love that exists (the Father has always been a loving Father to the Son, John 17:24). Walking in truth and walking in love, then, is living in that knowledge of who God is, loving our God with all we are and loving our neighbor as ourselves. This requires both orthodoxy (rejecting trinitarian and Christological heresies) and orthopraxy (rightly ordered loves).

Mediated Communication

The last fun thing is John’s discussion of “ink” and “face-to-face” which I have often used a jumping off point to discuss our modern choices between being in person and using mediated communication, and even how we use terms like FaceTime. I don’t take this to mean that John thinks “face-to-face” is always superior to writing, but instead that different messages need different mediums. Yes, some things are best said face-to-face, but the converse is also true – some things are better written down. Scripture is definitely one of those things, but so also are other things, such as those that need precision (an address or phone number) or permanence (a contract).

Today we have more choices in media which only means we need more wisdom to discern the best medium for the given situation. For example, some companies have hierarchies of media usage, where new colleagues in a trust-building phase should strive to meet in person, even if it is costly. Then once that is established, video chat can work for ongoing collaboration and other forms (project management tools, email, chat, etc.) can be used for smaller exchanges that don’t require synchronous communication.

One last point: a very similar ending is found 3 John, but the two statements have some interesting differences (in italics):

Notice there are several grammatical and vocabulary differences.

• 2 John beings with a present participle, while 3 John uses past (imperfect) verb
• 2 John is uses a second person plural (ὑμῖν, y’all), 3 John uses singular (σοι, you)
• 2 John and 3 John use two different verbs that both mean “want” “will” or “wish” and two different tenses (aorist vs. present)
• 2 John lists “paper and ink” while 3 John “ink and pen” and includes a second verb “write”
• 2 John says he hopes to “come” while 3 John hope to “see” and includes “soon”
• 2 John has “speak” as an infinitive while 3 John’s “speak” is future tense.
• 2 John includes the phrase about joy, while 3 John does not (poor Gaius?)

I don’t think any of these differences change the meaning dramatically, but the number of differences is interesting when considering the audience of the letters. Some commentators suggest the similarities indicate that these letters were written around the same time.

One theory (e.g., this study) is that all three letters were written and sent as a package, with 1 John as the content/sermon, 2 John as a cover letter to the congregation, and 3 John as a cover letter to the pastor, Gaius. However, that theory is harder to maintain when one considers the above discussion about “the lady”, but also because it seems unlikely that the Elder would write, “I don’t want to use more ink” in two cover letters, but then go on to include 1 John which is much longer than either letter!

It is, of course, impossible to come to a definitive conclusion about some of these minor issues, but I am glad that we have these small windows into how John and other apostles wrestled with the technology (writing, ships, etc.) available to them, urging us to develop similarly wise practices today.

Bonus PowerPoint Tricks

In the video above, I use a few different PowerPoint tricks in an attempt to make text-based teaching more engaging and clear. So I also recorded a short video on my two favorite tricks: (1) scrolling and (2) highlighting:

The post 2 John: Theology of Media and Trinity, a Woman Recipient, and PowerPoint tricks! appeared first on John Dyer.

Theologian: our primary concern is not merely the candy itself, but the methodology by which we prioritize our candies.

OT scholar: The individual candy sources are not as important as how the candy editor has arranged them before us.

NT scholar: we must pay careful attention to the socio-rhetorical meaning of each ingredient before drawing conclusions merely from the taste of the candy.

Historian: many people know the stories of how Reese, Mars, and Hershey rose to power in the 1920s, but they fail to account for the significance of candy wrappers in the 1970s.

Homiletics prof: the illocutionary force of the interaction depends upon where one places the emphasis: *trick* or treat. trick or *treat*! trick *or* treat?

Sociologist: costumes are certainly significant, but they often change, while the distinct social structure and behavior patterns of each candy-seeking group remain remarkably stable.

