Emails. Sermons. Articles. Reports. Podcasts. Social media. Pastoral crises. Family struggles. Business meetings. Politics — endless politics. We’re constantly barraged with information, frequently asked for opinions, and often compelled to respond. In our pride and shame, we fear being wrong.

So, we play a zero-sum game in which the other must always be wrong. We take cheap shots and employ logical fallacies to win quick victories. We lie and deceive, justifying cheating as a necessary means to a good end. We scour the internet for a news source or theological expert to side with us — and we always find one. While it might feel good for a moment, such efforts are no more effective than Adam and Eve hiding amongst the trees in leafy loincloths.

But we don’t have to fear the truth or hide behind rhetorical sleights of hand. The truth of the gospel makes us secure — forever. So, we’re free to own it when we’re wrong. We don’t have to be insecure and defensive when corrected. We need not fear scrutiny, fact-checking, accuracy, and honesty. And it’s imperative that we think, speak, assess, and respond truthfully.

There is safety in many counselors (Proverbs 11:14). So, I’ve tried to assemble a cabinet of aides to help me think honestly and clearly. After the Bible and prayer, these include friends, pastors, editors, books, and the like.

A recent (and surprising) addition is AI.

AI software is no replacement for human thinking and creating. But AI can help us think, assess, process, and communicate better. So, try this the next time you have an extraordinarily long email to respond to, a podcast or sermon transcript to think through, or an article to assess — or with something you’re writing or preparing to present.

  1. Go to an AI platform such as Claude.ai or ChatGPT.
  2. Upload the file (or copy/paste the material).
  3. Input the following instructions (and add your own).
    • Provide critical feedback on the attached document.
    • Summarize the main points.
    • Assess strengths and weaknesses.
    • Assess logical consistency (Are there contradictions? Does the argument follow logically from its premises? Do the authors hold themselves to their own standards?).
    • Check for factual accuracy (Highlight any misleading statements, errors, or areas needing sources).
    • Identify logical fallacies, poor argumentation, or inconsistencies.
    • Identify biased framing, emotional manipulation, misleading rhetoric, or other red flags.
    • Identify underlying assumptions, presuppositions, and potential blind spots.
    • Assess biblical consistency (Does it align with Scripture? Are theological claims well-supported?).
    • Assess extra-biblical influences (Where does it lean on philosophy, tradition, or secular reasoning? Does it lean on these more heavily than Scripture?).
    • Assess gospel-centeredness (Is it centered on and flowing from the work of Jesus? How would this argument sound if Christ were at the center?).
    • Assess Christian witness (Is it a distinctively Christian approach, or could it have been written from any philosophy or worldview?).
    • Identify missing perspectives and information. (What follow-up questions should I ask? Where is more information needed?)
    • Suggest ways to receive and respond to this critically, graciously, carefully, and honestly.

For something you’re writing, you might add:

  • Provide suggestions for improvement (spelling, grammar, word count, clarity, coherence, persuasiveness, engagement, accessibility).
  • Assess audience consideration. (Is the content appropriate to the intended audience in terms of language, examples, and complexity?)
  • Assess practicality. (Does it provide clear, actionable applications?)
  • Assess context (Place the argument in its proper historical and theological context. Are there significant developments or debates missing that should inform this discussion?)
  • Assess the tone. (Is it charitable, confrontational, dismissive, or collaborative? Does the tone align with the stated purpose?)

Some may argue that evaluating content for Christian values, scriptural alignment, and gospel centrality is unnecessary in specific contexts. After all, we don’t expect exegesis in secular news or business emails. Fair enough.

But these questions remain helpful even when authors aren’t Christian and biblical exposition isn’t expected. They reveal the argument’s foundation and expose what’s missing. They provoke further thought. They help us see if our rhetoric reflects our Redeemer, and prompt the question: What would this look like if Jesus were at the center of the conversation?

I rarely fully agree with AI’s feedback. It must be used critically — tested against Scripture and reliable sources. However, I have found this approach very helpful for sharpening my thinking and helping me interact fairly and critically with others’ work. It’s helped me recognize the valid points of those I disagreed with, affirm truth, and repent of hasty dismissals. It’s also clarified my concerns when something seems off, but I can’t quite put my finger on the issue. That has resulted in increased charity, patience, humility, and confidence in disagreements — loving my neighbor as myself.

I’ve also used this approach with my own work and have been both pleased and humbled by the results. It’s revealed blind spots, caught mistakes, and helped me improve. AI (as imperfect as it is) reminds me that I am not perfect—my rational faculties are as fallen as the rest of me. I should be slow to speak, quick to listen, and quick to seek critical assessment before speaking!

Let’s do away with “philosophy and empty deceit based on human tradition” (Col 2:8), keeping ourselves under gospel truth. Let’s renounce “disgraceful, underhanded ways,” cunning arguments that tamper with truth, and present ourselves with clean consciences before God and the world. Let’s destroy the idols of bias and favoritism in loyalty to the Truth Incarnate. Let’s renew our minds in Christ crucified and risen — ensuring the gospel reigns in our punditry as it does in our pulpits.