Counselor: remember we are body and soul, and the urges we feel are often interwoven in complex ways. But, look, candy is just good. Except candy corn. That’s in the DSM.

Missiologist: before we approach any house, we must understand it in the context of the street culture, its neighborhood, its city, and the mission of God to the world!

First semester student: I’m totally overwhelmed and overjoyed by all the new flavors and textures I’m experiencing. I can’t get ENOUGH CANDY!!!!!!

Last semester student: I’m so sick of candy. I need to totally detox before I can go on.

Alum who is now a deep social media guru: the richness of God’s flavor is so often found in the gooey places between the process of candymaking and candygetting.

Image Credit: Ylanite Koppens

The post Halloween Hot Takes by Seminary Discipline appeared first on John Dyer.

My daughter, who has been reading through the New Testament this year, came crashing into my room with questions. 

She had arrived at 1 Timothy—specifically the part about women teaching, the deception of Adam and Eve, and salvation by childbearing—and she was frustrated. I started with the old line, “When we come to a difficult passage, we need to read it in light of the rest of the story,” but she immediately countered with, “This isn’t a ‘difficult passage,’ dad, it just confirms all the other shady stuff in the rest of the Bible! Why is God a man, and Jesus a man, and everything is always built for men and not for women?”

…

As I discuss God and gender with my daughter and son, there are two key truths that I’ve tried to emphasize. The first is that God is neither male nor female, masculine nor feminine. [The second] is that the incarnation of the second person of the Trinity as a male, born of a woman, demonstrates how God values both men and women.

Read more at God and Lizards. Sex and the Incarnation →.

(also be sure to check out Amy Peeler’s Women and the Gender of God for a deeper treatment of these questions).

The post The Incarnation and the Gender of God appeared first on John Dyer.

As I’ve been developing the class, I’ve been working on a slide template, color scheme, and icon set that I hope can serve as a visual grammar for representing some of the key concepts. I shared some of these on Twitter recently, and enough people asked if they could use it that I thought it would be helpful to post for others to use. (All images come from pexels.com, pixabay.com, or other free stock image sites).

Trinity Slide Templates

Click the link above to download. Below are samples of the templates included.

You might notice that the color scheme is reminiscent of the cover for The Deep Things of God by Fred Sanders.

Background

I’ve inherited a wealth of wonderful material and structure from my mentor and friend Scott Horrell, who’s written and taught more that I’ll probably ever know. His work gave me a great starting place for the course. At the same time, in last 10 years or so, there has been an abundance of excellent new books exploring and rearticulating classic trinitarianism, and I’m working to update how I teach and what I include.

One of these book was Glenn Butner’s new Trinitarian Dogmatics, and I really appreciated the way he laid out eight of the most important trinitarian concepts. I had these scattered through my lectures, but I decided to put them all together into one as a review for my students. In doing so, I also thought it would be helpful to create some illustrations for each one that would distinguish the concepts and show their main emphasis. Those eight icons are in the third slide above.

As we all know, trinitarian illustrations always fall short of the wonder and mystery of the triune God, and if taken too literally or alone, they risk teaching heresy. But taken together and seen all at once, I felt they would offer more clarity on things like the distinction between processions (how the one divine nature is shared) and persons/relations (how each person is related to the other), and what we are saying by simplicity (that God is not parts, as if a slice of him can be taken out) and inseparable operations (all three persons are at work in all actions toward creation). In this context, the classic triqueta form makes sense for perichoresis.

The other designs are mostly just an attempt to be visually interesting and use color in a clear and compelling way. For example, in explaining how Paul uses Joel 2:32 in Romans 10 to force us to see that Jesus has always been part of the identity of YHWH, I have little animated highlights to draw visual connections between elements of the text (see animation in the 9th image above). There are also timelines and other fun things that I hope get you started.

Please let me know if you use it!

Update (Feb 2023)

Here’s a video of me using some of these slides in a 1 hour Trinity overview:

The post Trinity Icons and Powerpoint Template appeared first on John Dyer.